Functionality, style, and magnitude of instilled awe and wonder. These are the three qualities which I have, if I’m quite honest, somewhat randomly chosen to use in judging the awesomeness of the things that I write about. So far I have written about a thing that possesses the first two qualities, but lacks heavily in the third (for it does not double as a rocket launcher or anything), and a thing that is strong in all three areas (as it is basically full-scale, live Battleships). I thought today that I’d mix things up a little by attempting to find something that would not qualify in any of the categories; something that has no useful purpose, something that has no grace or flair and something that does not shock or amaze in any way. Essentially I am looking for something that no one in their right mind would ever conceive of; something with no point at all.
The name Lindsay Lohan immediately springs to mind, but that’s a little bit unfair – she did briefly provide mild amusement for the useless-white-trash-leeches of society who contribute nothing and spend their entire existences following the escapades of other, richer, useless non-contributors. On second thoughts, perhaps my hasty criticism of this broken actress was slightly uncalled for – she did use her fame to help the Red Cross during the Haiti disaster aftermath, though frankly I don’t see what use someone whose house has just been decimated can have for the former child-star of The Parent Trap.
Using the above reasoning I can discount any and all celebrities, famous people and indeed famous things from my search for a completely pointless thing; they all serve some purpose, even if it is only to be famous. Extrapolating this notion, I can see that it is going to be pretty tough finding something without any point at all: anything that can be named can be said to serve the fundamental purpose of being itself (for example a square qualifies, beyond anything else, as a square. Even if all its other functions are stripped away it still has that).
Ignoring the quite possible logical fallacy above, I’m betting that even were some philosopher able to come up with a loophole in the above statement and find a thing with no point, no purpose, no use or function, some spiteful bastard would argue that this thing’s purpose is then to be pointless; intended as some sort of exception to the rule (the fact that I’d probably be that spiteful bastard is irrelevant).
It seems that looking for something with absolutely no intended purpose is like trying to lick your own elbows; you can try for hours on end but no matter how much stretching is done beforehand your efforts will be fruitless (I’m not entirely sure how the stretching fits in to my metaphor, but I don’t really have much to work with here…).
It seems that looking for something with absolutely no intended purpose is like trying to lick your own elbows; you can try for hours on end but no matter how much stretching is done beforehand your efforts will be fruitless (I’m not entirely sure how the stretching fits in to my metaphor, but I don’t really have much to work with here…).
This all makes sense, really. In evolutionary terms, we can only inherit those traits which our ancestors possessed. The urge to waste valuable and limited time on a thing that provides no advantage or gain, or even change, in any way is not exactly promising for a species’ progress. Pointlessness was bred out of us long ago (if we ever had it at all).
That said, recent ‘natural selection’ has favoured the brain-dead rugby player over the rational and coherent. Fortunately, humanity has not yet regressed to the stage where utterly useless things are conceivable, but perhaps one day we will, and then I’ll have a pointless thing to write about. For now, though, everything has a purpose, no matter how trivial or silly or rugby-affiliated that purpose may seem.
