Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
This is the ideology of the weak. Those who could not find their place in life. Why did the main character start following it? Because he had childhood injuries related to his father. Because he was a nobody. So he decided to prove to himself that he was worth something. This is an easy way to solve the problem. If the child can't assemble the construction kit, he breaks it on the floor in a fit of anger.
Well, the main thing that from my point of view is illogical in all this – in order to destroy something, you need to create something. Inside the hero was a void, an ideal consumer, a puppet, a clerk, what did he have to destroy? He had to create. But it's harder. This is not even an ideology, it is a reaction to the environment. Sometimes it is useful, because getting rid of attachments and leaving the comfort zone, a person becomes freer. “You need to have chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star.” But the main thing in this is the measure.
The ideology of self-destruction is the ideology of death, because the goal of self-destruction is death. In essence, this is a suicidal ideology, only suicide here is not instantaneous, but extended, extended. It can be a year, two, three, ten, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 or 80 or 90 or 100 or 110 or even 120 years, or more. In short, death can be prolonged for a lifetime and die in extreme old age on a hillside in the snow-covered Alps, for example. It all depends on how to destroy yourself. If you do not put much effort, i.e. just float through life and self-destruct naturally, then you can live a pretty interesting or boring life. But in any case, the result of any ideology, as well as of life itself, is the same-it is death. As for philosophy, I advise you to get acquainted with theomism and the theory of potentiality.
Great question!
In my opinion, this is a reactionary philosophy. The word “ideology” does not seem quite appropriate to me here. “Live bright, die young”, “It is better to burn than to wither” – this, in my opinion, is some protest attack towards the formed idea that the best form of human existence is a household paradise “work-family-friends-church”.
On the other hand, you can see here a certain desire for new opportunities, opportunities that require sacrifice. In Fight Club, opportunities are about strength, not depending on comfort, the system, or your social status. The victim is injuries, the same lack of comfort, the refusal to perceive oneself as a unique, valuable being in itself.
For rock musicians, hippies, freaks of the last century and their fans, opportunities are a fun life, unique experiences associated with drug use, and free self-realization, and the victims are their own health, stability, and often family relationships. In short, self-destruction is the idea that a worthwhile life can only be lived at the cost of shortening that life. Burn quickly-giving light, sparkling, warming, and not fade slowly-preserving yourself, being careful, caring for the future. All this, by the way, has now resulted in the popular abbreviation YOLO (you only live once).
The main thing is that in this idea there is no thought of “self-destruction for the sake of self-destruction”. And it is not like the worldview of the Christian aspects, who sought to achieve intimacy with God by destroying their bodies. Here, self-destruction is a kind of desperate impulse associated with the idea that life is really one, that it is useless to strive for something big and great, that people themselves are dust and gray mass, and you can only stand out, become bright and happy by going all out.