What is It REALLY all about?

We often hear the phrase, “That’s what it’s all about” in reference to honor, taking care of our families, winning, doing the best we can, or whatever – even in songs: “You do the hokey pokey, and you turn yourself around, that’s what it’s all about.”  And when we say or hear “That’s what it’s all about,” we understand that “It” probably isn’t ALL about winning, or the hokey pokey (or whatever.) That said, is it reasonable to ask: “What is ‘It’ really ‘ALL’ about?”  Wise men and women have indeed given this question a lot of thought over the millennia.

The Holy Grail in moral philosophy is a single principle that serves as a touchstone for resolving all moral dilemmas, and thereby offering us a glimpse into that elusive ‘meaning of life.’  Classical philosophers (St Augustine, Cicero, St Thomas, among others) called this single principle the “Summum Bonum” or the highest good, that which is good in and of itself, contains all other goods, and from which all other goods are derived.   The Summum Bonum is the purpose, the goal, the description of the life best lived.   In their quest for this first principle, different philosophers and religious thinkers have arrived at various versions of what they believed to be the Summum Bonum.    

Over the years, I’ve made a list of different visions of this source principle I’ve encountered in my reading and studies.    This is where my list stands today, and I offer it as a simple man’s necessarily over-simplification of some very nuanced ideas, which I can only pretend to understand. But here is what I’ve found:

     Excellence/Fulfillment/Wisdom – Aristotle

     Moral Duty – Immanuel Kant

     Quality – Robert Pirsig (author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)

     Power (properly applied) – Frederick Nietzsche/Robert Adler 

     Pleasure (broadly conceived)– Sigmund Freud  

     Enlightenment – Buddha

    The moment (suspending rationality) - Zen Buddhism

    Dignity/Honor – The Stoics

     The greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number – Jeremy Bentham/John Stuart Mill

     Authentic and passionate commitment – Albert Camus, Martin Heidegger

     Don’t Worry. Be Happy – Meher Baba

     Self-Actualization – Abraham Mazlow

     Self-Actualization thru one’s work – Karl Marx

     Beauty -  James Joyce, Friedrich Schiller

     Kindness/compassion/love - Dalai Lama, Buddha, Christ

You’ll note that some of the ‘first principles’ on this list are oriented toward self-development, while others are oriented more toward how we relate and interact with others.    There is clearly much overlap in these different approaches, but there are also clearly values, life choices and life-styles unique to each.  Each speaks to a different perspective on what makes us human and what human excellence looks like.

Some will argue that God has to be on this list, since a relationship with God or Christ or another religious leader is the Summum Bonum in most religious traditions.  I agree, but I choose to separate matters of faith from matters of the mind and reason.  For the theist, the Summum Bonum is necessarily a reflection of God’s will; for the atheist or agnostic, it is arrived at through reason and empirical observation.  I contend that these two perspectives are not mutually exclusive.

Probably my favorite interpretation of ‘what It’s all about’ is from the Roman poet Lucretius.   In his  search for the key to the life well lived, he studied all of the great thinkers and philosophers of his era, and distilled what he learned into two maxims:  “It is better to love than to hate,” and “Live life fully, even if imperfectly.”

For many of us, this may be simply a theoretical question of little ‘practical’ import.  For others, and for the individuals and traditions associated with the different first principles listed above, this is a life-defining, existential question:   What is the one most important value I stand for, live for, strive for, and am willing to die for?  Why am I here?  It is a question that many of us consider more and more as we get older.  But had you asked me that question as a young man, I would have responded with a wry smile, “What’s it all about?  That’s easy:  Eat. F$@#. Skydive!”

Hmmm….. Maybe “Having Fun” also needs to be on that list.  You know: “You do the hokey pokey, and you turn yourself around, that’s what it’s all about.”  :) 

Note: This list of different interpretations of the ultimate good reminded me of the list of different religions’ versions of the Golden Rule  . Or more amusingly, the list of different religions’ interpretations of Shit happens . (click hotlinks)

Resilience

“Resilience” is a new buzzword I’m seeing these days in a many different contexts.   We need to develop “systems resilience” to deal with potential cyber attacks.  We need more “resilient communities” to prepare for tragedy and the unexpected.  The government is creating programs to help develop “family resilience” to better cope with the stresses of military life. And the military seeks to develop “resilient soldiers,” less susceptible to traumatic stress disorder, better prepared to positively respond to stress and change. 

Resilience is clearly a good thing. So what exactly is it, and how do we get some?

Like many things, resilience is both simple and complex.  In essence, it seems to come down to an ability to cope, and to respond well to adversity and stress.  The opposite of resilient  might be ‘fragile,’ ‘rigid,’ ‘delicate,’ or even ‘sensitive.’   Persistence is usually, but not always, associated with resilience.

When we talk about people being resilient, we really have to define the context, since resilience manifests itself differently in different contexts.   Different contexts may demand physical, mental, emotional, intellectual, spiritual or other types of resilience – or some of each –  to respond to different types of adversity.    Being resilient in one context does not assume resilience in another.  We’ve all seen people who may be mentally and physically very resilient in combat or high-stress environments (physical/mental resilience), but who emotionally over-react or are unbending with their families and friends (emotional/social resilience).   My graduate students are very successful in their personal and professional lives, but sometimes have views of the world that are quite rigid.  Graduate school seeks to develop ‘intellectual resilience’ by forcing students out of comfortable mental models, to try on different viewpoints and different ways of thinking.

So how does one become more ‘resilient?’

Aristotle said that if you want to become courageous, you need to do things that require courage.  He would say the same thing about resilience.  One must be willing to get out of one’s comfort-zone, and stretch one’s ability to adapt to a different environment, if one wants to develop greater resilience under stress or adversity.  In other words, one must subject oneself to the stress of not being comfortable.  In today’s culture, there is a temptation to find a comfortable niche, settle into a ‘comfort-zone’ and fight never to leave it.   We commit to career, marriage, family, community, mortgage – what one young friend of mine called  ‘the whole catastrophe.’    We seek stability, predictability, and… we get comfortable.

To stay nimble and resilient, we must occassionally force ourselves into endeavors and environments where we are not in complete control – and force ourselves to adapt.  We must be willing to at least consider, and accept with some equanimity,  the possibility that the things we count on can be taken away – our job, our money, lifestyle, health, friends, loved ones, our title and our reputation.   And we must be willing to ask ourselves that ‘existential’ question:  What is left, and who are we without those things?

To step out of our comfort-zone, we risk failure. Only by trying and failing, and trying again, do we develop the resilience to deal with things happening in a way that does not suit us.  Without learning to deal with failure, there can be no resilience.  Not getting what we want means to suffer, and, as the Greeks believed, wisdom only comes through suffering. 

In dealing with difficulties and discomfort, we frequently use something called ‘self talk’ as a psychological tool to help ourselves deal with  difficult circumstances.  Self-talk has been shown to actually change the way we think, behave, and perceive our environment. “I can do this.”  “This too shall pass.”  “This is my opportunity.” “This is God’s will (or this is my fate).  I must deal with this as best I can.” “I am strong.”   ”I am confident.”  Prayer is a form of self talk.  A wise person once warned against asking God to give us the result we want, recommending instead that we pray for the strength (resilience) to deal with what He gives us.

My old friend Master Chief Will Guild suggested two essentials to resilience:  a sense of humor and love.  A sense of humor gets us outside of ourselves and our own ego-driven self absorption.  It can deflate the pressures of fear, anger, panic and resentment.  Love likewise gets us outside of the immediacy of our personal anxiety– loving others, in spite of their failings, and loving ourselves, in spite of our failings. Indeed, Aristotle saw self-love, or ‘proper pride’ as a fundamental virtue.   Maintaining our self-respect and personal sense of dignity, when all is going wrong, is essential to a resilient response to challenge and adversity.  Without self respect and ‘proper pride,’ collapse in the face of adversity is predictable.

SEAL training is very much about developing physical and mental resilience to respond to adversity in battle or special operations.  SEAL basic training creates a somewhat artificial adversity in a controlled training environment that serves as a crucible to develop the resilience needed to respond well to the real fear and adversity of combat.  Master Chief Guild used to teach SEAL trainees four key techniques for developing the resilience necessary to succeed at their baic training, and by extension, in combat. These are variations on what sports psychologists teach to professional athletes to help them perform their best under stress and pressure.

First, maintain a positive attitude – believe in yourself, keep your sense of humor, and use self talk to stay positive. 

Second, learn positive visualization. Visualize and believe in your own success, whatever that looks like. Positive visualization prepares us mentally for the challenge at hand, and for what it feels like to succeed. 

Third, practice segmentation.  Break the challenge you are facing into bite-size goals -– this event, this day. Set simple, achievable, short term goals. Don’t look beyond getting through the challenge of the moment, the event, or the day.

Fourth, learn arousal control.  Learn techniques to calm yourself when fear, panic and anxiety seem ready to overwhelm you.  These techniques include meditation, deep breathing, heart-rate management.  And again, self talk.

The best literature I’ve read on resilience is from the Roman Stoics and from Viktor Frankl in his classic short book, Man’s Search for Meaning.  Vadm Stockdale wrote extensively about how Stoicism helped him survive seven years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.  Stoicism divides the world into two spheres – things we can control, and things we can’t.  The Stoic believes that we develop psychic resilience (and serenity) by learning to accept fate’s dictates, assuming full responsibility for our actions and attitudes, and developing the “wisdom to know the difference” between what we have to accept and what we can affect.  Viktor Frankl’s book is about the resilience that comes from having a purpose for living – a goal for one’s life.  This greater sense of purpose provides the strength and motivation to overcome life’s challenges.  Man’s Search for Meaning is about how Frankl found meaning in his suffering in a German concentration camp, and how his belief in his own life’s purpose was key to his survival.  Both Stockdale and Frankl would argue that a strong will to adapt, survive, and prevail is essential.

In conclusion, there is much that can be said and written about resilience.   It is key to success and survival in dynamic, stressful, and rapidly changing environments.  As with leadership and character, resilience seems to be at least partly innate – some people are naturally more resilient and adaptable than others, and some people seem to be born with a stronger will to succeed.  But as with character and leadership, resilience and strength of will can be improved through experience, training and education.   We can intentionally develop more flexible mental models, a broader perspective, and we can learn to imagine things as different than they are.     It can help a lot to have a resilient and inspiring teacher, leader, or mentor who believes in us. 

It is useful to remember that Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection put a very high premium on resilience.

The Head and the Heart

A reading group I’m in recently read Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club.   It was great fun, and in thinking about the book, it occurred to me that one way to consider Palahniuk’s message was in terms of the Head versus the Heart.  The narrator of the book, the Ed Norton character in the movie, is all ‘Head’ following the rules, very practical, living life according to the popular formula for success.  And his life is passionless, boring, and lacks meaning for him.  Then Tyler Durden – the Brad Pitt character – comes into his life, spouting aphorisms of freedom, passion, rebellion,  and ‘Heart.’   The rest of the book CAN be understood as a battle between Head and Heart – reason and common sense and conformity to social values vs unrestrained freedom, spontaneity, and passion.  There are of course many ways to read and interpret this very clever and creative book, but this is one. More of my thoughts on Fight Club at bob’s books.

It also occurred to me that “Head vs Heart” can also be a construct for thinking about how we interact with our own world.  Head = dispassionate reason and logic, the practicalities of taking care of business, meeting obligations to others and society.  Heart = emotion, passion, capacity for joy, love, and sadness, for fulfillment in life, as well as existential angst and unhappiness.  Most of us are consciously or unconsciously seeking equilibrium between the two:  What is that equilibrium?  I think it is different for each of us, and different at different points in our lives.  Life and experience give us a better idea of our own personal ‘sweet-spot,’ but it is elusive.   And we must beware of becoming too comfortable if/when we think we’ve found our ‘sweet spot.’  A ‘disaster’ is always right around the corner. 

Particularly be careful of too much practicality, too much comfort and routine  – too much Head – in one’s life.  The ‘Heart’ is lying in ambush.

And when we are very angry, or depressed, or when we fall in love (or infatuation) our ‘Head’ is disempowered and its voice is weak and ineffective against the ‘logic’ of the Heart.

Have you ever fallen ‘in love’ with someone who you KNEW was not the right person, or ‘a good idea?’ And noticed how ineffective the Head is in talking you out of those stars in your eyes?

 “The Heart has reasons that reason doesn’t understand.” (Jacques Benigne Bossuel)

I  think that one of Palahniuk’s key messages in Fight Club is the danger of imbalance, the danger of sliding toward an extreme on either end of the Head-Heart spectrum.  The Ed Norton character represents the modern extreme of conformity to social norms; Brad Pitt and Tyler Durden the extremes of passion and rebellion.   A more nuanced view of too much ‘Head’ can be found in Remains of the Day – the excessive worship of professional competence and achievement,  about which I wrote earlier in this blog.   This Head-Heart dichotomy has been a theme of philosophy and literature for millennia.

The Greeks and Romans insisted that the Head rule the Heart.  This was a key theme in both Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophies, both of whom believed strongly that reason must rule emotion if one is to  understand the world and live ‘the good life.’  The Roman Stoics took this idea even further, insisting that reason can also tell the heart how to feel, and with an act of will, our mind can force the heart to do its bidding and have attitudes and feelings that protect the human being from the vicissitudes of a world we can’t control.  The Existential philosophers of the 19^th and 20^th century roundly rejected that view, and argued that passion, commitment, and rebellion against conformity are what give life meaning and value.  Nietzsche in particular, railed against Socrates and the Stoics, and argued that each of us should follow our heart to find our own meaning and place in life – regardless of what ‘the herd’ claims ‘makes sense.’   He claimed that in the truly free man, the Heart must rule the Head. Reason and practicality he saw as the hand-maidens of social convention and ‘herd mentality.’   Ayn Rand however embraced reason in her objectivist philosophy, which argues for ‘enlightened self-interest.’  Her philosophy (I believe) echoes and reinterprets Aristotle, and even the Stoics, claiming that the ‘proper’ application of reason is very non-conformist and liberating.  You decide.

OK, so what? 

So far, I’m playing a ‘Head game,’ examining what Palahniuk was trying to say, looking at various possibilities, connecting them to other authors and intellectual constructs.  The ‘Heart game’ would be to ask that ‘existential’ question, “How does this apply to me and my life?”  Is Palahniuk accusing me, and can I defend myself?   As I was reading Fight Club, I kept reading between the lines, ‘j’accuse, j’accuse, j’accuse!’ (French for ‘I accuse (you)’ and a common expression in some literature). 

And so, I ask myself,  “Where am I on that Head-Heart continuum and am I happy with that place? “ Today?   In general?   The answer would be my response to ‘j’accuse.’

And where are you, dear reader?  Too comfortable?  Is the heart lying in ambush? Or perhaps comatose?   Or is the Heart passionately leading a pointless, and destructive crusade, and the Head is either silent, or shouting futilely ‘wake up- you idiot!’  Or are you (I hope) dancing around the sweet spot of balance -  what Aristotle might have (but didn’t) refer to as ‘the golden mean?’

You decide.  Or do you?  It is, after all, your life.

———————–

For insightful quotes on ‘the Heart,’ go to: http://thinkexist.com/quotations/heart/ 

For interesting quotes on ‘the Head,’ go to http://thinkexist.com/quotations/reason/

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.