To Have or To Be?

When researching quotations to find their origins, one often encounters many obstacles. Whilst it should, in theory, be easy to say, ‘ah, who said ‘…’?’, search it and find, ‘ah, it was Plato’, the answers one often gets is far removed from the original source. Whilst some quotations are miss-attributed, for example the quotation which is alleged to be Plato quoting Socrates saying, in The Symposium, ‘sorry I was late, I was playing Pokémon Go and saw a Pikachu which was hard to catch’, is clearly false for one thing we know about Socrates was that he never apologised for being late. When searching for quotations, one often sees them repeated by people who fit them into a business model, i.e. a hustle. The quotes are attributed to people saying ‘If you want success, this is how you Hussle, walk out of the cave and see the light, the light of the pots of gold!’, which is clearly a bastardised form of Plato’s myth in The Republic about one only seeing the shadows of things on a cave wall, and to see the truth, one must leave the cave and step out into reality.

One aspect of the quotations which is misused in many reframings of the quotation (although the person doing the reframing often seems unaware of their reframing) is that the essence of the quote is lost. A quote by someone such as Seneca, the Stoic Roman philosopher, was originally said to talk about the transient nature of life and how little control we have over it. The Stoics (Greek and Roman) had a central motif and that motif was that in order to live, one must be aware of one’s limitations and accept them. This, they argue, would then allow one to live a full life. Whilst some of it is problematic, in my opinion, for some of the greatest moments of life, are completely out of our control, such as falling in love (although one must choose to do so at a certain point), the central premise is that To Be (to use Hamlet’s meaning as in to exist) one must be able to let go of what one cannot control to become realised as a person. However, in the interpretations that one finds on the internet, and in books, is that this ‘acceptance’ of one’s limitations is actually a way to gain more. Instead of it being a passive acceptance so that one can move forward, it is seen as a cold-hearted key to obtaining material wealth. Whilst the Stoics saw the goal as becoming human (by removing, arguably, that which makes us human- emotion), the modern interpretations see it as a way of amassing personal glory. By dismissing those who cannot help us achieve what we want, we are no longer held back by simple things such as family, hope, dreams, morality etc. It is seen as a way of finding personal value from external sources.

Whilst this may seem absurd, this interpretation is more common than that of the original meanings of the quotations. Why is this? Well, it depends very much on how one defines one’s self. If one, such as the Stoics, generally define their self from within, then this philosophy is about inner growth, about becoming who one is. Yes, this is problematic in that one can only grow within when one is challenged from without, however, it often leads to personal growth as one transcends where one is and starts towards who one will become. For many of those who misuse these quotes, their value only stands from without. For them, they can only see their self as a successful human by external markers- social standing, wealth, career, or in other words, having what other people do not. Whilst the Stoics would insist that you can only be greater in comparison to who you once were, the modern quoters, the ‘hustlers’ as they call themselves, insist that you can only become greater in comparison to what you have and what others do not. This is superficial and completely ephemeral in that it has no substance and can be taken away from you at a whim. In other words, is not real growth, it is not real value, it is merely a shadow dancing on the wall of a cave.

Erich Fromm, who regular readers will be sick of by now, wrote a treatise on life called To Have or to Be? in which he asks is it more important to have possessions, exist externally, or to become a person, to exist internally?

Having not read the book, yet, and having reached the end of my allotted time, I can’t delve more into this and so I merely reference it as a rhetorical question for you. Which is better? To have or to be?

‘till next time            

The Inherent Need for Balance: Internal and External

A character trait I have noticed in myself since the lockdowns started is in my reading habits. When going to work, in my breaks, I would read Proust, Schopenhauer, Sartre et al, as it would give me the mental stimulation which I did not get in my job. However, as lockdown progressed, I found myself unable to concentrate on the said writers and ended up reading new and rereading Star Wars novels I’d loved when I was younger. I also worked my way through Terry Brooks’ complete chronicles of Shannara, a series of books I wouldn’t have considered reading before. Indeed, it is not possible to say that this is because Brooks is a good writer, he really isn’t, with a few exceptions in his books such as the Dark Legacy of Shannara trilogy, rather there was another reason. This puzzled me, however, the other day, I realised the obvious. It was a need for balance.

Being around others in a work environment was, for me, exhausting, as, given the nature of the work, I was not stimulated intellectually. To compensate for this, I would read books which challenged me, and would give me something to think about whilst enduring the inane chatter around me. However, once that environment was taken away and I found myself, often exclusively, in my own company, the stimulation levels increased. With the constant dull ticking of my mind, combined with the fear and anxiety, the burn out, which came with the pandemic and being trapped indoors with no sign of a way out (unless you were a celebrity or politician and breaking these laws was to be expected) my need for stimulation changed. As I was constantly in the state which the aforementioned writers (Dostoyevsky et al) put me in, I looked for an escape from it and found it in narrative. The great thing about any novel is the storytelling. The Star Wars universe was one I knew before and knew the characters, and so there was a comfort level to rereading the 30 or so novels about the children of Han and Leia Solo et al, and to reading books within the same universe either with the same or different characters. Not all were enjoyable and finished, as the post-Disney takeover malaise has expanded into the written form as well, depending on the quality of the writing and, most importantly, the storytelling. Shannara, a discount version of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, has simple archetypal characters and so required little or no thought. One could get lost in them and use them as escapism in a harmless and, ultimately, pointless, manner. So a balance was struck- when my external life was unstimulating I would retreat into stimulation and when my internal life was stimulating, I’d retreat into unstimulation.

Even so, as we are inherently true to our natures, another form of balance was found. If I was reading a Batman graphic novel, when I listened to an audiobook, it would invariably be non-fiction (for example, history or psychology) as this would create a balance in my external stimulation.

The need for balance, it seems, is inherent. Much of one’s disquiet in life can be put down to this lack of balanced in being. For example, if we cannot be ourselves, if we are trapped in roles which we are not suit for, nor wish to play, then this will have a detrimental effect. People seek balance. If their external world is loathsome to them, they may try to nullify it through substance abuse, and other forms of hedonism. The number of reported cases of domestic abuse during the pandemic due to intoxication speaks to this. And so the question becomes- how can I achieve this balance in a manner which is healthy and does not waste my time? One might say reading the Shannara (or any of Terry Brooks’ work) is a waste of time, and from my critical self’s viewpoint, this is true, however, at the time his work, and the expanded mind of George Lucas’ world, gave me what I needed at the time. Balance

‘till next time

Short-Term and Long-Term Benefits

To become a teacher, one must jump through many hoops. Firstly, one must go through many stages to get onto a course. Once on the course, one must go through many stages to get a placement school. It is the equivalent of getting a job and then being told that you only have half a job and you need to apply for the second half. It is infuriating and seemingly illogical. But is it?

Here we have a classic example of the conflict between short-term gains and long-term gains. The course and the schools are thinking about the here and now. They are thinking about the benefits that are afforded to them here and now. They don’t want to be put out, nor do they want to risk any harm to their reputation. And so, from this standpoint, it is perfectly logical and it is the methodology to get the best results and, most importantly, help the children. Or is it?

There is a global shortage of 96,000,000 (96 million) teachers to bring the global level of literacy and numeracy to the lowest expected passable level. In the United States there are 3.5 million teachers to 50 million students (3,500,000 to 50,000,000). In the United Kingdom, there is a 220,000 shortage of teachers to offer the lowest passable level of literacy. If we consider these two standpoints then there is a great disparity. Short-term thinking is good for the schools in the here and now, but long-term, it is the students, and the teachers, who miss out.

The driving force behind the decline in teachers is: stress, low pay, too many students, government interference, parental interference (everyone is an expert), to name but five. And yet, even given how many newly qualified teachers walk away from teaching, the main concern for those who can make changes happen is short-term goals.

This problem is not one which is limited to education. The 2008 Market Crash is a great example of how short-term gain blinded people to the law of consequences. Concerns of the here and now (buying a new home you can’t afford, selling sub-prime bonds (aka dog mess), rating agencies more concerned with maintaining business relationships than protecting the market etc., all examples of self-short-term-interest outweighing long-term thinking. Maturity is defined by some as deciding to wait for what you want as opposed to what is immediate- if long-term yields better results than short-term gratification then wait. (note: however, sometimes the short-term can yield better results than long-term so this is not a law without exceptions- it is driven by context).

These problems could be lessened by, for example, government oversight- putting in place structures which will yield long-term benefits, however, politics is mostly concerned with short-term gains and so unless individuals stand up and fight for long-term goals, the problems in economics, education, health care etc., will get much worse and probably never get better.

‘till next time     

The Dark Side of Communication

Last week, I went on my first holiday for ten years. I checked my diary before booking it and had no commitments. I returned from the holiday today and found a week’s worth of conversations between various people informing me of an opportunity, urging me to reply, and then explaining how the opportunity had been withdrawn and their concern that I had not replied. The long and short of it is that I may need to make new plans going forward as this was something important. When discussing it with someone, the reply I got was that people ‘expect’ you to always be contactable if you are at home, on holiday etc. My reply that this could be why there is an increase in mental health problems was dismissed as being absurd.   

Let’s look at the notion more closely. The work place, and society, adapts with the changes of technology. 40 years ago, if one was out of one’s house, then there would be an expectation that this person would be uncontactable as they would not have access to their landline phone. 40 years before that, for some, there would be the expectation that if the person was not in the room- work or other- then they would not be contactable as not everyone had access to a telephone. Nowadays it is expected that everyone has a mobile phone, internet access, a computer and email. Job interviews are now primarily conducted ‘remotely’ which means that you are sat at home in front of your computer. The obvious downside to this is if you do not have a computer or the internet- you can’t afford it, you live in a rural setting, you don’t want it etc.- then this creates a divide between those who have and those who have not. This is clearly a form of discrimination, however, as it is considered a societal ‘norm’ one is seen as being ‘in the wrong’ if they do not conform for any of the previous reasons given or more.

In the UK, mental health issues increased 20% between 1993 and 2014. This can be seen as the period when remote technology started to play a more significant role in daily life. From this point, the office no longer was a building in which you worked and then went home, it was now your life. Yes, one must caveat these statistics by saying that this only refers to ‘reported’ cases- indeed for all we know, in 1832 there might have been 95% of the population suffering from mental health issues, but let us take the figures at face value and say in this period of time, this increase happened. Now, according to the mental health charity Mind, 1/4 people in the UK report mental health problems each year, 1/6 people each week with anxiety and depression being the most common. With the pandemic the reported cases increased 29%. Much of this increase was due to the uncertainty of the pandemic and working from home. Now, more starkly, the home was no longer your home and your work wasn’t something which you lived secretly, your home was now your office and your work was your life. With the changes came a change of expectations. Now, as the office was your home and vice versa, despite constant corporate speak of ‘only working your hours’, it became expected that you would always be available. This blurring of the lines between personal and professional worlds gave rise to a loss of personal identity. We can define our lives through the time we have and whilst it is healthy to break time up- family time, work time, personal time etc., this loss of personal identity through constantly being contactable is having a detrimental effect not only on people’s lives but also on the creation of unrealistic and unhealthy expectations. No longer do we expect the best from people, no longer do we respect the individual’s right to exist as a separate entity, now we must all live our lives to a standard- although this is never publicly said- which is inherently absurd, unrealistic and, most importantly, unhealthy.

‘till next time      

Achtung, Baby

The other day, someone I know sent me a link to a website. The person in question is an actress and uses her social media to promote her projects and herself. This is a necessary evil in her profession, and something that she enjoys. The link that I was sent was to a website where people can promote themselves and a very specific service. For $80, she would send you a personalised message (presumably some kind of video), ‘Hello, Jenny, have a great day!’, sort of thing. For over $100, you could have a one to one conversation with her- via video or text, I’m not sure. This, as you can imagine, made me slightly disgusted. The reason for my disgust was the seeming hypocrisy of the action. Whilst there is an audience for such things, and many public, and not so, figures make use of it to generate an extra income- just think, your idol can very sincerely send you a personalised greeting, that you pay a lot of money for- however, the idea behind it is to me concerning.

There is currently a minor battle going on in culture. Minor as it is not a war from which people die, however, a war because it creates conflict. Whilst this battle is not for anything as significant as life and land, it is a war for our attention. Attention may not seem like something of great value, any loud noise makes us look around, however, as attention generally, in this world, equates money, something with no apparent concrete value, is given a concrete value though the medium of the preconceived value of money. 

This is where the hypocrisy becomes relevant for this system creates inequality when it comes to attention. On one hand one is saying that I am special and, thusly, I deserve your attention which I can use to my benefit, and on the other hand the person is saying, if you want my attention you can only get it via paying me an obscene amount of money.

One might say that this is nothing new- indeed, we pay money to see sporting events or the theatre, indeed, we are paying for a service which creates a personal and supra-personal experience- however, this is an impersonal experiences- it is about a communal experience which may touch us as people but is designed to be something before an audience, to ask for money to give a basic human right- attention-  devalues both the person paying and the one asking for money. Whilst we all prostitute ourselves to jobs, people etc., we do so out of neccisity (indeed, one might argue sexual prostitution serves a purpose, even if just to be in a Kafka novel), yet asking for money just to recognise on a very basic human level that we exist does nothing more than show that human value is not consdiered by society to be an inherent value. 

Next time someone asks you for attention, ask yourself who they are, what they offer, and what value this will have for you. 

On that note…

’till next time 

The Vagueness of Reality

Recently, I was reading a biography of the great German writer Goethe, and one phrase in the book really stood out. The author of the biography, seemingly, having a little dig at some of the insubstantial foundations for Goethe’s beliefs, used a phrase along the lines of (note: this is not a direct quote) much too vague to promote doubt. What is meant by this? Well, I can’t speak for the author of the book, however, the impression I was left with was that something could be so inconclusive that people do not a) feel offended and b) find the need to object. 

We live in a world with a need for absolutes. Arguments are often boiled down to one key phrase which can fit on a bumper sticker. The incredibly complex issue of abortions is boiled down to a woman’s right to choose in relation to her health care. This standpoint creates two opposing sides. 1) says a woman should be the master of her body 2) says murder is murder. It’s very black and white, but if one was to say, ‘let us consider this from all aspects; It takes a man and a woman to create a baby, so it is not a woman’s issue, it is to do with all of humanity. So let us gather the best minds in theology, biology, sociology, philosophy etc. and consider this in the depth is deserves’, then there would be no opposition because this, reasoned, proposal does not offer any definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for one to rail for or against. Yet, a slogan that can fit on a bumper sticker can promote the most violent opposition. Why is this? 

As with most things, it comes down to fear and uncertainty. Whilst the universe may (or may not) conform to set laws, some of which we can glimpse in our study of the physical world (physics), human life does not fit so nicely into set laws. The reality, or illusion, of free will brought about by independent thought clouds the issue for if one believes that one has free will, and can think for themselves, then they will believe that the thoughts in their heads are 1) theirs and 2) the truth. The question that they may be wrong is something that many cannot endure and this could cause great psychological harm to them, so instead of entertaining the doubt, they plant their flags and fight tooth and nail, not so much for what they say, but rather not to have to question who they are. After all, for many, if you question what they believe then they believe you are questioning who they are. 

However, whilst we can say that this is the by-product of nurturing- if you are brought up in an environment not open to questioning then one will be scared to question, it also has a great deal to do with our natures. I think we can agree that the pioneering psychologist Carl Jung was a very intelligent man who questioned the perceived realities of the world, however, he, himself, fell into the same trap. In his book on the archetypal forms (note-Archetypes are universal, inborn models of people, behaviours, and personalities that play a role in influencing human behaviour) Jung maintains that the evidence for these archetypes stems from their occurrence in mythology.  Mythologies, as we have previously discussed, are stories created to try to explain and then understand the world without and within. However, despite a basis in reality, the mythologies do not stem from concrete actuality, even Homer’s Iliad, which has a historical foundation does not stem from a historical truth and, indeed, as with most of life, the events without are a small fraction of the actual events as most events happen within each individual person. And so, whilst we can understand the literary foundations of Jung’s psychological theory, its foundation is still too vague to promote doubt within Jung. 

Above we have considered this from a subjective perspective, but if we were to make it objective and consider the natural world, then consider this question from the website HowStuffWorks: 

“What percentage of the universe is solid?

So all of the matter in the universe would fit into about 1 billion cubic light years, or a cube that’s approximately 1,000 light years on each side. That means that only about 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the universe contains any matter.“

the chair you are sitting on, the eyes you are reading with, the device you are looking at contain 99.9999999% empty space. Due to the rapid movement of the atoms, things appear to be solid- the chair you are sitting on, the blah blah- yet if the atoms were to stop moving then our bodies, nay the majority of the physical universe, would cease to exist. However, we say, we know, that we exist, despite the absolute vagueness of the existence not only of our thoughts, but of the physical universe itself. Just think, if we cannot trust the floor we are standing on to be solid, how can we trust the less seemingly tangible foundations of our beliefs?  

’till next time