A man's search for meaning

I have recently drastically ramped up the number of books read, with my pipeline being compiled from recommendations in the media or from friends. With the two sources being at times insufficient, AI turns out to be a (not flawless) source of inspiration.

Not a long ago, prompted by recurring thoughts on how to arrange my life, if the fate does not bring a chance to raise a family, I asked chatGPT to recommended readings on searching for a sense in life. The item which popped up as a first non-philosophical book was the one by Victor E. Frankl.

The author was an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist, but above all, a concentration camp survivor. He wrote the first version of his work in 1946, as the memories of shirking annihilation were still fresh. As he quotes the statistics, ex-post odds to come out alive of a concentration camp, were 1 to 28. Those who survived until "liberation" (whatever evil you may say of the Soviet army, prisoners of Nazi concentration camps were saved from death by them) were not lucky, nor of extraordinary stamina, nor had much lust for life. As Mr Frankl pointed out, they kept seeing deeper sense of their suffering and chased dignity in places where it was downtrodden.

The experience of concentration camp survival laid foundations for logotherapy, a therapeutic approach which is uncommon these days. Note the book, though augmented twice, the last time in 1984, might appear outdated today, as human life and relationships have been deeply reshaped over the last decades. The second chapter of the book, written sometime between 1946 and 1984, concisely and approachably summarises basics of logotherapy, which I dare to interpret below.

According to the author, the basic driver of a sense of meaning in life is a pursuit of a mission being accomplished. Be it inventing a cure for cancer, raising a family, constructing bridges or helping orphans as a volunteer - life must a have a defined goal, which either is chased indefinitely or offers deep self-fulfilment when achieved.

The mission pursued lifts a human out of two states into which humans inevitably plunge and between which they then swing - boredom and despair. In early industrial times, when physical labour was took up 50 - 60 hours a week and running a house and a raising a multi-child family occupied most of the time, little time was left for boredom, so the despair prevailed. In post-industrial era, with shorter working hours and several appliances taking mundane duties off people in developed countries, boredom takes over. Although life seems easier now, lifting oneself from boredom is more problematic than overcoming despair a century ago. Despair comes up when life overwhelms you. Boredom creeps up when you lack resources to fill the void.

The meaning of life has three dimensions:
1) work or action - either as part of your vocational duties or voluntarily you create something, which brings you some benefits or prompts positive feelings,
2) relationships and experiencing - draw on the concept no man as an island and interactions with fellow humans add much value to our lives, however taking pleasure in nature, art or exploring new places to bring delight to our senses also may be a goal to be pursued,
3) suffering - is not a compulsory element of searching the meaning, but once life confronts you with illness, pain, bereavement or loss of wealth, it gives you a chance to be reborn and to redefine your dignity.

Upon reading the book I am pretty sure the fate has a plan for each of us. I also approach the future, no matter how not bright it might be, with more humility and faith things will shape up.

Ucieczka od bezradności - book review

As a down-to-earth human I have never really been into philosophy, but at times a conversation with another human can inspire me to reach out for a book (titled: “Escape from the helplessness”), I would not read off my own bat.

The author, Tomasz Stawiszyński is a relatively young (born in 1978) Polish philosopher and author of books and articles as well as podcasts and radio broadcasts. In the set of essays I have delved into, he cracks down on cult of everlasting happiness and omnipresent optimism, both being laid as foundations of late capitalism. But since happiness is not a continual state and optimism is not the mood humans experience all the time, he holds forth that the eternal balance between positivism and negativism ought to be restored.

Historically, as Mr Stawiszyński points out, death was present in societies. The departure of a community member used to be commemorated collectively, then the mourning ensued and is some cases lasted for months or even ages. Mourning and grief were an ordinary element of a human existence and were lived through in communities which facilitated the process of recovery. As the author underlines, each human responds in a different way to a loss. A mourning might last two weeks, or a lifetime and each response fits within the frames of “normality”.

WHO estimates around 350 people around the world suffer from depression, which is categorised as an epidemic only because the disease is not contagious. Individualism, hectic pace of life, bars raised too high, lack of community support, pursuit of material goods, consumerism, loosening bonds between humans and several other civilizational changes could have contributed to the widespread character of the disease. The depression is several cases might turn out to be a grief not lived through properly. Not denying the suffering of people afflicted by it, the author claims too many people are reliant on psychotherapy and antidepressants to cope with their problems whose scale is too miniscule to call them a depression. I actually also detest when somebody calls a temporary low mood a depression, since the illness is too serious to use its name rashly.

From the suffering-related parts of the human psyche, the author switches into the way the human mind deals with complex phenomena. When facing the unknown, it tends to seek the most straightforward explanation. When additionally facing the unthinkable or a black swan, straightforward answers come up as mind-boggling and give rise to conspiracy theories sprouting. 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Smolensk airplane crash or the COVID-19 pandemic are the events which had been beyond our imaginations until they happened.

Further on, Mr Stawiszyński touches upon the role of what I called a noble violence. He argues humans reluctant to commit evil, but think up absurd excuses to justify it. Take the example of Russian invasion to Ukraine – the aim of the “special operation” is to “liberate the areas, free the locals from the fascist government and reinstate peace”. All felonies committed in the history were at best committed as the lesser of two evils. When pondering upon the concept, a proverb “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” springs to mind instantly.

The last chapter makes a reference to the helplessness mentioned in the book’s title. Helplessness, which is indispensable element of life, while the contemporary culture intently attempts to find solutions to all sorts of misery. While in several circumstances humans should just come to terms with their misery.

The summative closing remarks are the most precious excerpts of the book, in which the philosopher calls to bring back the dark side of the human existence. He insists we should summon up strength to face up to all unpleasant, but inevitable experiences, rather than averting it.

Hedonism - a reason to be proud?

I hatched the idea of writing this in late 2009, after seeing on my two friends' respectively: facebook profile and website their "about me" descriptions. One described her interests as "pure hedonism" (hedonizm w czystej postaci, the other introduced herself as "consummate hedonist" (wytrawna hedonistka. I read it with a bit of disdain, pulled a silly face and decided that the next day I would ask my closest schoolmates how they would react to it.

My pristine reaction was "there's nothing to boast about". Pursuit of pleasure is not evil itself, but setting it as an overriding goal in life smacked of being totally out of place. Then I read the entry in wikipedia to learn more about this so-called "school of thoughts", the read dispelled some of my doubts, but the bad aftertaste remained - maybe I was biased. But then it turned out my friends' opinions generally squared with mine. Actually they didn't find it as repulsive as I did, but were all far cry from embracing the pleasure-oriented stance.

As open-minded and tolerant people, we are aware and accept that people have different definitions of happiness and different hierarchies of values and they have a right to arrange their lives in a way they choose. Different people mean different objectives in life. For some the most important things are: family, friends, work, career, money, material goods, travels, education, sport, hobby, entertainment, fun, sacrifice to other people, etc., so why not pleasure? The take on how one assesses hedonism probably hinges upon the definition of the term. What occured to me, at first glance, was that pursuit of pleasure, the most important goal in life for a hedonist, must be subordinated to other values, including feelings of fellow people. The "at all cost" pursuit of pleasure probably whipped up my reject of the concept. My first association was that seeking happiness must be done at the expense of other people. I see two reasons for such reaction: blissful ignorance (mother of prejudices, misunderstandings and egregious errors) and my perception of the two women who’d declared themselves hedonists and whose behaviour usually involved caring little about others.

The wikipedia article says: a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minus pain). Well, I'd had it in mind before and this probably will always prevent me from embracing hedonism. The pain, not physical, but primarily emotional, is an indispensable element of a human life. If you've never experienced a pain tearing you apart, you can't call yourself a human. You simply can't always avoid pain. Suffering adds you experience, toughens you up, makes you wiser, allows you to sympathise with the worse-off. This puts me further away from the embrace and brings me closer to reject.

So is the hedonism about self-centredness then? Maybe if it's rational to take care of one's own interests firstly, the answer is 'yes'? Is there one good answer? Are there still more questions than answers? I don't wish to condemn the dissenters, but it seems the key question is whether somebody is able to strike a trade-off between egoism and altruism, with more emphasis on the latter.

The whole post is apparently one huge ramble, may it charm consist in the confusing disorder of thoughts...