On The Tactic of Questioning Existence
I like to question the existence of things. God, of course, but that’s amateur stuff. I’ve questioned the existence of money, white people, intelligent life on planet Earth, and the GOP.
I do this for philosophical reasons, but also for rhetorical reasons. The philosophy is simple; namely, existence by nature is partial, conditional, limited, and incomplete; and as such is a profitable target for philosophical critique. Sometimes you can refute the thing outright; or else it’s in a state of doubt.
The rhetorical reasons involve the politics of fanatical belief. For I have noticed that, when confronted with the sincere but deluded followers of a false god (such as money, or whiteness, or the GOP), it does no good to call out that god’s cruelty, or stupidity, or weakness, or perversity. Not even if those accusations are true, given the god’s myth; indeed, especially if they’re true! For the believer made that god in his image, and therefore takes such critique personally. Artists are usually defensive before critics!
I propose that, when confronting the sincere but deluded believers in a false god, what does work is to question the god’s existence. For the believer does know himself to exist, and the god to be his creation. He denies the second, but cannot deny the first; so emphasizing the god’s fictitiousness drives a wedge between believer and god.
They’re still defensive, for I’m really critiquing their skill as artists. But that is a matter of technique, not character; they argue about methods, not feelings, and so they can be reached by reason.
