thoucriticaldisaster-blog

[thoucriticaldisaster-blog]

The Modern Pursuit of Happiness

Living in the present, something various self-entitled life-guru’s recommend, is a luxury we might not be able to afford nor something we should desire. Focusing on the ‘right now’ is a soothing mechanism to avoid confrontations we might see ahead. Worries about those confrontations, conflicts or obstacles however are not phenomenons emerging out of a void - they are our instinct for survival, deciphering possible outcomes of our agency. Though most worries will turn out to be a so called ‘false alarm’, it would be foolish to discard them mindlessly without exploring their origins. The ignoring of reality to find a farce of happiness is exactly something elites within power-structures admire for their consumers: as long as they are occupied with reaching a state of shallow happiness which can be bought, consumers will never entirely feel fulfilled and will keep longing for the emotion ‘pleasure’ while turning a blind eye to everything which can ruin that aspired happiness by consuming more and more products that promise happiness. An important note is that the goods that consumers buy are not solely material goods like fancy clothes or expensive cars. They buy a happy lifestyle, which is much more than solely ‘stuff’. It is organic food. It is therapy. It is yoga. It is religion. It is safety from the unknown where we descend into a state where we seem meaningless. I am particularly interested in organisations that sell happiness not as a pretty sweater, but those whom sell the promise of happiness through something they call philosophy. This is, in my opinion, a rather offensive and cruel practice, built upon foundations which are merely illusions.

There are certain institutions whom provide a system in which they are held accountable for their acts. A university, for example, is accredited to transfer knowledge. It is not simply a business focussed on profits (at least, it should not be), but it is focussed on transferring a broad body of critical knowledge to its students through its professors. These professors cannot simply teach whatever they aspire, although they are free to have their opinions. But whatever their opinion is, they are obliged to transfer facts. Their programs are tested by other professors and there are inspections to the quality of the knowledge of the students through exams and papers, which have to be kept in archive at least a few years for further inspections by the organ of the university who guarantees quality of knowledge and simply to prove their accreditation to transfer knowledge is just.

Of course, mistakes are being made for the university is (wo)man-made. Everywhere were humans operate, there will be flaws. And from every flaw we can learn something. The most important thing to keep in mind though is the axiom of the university: it transfers knowledge. Not only useful knowledge suiting the current political climate, but also critical knowledge - upon the system and even upon itself. A university needs fee-paying students to survive, but its core motive is not the making of profits, its core motive is transferring knowledge while surviving. The better the transferring of knowledge is, the better the university will be ranked, the more students will apply and the greater its chance of its survival will be.

There are flaws in this system (which facts do we choose to present? How can we rate someones qualities by a single number or letter?). And yet its flaws are nothing compared to a new trend which seems to be emerging world-wide. This is the selling of knowledge, instead of transferring it, by companies instead of institutions, who seek profit instead of survival. Profits are not something we make when thinking critically, actually, it might even question your idea of making profit at all, which will seem rather uninteresting after you read Kant, Foucault, Sartre or any other ‘great’ name.

And yet these companies present itself as bodies of knowledge, just like a university. Especially philosophy can be turned into a brand instead of a science, when you present its long history as a legitimate pillar for its wisdom. When something is old, it should be wise, shouldn’t it? The first problem is generalisation: there is no such thing as a consequent line of philosophy through time which leads to enlightenment. Although one another might learn from a deceased thinker by reading its texts, philosophy is like a tree instead of a chronological line: a lot of its branches simply disappear in thin air. Some of its leaves fall down and become forgotten soil. And some other of its branches put the most tragic events of history into motion by fuelling one thing most people do not associate by philosophy: pure hate. Philosophers are generally not people looking for happiness. If you read Nietzsche’s full texts instead of some inspiring quotes pulled out of its context, you will be shocked by his antisemitism. Aristoteles thought that women are insignificant - they are just there to give birth. Kant thought that being happy is something foolish - you might encounter it when you do your given duty, but if you do not, there is not much of a difference (he has a point there, though).

Of course, it is important to put these thinkers in the contexts of their time. Maybe, in 200 years, the great thinkers of our time will be held accountable by someone like me because they ate meat - which by then will be regarded as a barbaric practice. It will not simply discard their ideas about the universe as invalid. But it is important to understand that there is a context. Ideas which were shaped in a different context than ours, are difficult to apply at our present context, simply because our context is different. Foucault wonderfully wrote about this in Les Mots et Les Choses, where he describes the struggle of understanding the past: an old painting in our time is only to be understood when we know how people thought in the day and age when it was created. The history of thinking, therefore, is something different than we might think.

Yet, philosophy used as a brand by profit seeking companies offer you the safety of sacred old wisdom without truly critical thoughts. Right now, there are institutions emerging which make you pay to follow classes. They will promise you things like: ‘how to deal with perfectionism’, ‘how to deal with love’ - and start their introduction with a quote of someone who has died 2000 years ago. Philosophy is offered as a cure for your individual sadness.

The problem is that philosophy as a science is the creator of the individual, but not as a goal en sich. Certain philosophers helped establish the idea of ‘I’ - I am a moving object through time and space, I am a subject in a world full of objects - I am a thing. The philosophers whom are offered as a remedy to our feeling of meaninglessness (the source of sadness) by institutions based on financial gain however, did not have this notion of the individual. Their context was so vastly different, their one-liners simply do not make sense as an applicable bandage upon our wounds. They are a farce in our world, when used as the property of a brand. They would be furious if they knew how they are used by certain institutions.

It is not strange that philosophy seems to be able to fill in gaps of meaning. We have become atheistic, non-believers, living one lifetime and then returning to dust for ever. Just as Stephen Hawking put it, that might seem horrific to many of us: “I regard the afterlife to be a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark.” That darkness, that void of seemingly meaninglessness, is something that seems hard to co-op with. Especially in times where the dogma of a dominant religion which gives one an explanation for everything (fate above coincidence) has become invalid, or in a time where its follow up - nationalism - seems to have entered its last phase before dying (the young, globalised generation of this world understands that there is no intrinsic difference between humans from other countries and themselves). Yet these systems of illusions, whereupon one can trust blindly, offered safety. There needs to be a new web of safety, in which one can trust, whatever may or might happen.

If your heart gets broken, there needs to be a just explanation. If your mother dies, there most be something to do about your sadness. These things are true - yet philosophy might not be the road one may take, at least, when it is presented as a brand. Real, non-profitable, scientific philosophy, never meant to be a self-help guide for the lack of meaning of the ego, will sooth you, but in a different way you can imagine. It will simply open up your world with more doubts, which are wonderful and horrible at the same time. It make you think of the idea of horrible and wonderful - are they platonic axioms or subjective constructs? It will simply change your focus from your pursuit of happiness to something else: the acquiring of knowledge which has nothing to do with you as an individual.

Nietzsche stopped speaking at a certain point. Kant’s character seemed rather cold. Heidegger was a Nazi. Marx was used (and still is)  to justify mass-murder. Foucault lived a hedonistic life-style in which he hurt many individuals mentally. De Beauvoir practised intercourse with her students while her husband ranted against anti-communists. Though some of their ideas are outstanding and horrifying, philosophers are not to be generalised as inspiring creatures whom have written manifests to help you, as  fairy-godmothers knowing nothing less than pure truth. They were humans, with flaws - sometimes these flaws generated world wars. When we study philosophers, we should be sharp and critical: they mainly guide you to a scenario which we do not aspire, instead of the other way around. When someone offers you to consume them to understand yourself, you should be sceptical, especially when there is money involved. Be aware for doctrines which offer you a closed system of meaning - there is no such thing. There is no guide to happiness. To end with some self-help: True happiness is not to be found or to be reached - it might even not exist. That is not discouraging, it is a gift, because it gives meaning to events in our lives which otherwise would be dull.  The void is your friend, not your foe.

[thoucriticaldisaster-blog]

The Modern Pursuit of Happiness

Living in the present, something various self-entitled life-guru’s recommend, is a luxury we might not be able to afford nor something we should desire. Focusing on the ‘right now’ is a soothing mechanism to avoid confrontations we might see ahead. Worries about those confrontations, conflicts or obstacles however are not phenomenons emerging out of a void - they are our instinct for survival, deciphering possible outcomes of our agency. Though most worries will turn out to be a so called ‘false alarm’, it would be foolish to discard them mindlessly without exploring their origins. The ignoring of reality to find a farce of happiness is exactly something elites within power-structures admire for their consumers: as long as they are occupied with reaching a state of shallow happiness which can be bought, consumers will never entirely feel fulfilled and will keep longing for the emotion ‘pleasure’ while turning a blind eye to everything which can ruin that aspired happiness by consuming more and more products that promise happiness. An important note is that the goods that consumers buy are not solely material goods like fancy clothes or expensive cars. They buy a happy lifestyle, which is much more than solely ‘stuff’. It is organic food. It is therapy. It is yoga. It is religion. It is safety from the unknown where we descend into a state where we seem meaningless. I am particularly interested in organisations that sell happiness not as a pretty sweater, but those whom sell the promise of happiness through something they call philosophy. This is, in my opinion, a rather offensive and cruel practice, built upon foundations which are merely illusions.

There are certain institutions whom provide a system in which they are held accountable for their acts. A university, for example, is accredited to transfer knowledge. It is not simply a business focussed on profits (at least, it should not be), but it is focussed on transferring a broad body of critical knowledge to its students through its professors. These professors cannot simply teach whatever they aspire, although they are free to have their opinions. But whatever their opinion is, they are obliged to transfer facts. Their programs are tested by other professors and there are inspections to the quality of the knowledge of the students through exams and papers, which have to be kept in archive at least a few years for further inspections by the organ of the university who guarantees quality of knowledge and simply to prove their accreditation to transfer knowledge is just.

Of course, mistakes are being made for the university is (wo)man-made. Everywhere were humans operate, there will be flaws. And from every flaw we can learn something. The most important thing to keep in mind though is the axiom of the university: it transfers knowledge. Not only useful knowledge suiting the current political climate, but also critical knowledge - upon the system and even upon itself. A university needs fee-paying students to survive, but its core motive is not the making of profits, its core motive is transferring knowledge while surviving. The better the transferring of knowledge is, the better the university will be ranked, the more students will apply and the greater its chance of its survival will be.

There are flaws in this system (which facts do we choose to present? How can we rate someones qualities by a single number or letter?). And yet its flaws are nothing compared to a new trend which seems to be emerging world-wide. This is the selling of knowledge, instead of transferring it, by companies instead of institutions, who seek profit instead of survival. Profits are not something we make when thinking critically, actually, it might even question your idea of making profit at all, which will seem rather uninteresting after you read Kant, Foucault, Sartre or any other ‘great’ name.

And yet these companies present itself as bodies of knowledge, just like a university. Especially philosophy can be turned into a brand instead of a science, when you present its long history as a legitimate pillar for its wisdom. When something is old, it should be wise, shouldn’t it? The first problem is generalisation: there is no such thing as a consequent line of philosophy through time which leads to enlightenment. Although one another might learn from a deceased thinker by reading its texts, philosophy is like a tree instead of a chronological line: a lot of its branches simply disappear in thin air. Some of its leaves fall down and become forgotten soil. And some other of its branches put the most tragic events of history into motion by fuelling one thing most people do not associate by philosophy: pure hate. Philosophers are generally not people looking for happiness. If you read Nietzsche’s full texts instead of some inspiring quotes pulled out of its context, you will be shocked by his antisemitism. Aristoteles thought that women are insignificant - they are just there to give birth. Kant thought that being happy is something foolish - you might encounter it when you do your given duty, but if you do not, there is not much of a difference (he has a point there, though).

Of course, it is important to put these thinkers in the contexts of their time. Maybe, in 200 years, the great thinkers of our time will be held accountable by someone like me because they ate meat - which by then will be regarded as a barbaric practice. It will not simply discard their ideas about the universe as invalid. But it is important to understand that there is a context. Ideas which were shaped in a different context than ours, are difficult to apply at our present context, simply because our context is different. Foucault wonderfully wrote about this in Les Mots et Les Choses, where he describes the struggle of understanding the past: an old painting in our time is only to be understood when we know how people thought in the day and age when it was created. The history of thinking, therefore, is something different than we might think.

Yet, philosophy used as a brand by profit seeking companies offer you the safety of sacred old wisdom without truly critical thoughts. Right now, there are institutions emerging which make you pay to follow classes. They will promise you things like: ‘how to deal with perfectionism’, ‘how to deal with love’ - and start their introduction with a quote of someone who has died 2000 years ago. Philosophy is offered as a cure for your individual sadness.

The problem is that philosophy as a science is the creator of the individual, but not as a goal en sich. Certain philosophers helped establish the idea of ‘I’ - I am a moving object through time and space, I am a subject in a world full of objects - I am a thing. The philosophers whom are offered as a remedy to our feeling of meaninglessness (the source of sadness) by institutions based on financial gain however, did not have this notion of the individual. Their context was so vastly different, their one-liners simply do not make sense as an applicable bandage upon our wounds. They are a farce in our world, when used as the property of a brand. They would be furious if they knew how they are used by certain institutions.

It is not strange that philosophy seems to be able to fill in gaps of meaning. We have become atheistic, non-believers, living one lifetime and then returning to dust for ever. Just as Stephen Hawking put it, that might seem horrific to many of us: “I regard the afterlife to be a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark.” That darkness, that void of seemingly meaninglessness, is something that seems hard to co-op with. Especially in times where the dogma of a dominant religion which gives one an explanation for everything (fate above coincidence) has become invalid, or in a time where its follow up - nationalism - seems to have entered its last phase before dying (the young, globalised generation of this world understands that there is no intrinsic difference between humans from other countries and themselves). Yet these systems of illusions, whereupon one can trust blindly, offered safety. There needs to be a new web of safety, in which one can trust, whatever may or might happen.

If your heart gets broken, there needs to be a just explanation. If your mother dies, there most be something to do about your sadness. These things are true - yet philosophy might not be the road one may take, at least, when it is presented as a brand. Real, non-profitable, scientific philosophy, never meant to be a self-help guide for the lack of meaning of the ego, will sooth you, but in a different way you can imagine. It will simply open up your world with more doubts, which are wonderful and horrible at the same time. It make you think of the idea of horrible and wonderful - are they platonic axioms or subjective constructs? It will simply change your focus from your pursuit of happiness to something else: the acquiring of knowledge which has nothing to do with you as an individual.

Nietzsche stopped speaking at a certain point. Kant’s character seemed rather cold. Heidegger was a Nazi. Marx was used (and still is)  to justify mass-murder. Foucault lived a hedonistic life-style in which he hurt many individuals mentally. De Beauvoir practised intercourse with her students while her husband ranted against anti-communists. Though some of their ideas are outstanding and horrifying, philosophers are not to be generalised as inspiring creatures whom have written manifests to help you, as  fairy-godmothers knowing nothing less than pure truth. They were humans, with flaws - sometimes these flaws generated world wars. When we study philosophers, we should be sharp and critical: they mainly guide you to a scenario which we do not aspire, instead of the other way around. When someone offers you to consume them to understand yourself, you should be sceptical, especially when there is money involved. Be aware for doctrines which offer you a closed system of meaning - there is no such thing. There is no guide to happiness. To end with some self-help: True happiness is not to be found or to be reached - it might even not exist. That is not discouraging, it is a gift, because it gives meaning to events in our lives which otherwise would be dull.  The void is your friend, not your foe.