Lately there has been this trend growing online. "Be nonchalant". Ice cold as an innuit's ass (who knows then knows). Don't make any moves, be cold, don't give a shit - and apparently you'll succeed in life, whatever succees means. So why is this a thing? And how does it relate to the quote about evil from the Witcher?
Some clarification: I do not make research for this, it's just my thoughts shared online. Didn't ya read the description in my about me anyway? Don't expect some philosopher's level insight or a proper essay, that is all I am saying.
So, I think a distinction must be made first. These two terms that I use aren't mutually exclusive, but definitely not the same thing. I am of course referring to nonchalance in a day to day sense and in a philosophical one. The former is exactly what the current TikTok trends refer to - a severe emotional disconduct, an apathetical descent into indifference - basically, not giving a shit about anything. Not in a depressive, nihilistic sense - but an empowering one, which is supposed to turn you into a "main character" and make you in charge of your own life or something like that.
Personally speaking, I feel like there was a point in my life when I used to be like this. Maybe even recently. Not because of trends (I don't hate TikTok), but rather as a reaction to an overload of impulses from every day life. Thus why I can understand why some people might be inclined to change their personalities even by 180 degrees just to be "bothered less". But really, that cannot be the rational answer to such life, huh?
Precisely, under this bountiful video by Kasaja. Some people have pointed out in the comments that the expression ""trying to be nonchalant" is an oxymoron". The most important part I've got from the video is that...it's just a trend. Conforming to trends on social media was never on my bingo card, but apparently it's not just affecting, but transforming people's personalities now. But if that's the case then...you don't really want to be nonchalant by yourself (unless like me, it's more of an apathetic reaction to overexposure of all kinds of stuff) and it's only because it's currently hot that you'd consider taking such a face. Because in the end, I think only people who actually don't give a shit, the dull, boring, "uncool NPCs" sitting in the corner of the class can be considered nonchalant. But is it necessarily a bad thing? I'd argue less.
This nonchalance means apathy in the form of little engagement. Not expressing your emotions clearly, talking and texting to people in a dry way - you get the jizz. Generally, this attitude wouldn't be liked. Because we as humans tend to want to be liked, and that's not possible with a repulsive attitude. However, as I uttered already - that has become the new cool in social media, where everyone lives. This in turn pushes this cold indifference
As much as I'd like to talk about Camus here, we should move to the latter part - the philosophical neutrality. To understand what I mean, let's recall a certain quote from my new favourite book series:
Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.
- Geralt of Rivia, The Last Wish
You all probably know Geralt of Rivia, the Witcher, probably from its hit game Witcher 3. However, it seems as if people have ignored the masterpiece that is the source material - the books, written by Andrzej Sapkowski. Let's have a brief summary of this short story. The witcher arrives into Blaviken, wanting to sell his recently slain kikimore to the town's alderman. Unfortunately, he isn't able to score a deal, but hears about a certain Master Irion that could be interested, who sits at the edge of town in his tower. Upon going into his tower alone however, he is surprised to see a mage he recognised instead, known as Stregobor. Instead of taking his kikimore, he starts pleading Geralt to help him by slaying a girl, apparently cursed, who is after the wizard, calling it "the lesser evil". Geralt objects, eventually taking his leave and going back into town. To his bad luck, he meets the girl in question there, called Renfri, alongside her gang of bandits. They have an unfriendly discussion where she reveals slaying her would be the worse choice, because she is protected by royal law. Geralt eventually leaves that tavern, going back to rest at the alderman's place, where Renfri literally sneaks through the window into his room. After telling some more about herself, pleading Geralt to choose the lesser evil and kill Stregobor, for some reason, they proceed to have sex.
This isn't all. The next morning, the alderman talks about a certain "Tridam ultimatum" that, Geralt notices, Renfri mentioned the night before. The witcher realises that it was an analogy and that her gang was not planning to leave Stregobor alone, instead wanting to massacre the town's residents so the wizard would come out. Here is when, comparitavely, Geralt chooses "the lesser evil", engaging in combat with Renfri and her band of 6 men to protect the town himself. Already know where the Butcher of Blaviken nickname comes from? At last Renfri tells Geralt that in all factuality Stregobor has ignored her ultimatum, vowing to not leave his tower whatever happens. She is then slain by Geralt, who gets ridiculed and thrown rocks at by the town's residents. Only then the wizard comes out, wanting to investigate the girl's body to see if the curse was actually behind this. But Geralt doesn't let him. In the end, the alderman tells him to never return.
This is weirdly reminiscent of the trolley problem, but the stakes are higher. Kill 1 person or 7 people? We can see Geralt's opinion on this matter change to something one could call "heroic" or utilitarian. At first, he is reluctant, retreating into indifference as he considers himself an alien piece of that equation, a mutant made to kill monsters and not engage with these trivial matters. Well, maybe not trivial, but he thought that they didn't affect him, thus why he could justify staying out of them. Renfri's plans were hence the aforementioned stakes and a provocation towards Geralt. At first, he was simply naive, thinking that either side would give in or that the problem could be solved peacefully, by the two sides leaving each other in peace. For Geralt, "the lesser evil" was eventually made clear, alongside his emotions that he claimed weren't true. He wanted to protect the people of Blaviken, something Stregobor could but didn't want to do, which seems weird given his earlier reluctance. At the same time, he doesn't let the wizard touch Renfri's body, despite having slept with her and now having killed her in cold blood. He'd rather kill 5 aggressors (who were made out to be aggressors by the pressure of time) than 1 wizard. Was it correct, though?