Party for the Mind

I recently attended the third in a series of (what I call) ‘parties for the mind,’ hosted jointly by a good friend who is a captain in the Marine Corps, and a gentleman he considers his ‘life coach’ – a well-to-do retired gentleman with a salty sense of humor, who had served with the Marines in WW2 and still considers himself a Marine at heart. A couple of times a year, these two bring in a diverse group of ‘thinking friends’ for a different kind of gathering – not only to enjoy each other’s company, but also to stimulate thought and discussion. The format is as follows: The party begins like most parties – guests arrive and are welcomed, and then head to the hors d’ouvres and drinks where they greet old friends and introduce themselves to people they don’t know. After about 45 minutes or so, everyone is asked to sit down, and a ‘featured guest’ gives a brief ‘presentation’ of an idea or a perspective on which s/he has some expertise and which is of interest to the group. The presenter then leads and facilitates discussion on the topic. This goes on for perhaps an hour or so, and then the group discussion ends, and people break up into smaller groups to continue eating, drinking, socializing and discussing the topic for the evening, if they so choose.

These gatherings have been stimulating and very enjoyable, and for days, my wife and I have discussed ideas we have heard at these gatherings. Discussing and exchanging ideas of any substance can be difficult or awkward in most social gatherings, and a ‘party for the mind’ creates a permissive environment for people to think and share thoughts and insights. It is a combination of party and classroom. Many people seek and find similar enjoyment and stimulation by joining reading groups, or bible or other religious or spiritual study groups, movie clubs, or any club that regularly explores the nuances of a common interest area, and combines that exploration and discussion with food, drink, and conviviality. The internet has also served to connect people of similar interests, intellectual, cultural or otherwise – people who heretofore have often felt alone and isolated with their interests.

Many people are hungry for the pleasures and challenges of mental stimulation, and I meet them regularly. They have sensed that the satisfactions that come from exploring ideas, appreciating good literature, art, and music, and sharing these with friends in good discussion are qualitatively different, and frequently preferable to the ‘mind candy’ that is so readily available through the media and social and entertainment world.

John Stuart Mill recognized this, and in his Utilitarian calculus, he gave ‘pleasures of the mind’ a higher value than more primal social interactions and pleasures of the body. He famously commented that he believed it to be preferable to be Socrates dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied. His argument went as such: If forced to choose between the pleasures of the mind and the pleasures of the body, people who know both well, over the long term will choose the pleasures of the mind. In fact, older people will argue that nature makes that decision for us anyway. Over a lifetime, the aging process significantly reduces the degree and intensity of the pleasure we get from our bodies (food, drink, sex, and other stimulation), while those who have cultivated the ability to enjoy the pleasures of the mind, continue to be fully stimulated by and enjoy great literature, art, and ideas well into old age.

Many younger people sense this and have shared with me that they struggle to find friends who are interested in ideas, literature, art, and discussion. While these people do enjoy popular culture and appreciate the fun and exciting activities around which much social activity is based, they feel something is missing and want something more. Life IS and should be Fun – but ‘fun’ has many forms, and a ‘party for the mind,’ can be an enjoyable way to generate thought and discussion that goes beyond the NFL play-offs, Avatar, or Tiger Woods’ travails. It is not an either/or choice between being a Socrates, struggling to understand, or a ‘pig satisfied.’ It is a ‘both/and’ opportunity. I too was young once, and enjoyed glimpses of the pleasures of the mind that complemented and sometimes even surpassed the pleasures that came from following the simple imperative of a young Navy Seal: “Eat, f—, sky-dive.”

Stoicism – The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I am a Stoic – not in the pure sense, nor in the popular sense of the word, but I suppose, in my own sense. I find much about Stoicism appealing and useful to me, and have enjoyed studying it and teaching it semi-seriously for a number of years. Within the Stoic tradition, there are a number of different versions and approaches, and it is not a branch of philosophy or ethics that is currently taken very seriously by most academic philosophers. That said, in its general, garden variety form, it is a philosophy that I find more useful than most in helping me personally to live the life I want to live and to become the person I want to become, in a world in which so much seems to be random or at least beyond my control. But while Stoicism offers much that I find appealing, it also has its drawbacks and critics. So I thought it might be interesting to briefly look at it in this blog.

THE GOOD: What I like about Stoicism is that it is a philosophy of empowerment, freedom and responsibility. It emphasizes individual autonomy and choice – to choose our reactions to the world as it is. The Stoic says that, “It is not important what happens to you. What is important is how you react to what happens to you.” In an almost literal sense, Stoicism is a philosophy in which ‘attitude is everything.’ Happiness is a choice. Success is a choice. As are unhappiness, failure, sadness. Stoicism knows no victims and accepts no excuses. There is no good or bad luck – bad luck is merely our unwillingness to accept what life has given us. So even ‘luck’ is merely a function of attitude. It is entirely up to us to train our minds and our wills to accept our freedom and responsibility, or alternatively, to choose to be a victim. A person in prison can have as much freedom, and thereby capacity for happiness as the billionaire living in his mansion in a gated community. For the Stoic, freedom is a state of mind, not a political or economic or other external condition, and happiness is a personal choice, a decision that we make, consciously or unconsciously regarding how we react to external circumstances that we can only pretend to control. The Stoic believes in an ‘unseen order of things’ that we must accept and adapt to. Tragedy, catastrophe, death, disease, unexpected disruptions of our lives and our plans – these are part of the natural order of things and are part of every person’s life. Our efforts to manage and avoid these disappointments are ultimately doomed to failure; happiness and serenity therefore can only be attained and sustained to the degree that we can accept, and even embrace, the tribulations that come our way. Stoicism emphasizes Duty and Honor as values above worldly praise and pleasure, disappointments and loss. You and only you, are responsible for your life and your happiness, because you and only you, are in control of the only things that matter – your attitude and your honor.

THE BAD: Throughout history Stoic detachment has been caricatured in the form of the Stoic sage smiling serenely, as the world crumbles around him. Valuing one’s personal serenity at all costs can be a call to inaction and may endorse emotional detachment from one’s own suffering, as well as the suffering of others. With some legitimacy, Stoicism has been criticized as an emotional ‘cut your losses’ philosophy – don’t become too attached to anyone or anything, since everything will eventually be taken from us anyway. A person may be drawn to Stoicism to avoid emotional commitment and thereby the almost inevitable disappointment or let-down that follows. Existentialist critics of Stoicism argue that passion is what makes life worth living, and the Stoic who is infatuated with serenity, and will not risk passionate disappointment also misses the joys and exhilarations of passionate commitment. They argue that Stoic rationalism and emotional control cut the heart out of the human being. Additionally, Stoic fatalistic acceptance of the natural order of things, when taken to an extreme, can deny the value of human action. Such resignation to Fate is found in parts of the Arab world, where God is given all responsibility for this world, absolving man of responsibility for his own actions or life circumstances. Inshallah, I will live a good life. Inshallah, I won’t.

THE UGLY: Compassion can be difficult for the Stoic who takes his Stoicism literally or to an extreme. It is a ‘suck-it-up’ philosophy for oneself as well as others. There is little room for compassion if the Stoic assigns full responsibility and accountability, and denial of any victim status, to others. “This is YOUR fate, I have mine. Suck it up. Adjust your attitude. Your suffering is a gift – embrace it.” While such ‘tough love’ is certainly appropriate in many circumstances, most of us would agree that it is not in others. Those with mental illness, or who have been severely abused for the pleasure of others may not have the psychological tools to train their will to overcome adversity. Stoicism may be a philosophy for the already-strong to become stronger, and the psychological equivalent of going to the gym – it can make the healthy person healthier, but for someone who is not healthy, it can make their condition worse, or even kill them.

CONCLUSION: There are responses to the ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly’ of Stoicism that allow me to continue to endorse it as a useful and empowering approach to life. Reinhold Niebuhr’s Serenity Prayer offers valuable guidance in calling for ‘the wisdom to know the difference’ between those things we can change and those which we must accept. We can be passionate and emotionally committed to people, our projects, and the world, but retain in reserve our ability to let go of things we can no longer change, and choose to live honorably and well, in spite of disappointment or tragedy. We can choose compassion without coddling. We can take and give responsibility, while recognizing that there may be some who are unable to accept it – yet, or ever. We can admire the self-sacrifice and service implicit in the very Stoic mottos of the US Army – “Duty, Honor, Country” – and the Navy/Marine Corps “ Honor, Courage, Commitment.” The inclusive Stoic finds room for passion, but always holds duty and honor in reserve; for compassion, while still recognizing the value of tough-love; for fatalism, while still taking responsibility and action. Perhaps there are some legitimate excuses, but it takes a hero to not accept and rise above them. Perhaps there are some legitimate victims, which allow the rest of us to become heroes to come to their defense. The Stoic response to Inshallah is: God helps those who help themselves – that is, those who embrace their freedom, who struggle to embrace whatever life sends their way, and take full responsibility for their responses – good, bad, or ugly.