All Too Human

Here it is at last! After an increasingly stultifying year of lockdown restrictions and general chaos in the UK, boredom has finally reduced me to create an online blog. I pondered what would be an appropriate starting point for this (hopeful) masterpiece full of philosophical and political prattle- an alliteration I am quite proud of. I thought perhaps ease into it gently; voicing my opinion on the current eradication of lockdown measures which the ever-reliable Boris Johnson has revived our crumbling spirits with, or the shocking revelation of Sarah Everard & Sabina Nessa's deaths and the ongoing Reclaim the Streets movement. Alternatively, I considered jumping head first into the deep end, with some Friedrich Nietzsche, or the shining optimism I see in the work of Jean-Paul Sartre and his Existentialism- which has established an unfairly bleak reputation among the so-called "Generation Z". Instead, I decided to keep it simple: a small introduction on why I chose the name "All Too Human".

Admittedly, I normally relish the prospect of leaving names or ideas down to people's own subjective interpretation, but it's important one remembers that this is merely a university student's online blog- not a Tarantino film.

As an admirer of existentialism, a belief I enthusiastically endeavour to uphold, I had no doubt in my mind that the name must pay homage in some sense to Sartre's chef d'oeuvre. After looking through titles of his works, and his rival-post-friend Albert Camus, I was left unsatisfied. Although "The Plague" was striking and very much topically sound, it would have been rather silly to label it something so general and populous, almost certainly leaving it buried in the endless abyss of the internet.

Instead, I turned to some of the founding fathers that preceded Sartre and his work- namely Friedrich Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard. Despite not opting for one of his titles, I feel this is a perfect opportunity to voice my admiration for Kierkegaard's writing. Admittedly, I am not the biggest fan of his complete philosophical ideology, but, the raw emotion and refined eloquence seen in his writing is nothing short of phenomenal. One of his works would have been very fitting title for this page, especially considering his view on individuality which I wholly endorse: that herd mentality merely forms an abstraction between one and their personal truth. Alas, none of them took my fancy.

So, this left me with the infamous Friedrich Nietzsche. While briefly flicking through some of his work to inspire me, there was one name that caught my eye that I thought truly captured the essence of my personal philosophical and social views. That is... Why Am I So Clever?

I kid of course. It was instead Human, All Too Human. Embarrassingly, I haven't actually read the piece itself- although this will be amended once I find the time- but from a quick glance, it appears to concern the metaphysics of causality and the issues surrounding the lack of human contentment.

Albeit, the latter part of that short summary certainly fits in with some of the beliefs I hold myself, it is the sheer antipathy I feel towards this concept of being "All too human" that motivated me to adopt the name. Ultimately it comes down to my fondness of individualism and un-conventionalism. A concept I so dearly wish I practiced more often in my own life, I really do believe it is a near impossible notion to master given the current state of the Western world (which I shall write about in my next post). This idea of the possibility of being too human, as though "human-ness" is an attainable characteristic that one can strive for, or opt against. I think it's clear to see that this quality can be equated to how social norms want us to be and be perceived, and I don't think as a whole the yearning to be human, to be like others is a bad thing- in fact, psychology dictates that this is a part of our nature. But it is the obsession, the way it dictates our lives, and the dreaded fear of idiosyncrasy that is so widespread in people my age, that I am deeply opposed to.

Rather, I'd like to aim to preach about the beauty of eccentricity, the sweet freedom one can realise in simply being who they, themselves, want to be. Or as Jean-Paul Sartre would put it; being authentic in yourself. Authenticity is such a wonderful concept, and in this day and age it is one that is so easily blurred by social media, civil perception, norms, expectations, and a multitude of other factors.

When it comes to my own philosophical views, I regard myself as an agnostic theist, a close brother of Ietsism. Wikipedia describes Ietsism as: 'an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcendent reality... a Dutch term for a range of beliefs held by people who, on the one hand, inwardly suspect- or indeed believe- that "there must be something undefined beyond the mundane and that which can be known or can be proven", but on the other hand do not accept or subscribe to the established belief system, dogma or view of the nature of a deity offered by any particular religion.'

I sincerely believe that a god, or an entity of some description, is the so-called artist of this world- that the Big Bang, or the very first domino was pushed into motion by something. But, unlike Christians and other theists, I think there is an unbridgeable gap in our knowledge and understanding of said thing.

An analogy I like to appeal to when discussing this with peers is that we know dogs are clever. We know dogs can understand human actions, words & commands and this requires intellectual capacity. But, we also know that dogs have a boundary to their mental capabilities. If you were to give a golden retriever, or indeed a Jack Russell, an advanced algebraic equation- perhaps ask them to multiply π by the number of feet they possess- it simply would not be able to begin to fathom it. It could not give you an answer. This is how I see our epistemological relationship with this creator, or force, or however you want to refer to "it". Similarly to the dog, I cannot see how our mere mortal minds can even begin to comprehend anything as complex as something that created, or at least provided the potential for, our world.

Maybe you could call me an optimistic agnostic, and to go back to that theological cliché, I truly believe all will be revealed at death. But I can't bring myself to firmly believe in a deity, or assume that we understand particular characteristics and the infinitely intricate nature of this god. In an inadvertent attempt to echo the film Fight Club; I believe the only comprehensible datum of the transcendent cause of our existence is that there is no comprehensible datum.

I know this is only a short post, but better I start somewhere to allow me to launch myself into this blog. So, I hope you enjoyed this post, and the many more that are soon to come!