I’ve recently been thinking a lot about self-destruction.

I’ve been thinking about how passion and destruction are interlinked. I’ve also thought that for creation to exist, destruction must proceed it.

I’ve had quite the difficulty to try and make sense of these feelings. I thought I’d try to explain and explore this idea with other people.

So here I am - Let’s start from the premise above.

  • FZDC@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think of it as “destruction” so much as “consumption.” And there’s no requirement that the magnitude of each side of the equation be anywhere close to symmetrical.

    Buckets of paint are inherently less interesting than a beautiful mural on the wall. Unused bits in flash memory are less interesting than a digitized photograph taking up that storage space.

    Basically, creation can be a big positive, on net, because the cost of that creation is often many orders of magnitude less than the value of the thing being created.

    Moreover, even with a very generous definition of “destruction,” the comparison should still be made to what would’ve been destroyed anyway, in the absence of the hypothetical creation. When I take a bunch of tomatoes and other vegetables to make a pasta sauce, maybe I have fundamentally changed or even destroyed some plant matter to get there. But if I hadn’t made the sauce, what would’ve happened to those plants anyway? Would the tomatoes have just rotted on the vine? If I spend a day doing something, what did I destroy by letting that day go by?

    In a sense, everything boils down to opportunity cost, rather than the framework of destruction. The universe is in a state of destruction all around us, with or without us. We have ways of redirecting that destruction, even in locally creative ways, but even in our absence the destruction would still happen.

    • Lionir [he/him]@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s certainly an interesting perspective but I feel that it leans too much into quantifying destruction and creation based on the moral merit of these actions. It feels kinda like trying to justify rather than explain the relationship, I might be completely off base. What do you think?

      • FZDC@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess it’s a two-part observation. The first part does include a qualitative assessment of whether the destruction was “worth it.” The second part, though, I don’t think includes any moral assessment, just an observation that destruction is happening with or without us, so there’s plenty of creation that is possible from merely saving something from destruction, or leveraging an already-gonna-happen destruction to extract some creation out of it.