A Ku Indeed!

Brooks on Them Youngins

September 30th, 2011 by Chris

---

Posted in Ethics | 10 Comments »

10 Responses to “Brooks on Them Youngins”

1. Jess Says:
   October 2nd, 2011 at 4:07 pm

   In this modern world it is very hard to have one set of ethics or ethics at all. Since there is so much opinion on the subject. Especially for me since I just couldn’t find anything that would intellectually satisfy me.

   This is somewhat relevant to the discussion of ethics but I have to say I’ve been searching for a very long time and I think I’ve found a worldview that actually makes sense to me. Not something I can merely try on but something that seems to actually click with me.

   I used to despise virtue ethics because it always seemed so arbitrary. I wanted some rules to follow so it was either utilitarianism or deontology for me. But utilitarianism seems like a glaring failure simply because I couldn’t for the life of me see how tallying everyone’s pleasures or displeasures could be ethics but I tried to see it anyway. And Kantian deontology seemed like the only way to go but it de-emphasizes happiness and any other emotion but then it tries to use happiness as a reward in the afterlife. I just can’t buy into that.

   So I tried ethical egoism and experimented with Ayn Rand (and tried to purge her lack of understanding of other philosophers from her theories). But ethical egoism annihilates itself because you’re never going to be a happy person if there’s nothing bigger than you. Ethical egoism is dead before it even begins because to make everything about you makes you very lonely. And how could anyone want that? No wonder Ayn Rand was such a bitter person.

   So I looked at the Greeks/Romans and I found Stoicism. I honestly can’t find anything wrong with Stoicism (a kind of virtue theory). The end goal is happiness and there are very reasonable ways to get there. In Stoicism virtue is a sufficient and necessary means to happiness. Sounds almost absurd right? Surely virtue is necessary for happiness like an Aristotelian would have you believe but sufficient? But as I’ve looked more and more at Stoicism, I can see how well it fits into physicalism (Greek and Roman Stoics were materialists) and this is very workable for me since I can’t see anyway out of physicalism. There’s a little bit of arbitrariness but generally speaking there’s a very logical pathway to happiness.

   But how is virtue a sufficient condition for happiness? Don’t you need a certain amount of wealth, a job, a friend, etc to be happy? No! And that’s the amazing thing. Stoicism offers mental exercises to deal with a world that is terribly indifferent to your existence. It tells you that your situation can always be worse than it already is so you might as well as be happy with what you have. The Universe is determined to be the way that it is so if you have pitfalls, you should marvel at them and not regret them because you’re decisions and mistakes were all part of a Universe governed by rational laws of nature. The Universe is divine so you should love it and live it.

   If you’re born a slave, just be happy you’re master is nice to you. If your master whips you, just be happy he didn’t whip your slave friend. I know, very dark and very counter-intuitive but the more I look at this kind of thought process, the more it seems it helps me see the world in a better light.

   Now Stoicism doesn’t justify passivity like a lot of critics think it does. If you’re born a slave, escape slavery and try to help your fellow slaves. There’s no real reason why anyone should be better than you so the kind of people who continue slavery have evil characters. But if you are stuck in the place that you are, always think of how very fortunate your situation is compared to what it could otherwise be. It could be better but don’t want it to be better, just wish it was better. Want is a form of attachment but wishing is more contemplative. The point is never take anything for granted.

   The Stoics thought that passions were forms of judgments. So if you wanted something, you were under the mistaken impression that the thing you desired is good. But there is no good in the world. Good is only in the character. If you feared something, then you thought something was bad. But bad is not in the world, it is only in the character. And since good is only in the character, then if you live a good life, you live a happy life free from attachment to fears, despairs, wants, etc. You realize you’ve been thrown into the world with all your other comrades (good or malicious characters) and you might as well as accept what you got. Strive to do better and to better your society but realize that this is preferable not desirable. Because desire, like in Buddhism, will sometimes and often will end in terrible disappointment.

   If you desire anything you don’t have 100% control over (things other than your character), then you’ll more than likely eventually wind up being disappointed.

   So here’s the simple rules in Stoicism. Get rid of taking pleasure and simply enjoy. Get rid of fear and replace it with watchfulness. Get rid of wanting and replace it with wishing. There is nothing to replace anger with. Anger is pointless, it only feeds anger. Realize that things in the world are indifferent morally and only see things as preferable or not preferable. “I prefer not.” as Bartleby would say. Hehe.

   And just remember what Marcus Aurelius said. “Death smiles at us all, all we can do is smile back.”

   Wow, I just kind of rambled on about Stoicism. Sorry about that. But I think I’ve found a philosophy for me that successfully destroys the ego in a practical way and makes a path for real happiness and equality among everyone. In fact, our modern conception of Human Rights originated with the Stoics interestingly enough.

2. Jess Says:
   October 2nd, 2011 at 4:35 pm

   By the way, how you doing these days CP?

   My baby is very healthy and happy and my wife is doing really well. Believe or not, I’m a taxi cab driver for Christian County Cab (they’re based in Nixa but run in Springfield and Ozark) right now and actually don’t mind it. I “prefer” (hehe) to find something that pays better in the near future.

3. Chris Says:
   October 2nd, 2011 at 4:35 pm

   Hi Jess -

   First, congratulations on your baby! You must be very happy. Well, you know, Stoically happy.

   Onward, just some lettered thoughts as I’m cooking and so have to write quickly:

   a. I have never found “in this day and age” arguments very convincing.

   b. It’s unclear to me why VE is arbitrary. I’m not sure what you mean, other than “I need rules”. In any event, it’s not clear to me why deontology’s “rationality” and utilitarianism’s “happiness” aren’t any less open to such a charge.

   c. I’ll skip over Ayn Rand, you know my views on her “theory”. I’m glad you’ve moved on.

   d. “In Stoicism virtue is a sufficient and necessary means to happiness. Sounds almost absurd right?”

   Not really, actually, but clearly it depends on how you understand virtue and happiness. But no, it doesn’t sound absurd (not saying it’s right, but that I don’t see the absurdity).

   e. I’m not sure physicalism is true, but I’ll save that one as it doesn’t really matter to the main issue.

   f. If you think of happiness as eudaimonia, or as a life well lived (Cicero) then why would virtue not be sufficient? Clearly they are not thinking of happiness as a state of feeling, right? It’s a matter of a certain type of narrative.

   g. “Don’t you need a certain amount of wealth, a job, a friend, etc to be happy? No!”

   Hard for me to believe that you can be happy without friends. Wealth, maybe. I’m with Aristotle and Confucius (and Nietzsche) on the first one.

   h. If you like stoicism, you should go read Nietzsche again. He’s a happy Stoic, doesn’t go in for the “things could be worse” business, and as you know he’s all about the indifferent universe.

   Last question: what does this have to do with Brooks?

4. Chris Says:
   October 2nd, 2011 at 4:37 pm

   Missed your second comment – I have some baby stuff for you, if you want to pick it up!

   CP

   (by the way, don’t misread me above – I don’t have much of a problem with the Stoics at all. They are, in my opinion, in the right ballpark)

5. Jess Says:
   October 2nd, 2011 at 5:00 pm

   Cooking and posting. Good multi-tasker. I like. I like cooking too (I find it to be very therapeutic) but here lately I’ve had a lot of enjoyment in eating canned sardines and oysters – to go off on a gastro tagent.

   A) You are correct sir. I could have said “in our day and age” back in the 50s or in ancient Roman times just as validly. I kinda being half serious with that. But I guess in any “our day” and in any “our age”. Everyone had to grapple with the annoying perplexity of different opinions and thoughts.

   B) Utilitarianism and deontology seemed prima facie to reduce down to something for motivations for ethical thinking. VE seemed like a follow the leader kind of approach (i.e. moral exemplar) and it just rubbed me the wrong way. But I don’t really hold such views anymore.

   C) Feel free to throw Ayn Rand to the curb. That’s what her theory entitles her to. Hehe.

   D) Some people just have a hard time seeing it. Or intellectually entertaining the idea that virtue can be a sufficient condition for happiness. It’s pretty surprising how prevalent it is.

   E) It doesn’t have too much relevance. It’s relevant insofar as your metaphysics better mesh with your ethics. And I’m actually more of a methological naturalist than a physicalist anyway. But I do have physicalist leanings and I think it ties into my ethics of Stoicism.

   F) I’m on the side that it is sufficient. My apologies if I gave the impression that it isn’t.

   G) Friends are preferable. But I think happiness is even possible without them. I don’t have very many friends but I have close friends. And I know this is gonna sound terrible but I think it’s possible for me to be happy without them. I like them, but I think there can be trying times, where you will have to do without a friend and I still think it is possible to be happy without them.

   H) I don’t really buy into existentialism anymore. I’m an essentialist. Mainly because I think there has to be something real and concrete at the bottom. Most existentialists end up essentializing their theories. Nietzsche had to use a narrative like the eternal return to make his decisions more “weighty.” Sartre had to use solidarity (Communism). For Heiddegar it was Der Fuhrer. Really the only person who didn’t fall too much into the trap of essentialism was Camus but he lived a tragic life in my opinion.

   Last question: It has everything to do with Brooks . The reason we have such a moral-less epidemic is because no one is successfully answering the big questions. And I used to be that 18 – 23 yr old. Granted I felt what was right and wrong but I didn’t know what it was.

6. Jess Says:
   October 2nd, 2011 at 5:06 pm

   Sorry to keep having disparate posts, but the answer to the ethical question is happiness and true happiness comes from a good character. And I don’t feel like I’m choosing that as my ethics in an existentialist sense. I think it is essential. I think if you look at the Universe for divine creature that it, you will essentially realize and be moved by Reason to see happiness as the end goal for any rational creature.

7. Jess Says:
   October 2nd, 2011 at 5:17 pm

   I just saw your other post. I just gotta make time to come by your office sometime. I could probably stop by tomorrow or Tuesday since those are my days off. I don’t know if that works. But Mondays and Tuesdays are good days for me.

8. Chris Says:
   October 8th, 2011 at 9:38 am

   Jess –

   On (B) – I think VE is a bit more complex than “follow the leader”.

   On (D) – I think that when people see them as inconsistent, they might be thinking of happiness as ‘pleasure’ and they have a hard time visualize the happy Stoic on the rack being tortured, etc.

   On (E) – naturalism seems more defensible to me than physicalism; lately I’ve been of the view that consciousness and ethics can’t be captured by a physicalist theory.

   On (F) – I’m not sure you need friends all the time or even in plenty, but it’s rather an issue of a good life requiring them, where ‘a good life’ is seen over a lifetime. In modern times, wives are friends, so you’d need to count Amy here.

   On (H) – I just meant with respect to the indifferent universe, actually.

   I don’t think (on Brooks) that it’s that young folks haven’t answered the questions, it’s that they don’t think there even are such questions. I think Brooks is somewhat right here – the modern age is so influenced by individualism (I decide what’s right) and emotivism (ethics is about feeling) that there are no big questions at all. There’s just nihilism.

9. Jess Says:
   October 10th, 2011 at 4:17 am

   (H) Point understood clearly and distinctly. Yeah, I think the parallels are definitely there (“Sometimes you stare into the Abyss and the Abyss stares right back at you.”). I think I’ll be reading the G of M again fairly soon. I’ve never really cared much for Thus Spake Zarathustra but I might even give that a read again but not eternally recurringly. That’s another striking parallel between Nietzsche and the Stoics – the eternal recurrence.

   Anyway, yeah, apparently I didn’t read Brooks closely enough. I think you’re right about 20-somethings falling into nihilism and radical individualism. I had an emotivist understanding of ethics back in high school but I also knew what emotivism was at that time so I guess that probably still did set me kinda apart from the Herd.

   David Brooks also has an interesting piece – I don’t know if you’ve read it – called the Limits of Empathy. I actually liked that one quite a bit. You should let me know what you think if you give it a read. It’s not the most amazing piece philosophically but I think it would be good for an undergrad in philosophy to read in their free time.

10. Jess Says:
    October 10th, 2011 at 4:23 am

    Actually, I thought of a question that is quite relevant. Do you think someone who understands emotivism and is one is a step up from a person who merely is an emotivist and doesn’t know it? Same thing with an individualist? Like, is Ayn Rand a step up?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Optionally add an image (JPEG only)