Positivism
Jean Paul Sartre, a twentieth century nihilist philosopher, grabbed the world’s attention, when he proposed, via his philosophical treatise, “Being and Nothingness,” that man’s nature is devoid of values, morals, and any inherent goodness. Gods, pagan or otherwise, do not exist; society’s statutes are created by man for man, and man exists only to serve the dictated ends of the state, the last of which made him a strong supporter of Communism. Although rejected and condemned by many, others readily accepted his profound, nihilistic philosophy. On one occasion, when asked by a member of the audience, “What would happen to any society if all its subjects act according to your philosophy of negativism and nihilism?” His only ambiguous reply was, “Man must act as his own subject of good faith and freedom.”
“That’s quite a contradiction,” the questioner quickly replied. “In your philosophy, there is no faith for man, even in himself, and in Communism, there is certainly no freedom.”
Today’s worldwide society seems to unconsciously swim in Sartre’s philosophy: A mother drops off her child at the Day Care Center and quickly informs the provider, “When my child gives you trouble, just call me.” Patients having medical tests wait anxiously by the phone to hear “the bad news.” Parents quickly inform teachers at conferences, “Oh, he’s always had this conduct problem.” When asked specifically what they have done about it over the past years, the usual reply is, “Oh, nothing. It’s a hopeless case.” Mrs. X is informed by neighbor, Mrs. Y, “Oh, you think your kid is bad now? Wait till (s)he reaches the ‘terrible two’s.” With a minimum of tact and prudence, how often are so many given medical advice by unqualified people in the non-medical field: “If your mother died of cancer, you’ll probably get it too, so you better get a check-up.” Mr. Wall-Street-buddy tells Jim, the hard-working family man, “Your company is in financial trouble. Get ready. You’ll probably be laid off soon.”
Our present-day news media doesn’t help. It thrives on the negative, the gruesome, the shocking episodes, vainly attempting to camouflage them with the now-classic warning, “Some of the scenes you are about to see may be shocking.” In an instant, with no time to change the channel, we are shown the parents screaming in emotional pain, bending over the child, attempting to stop the profuse flowing of blood from the child’s body, the result of a nonchalant drive-by shooting or a hit-and-run incident. The shock-effect on viewers is deep-rooted in its synonymous rule of sensationalism. Corporations own news media. The bottom line is the corporate-megabuck profit. News media flourish because of the constant catering to the viewers’ expectations 
and wants – so says the media, but does it err in such a defensive statement? One national TV channel, during the obnoxiously long Clinton scandal, showed 112 times within a three-month time frame, our President hugging Monica Lewinsky. Yet, via phone, letters, and e-mails, the same channel received only 11 complaints regarding the obsessive showing, spawning such offbeat-humorous quips from Late-Night-Talk hosts, as “Well, what do you expect from our President in the Oral Office – oops, I mean – Oval Office?”
Webster succinctly defines the negativist: “One who has a habitual attitude of skepticism or resistance to the affirmative suggestions, ideas, requests, or actions of another without any apparent or logical reason.”
I ponder: What happened to so many in society who have seemingly erased from their lives the power of the positive trend? Why do so many thrive on magnifying the problem instead of the solution? What happened to the ideal thinking, which so many clergy now have to include in their sermons as a reminder: “Be like David when instructed to fight Goliath challenges: Not, ‘He’s too big to hit,’ but rather, ‘He’s too big to miss’”? Why is life always a mirror of gloom and darkness rather than one of hope and sunshine?
Why has the beauty and sweet scent of the roses succumbed to the prickly thorns?
Mountains abound worldwide, but how many more do people create from insignificant molehills? How is it that so many expect to be thrown instantly overboard when life’s waves come rather than expecting the rescue vessel to be on the horizon? Why do I hear from so many, “When my ship comes in, I’ll probably be at the train station?” rather than, “I’ll be there to give it a joyous welcome”? What happened to Billy Graham’s maxim, “We can’t stop the birds from flying over our heads, but we can certainly stop them from making a nest in it”?
How is it so many fail to incorporate the positive-thought processes of the business world? Car dealerships now strive to convince people, because of gouging gas prices, how much their potential customers need a new, compact car. Too, if the potential buyer cannot afford a new car, plenty of “pre-owned,” (not “used”) cars are available. If money worries will be the death of us, we must now long to be buried not in a cemetery or graveyard, but in a Memorial Garden – as if we are really going to be content in this ethereal paradise when it occurs. No corporation dares say, “We’re on the verge of bankruptcy,” but rather, “We’re reconstructing our financial status.” T.V. infomercials daily remind us of how are lives are so incomplete and unfulfilled: For a simple $19.95, (with tax, shipping, and handling in illegible print), we can purchase every home gadget or the most intimate item we always dreamed of, and if not 100% satisfied, we can return it (minus the shipping and handling – in microscopic print) with “No questions asked.” The military, avoiding negative auras, is no exception. One never hears, “We accidentally bombed a town of innocent civilians,” but rather, “Our strategic planning dictated that we attack the enemy’s locale.” True, all euphemistic language can be deceiving, but the fact remains, it abounds in positivism.
WJK-10/05
