cactusandquail on Even if we don&rsquo...
cactusandquail on In Montaigne’s...
visited *loading* times
In Montaigne’s “Of Solitude” he describes how humans must resist the mob-like pressures of life, as well as the mob impulses within ourselves. For him, true solitude is being able to pull back on the evil that grips our soul. In other words, we must be able to act as our true selves, the way we act when we are alone, even if we happen to be in public. I agree with this because many people, even good ones can be taken over by mob mentality. Individually, all of these people may never hurt a fly, but together that aspect becomes diminished and they become capable of destruction.
Montainge says, “Withdraw into yourself – but first prepare to welcome yourself there. Know how to govern yourself. Make yourself into a man in whose sight you would not care to stumble; feel shame for yourself and respect for yourself.”
Montaigne believes we should not do anything in public that we would not do if we were alone.
Even if we don’t encounter it in our daily lives, humans are connected to the ocean in many ways. We rely on it for food, resources, commerce, even the weather. Despite this significance, for many people our reliance on the world’s oceans and marine life is not always obvious and it is easy to forget about that big blue body of water. Though our relationship with the ocean is not always the first thing on our minds, there are people for whom it is a vital way of life. The indigenous human residents of the Arctic coast, such as the Inuit, rely on animals such as fish and marine mammals for their major source of food. For them, pollution is not just another environmental issue but a serious health concern.
Many contemporary authors have written about humankind’s role in nature such as Roger Payne and Edward Abbey. In a way they have picked up where Thoreau left off. They have developed a variation on his philosophy of simplification. They feel we need to realize that the environment is not some far off jungle or isolated landscape. It’s the air we breathe, it’s the water we drink.
There are many psychological theories proposed by Payne as to why we as humans are unable to break our addiction to such a lifestyle that promotes pollution, even though it could mean our own death. He, has come up with an analogy to explain this using copepods. Copepods are microscopic organisms that live in large groups in the ocean and are eaten by whales. To a copepod, a whale must represent a terror so enormous that it is the very concept of fear and there is nothing in human experience to compare it to. That is why copepods have such simple brains to keep them oblivious to such a monster. Otherwise they would become slaves to their own fear. However there is an enormous monster ready to consume humans also. That monster is pollution. But like the copepod, humans have adapted so that we are unable to see how serious of a threat it is because we would be over run with fear. Dr. Payne once asked, " Is it better to have a mind that is numb to risk and whistles a merry tune as the world burns around it than it is to have a mind willing to perceive the threat of a great danger and try to do something to avoid it? " As long as we realize how delicately balanced our world is then there is still a chance for us to save it by learning from the past. In the words of Dr. Payne, " It seems as though massive destruction of the environment is more likely to come about as a result of pollution than of nuclear war - and that unless we act soon, we as masters of the land, and whales as masters of the seas, will meet our end together, and it will come not with a bang but a whimper. "
Rachel glanced up from the stove as Andrew came in the front door. She could tell by the slight smirk on his face that he was about to go off on one of his comedic dialogues. He shut the door, causing a gust of warm summer air to tickle the hair on her arms. She brought her attention back to stirring the spaghetti and waited for his impending speech.
“Hi, Honey,” said Rachel. Andrew walked over and gave her a kiss on the cheek.
“Doctors are crazy,” he said. “I went in for my examination today. I’m filling out the form and it asks me to state my “reason for visit.” Why do they use the word “visit,” as if people go to the doctor for fun because they have nothing better to do?” Andrew got a can of soda and plopped himself down on a chair at the kitchen table. Rachel watched him as he ran his fingers through his black curly hair. He chugged the soda with bulging eyes and a jittering leg. Rachel smiled. Andrew was a stand up comedian and whenever he got inspired he would start spewing new material with a wild look in his eyes. She could tell he had several more lines waiting to burst forth once he stopped inhaling his caffeine-rich beverage.
“So how did things go with the doctor?” asked Rachel before he got too far into his bit. “Has the swelling in the vein gone down?”
“Get this, it turns out that they’re going to have to operate. Isn’t that something?” Andrew had a slightly amused tone in his voice.
The soft smile quickly faded from Rachel’s expression and she turned to look Andrew in the eyes. A wisp of blond hair fell down in front of her face and poked her in the corner of the mouth.
“Are you serious?” Her stomach sank a little as she waited for him to finish another swig of cola.
“Yeah, apparently the doc is going to have to make an incision just below the bellybutton and then probe inside me with a small camera to find the affected vein. I’ve already come up with some great material about this. I can picture the doc rooting around in my bowels as he makes small talk about his kids and--”
“Stop it!” shouted Rachel. “This is terrible. I can’t believe this is happening. You shouldn’t be joking about it.” She sat down next to him and held his hand tightly with a deeply concerned look on her face.
“Relax. It’s just minor surgery.”
“There’s no such thing as minor surgery. They’re going to be cutting you open. I’m a little upset that you’re not taking this more seriously.” Rachel had never had surgery before, nor had she been close to anyone who had. The thought of her own husband being sliced open was new to her and it made her gut feel as heavy as a stone. This was the sort of thing that happened to other people, not to her family.
“I think this will provide great inspiration for my work,” said Andrew. “People love to hear about this kind of stuff.” Rachel’s concern began to shift towards anger and frustration.
“How can you be acting like this!? Aren’t you scared? There can be complications with this type of surgery. What if something happens to you?”
“I .. I don’t know. I…” His shaky voice was interrupted by a sharp hissing sound. Rachel looked over her shoulder to see the spaghetti boiling up out of the pot. She ran over and shut off the burner.
“I just wish you would take this more seriously,” she said. “I would be terrified if it was me.” She stirred the warm, heavy pasta around and tried not to think about the wet, sticky noise it made. “This is horrible. I can’t believe you brought this up the way you did.” As she glanced over at Andrew again she saw that he had his face in his hands.
“What’s wrong Andy?” she asked.
“I…I don’t feel good all of a sudden,” he replied. Rachel stopped stirring the spaghetti and turned to Andrew. He started to say something but choked on the words and blinked his eyes rapidly. Rachel’s frustration gave way to regret and compassion for Andrew.
She sat on his lap and held him in silence as the kitchen grew dark and the spaghetti went cold.
“What do you expect from people like him? Certain effects naturally and necessarily flow from certain causes. To want him to behave otherwise is like asking the sap not to flow in a fig tree. Besides, what’s the point of fretting about it? In a moment you will both be dead, and a moment later, no one will even be able to remember your names.”
- Marcus Aurileus
For many early philosophers, death was an inevitable part of life. The Stoics especially believed that it was a necessary part of nature’s cycle and one shouldn’t attempt to control it for it is unavoidable.
Imagine a world where no one would ever die of old age. Where no one would even age at all if they didn’t want to. A world where disease and genetic defects are a thing of the past. If humanity had a chance at a world like this, should we take it or heed the advice of the Stoics?
It may seem like science fiction but according to biotech mogul Ray Kurzweil, such feats are no more than twenty years away. Winner of the Lemelson-MIT Prize and the 1999 National Medal of Technology Award, Kurzweil has made many breakthroughs in the fields of medical and technological science. He follows patterns in technological advances very closely and has written several books predicting the advent of the internet as well as artificial intelligence.
Given his excellent credentials, many scientists are hesitant about dismissing Kurzweil’s most recent claim despite the outlandish nature of it. Kurzweil believes that within the next twenty years we will have the technology to perpetuate the human life. According to Kurzweil this will begin with the ability to control and even change genes. This would allow us to block disease-causing genes and create new ones that halt the aging process. This will then give way to the use of nanobots, microscopic machines that can be injected into the human body and continually rebuild organs so that they never deteriorate or grow old.
Kurzweil’s claim is very debatable and he has many colleagues and opponents that disagree with him. Given the complicated science behind such technology, it is difficult for the average person to argue whether such an advance could be made or not. However, we can ask ourselves whether we would want to embrace this immortality if it ever does become possible. It may not be as soon as Kurzweil predicts but it may be in humanity’s future. Should society have the ability to live forever? Should we defy Epictetus’s teachings that we should not meddle with what we cannot control?
One of the first concerns that comes to mind is overpopulation. Sure there will be some people who choose not to have immortality. But given the already exponential growth of the world’s population, the people who do choose to live forever will speed this growth along. If more and more people are being born but no one is dying we would be swamped with more people than society could support. America may have to enact restrictions similar to China in which there is a limit to how many children you can have. Another issue that arises is the exhaustion of resources. With millions more people being added to the population, forests and quarries would be depleted of building materials for homes. There would be a strain on our food supply as well. According to recent studies the fish stock in our world’s oceans is already 90% gone. Imagine how much longer that would last with a massive increase in population. Famine may become more of a widespread problem in developed countries due to the inability to produce food products faster than people can consume them.
On the other side of the argument, by the time immortality would be possible there may be solutions to problems like overpopulation and limited natural resources. If it occurs much later than Kurzweil predicts, the human race could have expanded outward through space colonization. We may even be able to produce more food crops and materials in artificial habitats on the moon or Mars. Also, if people suddenly had lifespans of 800 or 900 years the human life cycle may become more spread out. People may choose not to enter parenthood until their 400’s or 500’s. This slowed birth rate may be enough to balance out the fact that not many people are dying.
There are also advantages to the technology behind immortality that should be considered. The thought of a disease-free immortal life does sound tempting in many ways. People struggling with life threatening illnesses would be cured by the gene-control method that Kurzweil speaks of. Patients with cancer and birth defects would be appalled if such technology became available but was not acted upon just because of anti-immortality activism.
However, perhaps one of the more philosophical questions is what people will do if they live for a couple thousand years and eventually decide they have had enough. Sure it will be simple enough to just shut down their nanobots so that there organs are no longer being rebuilt, but many people would view this as suicide. Killing oneself is an unforgivable sin in Catholicism as well as several other religions. If people are unwilling to do this they may be stuck living forever.
In the long run, immortality may seem like a dream come true but perhaps the Stoics were right when they said death serves a purpose. As Lee Silver, one of Kurzweil’s colleagues said of immortality, “I think it would require a change in human nature and I don’t think people want to do that.”
The Stoics put a lot of emphasis on recognizing what is out of our control and learning not to worry about it. This philosophy seems to go along with their universal logic and tendency towards the laissez-faire. At first this concept seems fairly simple and straightforward. If you can’t control something then there is no need to fret over it and cause yourself more stress trying to figure out a way that you can make it work. But perhaps there is more to be learned from this reasoning besides having a laid back attitude.
I tried using the wisdom of Epictetus and Aurileus in my everyday life. Whenever a personal problem arose regarding anything from school to relationships to work, I took a moment to stop and think about whether or not the issue that was stressing me was under my control or not. In the back of my mind I was thinking this would help with stress because I could just take a deep breath and write off all my problems as uncontrollable and therefore not worth thinking about. However, the more I did this, the more I realized how much of my life actually is under my control. If I had a fight with my parents or my fiancée, I had the power to make the first step to talk to them and straighten it out. If I was having trouble in a class, I had the power to work harder or consult the instructor. The more I tried to define what was under my control, the more I found how much of my life I technically had control of.
I began thinking that maybe that’s what the stoics intended. It’s easy to fall into the cycle of avoiding a problem because you don’t want to address it or feel like nothing can be done about it. By telling us not to worry about what we can’t control the Stoics cause us to define what exactly it is that we can and cannot control in our lives. As a result we suddenly see room for improvement. In The Emperor’s Handbook, Marcus Aurileus says, “If life offers you nothing better than your indwelling spirit – the same spirit that governs your emotions, guides your thoughts, “tears you away,” as Socrates used to say, “from the titillation of the senses,” obeys the gods, and serves mankind – if by comparison with this spirit you find everything else trifling and base, then give not the slightest foothold to anything else.” This mirrors the modern day saying: if life gives you lemons make lemonade.
Despite their emphasis on nature, The Stoics and Henry David Thoreau had a much different concept of environmentalism than what we think of today. The world of the twenty-first century faces a great deal of environmetal issues that these philosophers may never even have considered. One of these issues is that of waste production, which, in a way relates to the art of living because people and their lifestyles are the controlling factor.
When my parents were growing up, floors were cleaned with brooms and mops. Kitchens and bathrooms were scrubbed down with sponges. Food was eaten off of real plates and the dishes were dried with an actual towel made of fabric. Today, these common household items are becoming obsolete due to a new trend that is developing with consumer products.
Welcome to the “disposable” era. Why mop your floor when you can just use a Wet Swiffer and then toss the piece of cloth into the trash? Why clean your toilet with a wire brush that gets all nasty when you can use a Clorox Toilet Wand with a sponge head that can pop off and be replaced? Why eat off dishes when you can use paper plates and paper towels? One needs only to watch a commercial break to see the plethora of new products that are being introduced to the American public. Products that proudly tout “one time use” and “no need to clean.” Phrases like these are becoming the motto of the busy consumer on the go. Truthfully, these items can save time and energy but how will this mass waste production affect our environment?
The disposable cleaning products that are hitting the market now are obviously just the beginning of a larger trend. It’s important to predict how far this trend may go, even though many ideas may seem farfetched. For example, this new wave of merchandise has already spread to the world of electronics. Several companies are beginning to implement one-time-use DVDs. These movies can be purchased from special vending machines that contain a range of new-release titles. After about two days the disc clouds over and you can simply throw it away instead of returning it. Imagine the types of electronics that may become disposable in the near future. In response to the rapidly changing computer market, someone may come up with the disposable laptop. Business men and women on the go could always have the most up to date machine. What would Thoreau think of this?
Perhaps the best way to predict how serious our waste problem could get is to look at historical precedents. My parents’ generation may have had more “permanent” household items, but they too were guilty of an adverse trend that began around that time. The mid twentieth century experienced a chemical revolution in which dozens of new cleaners and plastics were made available to the public. People embraced these “wonder” drugs and chemicals that could solve almost any household problem, from a runny nose to a patch of mildew in the shower. There were already solutions to these problems but the masses wanted it done faster and more efficient. We paid for this later when scientists began to realize the effects these chemicals were having on our environment and ultimately our species, but by then it was too late. Americans and their lifestyle had become addicted to the benefits of these products.
When you consider examples like this, it’s easy to see that we should seriously consider where new trends are going to take us before we let them lead us down the wrong road. The new chemicals of the fifties that we carelessly poured into our sinks and lawns became runoff that seeped into the oceans. As pollutants work their way up the food chain, they become amplified. Being at the top of the food chain, we are the species that suffers most from this effect and our immune systems are still weakened by this same process today due to pollution.
The disposable era could hold a grim future for us as well. Imagine landfills stuffed to the brim. This would make it more difficult to find ways of disposing of things that really need to be, like medical waste. Germs would run rampant thanks to fields of garbage that we have no place to put. Much of it could be incinerated but this would only pollute the skies even more. The chemicals that many of these products contain would accumulate and taint our resources like ground water and forests.
Like the chemical revolution, the disposable trend has started out with innocent intentions. Companies are trying to stay ahead of the competition, and they probably aren’t thinking about long-term effects. As for the consumers, most of them just don’t realize that these products are unnecessary because they are mesmerized by the convenience and cleverness of them. It’s tempting to be able to distance yourself from the grossness of household chores, but is it really that hard to just clean out our sponges and mops and reuse them? What if we adopted this philosophy for other aspects of life. If some food exploded in your microwave would you throw the whole thing out because you didn’t feel like cleaning it? After mowing your lawn would you cart the mower out to the curb instead of wiping down the blades? Such habits may not sound so ridiculous in the future if patterns continue.
The products of the disposable era are not all bad as long as they are used in moderation and don’t completely replace our current system. The important thing is that we don’t adopt the mentality where our first instinct is to throw things away rather than recycle them in some way. It’s amazing how many different uses you can get out of random household objects. Think of Thoreau using the bear necessities to build his modest cabin in the woods. Living in the heart of nature he was able to see that nothing is ever truly thrown away.
Having read the work of several different thinkers up to this point, it is apparent that the art of living involves a great deal of self examination and inward reflection. When we ask ourselves who we are and what our personal defining qualities are we often feel fairly confident. Most people feel they have a good understanding of themselves and how they see the world. However, Henry David Thoreau’s way of thinking brings up an interesting point. According to transcendentalism, a school of thought Thoreau followed, truth is truth if it agrees with an individual’s intuition. This is an interesting thought that implies that something is true if one can justify it personally. What may be true for one person may not be true for another. This can seem like an appealing idea because everyone has different experiences and therefore, draws different opinions about life. But where is the line between this idea and self-delusion? How do we distinguish between following our intuition and merely allowing ourselves to believe certain things because it is convenient?
Self-delusion can be as common as telling ourselves we’re healthier than we are when we don’t feel like exercising, or as tragic as someone who stays in an abusive relationship because mentally they can’t admit that there is a problem. I agree with the transcendental idea that different people can form their own personal truths about life, but I think it can be dangerous if someone takes that statement too literally and believes that any view they take is the absolute truth. I think some truths are universal and we need to be able to look at life realistically at times. Perhaps Gracian explained this concept best when he said, “We live by information, not by sight. We exist by faith in others. The ear is the sidedoor of truth but the frontdoor of lies. The truth is generally seen, rarely heard. She seldom comes in elemental purity, especially from afar - there is always some admixture of the moods of those through whom she has passed. The passions tinge her, sometimes favorably, sometimes odiously. She always brings out people's disposition,
therefore receive her with caution from him that praises, with more caution from
him that blames. Pay attention to the intention of the speaker; you should know
beforehand on what footing he comes. Let reflection test for falsity and
exaggeration.”
In the article, “Walden’s Ripple Effect” Robert D. Richardson explains Thoreau’s emphasis on being a close observer. Though they both focused on nature, Thoreau and the Stoics had both similar and different philosophies.
The two years that Thoreau spent in the woods helped him develop many concepts about nature and what we can learn from it. His writings speak of humanity, transcendentalism, and freedom. He believed in using a “habit of attention” and claimed he had made himself so observant that it wore out his senses. This close attention to detail was imperative because he believed that nature’s lessons are very subtle and one must look closely to truly understand them.
When Thoreau talks of living in accordance with nature it means something a little different than what the Stoics meant by this phrase. The Stoics emphasized following human nature and understanding our place in the universe. Thoreau put more emphasis on nature in the literal sense. He believed that there is something about the environment that is inherent in humans and that it can be difficult to see those lessons this day in age with so many distractions. The key to happiness, self-understanding, and fulfillment can be found in nature. The Stoics saw these qualities as virtues that one should strive towards. However, unlike the Stoics, Thoreau believed that true nature is an untamed wilderness of standards. There was no real delineation between good and bad. Nature is nature. The cycle of life continues whether it is in the best interest of human’s or not. The Stoics sort of agreed with this in terms of things like death, but they also believed that certain things in life like health are good while things like disease is bad.
The article “A New Stoic: The Wise Patient,” by William E. Stempsey brings up some interesting points about the Stoics and their views on nature. Stempsey explains that their definition of living in agreement with nature involved an understanding of physics and logic. In terms of physics this means that humans must acknowledge their role as physical parts of the universe. However, Stempsey argues that this does not mean simply living in accordance with the natural point of view. He states that “to define virtue as conformity to some cosmic standard that is external to the basis of virtue itself would fail to do justice to the moral viewpoint.” We must live in accordance with human nature as well as the universe. The stoics believed that it is not enough to only look at the natural world for examples on how to live. We must also look inward at aspects that make us who we are.
This is an interesting concept because it shows that the Stoics’ emphasis on nature does not mean only the environment, but also the nature of people. Both of these dynamics serve a purpose. Looking at the natural world gives us perspective on our place in the bigger picture while human nature reflects what the stoics call “natural inclination toward the good.” They believed that the human soul bends towards the truth and away from the false. It strives for goodness, avoids badness and makes no judgment about things that are neither good nor bad. Stempsey says that “living in accord with this natural inclination will lead to happiness.” True happiness can only be found through virtue.
A specific example of the balance between cosmic nature and human nature can be seen in the different kinds of opposing factors that the Stoics teach about. They believe that things like health and strength are in accordance with nature while disease and weakness are contrary to nature. This is an interesting idea because it is different than what we think of as a true environmental point of view in which disease is a natural part of the world and it serves a function. The Stoics’ idea of nature has a tendency more towards what is natural for a person to strive towards.In Epictetus’ time, nature was probably unavoidable. From going for walks, to farming, to raising animals, one must have encountered nature on a daily basis whether they wanted to or not. Compared to society today, there were very little boundaries between people and the natural world. It is no wonder that early philosophers like Epictetus and Marcus Aurileus saw something about the environment that spoke deeply to them about how to live.
Nature is a good underlying theme with the Stoics because it complements so many of their beliefs and ideas. They are non-materialistic and don’t believe in enforcing control where it is impossible to do so. If our material possessions are lost or stolen we should not stress ourselves over them. They have merely returned to the natural universe from which they came. Marcus Aurileus says, “Anything your seasons bear, O Nature, is fruit of mine; all comes from you, abides in you, and returns to you.” This concept even extends to death. Epictetus points out that we are often sympathetic and understanding when someone else’s loved ones pass on but when we lose someone close to us we feel robbed and tragedy-stricken. Epictetus would have us view their death the same as anyone else’s. Their bodies came from nature and are now returning to it. The Stoics may have felt this blurring of boundaries extended even to the personal self. Perhaps this is how Epictetus justified his calm apathy as his master was breaking his leg.
Marcus Aurileus believes we should study nature’s subtle imperfections because they serve a purpose and provide beauty in the world. He describes the “golden grain’s drooping head, the lion’s furrowed brow, the boar’s foaming snout,” and how each of these provide an important function even if they are not aesthetically pleasing. We should look at ourselves in this way and realize our own hidden strengths and beautiful imperfections as well as acknowledge our weaknesses.
Perhaps Epictetus best sums up the Stoic philosophy of nature when he tells us to, “Learn the will of nature. Study it, pay attention to it, and then make it your own.” Indeed these ancient philosophers saw the natural world as a model for how we should lead our lives but what about the reverse situation? What was their philosophy on how we should impact nature? This is something that Epictetus and Marcus Aurileus never really address, most likely because environmental degradation didn’t exist back then, or at least wasn’t as obvious. If they were alive today how would they feel about our role in the natural world? To get an idea we can look at what their views on life were and infer what judgments they would make of society today.
Epictetus says that, “Some things are within our control, and some things are not. It is only after you have faced up to this fundamental rule and learned to distinguish between what you can and can’t control that inner tranquility and outer effectiveness become possible.” If he saw our world today he would see a society that thinks nature can be conquered by manipulating it, building over it, and rising above it. Even something as simple and commonplace to us as our buildings and skyscrapers, for example, would go against the Stoic ideal. For Epictetus the perfect structure would be built to meld with the surrounding landscape and harmonize with nature. The character of anything a person creates should be able to bend with the wind rather than try to control it. Nature cannot be tamed and Epictetus would probably see many of our actions as foolish and dangerous. Aurelius supports this when he says that by living in “accord with nature’s design and will, we tap into the mind of this creative force.”
Aurileus’ emphasis on studying nature closely for our own benefit is also an indication of how the Stoics would interpret today’s world. In many places there are barriers between us and the environment such as big cities and highly developed areas. Most people don’t encounter true wild nature on a regular basis. Aurileus would wonder how we are to learn from it if we can’t see it. Even when we do see it, environmental issues like pollution and depletion of natural resources, blur the true character of nature and distort its message.
The idea of experiencing nature closely and learning from it did not die out with the Stoics. Many thinkers since then have built upon this concept. Centuries after Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, Henry David Thoreau expanded the idea of stopping to take note of the natural world we live in. “At the same time that we are earnest to explore all things, we require that all things be mysterious and unexplorable…”
Template by motime.com | header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de