This Life?....

Robert Lockhart

A hypothetical - if perhaps in practice somewhat 'fantasy' type argument, to a degree! - Although in principle impossible, if nonetheless in reality you actually could autonomously choose to define your innate individual identity and roll in life - then by which of the following two personas would you most prefer to be characterised? - Assuming, that is, that your choice was artificially restricted to the two alternatives provided here!..

Individual ‘A’ :- He is, let's say, an alcoholic – though in practice in this case the degree of severity of his addiction, in terms of the potential of this affliction to impose social dysfunction and isolation, exists towards the milder end of the spectrum so that it is here insufficient to markedly reduce either his employment capacity or ability to engage in orthodox human relationships. While the individual concerned is characterised by a consistently benign and tolerant disposition towards others – he has an instinctive tendency towards empathy and an alive awareness of the poignancy that can be involved in the predicament of those more unfortunate than himself – he nonetheless is somewhat aimless and apathetic in his general outlook towards life and utterly devoid of ambition so that consequently, regardless of whatever talents he might happen to possess, he is characterised by an attitude which will never dispose him towards either on the one hand competitive conflict or on the other towards being able to motivate himself to aspire beyond the basically comfortable and in practice tolerable though mundane situation which the serendipitous accident of his birth into a relatively prosperous western society has provided for him. – He will never suspect or aspire towards anything beyond his harmless, routine and mundane environ and is in practice content to make it through life merely as an untroubling and unquestioning follower.

Individual ‘B’ :- He is, firstly, psychologically stable. He is certainly capable of an occasionally indulgent suspension of the rules of personal propriety in terms of having 'a merry night out with the lads’ and in general, when it is appropriate, is not so immune to the pleasures of 'bonhomie' as to be unable to temporarily assume a pragmatic state of ambivalent relaxation – but he is nonetheless afflicted by no kind of psychological addiction. On the contrary, he was ambitious and soon became cognisant of the world existing out with his own birth environment, and such ambition then acted to motivate his personal industry so that now his situation is a socially and economically dominant one. Although as stated he was at the outset possessed of some awareness of the world beyond the relatively narrow confines of his birth, yet as his social situation has progressed he has gradually became retrospectively more aware of how he never could have anticipated the rewards in terms of genuinely mind-widening experiences which his efforts now have provided for him. - He has his beautiful 'trophy' wife and feels indeed that he is very fulfilled! Also however, an innate initial tendency within him towards indifference regarding the plight of others has developed in tandem with his social and economic progression. As he has advanced he has readily inculcated the concept of the ‘Ųber Mensch’ and has acquired an attitude of complacent superciliousness - sadistic even – towards his subordinates. He privately relishes the opportunities his status now affords to belittle and humiliate those inescapably dependent for their survival on his patronage - and these experiences now further inform his attitude of general disdain towards others, acting to fuel his appetite for yet greater advancement together with the potential for absolute intimidating dominance likely to be enabled, which ever more now motivates his (privatly grotesqe) 'barage-baloon' ego! – He conceives life irreducibly to be soley a type of competition and regards those who fail to succeed as he is succeeding to be personally culpable thereby and therefore to deserve their repression - His reflection that, "The poor are poor either because they are dumb or lazy" serves as a typical example of his guiding 'moral' code. His life he feels, is absolutely superb and he perceives the prospects likely ahead for him to be absolutely wonderful!

Assuming in principle then that this place which we find ourselves in, irredeemably, is all that there is so that everything ultimately is effectively an end in itself and also - for the purposes of the argument - the admitted artifice that your choices within it were confined solely to electing to be identified by one or other of these two individual personas, which then of these two would you choose to assume and - more interestingly - Why?

BC

All things considered, I'd rather be a decent fellow who drinks a bit too much that a dead sober creep.

Alcoholics have a very bad rep these days; it wasn't all that long ago that the standards for qualifying as alcoholic were pretty high. One had to drink an awful lot and be totally dysfunctional. Now, if one gets drunk a few times a year (responsibly, of course, designated driver and all), or usually has a couple of cocktails after work, he or she is likely to be classified by somebody as alcoholic . I've known a few completely dysfunctional alcoholics. It's a bad state to be in.

But still, let us thank God for fermentation.

Robert Lockhart

Yeah! - And to think I know quite a few similar types who seem capable of confounding the laws of reality by being able to reconcile an apparantly successful career with being pissed rather a lot of the time! At the risk of reinforcing the cliché, some of these whom I know are indeed journalists and so maybe have acquired their enviable tolerance of alchohol during the course of long exertions in this indulgence - a capacity for which being evidently almost a condition of their employment! Anyway, in this context, Nietzche's oft quoted maxim does of course come to mind - "That which does not kill us makes us stronger!" (Dont think his works provide many truths but maybe this is an ironic one!) and perhaps - despite an obliviosness towards anything as recondite as philosophy - that subliminal insight to some extent informs the ethos of some of those with whom I am aquainted! All in all though - seems a rhum do! :)

TimeLine

Individual ‘A’ ... the individual concerned is characterised by a consistently benign and tolerant disposition towards others – he has an instinctive tendency towards empathy and an alive awareness of the poignancy that can be involved in the predicament of those more unfortunate than himself – he nonetheless is somewhat aimless and apathetic in his general outlook towards life and utterly devoid of ambition so that consequently, regardless of whatever talents he might happen to possess... He will never suspect or aspire towards anything beyond his harmless, routine and mundane environ and is in practice content to make it through life merely as an untroubling and unquestioning follower. — Robert Lockhart

Individual ‘B’ ... He is, firstly, psychologically stable... He was ambitious and soon became cognizant of the world existing out with his own birth environment, and such ambition then acted to motivate his personal industry so that now his situation is a socially and economically dominant one. He has his beautiful 'trophy' wife and... he privately relishes the opportunities his status now affords to belittle and humiliate those inescapably dependent for their survival on his patronage - and these experiences now further inform his attitude of general disdain towards others, acting to fuel his appetite for yet greater advancement together with the potential for absolute intimidating dominance likely to be enabled, which ever more now motivates his (privately grotesqe) 'barage-baloon' ego! His life he feels, is absolutely superb and he perceives the prospects likely ahead for him to be absolutely wonderful! — Robert Lockhart

I would choose Individual A.

Individual B is aware insofar as the system goes and as systems are predictable, his 'cognizance' is nothing more than an acute subordination - that is, subject to the system. Individual A' awareness, however, transcends the system as he has a level of moral consciousness that B lacks, meaning that B lacks humanity and is nothing more than a cog in a machine. His almost sadistic and cruel behaviour towards others is an extension of his subjective ressentiment and his almost hate for himself for being subordinate to the system that he projects to his subjects. It is the disillusionment or unheimlich that A has towards the system that enables him the tools to use advantageously, that is, provides him with the capacity to make a moral difference and become superior to B [even though appearances may seem contrary to this]. Traversing systems are easy, going beyond it to create your own marks intelligence and so with the right motivation, Individual A has the tools to create his own system that is greater since he will only be subordinate to himself.

It is simply a matter of will.

Any transcendence out of the system - the system of appearances - means reaching a level of authenticity and only in doing so can one ever truly understand happiness. That is, it may appear that Individual B is "happy" with his amazing family and trophy wife, but he is actually miserable.

I was Individual A in the sense that I had no direction or motivation other than my awareness of the system and my desire to learn. I have $0 in my bank account but I am morally aware, however with the right motivation I am now using both this awareness of the system and moral consciousness to my advantage (using the system against itself) since I stand above it (for instance, fundraising thousands of dollars for charity using my social image). The only problem with the 'system' is that it is heavily masculine, so no matter how much I can manipulate it, it will never be good enough since I am a woman.

Nevertheless, I have always respected and even admired the simple, traditional man with a genuinely good heart. They are more greater to me than men in fine, expensive suits and top jobs trying to make a lot of money.

Robert Lockhart

Timeline: - Without intending to be patronising – it’s refreshing to hear a female voice, for a change, in this forum! I’ve always been a bit curious as to why most philosophy sites don’t appear to have that many female members! (Though who knows what is disguised, both nefarious and worthy, behind the pseudonyms by which we choose to publicly represent ourselves!)

Anyway, I think you imply a significant point – the paradox that in practice a human being can be either happier, or conversely unhappier than he personally believes himself to be. Regarding this idea, we are all of course capable of rationally acknowledging the received truth – as distinct from personaly bearing a psychological witness towards it - that the gratification of pleasure, both physical and psychological (psychological in terms of the elevation of personal vanity and the massaging of the ego) is capable of presenting to an individual a prospect of happiness which effectively is a mirage, so that if the experience of the individual concerned was deficient, and therefore he had no other reference point with regard to which to evaluate this semblance before him, he would most likely be persuaded of its plausibility.

Regarding the maxim however that ‘Personal experience is the only Educator’, there is nonetheless perhaps some evidence that during the course of a person’s life an event may serendipitously occur capable of providing such a reference point, possibly in a cathartic manner, which can then retrospectivly act to provide a more accurate insight into the true reality and meaning of their situation – such damascene revelations sometimes conferring a surprisingly affirmative realisation and, sometimes, a sense of regret and remorse regarding the irrecoverable nihilisms of the past but, more importantly, assuming such experience was valid, also an increased awareness of those objective moral values on which – so we are instructed anyway - sustainable contentment is ultimately contingent!

- Haven't yet managed personally however to attain that Nirvana by educating myself out of envy for what I, of course, perceive to be the undeserved success in relation to my own efforts of others! :)

TimeLine

Anyway, I think you imply a significant point – the paradox that in practice a human being can be either happier, or conversely unhappier than he personally believes himself to be. Regarding this idea, we are all of course capable of rationally acknowledging the received truth – as distinct from personaly bearing a psychological witness towards it - that the gratification of pleasure, both physical and psychological (psychological in terms of the elevation of personal vanity and the massaging of the ego) is capable of presenting to an individual a prospect of happiness which effectively is a mirage, so that if the experience of the individual concerned was deficient, and therefore he had no other reference point with regard to which to evaluate this semblance before him, he would most likely be persuaded of its plausibility. — Robert Lockhart

A man whose existence is levelled through the applause of his peers, on having the image and tools that showcase his social and economic success by his submission and adherence to the system - such as having a beautiful partner, happy family and friends, and money - will never attain genuine happiness because his entire existence is superficial. His happiness is wholly dependent on others. This is ultimately cowardly and being subjectively aware of this but nevertheless suppressing his cowardice, develops a type of ressentiment where he neither ever feels satisfied [you can never satisfy a superficial existence] and also projects his hatred of himself to the outer world in ways that confirms his lack of moral fibre.

Happiness is only possible through authenticity, when we are honest to ourselves and the process of reaching this authenticity involves moral consciousness. I see so many people consistently lying to themselves and using justifications and even others to maintain this lie, but ultimately only honesty can enable genuine happiness. And he doesn't need to believe in happiness, it will happen all on its own when he takes charge of his life as a genuine man without concern or the need of others or other' opinions of him. Otherwise, he will continue to suffer but pretend he is happy only because other people think he is.

... such revelations sometimes conferring a surprisingly affirmative realisation and, sometimes, a sense of regret and remorse regarding the irrecoverable nihilisms of the past but, more importantly, assuming such experience was valid, also an increased awareness of those objective moral values on which – so we are instructed anyway - sustainable contentment is ultimately contingent! — Robert Lockhart

Having been hurt quite incredibly by people who completely refuse to acknowledge or even apologise, on the contrary, found it justifiable to hurt and humiliate me, it does cast a great shadow of doubt that the likelihood of such a recovery is minimal, but indeed, should they feel a sense of guilt and remorse they would truly able to "see me" as I say, something they are blind too. They become honest to themselves.

The movie Dead Man Walking is amazing and exemplifies this concept of remorse. It is virtually impossible not to forgive someone who is genuinely remorseful, but unfortunately I have never had the luxury of such an experience. I have, though, confronted my own wrongdoing and it is certainly a very difficult thing to do. Once we achieve this level of integrity, you are absolutely right, contentment becomes sustainable through the honesty we have to ourselves.

Haven't yet managed personally however to attain that Nirvana by educating myself out of envy for what I, of course, perceive to be the undeserved success in relation to my own efforts of others! :) — Robert Lockhart

Haha, well admitting it is a good start. Life is full of blunders, it is what makes it interesting. Better than those living day to day in a repetitive life that is just barely satisfying as long as it is safe and like everyone else.

Timeline: - Without intending to be patronising – it’s refreshing to hear a female voice, for a change, in this forum! I’ve always been a bit curious as to why most philosophy sites don’t appear to have that many female members! (Though who knows what is disguised, both nefarious and worthy, behind the pseudonyms by which we choose to publicly represent ourselves!) — Robert Lockhart

I think it boils down to accessibility and just like the field of science and engineering, philosophy has never been promoted as an accessible study to women due to a culture of gender bias. Promotion and accessibility is changing this but for me, well, I was initially compelled to philosophy as a way to articulate the difficulties that I was experiencing, since I grew up and spent most of my life alone and under difficult circumstances. I picked up an old, second-hand book when I was 15 - The Last Days of Socrates - that I read on a long train ride from the country to the city and was amazed at how some of the wisdom within it made sense of certain ideas that I had been thinking and thus my journey started.

Plus, I know more about the Cardassians than the Kardashians.

Robert Lockhart

Yeah - I would say that the two alternative life scenarios which I initially presented here boil down to a choice between whether on the one hand you would prefer to be characterised by a combination of moderate psychological instability and lack of ambition but these negatives ameliorated by a benign disposition or, on the other, by psychological stability together with a highly motivated sense of ambition, but these positive attributes then being qualified in the case given by an attitude of harshness and cyniscism towards others. As is usually the case in practice, each choice necessarily involves ambiguities.

Annyway, I think we could basically agree on the truth of the old adage that Happiness unlike pleasure is inimical to being consciously saught, but is effectively a more elusive and frequently delayed byproduct of aiming - oblivious with regard it - for something higher! A worthy maxim, easier to assimilate on an intellectual basis than inculcate as a personal perception, however! - But that's all our challenge! :)

This Life?....

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions