OF DENIAL AND INDIFFERENCE Man is the only creature that refuses to be what he is- Albert Camus.

I have long held, frequently in defiance of experience and counsel, that the impulse toward conscious indifference and its expression in the willful act of self-lulling serve an essentially productive purpose in personal development, not just in view of their utility in helping one retain sanity in the face of the absurdity and confusion that defines our time but also because much of the indoctrination that passes for education today is positively injurious to individual growth and must therefore be denied consideration. This account intends to analyze the value of indifference as an individual attitude facilitating the creative processes of self molding and growth. In so doing, it hopes also to arrive at such general conclusions of social consequence as accrue from an analysis of the communal interaction of the same creative forces as involved in the said processes of individual change.

Elie Wiesel ( a Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate ), in an address at the White House, once inquired if a philosophy of indifference was conceivable, if indifference could possibly be viewed as a virtue. He went on to relate his experiences at Auschwitz extermination camp during the German occupation of Poland, eventually leveling measured reproach at Roosevelt (American president at the time) for his indifference to the Jewish plight. Though delivered with obvious sincerity, the impassioned rhetoric nevertheless succeeded only in drawing a derisive snicker from this unworthy audience. It revolted me to note that we could live and breathe indifference for thoughtless ages and still be prompted to question its possibility in philosophy; that we should still have to resort to such shady (and now virtually obsolete) classifications as virtue and sin to determine its worth. As the initial feeling of distaste subsided, I got to reflecting upon the reasons that are generally responsible for such unanimity in public opinion regarding the merits (or lack thereof, to be more precise) of this attitude and arrived at one decisive cause: the widespread indoctrination of the idea that individual responsibility is not defined by personal action but by a certain a priori obligation toward a mystified ideal of communal good. One might wonder how an idea as unsubstantiated as this could be so well received in a time when indifference is almost inextricably woven into the very fabric of our existence: we are witness to the most harrowing of tragedies and the most vulgar of insults to human dignity every day, on our TV screens and in newspapers without as much as an inkling toward action; instead we condition ourselves to derive positive pleasure from it, to the effect that we are now morbidly hooked to this vicarious entertainment. There appears, then to be a contradiction in our confessed morality and our routine conduct. The generally proposed resolution to this contradiction invariably seeks to chastise our behavior into conformity with the prevalent morality (which, through an erroneous and baseless association with human nature itself, is now so exalted as to be beyond the scope of rational scrutiny). I propose otherwise. That there is such a wide disparity in what we profess about our moral sense and how we conduct our lives points toward a need for revision of the former. We must seek to arrive at a more realistic understanding of what informs our daily decisions and conduct instead of wallowing in useless self reproach on account of an obsolete ideal. Indifference is more intrinsic to our nature than anything we may say in denial of this fact. When beseeched by a roadside beggar, when pestered by the preaching religiosi (that sorry lot bent on saving my soul for a little more 'sawab' in their mindless quest for a delusive heaven), when solicited by peers to give blood or spare change for a needy stranger, one is frequently labeled inhumane for not obliging, a pervasive reminder of how profoundly mistaken we are as concerns our true nature. We continue to be misled as we seek validation from without, allowing archaic dogmas to dictate our notions of what we are. Our growth as individuals-the realization of our creative potentialities- remains impeded by this ideal of virtue in selflessness. We expend our creative energies in the futile enterprise of measuring up to the archetypes presented-nay imposed upon us, by religion and its crippled vestige,

humanism when we should be employing them in exploring the freedom native to our existence. There is desperate need for an honest exercise in introspection to help us cultivate a sounder sense of identity, one grounded in the facts of our existence instead of ethereal fantasies about human probity and our divine essence. Let me illustrate briefly how a society stands to benefit by abandoning belief in the aforementioned fallacy in favor of indifference toward the moral advocacy that engenders it. If we divest ourselves of all delusions of innate altruism, and candidly acknowledge the primacy of our self-interest in governing our attitudes and behavior we will realize, by clearly defining our responsibility in terms of our actions (which in turn are motivated by our self interest), that the hitherto virtuous impulse toward communal good through philanthropy and charity is ruinous, that it breeds dependence and overall social weakness; we will no longer condone the existence of diseased parasites on our streets and more importantly, on our conscience. We will learn to live as we are, not as we ought to be; just as we address the self interest of a fruit vendor when we engage him in a transaction, so too will our chosen morality speak to our true natures, and thus deliver us progress as surely as the vendor is wont to sell us his fruit. We will thus have accomplished a society that is based on frank notions of the common humanity of its members; one that acknowledges and rewards the capable as swiftly as it discards the weak and dependant; one that reckons dependence criminal. Our leaders will have a harder time disguising their aggression as wars in the name of liberty when the society no longer recognizes any merit in such altruistic intervention and openly spurns it instead of protesting in confusion. Elie Wiesel will not excite such attention when he blames a foreign head of state for lack of interest in his peoples state. He will learn that in order for a people to be truly free, they must will and win it themselves instead of counting on a world police to come their rescue. Such then, is my vision of progress: the organism of society fueled by self interest and directed by honest introspection. But the perceptive reader must naturally question what, if not altruism and an impulse toward social reform motivates this very exposition, this advocacy of selfishness and indifference. Do I not contradict myself by thus engaging in that which I so explicitly decry? I respond with the confession that I recognize an interest in the proposed reform: liberation from the institutionalized oppression of misguided dogmas and the conceit of ill advised public opinion. In these times of servile submission, silence seems more selfless than revolt. I do however concede that more than crude self interest motivates this composition, that despite frequent lapses, I still invest some measure of faith in humanity, and I trust people to choose what is best for them once the clouds of deceit have cleared. I conclude in the hope that these words resonate with the truer natures of their audience.