We're all fairly familiar with this dread, aren't we? If not from feeling the dread, then from being immersed in it through the pronouncements of various intellectuals, certain of the religious, and of course by undergoing what is called a liberal arts education, which mandates the reading of the works of various dread-full titans of the history of the West.
I'm reading a book by Robert Unger with the rather exclamatory title The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound. I have a fondness for pragmatism the philosophy (I'm still awaiting the movie), as anyone deigning to read this blog knows. So, it seems, does Unger; but he also evidently believes it does not go far enough. Regrettably as far as I'm concerned, he does not reveal where it or humanity or philosophy in general should be going in the first parts of the book, but he makes very firm statements that it and we and philosophy are not going where they and we should. And, in pointing out why that is the case, he constantly refers to what he (or perhaps those of us who aren't going where we should--I'm not sure yet) feels is our plight as miserable, decaying, dying animals trapped in a universe beyond our comprehension.
Dread has a peculiar meaning in philosophy, or at least in some kinds of philosophy, being roughly the same as angst. It seems a kind of glorified fear, a fear which some claim is even useful in an unusual manner. I use it here in a broader and more common sense, which certainly may involve fear but would also include loathing and disgust, even contempt and disdain, directed of course sometimes with alacrity at us, our fellows and the universe in general.
Am I alone in thinking that the tendency to indulge in describing, explicating, bemoaning and expounding on this "plight" is tiresome and futile? It's been going on for centuries, obviously to nobody's gain--indeed, the very idea of gain may be unimaginable if not intolerable to those who feel we exist in a foul, incomprehensible world without meaning or purpose. I especially am interested by those who are called or call themselves "anitnatalists" who are apparently persons who take advantage of the fact that they live and think and experience to contend that it is inappropriate for us to give birth, thereby causing the creation of others who will live and think and experience as they do. Inappropriate because, of course, the world is foul, incomprehensible and without meaning or purpose.
When we think of this tendency towards dread of the world we naturally think of the "usual suspects", dismal purveyors of misery and angst such as Kierkegaard (speaking of fear), Schopenhauer, Sartre and their many equally if not more miserable and angst-filled followers. But the belief that the world is inferior or a source of evil and our brief lives a chore if not worse has been around a long time. Jolly old Plato, of course, thought little of the world and even less of humanity. Even Marcus Aurelius wrote of the world and we humans as being of little worth, now and then; whether this indicates his real feelings or thoughts written in his darker moments or as a kind of exercise is unknown. The Stoic view that God is immanent in nature would seem to preclude the kind of disdain for it we find in Plato, or the odd despair over it which seems a feature of modern times.
But of course we humans really came to disdain the world in toto and even with gusto upon the advent, as it were, of Christianity. For this we probably have to thank St. Paul, primarily. Now there was a man who dreaded, and indeed hated, the world and all that's in it! It's curious, though, that this dread of the real in the West, at least, is not limited to Christians, but may be even more evident in intellectuals who have renounced Christianity. I'm not sure if this is a result of the fact that philosophy, like politics, makes strange bedfellows or the fact that misery loves company.
Assuming the world is pointless and hideous, and we if not hideous are at least pointless, though, why take the trouble to point out that this is the case, and pronounce upon it in hideous detail? Perhaps we have here a even more striking example of the fact that misery loves company. Does this represent an instance where the miserable among us are engaged in a relentless quest to make certain that others are miserable as well? Or is it simply that many of us are whiners and many of us for some reason enjoy hearing others whine?
Why not, at the least, make efforts to lessen the misery; our own and those of others? That would seem to be the intelligent response to misery, whether it is real or imagined.
Showing posts with label Schopenhauer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Schopenhauer. Show all posts
Friday, September 27, 2013
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The Proper Study of Mankind
"Know thyself, presume not God to scan, The proper study of Mankind is Man." So wrote Alexander Pope, whose fondness for couplets may lead some to think of him as a kind of proto-rapper, if it is possible to think of a rapper as being like Pope--someone with an actual talent for poetry who did not, so far as we know, recite his rhymes while hopping about and gesticulating for what would no doubt have been a very bewildered audience.
"Know thyself" we are told were words inscribed at the temple of Apollo at Delphi, along with "nothing in excess." These words are sometimes ascribed to philosophers, such as Socrates, and if they were not those of Apollo they may as well be his, or Plato's or someone else. Also ascribed to many philosophers is the tendency to presume to scan God, and other things which Pope likely thought were not proper studies of mankind, if Man is that study.
Sadly, perhaps for those who read this as well as for me, I feel called upon to complain once more of the fact that the philosophically inclined seem intent on ignoring the problems of humans in the world, i.e. the problems people encounter while living in the world, and instead address problems, if they can be called problems, which appear to have little to do with living in the world--and the less, the better. I imagine perhaps without good cause that those who concern themselves with debating such issues as whether God exists, or others exist, or the universe exists, or whether there is such a thing as free will, the problem of induction....all the matters which have been the subject of debate for centuries among philosophers, would do humanity a service if they started considering with the same intensity matters such as the allocation of dwindling resources, the elimination of poverty, the manner in which to resolve disputes among nations, education, even how to behave in a manner which will not result in harm to others. But I may well be considered odd, even annoying and obstructive, for doing so. The "problems of philosophy" hold such a fascination that it may be that those who concern themselves with them cannot become unconcerned with them.
Now, it's quite possible that I'm simply wrong. I may be unduly optimistic. Perhaps philosophers don't have much to add to the resolution of the pressing problems of life. It would seem to me, though, that compared to the politicians and pundits we entrust with their resolution, philosophers would do quite well. Philosophers actually know how to think, and write; things it is not clear either politicians or pundits can do for an extended period.
I recently read Schopenhauer's The Wisdom of Life. Although I'm not enthralled by his philosophy, I was pleased by the thought that he would write a book on practical wisdom. It even has the word "Life" in its title. I was disappointed, though, to find it to be a kind of collection of banalities. He's careful to note that this little book is not representative of his philosophy, but then in describing how best to live he simply repeats some stoic essentials, makes the hardly surprising or interesting point that intellectual pleasures are best, and refers frequently to the ways in which "common people" are wrong in what they find good. Schopenhauer clearly doesn't care much for the common people, and spends a good deal of space noting their various inadequacies. He quotes liberally from the ancients and also Goethe, for good measure. His condemnation of the practice of duelling is historically interesting, though.
It's also true that those philosophers who have concerned themselves with real life problems sometimes have been wildly absolute and persuasively and very influentially wrong in their conclusions. Plato's view of the ideal state is frightening. Ancient philosophers (as well as the Bible) were relied on by those who sought to justify slavery (Aristotle thought there were those who were born to rule, and those who were born to be ruled). Heidegger thought Hitler and the Nazis would lead Germany and the world to some sort of inexplicable, mystic kind of paradise for some inexplicable, mystic reasons.
But the argument can be made that these philosophers came to often repulsive conclusions regarding the problems of life because they were led to do so inexorably by the conclusions they arrived at in the otherworldly, decidedly inhuman realm of traditional philosophy, so disassociated from the problems of living. And, having thought that they had arrived at absolute truths in this detached realm, they felt that all they need do in addressing the problems of the real world is apply those truths, regardless of their effects.
So, perhaps if philosophers stopped dealing with the "problems of philosophy" they would not make such mistakes in dealing with the problems of humans.
"Know thyself" we are told were words inscribed at the temple of Apollo at Delphi, along with "nothing in excess." These words are sometimes ascribed to philosophers, such as Socrates, and if they were not those of Apollo they may as well be his, or Plato's or someone else. Also ascribed to many philosophers is the tendency to presume to scan God, and other things which Pope likely thought were not proper studies of mankind, if Man is that study.
Sadly, perhaps for those who read this as well as for me, I feel called upon to complain once more of the fact that the philosophically inclined seem intent on ignoring the problems of humans in the world, i.e. the problems people encounter while living in the world, and instead address problems, if they can be called problems, which appear to have little to do with living in the world--and the less, the better. I imagine perhaps without good cause that those who concern themselves with debating such issues as whether God exists, or others exist, or the universe exists, or whether there is such a thing as free will, the problem of induction....all the matters which have been the subject of debate for centuries among philosophers, would do humanity a service if they started considering with the same intensity matters such as the allocation of dwindling resources, the elimination of poverty, the manner in which to resolve disputes among nations, education, even how to behave in a manner which will not result in harm to others. But I may well be considered odd, even annoying and obstructive, for doing so. The "problems of philosophy" hold such a fascination that it may be that those who concern themselves with them cannot become unconcerned with them.
Now, it's quite possible that I'm simply wrong. I may be unduly optimistic. Perhaps philosophers don't have much to add to the resolution of the pressing problems of life. It would seem to me, though, that compared to the politicians and pundits we entrust with their resolution, philosophers would do quite well. Philosophers actually know how to think, and write; things it is not clear either politicians or pundits can do for an extended period.
I recently read Schopenhauer's The Wisdom of Life. Although I'm not enthralled by his philosophy, I was pleased by the thought that he would write a book on practical wisdom. It even has the word "Life" in its title. I was disappointed, though, to find it to be a kind of collection of banalities. He's careful to note that this little book is not representative of his philosophy, but then in describing how best to live he simply repeats some stoic essentials, makes the hardly surprising or interesting point that intellectual pleasures are best, and refers frequently to the ways in which "common people" are wrong in what they find good. Schopenhauer clearly doesn't care much for the common people, and spends a good deal of space noting their various inadequacies. He quotes liberally from the ancients and also Goethe, for good measure. His condemnation of the practice of duelling is historically interesting, though.
It's also true that those philosophers who have concerned themselves with real life problems sometimes have been wildly absolute and persuasively and very influentially wrong in their conclusions. Plato's view of the ideal state is frightening. Ancient philosophers (as well as the Bible) were relied on by those who sought to justify slavery (Aristotle thought there were those who were born to rule, and those who were born to be ruled). Heidegger thought Hitler and the Nazis would lead Germany and the world to some sort of inexplicable, mystic kind of paradise for some inexplicable, mystic reasons.
But the argument can be made that these philosophers came to often repulsive conclusions regarding the problems of life because they were led to do so inexorably by the conclusions they arrived at in the otherworldly, decidedly inhuman realm of traditional philosophy, so disassociated from the problems of living. And, having thought that they had arrived at absolute truths in this detached realm, they felt that all they need do in addressing the problems of the real world is apply those truths, regardless of their effects.
So, perhaps if philosophers stopped dealing with the "problems of philosophy" they would not make such mistakes in dealing with the problems of humans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)