Читать книгу Does The Universe Need Me? - Raphael Dorsainvil - Страница 4

Contemplating the grandeur of the universe, there is great consolation in feeling that this pompous and complex universe is humble enough to need me. After all, if the universe does not need me, then why do I exist? This question implies existence necessitates universal need, and that the universe cannot conduct its affairs without me, thus my existence is indispensable.

If the universe requires human beings to simply exist, then systems of ethics would expandable⎯making the warmonger and the peacemaker essential in universal function. In utilizing the existence of the benign and or the malevolent, the universe would not mandate intelligent subjects to create systems of ethics⎯marginal biological functions would be sufficient. A biographical life would be irrelevant since all that is required to satisfy universal need is existence. A newborn inflicted with a severe lung deformity, granted only a few hours to live⎯has no biographical life. In addition, the newborn could have also been born with a severe case of harlequin ichthyosis⎯a misfortunate for the newborn, but an asset to the universe. How could a newborn in such a state be of any use to the universe? If merely existing is a fulcrum of universal function, then the newborn’s misfortune is justified as long as it serves the purpose of the universe. Universal need based on existence alone, allows for an amoral reality in which cruelty and suffering unjustly is permissible. Consider the case of Elizabeth Bathory, who was born in Transylvania in 1560. The very powerful and opulent Bathory family raised a child who would eventually develop into a psychopathic mystic of sort⎯a beautiful woman with ugly tendencies called torture. Reportedly, about the age six, gypsies were entertaining the household, and one of the gypsies was accused of selling his child to the Turks, the enemy of Transylvania. The accused gypsy was sentenced to death in a most diabolically creative manner. Soldiers sliced open the belly of a horse and shoved the gypsy inside while another soldier began stitching the horse leaving the man’s head protruding. Being curious about torture at a young age, Bathory watched as this occurred.

On May 8, 1575 at the age of 15,Bathory married a 21 year old soldier of noble birth name Ferenc Nadasdy, who was morally depraved. Nadasdy and Bathory enjoyed torturing their servants. Assuming the role of pedagogue of torture methods, Nadasdy taught his wife about one his favorite ways of inflicting pain, namely honey torture. This procedure required honey being painted on a tied up naked girl while being next to a beehive. Servants who were suspicious of pretending to be ill, had a peace of paper soaked in oil and set on fire as it was wedge between their toes. As cruel as Bathory was, she was protective of her son Paul and her daughters Ursula, Katherina, and Anna.

In deathly cold winters, Bathory was known to have water poured on young naked women on in the courtyard beneath her window. Afterward, Bathory would admire the iced anatomy of these young women for hours.

The servants were in constant danger of being tortured. Needles were inserted beneath their finger nails, and if Bathory’s clothes were not ironed properly, the iron would be pressed upon the servant’s face leaving an indelible scar as testimony of Bathory’s cruelty. Those suspected of stealing had their hand branded by holding a heated coin in their palm. Bathory once inserted her fingers inside the mouth of a seamstress, and applied such force, the corners of the seamstress’s mouth tore.

As Bathory grew older, she became seriously concerned with combating of aging. One day she found a cosmetic agent for such a task⎯the blood of young female peasants.

In 1604, the same year Ferenc Nadasdy died, Anna Darvulia, a witch who became part of Bathory’s life, counseled Bathory on how to regain her youth, possibly based on the belief, the quality of one person’s blood can be transferred to another.

A servant was once grooming Bathory’s hair, she either made a remark, or tugged on her hair too hard; regardless, the servant was slapped, resulting in an injured nose that squirted blood on Bathory’s face. Bathory was amazed how the blood diminished her age lines. Afterward, Bathory sliced the girl’s wrist, depleted her blood supply, and kept her in a torture chamber. In addition to Darvulia, Bathory used the help of her servants Dorothea, Fizcko, and her nurse Lloona Joo, to capture and torture more innocent young girls under the pretense of employing them as servants.

At times Bathory’s bedroom floor was carpeted with blood from torturing these young women; cinders were emplaced to hide the blood. Even while she was sick, Bathory retained her fervor for torture. She bit the cheek and breast of a peasant girl, and bit off the flesh from her shoulder, after she was forced to the bedside of the frail Bathory.

Bathory became notorious for throwing body parts out of her carriage window. The bodies of young women began to stack up around castle Cachtice, including five bodies kept under a bed inside the castle. Lime was often thrown on dead bodies to maintain an odor of normality that ensured the voice of death would not be heard through the malodor of decaying flesh. The situation in the castle grew into a smelly historic battle of the olfactory versus rotting human tissue, and to stop this battle, the bodies had to be dumped into the rhubarb and potato garden behind the castle. Although Bathory invested much effort in assuring a proper Christian burial for the young girls she tortured, her effort would be short lived. Following the death of Anna Darvulia, Bathory aged rapidly, and another female witch Erzsi Majorova advised Bathory to select virgins from the noble class.

These virgins were collected, dressed elegantly, and ushered into a dining hall to be murdered. As the victims became numerous, mothers such as Anna Gonczy began to question the disappearance of their daughters. After hearing of her daughter’s death from servants, Gonczy persisted on seeing the body but was threateningly denied by Bathory’s officials. Although Gonzcy was denied initially, she would learn of the conditions surrounding her daughter’s death subsequently. A Reverend Janos Ponikenusz, discovered nine boxes of girls who were recently killed on a subterranean path between the church and the castle. The reverend sent correspondence to his senior Reverend Elias Lanyi about the findings, but Bathory’s officials confiscated these findings on route, but Ponikenusz would eventually be successful.

Despite her affluence, Bathory constantly claimed financial hardship. She sold some of the family’s fortune, including two castles⎯causing discontent amongst the family members, which included her cousin, Count Thurzo, Palentine Prince of Transylvania. In fear of expropriation, the family conspired to help capture Bathory. Under King Matthias II, royal charges had been made against Bathory for the death of nobles.

Bathory’s project of murdering young girls of noble class to sustain her youth, aroused disdain in the hearts of the nobles, and she had to be captured and put to trial. Before justice finally restrained Bathory, she killed Doricza, a strong Croatian girl , who was undressed and had her hands tied behind her back while Bathory beat her with a club. When the aged Bathory was fatigue stricken, another person would continue clubbing Doricza, until Bathory regained her strength. Doricza held on to the point where she had to be stabbed with scissors into a bloody clump of bone and muscle.

On the night of December 30, 1610, Bathory’s cousin, Count Thurzo, raided the Cachtice Castle. During the raid, Thurzo tripped over the chopped upped body of a girl in the castle’s courtyard. To capture Bathory, Thurzo had to travel 150 ft. below the castle only to encounter an iron door with spikes. In the main room of the castle was a girl’s body depleted of blood, and some were found in the dungeon alive with perforated flesh.

Bathory and her helpers were apprehended to bare stern justice. Bathory’s replacement witch, Erzsi Majorova, was sentenced to death for accepting fees to dispose of the bodies. Lloona Joo and Dorothea Szentes had their fingers cut with hot pincers because their hands were advocates of torture; afterward they were roasted alive by being tossed into a fire. Ficzko, the dwarf servant, was decollated, depleted of blood, and roasted. During the trial, a witness named “Zusanna” presented a list that was found in Bathory’s drawers. The list detailed 650 names of the girls Bathory murdered⎯written in her handwriting.

Although the magnitude of such evidence appeared impervious to doubt, the audacious Bathory insisted her innocence. Her insistence was ignored. A single walled-up room designed with a small opening for food, built within Bathory’s castle, was her prison. On July 31, 1614, Bathory wrote her last will and testament in dedication to two priests. She left her remaining fortune to her children, and she died one month after writing her will⎯face down on her bed at the age of 54. The universe needed Bathory. Moral intelligence may view Bathory’s psychopathology as abominable and ask⎯how could the universe need such a horrible human being? If mere existence is the prerequisite for universal function, then the universe needed Bathory. Her immorality has no bearing. If the universe requires the existence of a being and simply that, then what difference does it make if the being is ethical or not? Bathory reportedly killed 650 females, and she could have killed more, and the universe would still deem her an indispensable proponent of its machinery. The moral mind does not perceive Bathory as an asset to edified society nor to the universe possibly. A person such as Bathory could be described as demonic, but this description is driven by moral rationality. The demonic label only applies if moral standing is a consideration. Solely based on existence, moral standing is not a consideration. So if the question is posed, did the universe need Bathory ? The answer would have to be yes, the universe did need Bathory because she existed.

If the question of universal need is applied to Bathory’s victims, all the girls who suffered unjustly were needed by the universe irrespective of how badly they were tortured. Not that the universe needed these girls to suffer, but that it did not matter if they did or did not suffer. These girls could have not been tortured, and the universe would have needed them; universal need is based on existence alone, and not tortured existence. To conclude the universe needed these girls because they suffered, implies the universe needs people only if they are agonizing. Those who are not in pain apparently are not needed.

Therefore, the universe would not need Bathory on account of the joy she experienced torturing young girls, but the universe would need her during her miserable four year imprisonment. Universal need based on existence is distinct from universal need based on miserable existence. The former requires existence isolated from other qualifications, while the latter requires misery in addition to the qualities of existence.

Bathory tortured and murdered young girls. Her ethical status is not comparable to the ethical status of someone like Gandhi, who fought for the civil liberties of the oppressed people of India. But the universe needs the munificent Gandhi, and the diabolical Bathory, simply because they exist, and not because one is a good person, and the other is a bad person. The moral mind may object to the universe treating Bathory and Gandhi equally as ethical patients, but this objection may be driven by a moral rationality that prompts a projection of human scruples on to a mechanistic universe.

There is a moral problem in claiming⎯Gandhi and Bathory are equal in ethical status. This would suggest, fighting to free people from oppression is immoral, and that Gandhi should be punished for his acts.

Also, to claim that Bathory and Ghandi are equal in moral character, indicates, murdering girls should be recognized as a moral achievement in the same manner Gandhi was recognized for fighting to protect the civil liberties of the oppressed people of India. Either way, there is a problem, because good people are treated like bad people, and bad people are treated like good people. In contrast, universal function deems there is no moral problem in categorizing Bathory and Gandhi as equal in ethical status on account of the mechanistic nature of the universe.

Humans can hold each other accountable for violating ethical codes of conduct, but humans cannot hold the universe accountable for such violations. If a person is camping in the wilderness, and a sizeable branch falls on the person’s hip while slumbering in a sleeping bag, leaving the person paraplegic, it would be rather strange for the person to hold gravity morally accountable. Similarly, it would be rather strange for humans to hold the universe morally accountable for categorizing Bathory and Gandhi as equal in ethical status.

Suppose humans could hold the universe morally accountable, how will humans know if the universe is morally compliant? But first, how will humans hold the universe morally accountable? From a mechanistic standpoint, holding the universe accountable for moral violations yields the same results as holding gravity morally accountable for condemning the camper to paraplegia. In recognizing that both are objects, we do not hold either the universe or gravity morally accountable since both are not sentient beings subject to ethical systems.

If ethical systems cannot be applied to the universe⎯then what? If people have to merely exist, seemingly, human existence is reduced to occupying space,but why would the universe need humans to occupy space? If one views the universe mechanistically, then being needed by the universe as a mere physical occupant, may not induce disconsolation. On the other hand, if one views the universe as imbued with meaning, then being needed by the universe as a physical occupant may indeed induce disconsolation. A universe imbued with meaning, suggests that life is significant, and that there is a purpose for existence. Individuals in a meaningful universe, may feel their lives have purpose, and things happen for a reason. Furthermore, these individuals would prefer being needed by the universe based on a quality about them that they feel is commendable. The universe may need them for being praiseworthy mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and bankers.

For example, those who feel their purpose is to be a good banker, may feel this way⎯on account of achieving a laudable skill level in this vocation. The appreciation they feel by others may then be projected onto the universe. Simply, others appreciate them, therefore the universe also appreciates them. Although appreciation by others may not be an indicator of universal need, emotionally, when people are appreciated they tend to feel needed. If one is appreciated, it is unlikely that one does not feel needed. As for those who harbor a mechanistic perception of the universe, meaning is not a property of the universe. Laws govern the universe, and if these laws deem that human beings are a mere collection of molecules subject to a multitude of complex laws⎯then so be it.

The universe is lawful in its relationship with humans. Human beings are a system of molecules, interacting with other molecules, and universal need may not be factor. Humans may or may not be indispensable in the functions of the universe, if function is an aspect of the universe at all.

Function implies the universe has purpose. Purpose implies the universe may be imbued with meaning. Meaning is not a factor in the workings of the universe, according to the mechanistic perception. Presumably, most humans do not perceive themselves as a causal system of molecules, thus rendering the mechanistic perspective strange and unpopular. Universal need solely on the basis of existence may also be strange and unpopular, because human beings are needed to simply exist as physical occupants.