I think this song is pretty straightforward in meaning. It is an evaluation of what our society has become from a very philosophical point of view- in particular, the view of the great philosopher Anselm. According to Anselm, all animals have a will towards a certain goal. For most animals, this will is towards their own happiness and well being. He argued that since humans have been given the extra faculty of reason, they are different from all other animals in that they also have a will to justice. They have the ability to see what is just and unjust. Therefore, he argued that humans have 2 wills- the will to their own happiness or well being (like other animals), and the will to justice. This faculty of reason that the humans have allows them to look beyond mere happiness and determine what is the right or "just" thing to do.

In the song, the angels on the side line are baffled and amused because the angels have reason as well- but they do not have free will in the same way that humans do. Why? -because as angels, by definition everything they do will have to be just or right. Humans, on the other hand, have been given free will by God and therefore can make the choice to go for their own happiness rather than doing what is considered the just thing to so. That is why the angels are watching the humans in disbelief at the choices they are making even though God has blessed them with the reason to be able to determine what is right/wrong or just/unjust.

The angels ask, "don't these talking monkeys know that Eden has enough to go around?"- here, the reference to the Garden of Eden is used to show that if the humans who were put in the garden decided to share what was on it with one another rather than try to possess parts of it for themselves, humans would have never fallen out of the state of paradise they were put into to begin with. Instead, the humans chose to divide everything "right in two" and fight with eachother over all the land and resources that the earth had to offer them.

So basically the song is saying that God has blessed the humans with the reason to see what is right and wrong, but the humans chose to fight with one another over possessions rather than share everything the earth had to offer and live in peace. Unlike the Angels, the humans have free will and are therefore able to choose to strive for their own individual happiness, rather than the happiness of the whole- (which can be achieved if they collectively strive/will toward justice and what is "right"). In other words, the monkeys who are given thumbs, i.e. the humans, spend their lives killing one another over pieces of the ground- taking for granted that their time on earth is limited and the fact that they cannot take anything with them once they're gone.

You, my friend, are right on the ball. :D

I completely agree with all of that. A great song.

Thanks for the positive words guys. It's intelligent lyrics like these that make me love Tool.

Waiting it out,
why do you think God would bless humans with the ability to know right from wrong?

Just wonderin'.

That's a very good question and I'll try to answer it with some philosophy from the brilliant German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that if man did not have reason, and with it a notion of justice, then man would live a life that was governed by instinct, like all other animals. Even though humans would be happier in this state, they would not be free because they would be living in a state of servitude that was merely governed by superficial desires.

Since humans have the extra faculty of reason, they are able to determine what they desire instead of being dominated by their instincts. Kant argues that this ability to determine their desires makes humans truly free. Once humans started making choices based on reason, rather than instinct, they fell out of paradise and consequently out of a state of servitude. With this, even though humans lose happiness (because their desires are no longer easily fulfilled), Kant believes that they gain freedom.

Therefore, Kant believes humans were given reason by God because they are not destined to happiness- rather, they are destined to rational life and freedom. Unlike animals, human beings are the ends of nature and therefore must abide by a moral law. The point of human existence is freedom, and according to Kant, human perfection can be achieved by living a perfectly rational life. So the ultimate goal for humans is to perfect their freedom in order to try to make their lives rationally perfect.

What is the ultimate realization of freedom for humans? Kant says it is political life. --This is where the problem is and this is what I think the song is about. Kant says the act of attaining a civil society that administers justice in a universal manner is extremely difficult (and I think we can all agree on this).

Because resources on the Earth are limited, the ownership of private property is a major issue for humans. This is why people fight over everything as it says in the song. In order to put an end to people killing each other over pieces of the ground, Kant says a social contract must be made and a society must be created that is governed by just/moral laws. The civil state that is created with this law will recognize man's freedom, equality, and independence.

Therefore, to answer your question, it is the destiny of the humans to have the ability know right from wrong (and use their faculty of reason) in order to be free. The foundation of a truly civil society which is governed by just laws that are universally administered is the ultimate realization of this freedom.

(Hope I didn't lose you with all this...)

I really like this one....I play it over and over again. It really gets to me, in a strange way...simply love it...

another element of Kant that is important to bear in mind for this song (to continue the philosophical musings) -

Kant also argued considerable concerning the nature of objective reality, particularly the self. Kant's argument is that all perspectives are inherently subjective, and therefore an observer cannot view the objective nature of an object or the self. Instead, all reality is created through the interrelation of perspectives, rather than existing in any core sense.

In terms of this song, it is important to notice that all perspective comes through subjective observation. We have man observing man (the violence towards each other is a manner of observation and judgement), we have the angels observing man and judging (the use of 'monkeys' etc), we have God (or some sort of divine force) observing man, we have man observing God (or some sort of divine force), and we also have man observing angels.

One thing that is intersting is the way Maynard alternates the terms with which he references the characters involved, and it might be worth considering that the message of this song might not be quite so straight forward as it seems. More likely, any real truth (if you want to go with Kant) will lie between perspectives, rather than in any one directly stated view that we are posed with.

That was a good read...remains my favorite song on the album.

Thanks for your deep and reflective (and well researched!!) comments, and interpretations WaitingItOut. It is a very plausible 'meaning' of the song I think. Such deep lyrics!

Gotta love 'em

On another, unrelated, note, I believe that there was no paradise (eden) before we obtained free will (however that happened!). For example chimp's battle over resources as much as we do, the only difference is the scale. The saying ignorance is bliss is coming to mind. Ken Wilber's pre/trans fallacy might apply here. Where you might say that pre-rational states (instincts) and trans-rational states (spirit) are the same because the are both NON-rational. (Please discuss this point if I am mistaken or misleading!)

On the topic of the song, I don't think the problem is that we have reason, just that we use reason as a tool to serve our instincts, rather than for more "species-friendly" ways. We are not a system that is either instinct OR reason. Instinct exists in us as well as reason, therefore reason can be used to serve instinct.

Just a quick thanx for the philosophical background on what this song may be about. I thought that to, just with less knowledge to back it up. You learn somthing new everyday. This still remains my favorite song off the album, so far. Keep up the great work guys.

we use reason as a TOOL to serve our instincts

Best riff ever at the end!

Right on man, couldn't have said it better, it is a beautiful thing when bands can still write inspirational, thought provoking lyrics in this day and age

I love this song, the lyrics are powerful. It's definately my favorite off the album.

Wow. WatingItOut - I hope to read more stuff like this from you in the future. Spot on.

Whoo hoo! A thread that is interesting and constructive...Jesus Christ, I even might have learned something...!

ROFL....no you didn't....jk

Very well said and researched WaitingItOut. I appreciate it, i didn't know about all the philosophical references (being that i am a moron). Good job!!!

Nicely done waitingitout. I think you hit the nail on the head w/ this one.

I agree with everything but this. I think that if I was able to fulfill any desire I wanted easily, then my life would be boring. Struggle makes human life interesting. Being able to say "this is my blood, sweat, and tears" makes everything so much more wonderful. I think that we are given happiness; just a bunch of us never see it.

Kind of like The Matrix, Trinity said, "It's the question that drives us," or the saying, "it's the road, not the destination."

Awesome interpretation on this one. I find some of the messages a bit Socialist in thier undertones, sharing everything equally, living in harmony using logic, reason and common sense and all. Maybe its just me though....

Thanks everyone, I'm glad you enjoyed my interpretation!

11Reflections11- Yes, the undertones may be a bit Socialist, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing...

You are right on this. When Kant said that people lose happiness, I think he meant a merely superficial happiness. Remember, Kant felt that when man fell out of paradise, it was actually a good thing for them because they were finally out of a state of servitude and had attained real freedom. Before, when they were merely using their instincts, their actions were completely ruled/determined by their desires. So, in Kant's view, they were slaves to their desires and couldn't do anything about it. When they started using reason, they were able to determine their desires with their own will- and this is what made them free.

This made me think of Greek Mythology but its not my conclusion to what this song means. The idea just sort of came and it sounded cool. I dont mind if no one follows me on this one. Prometheus was the creator of man. Thus him being the father. He gave us freewill and the ability to see into the future. To give us an edge he stole fire and gave it to us. Zeus was not pleased with Prometheus and his decisions. "Why did father give these humans free will?" Our ability to see into the future was taken away because we were not trusted to have a power. We were inferior. We had to discover fire on our own. For us having freewill Zeus almost destroyed our very beings. He felt that we would never fit into this new world. We would never really evolve.

Freedom forever. Very cool. I totally agree - this is why Maynard (along with some of us) places the utmost importance on thinking - the use of this faculty, as you said to obtain the "ultimate realization of this freedom". All makes sense to me. Props.

all ive gotta say is this is one of the best threads ive read on this tool forum...im gunna officially blame WaitingItOut for me learning from stuff from tool. thanks a lot and keep up the good work my new found good friend (that sounded creepy).

yeh it did sound creepy. very creepy

Me either. Overthrow the Facist Neocons in power now!

hehe

WaitingItOut, have you read Ken MacLeod's "Fall Revolution" series? If not, I think you will like it - try to track it down. That goes for anyone else interested in this particular thread as well. You won't be disappointed.

Great Post!! Many props. One other thing to interject about the meaning of free will in this song though and it's meaning to the seperation of we monkeys (man) and angels. Free will in this sense is not that the angels are compelled to due good because that is their only choice, just look at Lucifer, he was God's highest most beloved angel who CHOSE to betray his very creator. This Free Will is the free will to accept or deny the existence of GOD. Either we choose to have Faith, another Human Monkey only emotion, or we choose to deny God due to lack of proof or what have you. Let's face it in the end if Lucifer exist and the Bible is correct then he MUST accept his creator for what he is . He is compelled to this by the fact that he has experienced the creator in person if you will. Just think if God made himself known to us then we would lose our Free Will to accept or deny his presence and this whole faith thing would be moot. It is this faith that God measures his followers love and commitment to moral behaviour, remember the whole "if a man has the faith of a mustard seed he can move mountains" thing, not because we KNOW the all seeing eye is present and therefore are forced to obey in fear of reprisal from a vengeful big brother God. Instead it's like God takes comfort and pleasure from the since that we can love so blindly that the very thing we choose to love or have Faith in, God, defies the very reality in which we live.
Not so eloquently put as WaitingItOut, but Im dead tired from working all night.

Again many props on such an oustanding post and many praises to the band that comples this discussion. Wonder what they discuss on the Britney Spears site.
Peace!

P/S think this is driven by the bands opposition to the NeoCons "WAR on terrorism-Iraq"

An intellectual and thought provoking post, Am I still on the tool opinion pages? I will put in a few of my own ideas even though I feel that the discussion is somewhat beyond my knowledge in areas.

* The initial post by WaitItOut is great. Informative, clear and concise. Sums up my personal views on this beautiful song with a touch of depth while not saying "this is what Maynard is saying"

The discussion however, furthering into philsophy and religion is where I want to have my say.

* Philosopher's in my view tend to have interesting ideas and views but they seem to try to find a meaning of life/human existence and try to use words to create universal truths coherent for any individuals conscious. Personally I see us as humans as just not capable of fully comprehending our reason for existence / consciousness (yet). (I do however believe there is a path to happiness that is through individuality.)

To quote:
"The point of human existence is freedom, and according to Kant, human perfection can be achieved by living a perfectly rational life"

I see this as a statement in which you can believe that can provide happiness and not a universal truth.

3. Religion/Christianity. First decide on a few things. Are God and Angels are real? Are they physical or only "are" as an inconceivable form in an inconceivable reality? Maynard believes which? My personal view is that Maynard is using them only as words, symbols to provide a picture and therefore the idea that angels have free will (Lucifer having the choice to betray God) is not important.

*Further views of my own not tied in with "Right in Two"
Why did the creator of reality and human consciousness give us the ability to know right from wrong? It could very well be that “The point of human existence is freedom” but these are only words that provoke images in your consciousness brought on by your experiences in reality. As a belief which can never be proven right or wrong in this reality. I am not trying to say I know any better, only that individually we will never be able to emulate the same thought as someone else and that any view on human existence or the meaning of life will only ever be a belief. Words are so feeble, they are only frequencies that provoke images that are not universal but merely create individual thoughts from individual experiences. This is why I see any attempt at answering the question of existence / consciousness or the meaning of life as not a universal truth but only an individual truth from one small view through an individual’s reality.

Very interesting. Seems we have a split roughly along Kantian/Nietzschian lines. I was talking about this with my partner last night. In one sense, I think you're right, but in another way, the Kantian view that WaitingItOut put foward above kind of just "feels" right in some sense and does fit nicely. But as you have stated, this doesn't resolve the "universal" (ie: true at all times everywhere throughout spacetime and existence) issue. Anyone care to have a stab at solving this? I certainly am having trouble with it - my mind has been jumping back and forth over this for quite some time now.

Talking from a strictly theological & logical basis (rather than any strong person conviction...maybe), this sounds like a prick of a god to me. Why would this 'god' give us free will as part of our nature only to expect us to go against our nature lest we burn in hell? Why the hell did he give us that nature (free will, rationality) in the first place if it leads us choose "evil" or at least does not inherently lead us to choose god's classification of "good" (see next point below for my reasoning here). If it is objected that perhaps he did not give us our make up though his own choice, then he is not omnipotent (all powerfull) and thus he is not God in the semetic (christain/jewish/islamic?) sense, and therefore, there might plasuably be something more/just as powerful as this god out there we should/could turn our attention to.

And similary to the question i raised in a new topic in the '10. right in two' section, why would maynard choose to employ the symbolism of such a god in his art???? Is he siding with the theological underpinnings of christianity or judaism? if your interested in helping answer this question please have a look at my aforementioned post where i proposed it properly: "Is Maynard a christian or jewish monotheist?"

Fine, but my faculty of reason does not inherently tell me WHY i SHOULD be "just". it may, like was said, point me in the direction of being just, but it does not point me in any clear direction as to why i should be just in the first place lest i fear the punishment of God. To expand: I can see many benefits to myself of acting quite unjustly, as i can also see many benefit to others of acting less-selfishly. So how do i conduct myself? My rationality itself is not telling me which to choose, only which to choose depending on the values i choose to live buy (selfishness or "fairness"). That is the key point. Because if I myself, of my own "free rational will', have no reason to choose one value system over the other unless its because i don't want to burn in hell for eternity, then whether or not i adopt the value system corresponding to being just and 'right' (corresponding to god) is not a very 'free choice' is it ? (i.e. if im thinking with my god given rationality and am therefore interested in avoiding eternal torment)

[QUOTE=sidereal]Talking from a strictly theological & logical basis (rather than any strong person conviction...maybe), this sounds like a prick of a god to me. Why would this 'god' give us free will as part of our nature only to expect us to go against our nature lest we burn in hell? Why the hell did he give us that nature (free will, rationality) in the first place if it leads us choose "evil" or at least does not inherently lead us to choose god's classification of "good" (see next point below for my reasoning here). If it is objected that perhaps he did not give us our make up though his own choice, then he is not omnipotent (all powerfull) and thus he is not God in the semetic (christain/jewish/islamic?) sense, and therefore, there might plasuably be something more/just as powerful as this god out there we should/could turn our attention to.

Sounds like a "prick" of a God to me as well, but I do believe that it is this "prick" of a God, a Judaeo Christian God, the God of his Mother, that Maynard refers to in this song. Especially if you take into account the reference to the Angels combined with the question of the dreaded Free Will, usually in combination these are associated to the Judaeo Christian Faith. As far as the comments related to why God give us an oppurtunity to choose his way or otherwise, is the price of having this idea of Free Will.
Please understand to that I do not subscribe to this idea personally and made my statements only in reference to the statement by the original poster. I just understand the meaning of this song ,personally, to be in reference to the Judaeo Christian God and his Angels and therefor I believe, although most of what Waiting said was correct , that he was incorrect in his assumptionthat the idea that Free Will, in the Judaeo Christian form, was absent from an angel because an angel is compelled to act justly. This is why I pointed toward the Judaeo Christian Lucifer, God's highest angel and his choice to be unjust.

[QUOTE=WaitingItOut]In the song, the angels on the side line are baffled and amused because the angels have reason as well- but they do not have free will in the same way that humans do. Why? -because as angels, by definition everything they do will have to be just or right. Humans, on the other hand, have been given free will by God and therefore can make the choice to go for their own happiness rather than doing what is considered the just thing to so. That is why the angels are watching the humans in disbelief at the choices they are making even though God has blessed them with the reason to be able to determine what is right/wrong or just/unjust.

This wasn't a quote from me but from Waiting. No prob tho. Will check your post too.

Thanks for the postive comments guys. I'm happy to see a lot of great thoughts and discussion coming out of this thread. :)

I haven't read this, but I'll be sure to look into it. Thanks.

This is a good point. I too think that Maynard is using these as symbols to talk about mankind from a different perspective- that of an Angel viewing the human species. Like Kant, Manyard does not necessarily have to believe in God/Angels, but he uses the religious imagery and symbols to get his point across.

In general, I think Maynard did "find Jesus" in a (indirect) way with this album. He uses a great deal of Christian symbology in order to get his views across. In the same manner, Kant uses the book of Genesis and the fall of man in order to give his depiction of the transition from the use of instinct to the use of reason. Kant felt that he could use philosophy to explain religious myths. By using the fall of man from the Old Testament, Kant went on to give his views on the foundation of a civil society in which justice can be universally administered and humanity can strive to be perfected.

A philosopher like Hobbes for example, did not use religious symbology. Rather, he got a similar point across by saying that life for man in the state of nature (before the foundation of a civil society) was "nasty, brutish, and short." Therefore, humans chose to give up some of their natural rights and form a social contract in which humans would cooperate with eachother rather than live a life consumed with fighting and death.

Thanks for adding another book to my summer reading list. It's nice to see that not everyone sees this song so one-dimensionally.

True- however, what Anselm said is that the point of acting justly is to will to justice for it's own sake, and not for the sake of one's happiness. If a person chooses to be just for the sake of their own ultimate happiness, then they are not praiseworthy for their actions. On the other hand, if a person aims towards justice strictly for it's own sake (i.e. just for the sake of doing the "right" thing regardless of the consequences for himself), then that person will be "just" and happiness may result as a byproduct. Therefore, if you choose to be just only because you don't want to "burn in hell for eternity," then you are indirectly willing towards/looking after your own happiness. That is where the free choice comes in- willing to justice for it's own sake, or striving for your own individual happiness, whether it be directly or indirectly.

In general, I think Manyard did "find Jesus" in a (indirect) way with this album. He uses a great deal of Christian symbology in order to get his views across.


Personally I get the feeling this whole album has revaolved around MJK's mother and her passing. Could it be that he took an even closer look at his mother's beliefs? I doubt he "found Jesus". I'm willing to bet at least that "Jesus found him". Death affects us all in profoundly different ways. If he was forced to re-examine his own philosophy by juxtaposing it with his mother's, I'd say that would be a fitting tribute for MJK to give.