Before the book I've been writing about recently -- Kieran Setiya's Life is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way -- is put away on a bookshelf where I'll have trouble finding it (my books aren't organized very well), I wanted to share some final observations from Setiya that I found interesting.
No such thing as fate. I agree with Setiya that fate doesn't exist, at least not in the sense of events in our life being preordained. I'd say, though, that they're ordained, in that chains of causes and effects control everything in the cosmos outside of the rarified realm of quantum mechanics where probabilities rule. But that realm has no bearing on everyday life.
In this passage Setiya is talking about an episode in baseball.
No one''s life can be reduced to one event, one enterprise, or one ambition. Each is made of facts and facts and facts. Nor is there any fate to be discerned in what transpires. As we relive the season, the at bat, we see how differently things could go, the sheer contingency of failure and success.
More than that, we see how tempting and how dangerous it is to tell the stories of our lives as if they had some hidden teleology, driving onward to predestined ends.
...We can be at fault for failure, but the chaos of contingency in life -- the pitch that dips or doesn't, the catch that bounces from the heel of a glove -- reminds us that control is never absolute and often limited. Whatever your mistakes, moreover, there is more to you than the failures they explain, more than any project you pursue.
Buddhism is mistaken. I can sort of see why Setiya makes the following critique of Buddhism, but he's speaking of the religious side of Buddhism, the supernatural side. There's also a secular side to Buddhism that does proclaim that living in the present moment is the wisest thing to do. (Atelic means being unfinished, incomplete.)
An alternative reading of the film treats life in Groundhog Day as an allegory for samsara, the cycle of suffering conjectured by Buddhist philosophy, in which we live life after woeful life according to the law of karma. The goal is to be free of this cycle, no longer reborn, in the nothingness of nirvana. Thus Phil escapes from repetition to mortality.
Whatever its merits, the Buddhist interpretation of Groundhog Day, and of human life, is not the same as mine. For Buddhists, the power of now is about the transience and emptiness of reality, overcoming attachment to persons and things, the liberation of disengaging from what is fragile, perishable, shifting. For me, it's the opposite.
To value the atelic is to attach oneself to the present. It's not about emptiness but fullness, not about detachment or liberation but engagement with, and attention to, what is happening now.
...In Midlife, I wrote about meditation as a way to reorient oneself to the atelic. To focus mindfully on breathing, sitting, listening to sounds, detached from future goals to learn to appreciate the present; it nurtures an ability to find atelic value that transmits into everyday life.
Not all religions appeal to God. Setiya is absolutely correct about this. It's a good thing to remember when religious believers make a sharp distinction between atheism and religiosity. Actually, some religions, like Buddhism, are atheistic.
The first thing to say is that not all religions appeal to God. Beside the monotheistic religions -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam -- there are polytheistic religions like Hinduism, and religions that arte nontheistic, like Buddhism.
It's not easy to say what these religions have in common, what makes them religions, binding together a "total reaction upon life" with creeds and doctrines, rituals and practices. But one element of any religion is belief, or faith, in something that transcends the ordinary world -- if not God or gods then a metaphysics of some kind, as in the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness and the puzzling proposition that there is no self.
Religion is, I believe, essentially metaphysical. It provides a picture of the world as a whole that guides our total reaction: how we are meant to feel about life, the universe, and everything. This might involve our relation to God or it might not; but it always involves a metaphysics of transcendence.
Take Buddhism, for instance. What distinguishes Buddhist meditation from mindfulness as a method of stress control is the aim of ending suffering through discovering the truth -- in particular, the truth that you don't exist. If neither you nor those you love are real in anything like the way you once believed, mortality and loss are less traumatic.
(That is the idea, anyway; it's never been clear to me why discovering this "truth" is not at least as traumatic, like being told that everyone you know, including you, is already dead.)
To come to terms with life through meditation for serenity, or through talk therapy, is not to be religious, or to know the meaning of life, since it is not to discover any such truth.
“No such thing as fate.” Yes, there is the idea that fate is a power that some people believe controls and decides everything that happens, in a way that cannot be prevented or changed, reflects a supernatural thinking or belief. The law of cause and effect adequately explains life's' happenings (a sensible Karma).
“Buddhism is mistaken.” Here, Setiya is referring to the simplistic religious aspect of Buddhism. He mentions Karma, emptiness, detachment and “ . . the puzzling proposition that there is no self.” Karma in the generally accepted religious sense is viewed as past and present actions deciding ones fate in future existences. Karma originally meant 'action' and has nothing to do with destiny or fate. As I understand Karma, ones actions, whether in thought or deed, being often confused and disharmonious can cause an imbalanced and unhealthy view of life causing dissonance, pain, suffering and confusion – which is self-perpetuating – in this life.
Emptiness is simply the doctrine that nothing, no object (or thought) possesses any inherent essence. 'Tree' for example is just a dualistic concept, a word convenient for communication and attempts to describe a living, integrated aspect of life. A 'tree' is leaves, branches, bark, air, rain, sap, earth etc.; there is no inherent thing called tree.
Similar to Setiya's: - “ . . the puzzling proposition that there is no self.” Again, there is no Ron, no 'me' or 'self'; there is (like the tree) just a functioning organism that is interrelated with its environment. A search for 'me' reveals a body/brain organism but no trace, no essence – apart from the idea, the concept of something convention calls 'me', my 'self'.
And detachment; more understood as non-attachment; a non-attachment toward wishing something or someone to be different from the reality of what it or they are at that moment. Nothing to do with being emotionally or mentally 'detached', more to do with seeing what is at that moment – not 'desiring' to change it but to work with what is being presented. It is normal and natural to be attached – to love and cherish – and it is normal and natural to wish them well and mourn their passing.
Posted by: Ron E. | October 21, 2022 at 08:23 AM
It’s such a human tendency to want to “demonize” things. We do this as a way of protecting ourselves, which is understandable yet dangerous in itself.
It’s good to say lightning storms are potentially lethal so I’m not going to go play outside during a lightning storm. But humans don’t demonize the weather. We don’t say that lightning or hurricanes or tornadoes or forest fires are “evil”.
Religion falls into the same boat. It can be a useful tool. We don’t have to demonize it but we don’t have to accept all of it either. We can choose to accept certain religious teachings because they have proven to be helpful. And we reject certain teachings that are clearly unhealthy.
Buddhism is interesting. I am really drawn to the idea of living in a peaceful and blissful “now”. That’s all I can say. I agree there is a lot of suffering in this world, but I don’t think life has to be full of suffering and I certainly don’t think everything is predetermined.
Regardless, I’m learning to say “that thing, or place, or person is dangerous” without demonizing it. Why should I give it that power over me? And, even more importantly, why should I condemn it?
Discernment and condemnation are two separate things.
Posted by: older and wiser | October 22, 2022 at 02:24 AM
Oleander
Oleander can kill you if you ingest it, but humans don’t “hate” oleander, we just don’t eat it.
To hate something is to give it power over you. And by doing this you have contradicted the necessity of caution.
It’s critical to learn to distinguish between hate and caution.
Whether you’re a fundamentalist atheist, fundamentalist Buddhist, or fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist what-have-you—your fundamentalist beliefs are quite often driven by fear. The side effects of these beliefs can be close-mindedness, hatred and paranoia. That said, it’s understandable to want to protect yourself. And you should! However, not to the extent that you close yourself off from useful and healing concepts.
We have to learn balance in this life, which means being able to distinguish between caution and hatred.
Everyone should live a cautious life. No one should live in fear. And fear is the same as hatred.
Posted by: older and wiser | October 22, 2022 at 02:57 AM