Regular readers may note that over the last few months (maybe longer, I am very repetitive) we have looked at the concept of the oppression of the true self, one’s true nature. We looked at how pet ownership is seen as an acceptable form of slavery as by being domesticated, as would a slave, the animal no longer has the freedom to be their own true self. Yes, there are arguments that, for example, cats and dogs enjoy being pets, however, the literature, both fictional and otherwise, clearly note that this stems from a form of ignorance of the animals as those taken from the ‘wild’ or reintroduced into the ‘wild’ generally have better wellbeing than those in captivity (think, for example how the dorsal fin of the orca (killer whale) bends over in captivity and stands fully erect in its natural environment). One might find it absurd to look at animals from a human perspective, and vice versa, however, the parallels are undeniable. It was once discovered that male songbirds generate new braincells every morning in order to sing. It was asked if humans did the same. This question was shot down instantly by a snobbery saying that what applies to animals cannot apply to superior species, i.e. humans. It was then shown, many years later, that what we call neurogenesis, also takes place within humans and decades of oppression by ignorance fell away. Darwin, likewise, in his book ’The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals’ shows that animal faces often contort in the same manner as humans to express the same emotions.
But what has this to do with human happiness? As we have seen alluded to above, animals are happiest in their natural state, and so, if the parallels hold true, must humans be happiest in their natural state. Before I noted that humans are the most domesticated of all creatures and imposes this upon animals, but the question must be how does this come to be? The answer, again, lies in the work over the past few months. Increasingly (rather slowly, I must add) I have noted how a culture is dependant upon a hegemony. Yes, I knew of this before, but it is only recently I have come to start to understand just how deeply it pervades and how it comes about. From an early age, children are taught the notion of right and wrong. Now this teaching is not stemming from an ethic, or even a theology (for example Christianity), rather it is stemming from the personal beliefs of those who educate the child. And herein lies the rub for if one is educated by one who stems not from an ethical philosophy which one practices (remember the psychologist Alfred Adler’s notion that it is easier to fight for you values than it is to live by them) but rather from a domestication into a hegemony, then the behaviours, as we have seen over the previous months, may not be good behaviours, rather they may be bad behaviours which are reinforced by the whole and thusly good behaviours are seen as bad and vice versa. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer sums this up brilliantly in an aphorism:
‘Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority’
And from this we can ask, why are they miserable? To answer this question, we must look again art the example of animals in captivity. Yes, there may be a degree of contentedness in the animal in captivity but this stems from ignorance. Life might be harder if one is free to follow one’s own true self, but there is no prize which can compensate from the oppression of freedom to be one’s self. If one’s true self is repressed, then one can never realise one’s own potential and become their self and thusly when one is oppressed one starts to experience negative emotions. We have often heard the truism that ‘misery loves company’, but with all truism we must take this with a grain of salt and ask the validity of the said truism. Let us consider ‘misery’. If misery is in a permanent state, in itself, then to be miserable is its natural state and thusly it is, contractionary, happiest in its state of misery (think of the personification of this notion in the misanthrope). If misery is in a transitionary state then it will have two poles- happiness and misery (if indeed these are opposite poles, I think that misery and non-misery or happy and non-happy would be more applicable, the root depending on your demeanour) and it will be more sated to be in the state of ‘happy’ than of ‘sad’, and thusly its energies will be spent on trying to become happy, to use Freud’s words devoid of his meaning, a pleasure principle. Yet here is where, as with the animals, they become a reflection of those who use them for their whims, i.e. humans. If a person is miserable, as Schopenhauer sates, due to their natural state being oppressed then this misery is not a pure state of ‘misery’, rather it is a human bastardisation of the state and the ‘fool’, in Schopenhauer’s words, will not see misery as a pure state which finds joy in itself, nor will he find misery as a transitionary state which yearns for joy, rather he sees misery as being the limit of his ability, a misery born of the frustration and anger and despair of the oppression of their true self, and instead of attempting to elevate themselves, they will take the quick and easy path and attempt to drag others down to their level. However, this does not then make them happy, as deep down they know that they are rotten, rather this constant attempt to take pleasure in the suffering of others, especially if caused by the one feeling miserable, does nothing more than continue the cycle in which one’s true self is sacrificed, not for love or the wellbeing of all, but rather for the darkness and pain that one feels when one is willingly caged out of fear of their own true self.
‘till next time
thegreaterfool2016 