The whole...concept of charity, of giving, receiving and the social aspects attached to it are quite fascinating to me. Giving our money to those less fortunate to us, sacrificing something of us to them, is considered to be a trait of the highest virtues. But there seems to be a process attached to the concept of giving which changes our perceptions of those that are charitable.
First off is the degree of sacrifice. When we consider someone doing something charitable, the most common concept that comes to mind is the giving of money. Attached to this is the amount of money that is given. If I was walking along the street and found a begger, a standard amount given would be as few dollars. Although this is not a real sacrifice to me, its considered to be a great gift to the beggar.
Second is the attitude of giving, and this ties in directly with the degree. If I gave the beggar mentioned above 5 cents, even though I had several dollars to spare, this is considered to be a horrific faux pas and an insult to the concept of being charitable. But lets assume for a minute that I am as poor as he is, if I give this same man 5 cents, I will be admired by my fellow man.
Lets look at the first scenario, I gave this man 5 cents, and I am considered horrible for not giving him more (because he needs more than a measly 5 cents). Lets also assume that 5 cents is all I could spare, that that is all I had on me that I could give out at the time. If that is truly all I could spare, for good reason, then my standing of immorality is reduced to a state of neutrality.
In the second scenario, where I am of equal monetary standard than the beggar, if I give him 5 cents, and say it is nothing to me, and I am around my friends (they know my position) my moral standing is considered completely neutral, all because I did not act as if my donation of 5 cents did not affect me, as if I didnt care. If I acted that if it was a great sacrifice, then I will be a pinnacle of good
Considering these 2 scenarios, it is obvious that our moral standing (in regards to charity) is directly tied into the degree of charity and the attitude of the one that is giving.
Now lets assume a third situation, where a man walks by, sees, and ignores the beggar, he pretends hes not even there. And it is obvious by his clothes that the man is rich. This man is now considered to be cold hearted and immoral for ignoring him.
Here is where perpetual immorality comes into fold, through charity. We KNOW there are millions of people around the world, suffering, dying, not being able to survive because of lack of money. We know this as a definite fact. But the vast, vast majority of us dont give money. Now WE are the men who are passing by the beggar. Therefore, we are perpetually immoral, for not giving our money, or being charitable around suffering which we KNOW is present.
Note: I am vastly aware that morality is completely tied into social views and this this is an extrapolation based on something which we encounter everyday. I have no idea how charitable you are. But what I do know is, if you THINK of these children, if you PUSHED the thought out of your mind. Then you have committed an immoral act, and for as long as you are pushing the thought out, you are immoral.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Thursday, November 3, 2011
A and B
I just finished the book Either/Or by Soren Kierkegaard, and oh what a book it is. As I said in my first post, the book is written under 3 pseudonyms. The Editor, A and B. The editor plays little part in the book, he just provides the backdrop to the papers of A and B.
A is an aestheticist while B is an ethicist. Originally when I wanted to get this book, I was under the impression that either/or was a book about the competeing life views of a moralist and a amoralist. When I started reading, I discovered that the former life views were far more interesting to read about.
I loved the papers of A, he was so poetic and passionate, he saw deep into the concepts of life and love and passion and brought it out onto paper. And don't even get me started on how excited I was while reading A's interpretation on what makes a classic work of art a classic. However I found him lacking in maturity, eventually he will discover that the aesthetic life has its limits and that he has wasted it in the chase for subjectivity.
B just pissed me off though (Judge Vilhelm). He only had two essays (letters to A) in the book, the first was discussing how an ethical marriage could also have aesthetic properties, the second was discussing how making a life binding choice was the best thing a man can do and that A was wasting his life in frivolity. This man was the most pretentious, dull, unbelievably annoying bore I have ever encountered in the world of literature. His essays are just attacking A's views on life, while lording over his own moral pedestal. I hope that when he finally falls off, he breaks his neck.
This is not the best interpretation of a book, I admit that, but eventually I will re read it, and re read it again, if only to grasp a better understand of the concepts introduced. But for now, I dive into A Theory Of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith, hoping that I will understand it better
A is an aestheticist while B is an ethicist. Originally when I wanted to get this book, I was under the impression that either/or was a book about the competeing life views of a moralist and a amoralist. When I started reading, I discovered that the former life views were far more interesting to read about.
I loved the papers of A, he was so poetic and passionate, he saw deep into the concepts of life and love and passion and brought it out onto paper. And don't even get me started on how excited I was while reading A's interpretation on what makes a classic work of art a classic. However I found him lacking in maturity, eventually he will discover that the aesthetic life has its limits and that he has wasted it in the chase for subjectivity.
B just pissed me off though (Judge Vilhelm). He only had two essays (letters to A) in the book, the first was discussing how an ethical marriage could also have aesthetic properties, the second was discussing how making a life binding choice was the best thing a man can do and that A was wasting his life in frivolity. This man was the most pretentious, dull, unbelievably annoying bore I have ever encountered in the world of literature. His essays are just attacking A's views on life, while lording over his own moral pedestal. I hope that when he finally falls off, he breaks his neck.
This is not the best interpretation of a book, I admit that, but eventually I will re read it, and re read it again, if only to grasp a better understand of the concepts introduced. But for now, I dive into A Theory Of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith, hoping that I will understand it better
Sunday, October 30, 2011
On Morality - Part 2 - Stages
In the current moral system, there are three stages which we use to identify and validate a movement. The intention, action and the consequences. These three stages are the prime way to identify the validity and the use of an action and its moral standing.
Lets examine the main stage used in analyzing an act, the action itself. Considering this stage is the most simple, there is not much to examine, but lets compare this to my theory of the origin of morality, control. I showed how the origin of morality could possibly stem from control, how that a moral action is given its status by how beneficial it is for the group as deemed by the leader. Look at contemporary moral actions, murder, theft, rape. Not only are they deemed harmful for the continuation for society, but they are also ethically damned by the public community. I'm not saying abolish these laws for the sake of their origin but we need to see that one can never place a moral value on the action itself, hence this examination.
Now to examine the first stage of moral validity, the intention. Oh how unbelievably subjective this stage is. As far as I can tell, intention is only useful for avoiding reprehension, but to manipulate this intention for the sake of the consequences, this is a talent entirely in itself.
The best example is a man on the witness stand, he has committed a murder, but nobody knows why. We know the murder victim was an evil woman, we know she was planning to murder others. The judge asks him why he killed her. He has two options at the point.
He can say "I killed her because I wanted to kill, I wanted to know what it would feel like to take her life. It was a once in a lifetime thing". Hes morally reprehensible, hes sick and deluded and the judge sentences him to life
He can say "I know she was going to kill someone else, check under her floorboards, there are several cases of ammo and a plan to attack this crowded area" He is now a public figure, a moral crusade, but he still murdered someone. He is sentenced to 50 years.
Lets assume that for both of these statements, neither is true, he is me, he is testing the public for shock value. Lets assume he NEVER had any intention, he was blank for the act. What moral value do we place on him now, we cant do that yet.
Now, consequences, to every man like me, all moral value should be placed on the consequences of an action. But how far should we look forward to in order to place this value. Should we examine this on a temporal basis, moral basis or a beneficial basis. The fact is, there are too many ways to see how we can identify how far reaching the consequences are, therefore, there are an infinite amount of moral values we can place on it.
Now lets examine intentions, actions and consequences as a whole. As with consequences, how can we place moral value on such a complex system. As much as it pains me to relate to something so subjective, the key lies with the intention, the first stage. Only intention can influence action, and thereby it influences consequence. Lets remove all forms of subjectivity from the equation, lets examine this as my theory of origin demands, control. We place moral value on intention because the controllers dont want anybody thinking of wrong action, we place moral value on action for obvious reasons, and we place moral value on consequences because in the end, consequences deem where those that hold the control will end up. Those that control are smart enough to see where decay of any of these stages will lead. The case of the murderer is also a prime example of control, the controller being the judge, but the fascinating thing is, he cannot base his decision of punishment purely on the consequence of the murderers action, but on the consequence of his own action for his decision of punishment.
So you see, moral value cannot be placed on an individual's WHOLE action, at least not in the vast majority of cases, there are an infinite number of ways which intention and consequence can play a part of. Morality can only examine the act itself to remain truly impartial
Lets examine the main stage used in analyzing an act, the action itself. Considering this stage is the most simple, there is not much to examine, but lets compare this to my theory of the origin of morality, control. I showed how the origin of morality could possibly stem from control, how that a moral action is given its status by how beneficial it is for the group as deemed by the leader. Look at contemporary moral actions, murder, theft, rape. Not only are they deemed harmful for the continuation for society, but they are also ethically damned by the public community. I'm not saying abolish these laws for the sake of their origin but we need to see that one can never place a moral value on the action itself, hence this examination.
Now to examine the first stage of moral validity, the intention. Oh how unbelievably subjective this stage is. As far as I can tell, intention is only useful for avoiding reprehension, but to manipulate this intention for the sake of the consequences, this is a talent entirely in itself.
The best example is a man on the witness stand, he has committed a murder, but nobody knows why. We know the murder victim was an evil woman, we know she was planning to murder others. The judge asks him why he killed her. He has two options at the point.
He can say "I killed her because I wanted to kill, I wanted to know what it would feel like to take her life. It was a once in a lifetime thing". Hes morally reprehensible, hes sick and deluded and the judge sentences him to life
He can say "I know she was going to kill someone else, check under her floorboards, there are several cases of ammo and a plan to attack this crowded area" He is now a public figure, a moral crusade, but he still murdered someone. He is sentenced to 50 years.
Lets assume that for both of these statements, neither is true, he is me, he is testing the public for shock value. Lets assume he NEVER had any intention, he was blank for the act. What moral value do we place on him now, we cant do that yet.
Now, consequences, to every man like me, all moral value should be placed on the consequences of an action. But how far should we look forward to in order to place this value. Should we examine this on a temporal basis, moral basis or a beneficial basis. The fact is, there are too many ways to see how we can identify how far reaching the consequences are, therefore, there are an infinite amount of moral values we can place on it.
Now lets examine intentions, actions and consequences as a whole. As with consequences, how can we place moral value on such a complex system. As much as it pains me to relate to something so subjective, the key lies with the intention, the first stage. Only intention can influence action, and thereby it influences consequence. Lets remove all forms of subjectivity from the equation, lets examine this as my theory of origin demands, control. We place moral value on intention because the controllers dont want anybody thinking of wrong action, we place moral value on action for obvious reasons, and we place moral value on consequences because in the end, consequences deem where those that hold the control will end up. Those that control are smart enough to see where decay of any of these stages will lead. The case of the murderer is also a prime example of control, the controller being the judge, but the fascinating thing is, he cannot base his decision of punishment purely on the consequence of the murderers action, but on the consequence of his own action for his decision of punishment.
So you see, moral value cannot be placed on an individual's WHOLE action, at least not in the vast majority of cases, there are an infinite number of ways which intention and consequence can play a part of. Morality can only examine the act itself to remain truly impartial
Sunday, October 23, 2011
On Morality - Part 1 - Origin
Morality is defined as the inherent "right" and "wrong" aspects of human behavior. A moral code stems from morality and is a system of these "right" and "wrong" behaviors. To be a moral person, according to the overall view of the people is to be a good person and to be immoral is to be a bad person. For the purpose of this analysis, I will be looking at descriptive ethics which is the overall view of how people should act
But where did this system come from, to what do we owe this minefield of human behavior? There are only two ways where these views came into effect. Through biological imperative or societal evolution.
The best example for looking at biological imperative is to examine social animal such as chimpanzees. Although these animals don't exactly display morality in the sense that we know, it can be observed that they have a social structure similar to ours. Such as group protection and teamwork. If we extrapolate this to humans, we can see a possible link in behavior. Further evidence for this theory is showed in social restraint, each animal knows its place in the group hierarchy.
From hierarchy, we now come to the social aspect of morality. As civilization has evolved, so have our practices, new countries, new technologies, new cultures. Each of these breeds a new system of morality and moral codes. Nietzsche brought up an interesting theory of the origin of morality, that it comes from cultural spite. Every culture has its opponents, for whatever reasons, that is not important. But he postulated the morality evolved from spite "That was is good to my enemy, is evil to me" However this theory is cannot be the SOURCE of morality, as this is not enough to provide enough sustenance to current moral codes. Another theory is that of utility, that what is useful is what is good, this related to Nietzsches theory of Master-Slave morality but this will not be discussed right now. Utility also related to biological imperative, usefulness is equivalent to a species survival. However is doubt this is also the origin point.
My theory of morality is that is stems entirely from control of the group, but also this takes into account utility and spite. Take the human leader, he was the strongest, he fought his way to the top of the pyramid of hierarchy. He now controls group A, he says "this is useful to our group, do this, if you fail to this you will be punished". Soon another group rises up, they have differing opinions. The leader of group B says "Don't follow their way, this way is more efficient, if you fail to do this you will be punished, this punishment will deter you more effectively". Soon group A and B will fight, one will be defeated and they will be assimilated. Group AB now has components of both moral codes. Albeit these are not obviously present, in the future members of the defeated group will venture from the main group to find new land and new resources. Group C
Look to the east, Group D wages battle with E. To the west F fights with G. And why do these groups fight, because their leaders told them to!
At this point I would like to say that I am quite the amateur at this, and although my opinions could easily be disagreed with. Stfu I'm doing this for fun.
Leaders dominate, leaders give the orders, leaders control the group. The groups morality stems from their will. Their will manifests as practices, practices change due to utility and spite for others. Human morality therefore, is constant, endless tribal warfare
But where did this system come from, to what do we owe this minefield of human behavior? There are only two ways where these views came into effect. Through biological imperative or societal evolution.
The best example for looking at biological imperative is to examine social animal such as chimpanzees. Although these animals don't exactly display morality in the sense that we know, it can be observed that they have a social structure similar to ours. Such as group protection and teamwork. If we extrapolate this to humans, we can see a possible link in behavior. Further evidence for this theory is showed in social restraint, each animal knows its place in the group hierarchy.
From hierarchy, we now come to the social aspect of morality. As civilization has evolved, so have our practices, new countries, new technologies, new cultures. Each of these breeds a new system of morality and moral codes. Nietzsche brought up an interesting theory of the origin of morality, that it comes from cultural spite. Every culture has its opponents, for whatever reasons, that is not important. But he postulated the morality evolved from spite "That was is good to my enemy, is evil to me" However this theory is cannot be the SOURCE of morality, as this is not enough to provide enough sustenance to current moral codes. Another theory is that of utility, that what is useful is what is good, this related to Nietzsches theory of Master-Slave morality but this will not be discussed right now. Utility also related to biological imperative, usefulness is equivalent to a species survival. However is doubt this is also the origin point.
My theory of morality is that is stems entirely from control of the group, but also this takes into account utility and spite. Take the human leader, he was the strongest, he fought his way to the top of the pyramid of hierarchy. He now controls group A, he says "this is useful to our group, do this, if you fail to this you will be punished". Soon another group rises up, they have differing opinions. The leader of group B says "Don't follow their way, this way is more efficient, if you fail to do this you will be punished, this punishment will deter you more effectively". Soon group A and B will fight, one will be defeated and they will be assimilated. Group AB now has components of both moral codes. Albeit these are not obviously present, in the future members of the defeated group will venture from the main group to find new land and new resources. Group C
Look to the east, Group D wages battle with E. To the west F fights with G. And why do these groups fight, because their leaders told them to!
At this point I would like to say that I am quite the amateur at this, and although my opinions could easily be disagreed with. Stfu I'm doing this for fun.
Leaders dominate, leaders give the orders, leaders control the group. The groups morality stems from their will. Their will manifests as practices, practices change due to utility and spite for others. Human morality therefore, is constant, endless tribal warfare
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The Bravest Man That Ever Lived
Courage is defined as the ability to defeat pain, fear and suffering. There are two types of courage. Physical courage is bravery in the face of any physical suffering whilst moral courage is the bravery in the face of dissenting opinion. Now we call anyone brave, cancer patients especially, which can easily be considered a cop-out.
But who can be considered to be the bravest man or woman that ever lived?
First we shall examine the whole concept of moral courage. Honesty, integrity and all manners of subjective concepts fall into this category. There are several interesting ideals produced from the term "moral" courage, and why we would consider this said courage moral. Think of the carefree child, he is running through the house, having his fun but then he knocks over his mothers favorite vase. Normally he doesn't run though the house and could easily blame this incident on his rowdier sister but he could also come clean and say it was him.
There are two views associated with these choices, the former is considered immoral because we place value on honesty, the latter is considered moral because he would face a moral punishment and dissenting opinion. Assuming he chooses the latter, the question is why he chose it. Morality not only places value on the action itself, but why one committed the action. We now cannot say if this was a form of moral bravery or not, because we do not know whether he chose to be honest through cultural pressure or just getting the punishment over and done with. Depending on the life view on any individual moral courage could be considered important or non existent. But for the purpose of the question lets assume the former is in effect. The bravest of this subset are those that are honest in their views, truthful in their exploits and pure of heart for their reasoning
Now onto physical courage. This is a very basic concept and does not need much explanation and dissection. For the brief analysis of this form of courage, lets introduce the victim tortured for information. He will withstand all forms of pain and suffering, bear the brunt of the whip and the burn of the iron and he will not give in to his tormentors. The bravest of these men are those who will gladly die for their principles
You, who died for your beliefs. You, who suffered the accusing stares of 501 of your peers. You who built the cornerstone of western philosophy.
Socrates, I bestow unto you the title of the bravest man who ever lived. You were true in your beliefs of your deities, you were honest in your choices and chose to teach the youth of Athens of your philosophy. They sentenced you to death and you chose to drink the hemlock solution that caused your death. You are the greatest example of physical courage and moral courage. We can only hope that you see how far reaching your influence has been.
But who can be considered to be the bravest man or woman that ever lived?
First we shall examine the whole concept of moral courage. Honesty, integrity and all manners of subjective concepts fall into this category. There are several interesting ideals produced from the term "moral" courage, and why we would consider this said courage moral. Think of the carefree child, he is running through the house, having his fun but then he knocks over his mothers favorite vase. Normally he doesn't run though the house and could easily blame this incident on his rowdier sister but he could also come clean and say it was him.
There are two views associated with these choices, the former is considered immoral because we place value on honesty, the latter is considered moral because he would face a moral punishment and dissenting opinion. Assuming he chooses the latter, the question is why he chose it. Morality not only places value on the action itself, but why one committed the action. We now cannot say if this was a form of moral bravery or not, because we do not know whether he chose to be honest through cultural pressure or just getting the punishment over and done with. Depending on the life view on any individual moral courage could be considered important or non existent. But for the purpose of the question lets assume the former is in effect. The bravest of this subset are those that are honest in their views, truthful in their exploits and pure of heart for their reasoning
Now onto physical courage. This is a very basic concept and does not need much explanation and dissection. For the brief analysis of this form of courage, lets introduce the victim tortured for information. He will withstand all forms of pain and suffering, bear the brunt of the whip and the burn of the iron and he will not give in to his tormentors. The bravest of these men are those who will gladly die for their principles
You, who died for your beliefs. You, who suffered the accusing stares of 501 of your peers. You who built the cornerstone of western philosophy.
Socrates, I bestow unto you the title of the bravest man who ever lived. You were true in your beliefs of your deities, you were honest in your choices and chose to teach the youth of Athens of your philosophy. They sentenced you to death and you chose to drink the hemlock solution that caused your death. You are the greatest example of physical courage and moral courage. We can only hope that you see how far reaching your influence has been.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Who is this pallid figure, listless as the shade of someone dead?
Ah my first post. Like cracking open a bottle of 2 dollar wine. Cheap thrills.
With my first post I shall analyze my favorite essay by Kierkegaard, The Unhappiest One, but first a brief synopsis of this book.
Kierkegaard wrote this book under a pseudonym, who is only referred to as The Editor. In the book, the introduction, the Editor buys an escritoire (a fancy desk) and discovers a false bottom filled with papers. He organizes these papers and discovers they were written by two distinct men. The first man is an aestheticist, the second an ethicist. The Editor then organizes these pages according to each writer and then publishes them. Referring to the authors as A and B. This book is these two sets of papers.
Now, The Unhappiest One is an essay by A, the aestheticist, and it tackles the rather morbid question "who deserves to be the unhappiest"
The passage is set as a speech, as most passages are, to a group called the Symparanekremonoi (try saying that when you're drunk) which loosely translates to "The Society of the Dead" He opens by saying that in England there is a grave, the grave is empty and its tombstone merely says "the unhappiest one" (TUO). A then begins his mission to discover who can to gain this title.
After some prattling on, A concludes from his Hegelian source that the source of sadness for TUO is from memory and that being unhappy stems from being absent in the present and living in the past or future. He further specifies that these two people are either "remembering" or "hoping" He also produces a small factoid, saying that unhappiness cannot stem from a single blow and that this single blow still leaves him present and not absent. This shows that TUO has had a lifetime of sadness.
A now examines the sadness of the individual who lives in the future, or lives for hope. He explains this by saying that the individual who hopes renounces his past, stays out of the present and looks constantly towards the future. However, he says that the hoping individual can only be unhappy if he loses his hope, finds another one, loses it and finds it and is therefore periodically absent in the future, thus unhappy.
Here we can see the key ideal starting to form, that to be happy, you must always be present in either the past, present or future. He applies the same rule to those that remember, but this is not explained as well. A also explains another rule of happiness, that in order for these two types of individuals to be happy, their conscious must have a reality. Lets take the hoping individual. If he looks to a future that is unreal and cannot happen, then he will eventually lose this hope and find another one. However with the remembering individual this is not explained as well, instead we are provided with examples, my personal favorite is that of the teacher.
This example is of a person whom has never had a childhood, his years just passed him by without discovering any joy or significance. He became a teacher and now we sees everything he missed out on by examining his students and looks back on his reality and regrets. Although this does not really fit the two rules above it is a perfect candidate of TUO
"Unhappy individuals who hope never have the same pain as those who remember. Hoping individuals always have a more gratifying disappointment. The unhappiest one will, therefore, will always be found among the unhappy rememberers"
Now this passage is eternally fascinating to me due to its ambiguity. Does the term gratifying disappointment signify some sort of happiness, or does it mean that it just means less. Even then, how can one quantify the level of happiness in disappointment. Although all of those who know aesthetics know this statement is true, how can you identify the greater sadness between those who hope and those who remember?
Now that we have examined the two primary forms, lets look at how A sees a combination of these two. As a simple rule before proceeding, he tells us that hope stops us from remembering and that remembering stops us from hoping. This passage is possible one of the more difficult sections of the book to understand, so I will be brief.
The form of the combination individual is thus, he hopes for something he should remember but his hope is constantly disappointed because his hope has moved further in a timeline, but he has also experienced this same hope.
This section completely pushes the boundaries of aesthetic thought and a confounding problem due to its inherent duality, so here is this section which shows his supposed mental anguish.
"He has no passion, not because he lack it, but because in that same instant he has the opposite, he has no time for anything, not because his time is taken up with something else, but because he has no time at all. He is powerless, not because he lacks strength, but because his own strength makes him impotent"
Now we have examined all of the forms of unhappiness and A starts listing and describing some of the contenders that have come to claim the title of TUO. We see a young girl, who is revealed as Niobe. According to Greek legend, her children and her husband were killed, so she fled to Mount Sipylus where she turned to stone and wept.
We see the biblical figure Job, who lost all he had to his God. His children, his wife, servants, house and everything he owned, all because God made a bet with the devil that Job would still praise his name despite his suffering.
We see a Martyr that was broken by the world, he carried too much shoulders and he cracked under the pressure. Although he wished to be a martyr for his cause, he was burned alive for his beliefs instead of being nailed to the cross. Even the smallest detail that goes wrong in your cause, even if you achieve it, will taint the victory.
We see a woman whose husband was unfaithful. She cannot hate him because she cannot remember and sorrow because he was not a deceiver, nor can she hope for him because he was a riddle. Here we see the combination of unhappiness. She is forever stuck in a limbo, in heartache for her lost love.
And now we see him, The Unhappiest One. Much to my annoyance, he was barely described in a philosophical sense, instead A chose to ramble on about how he deserved the title of TUO. Even A pointed out this direct ambiguity at the end of the passage.
"See, language fails and thought is confounded; for who is the happiest but the unhappiest, and who the unhappiest except the happiest. And what is life but madness, and faith but folly, and hope but reprieve, and love but salt in the wound"
So in the end we are not sure who TUO is. All we know and are left with is that TUO is actually still alive. When A addresses his council when TUO arrives, he is actually joyous at the sight of him. He even directly says to TUO "may no one understand you, but all envy you" Again we can see a duality referring to unhappiness. If he is the unhappiest, then should he be, by the quotation in the previous paragraph, the happiest?
-Deimos-
With my first post I shall analyze my favorite essay by Kierkegaard, The Unhappiest One, but first a brief synopsis of this book.
Kierkegaard wrote this book under a pseudonym, who is only referred to as The Editor. In the book, the introduction, the Editor buys an escritoire (a fancy desk) and discovers a false bottom filled with papers. He organizes these papers and discovers they were written by two distinct men. The first man is an aestheticist, the second an ethicist. The Editor then organizes these pages according to each writer and then publishes them. Referring to the authors as A and B. This book is these two sets of papers.
Now, The Unhappiest One is an essay by A, the aestheticist, and it tackles the rather morbid question "who deserves to be the unhappiest"
The passage is set as a speech, as most passages are, to a group called the Symparanekremonoi (try saying that when you're drunk) which loosely translates to "The Society of the Dead" He opens by saying that in England there is a grave, the grave is empty and its tombstone merely says "the unhappiest one" (TUO). A then begins his mission to discover who can to gain this title.
After some prattling on, A concludes from his Hegelian source that the source of sadness for TUO is from memory and that being unhappy stems from being absent in the present and living in the past or future. He further specifies that these two people are either "remembering" or "hoping" He also produces a small factoid, saying that unhappiness cannot stem from a single blow and that this single blow still leaves him present and not absent. This shows that TUO has had a lifetime of sadness.
A now examines the sadness of the individual who lives in the future, or lives for hope. He explains this by saying that the individual who hopes renounces his past, stays out of the present and looks constantly towards the future. However, he says that the hoping individual can only be unhappy if he loses his hope, finds another one, loses it and finds it and is therefore periodically absent in the future, thus unhappy.
Here we can see the key ideal starting to form, that to be happy, you must always be present in either the past, present or future. He applies the same rule to those that remember, but this is not explained as well. A also explains another rule of happiness, that in order for these two types of individuals to be happy, their conscious must have a reality. Lets take the hoping individual. If he looks to a future that is unreal and cannot happen, then he will eventually lose this hope and find another one. However with the remembering individual this is not explained as well, instead we are provided with examples, my personal favorite is that of the teacher.
This example is of a person whom has never had a childhood, his years just passed him by without discovering any joy or significance. He became a teacher and now we sees everything he missed out on by examining his students and looks back on his reality and regrets. Although this does not really fit the two rules above it is a perfect candidate of TUO
"Unhappy individuals who hope never have the same pain as those who remember. Hoping individuals always have a more gratifying disappointment. The unhappiest one will, therefore, will always be found among the unhappy rememberers"
Now this passage is eternally fascinating to me due to its ambiguity. Does the term gratifying disappointment signify some sort of happiness, or does it mean that it just means less. Even then, how can one quantify the level of happiness in disappointment. Although all of those who know aesthetics know this statement is true, how can you identify the greater sadness between those who hope and those who remember?
Now that we have examined the two primary forms, lets look at how A sees a combination of these two. As a simple rule before proceeding, he tells us that hope stops us from remembering and that remembering stops us from hoping. This passage is possible one of the more difficult sections of the book to understand, so I will be brief.
The form of the combination individual is thus, he hopes for something he should remember but his hope is constantly disappointed because his hope has moved further in a timeline, but he has also experienced this same hope.
This section completely pushes the boundaries of aesthetic thought and a confounding problem due to its inherent duality, so here is this section which shows his supposed mental anguish.
"He has no passion, not because he lack it, but because in that same instant he has the opposite, he has no time for anything, not because his time is taken up with something else, but because he has no time at all. He is powerless, not because he lacks strength, but because his own strength makes him impotent"
Now we have examined all of the forms of unhappiness and A starts listing and describing some of the contenders that have come to claim the title of TUO. We see a young girl, who is revealed as Niobe. According to Greek legend, her children and her husband were killed, so she fled to Mount Sipylus where she turned to stone and wept.
We see the biblical figure Job, who lost all he had to his God. His children, his wife, servants, house and everything he owned, all because God made a bet with the devil that Job would still praise his name despite his suffering.
We see a Martyr that was broken by the world, he carried too much shoulders and he cracked under the pressure. Although he wished to be a martyr for his cause, he was burned alive for his beliefs instead of being nailed to the cross. Even the smallest detail that goes wrong in your cause, even if you achieve it, will taint the victory.
We see a woman whose husband was unfaithful. She cannot hate him because she cannot remember and sorrow because he was not a deceiver, nor can she hope for him because he was a riddle. Here we see the combination of unhappiness. She is forever stuck in a limbo, in heartache for her lost love.
And now we see him, The Unhappiest One. Much to my annoyance, he was barely described in a philosophical sense, instead A chose to ramble on about how he deserved the title of TUO. Even A pointed out this direct ambiguity at the end of the passage.
"See, language fails and thought is confounded; for who is the happiest but the unhappiest, and who the unhappiest except the happiest. And what is life but madness, and faith but folly, and hope but reprieve, and love but salt in the wound"
So in the end we are not sure who TUO is. All we know and are left with is that TUO is actually still alive. When A addresses his council when TUO arrives, he is actually joyous at the sight of him. He even directly says to TUO "may no one understand you, but all envy you" Again we can see a duality referring to unhappiness. If he is the unhappiest, then should he be, by the quotation in the previous paragraph, the happiest?
-Deimos-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)