Pursuit of Meaning in Life

Partly in response to Judah Leon Abravanel (c. 1465 – c. 1523) and his work Dialogues of Love (Dialoghi d'amore), Daniel Boyarin writes: 

“Rabbinic Judaism invested significance in the body which in the other formations [Christian and Jewish] was invested in the soul. That is, for rabbinic Jews, the human being was defined as a body – animated, to be sure, by a soul – while for Hellenistic Jews (such as Philo) and (at least many Greek-speaking) Christians (such as Paul) these essence of human being is a soul housed in a body” (Boyarin, 1993, 5).  

This difference, to me, is the essence of how we look at existence as a whole, and what kind of world view we shape and shapes us. Sadly, I don't think that we even have a "world view" (Weltanschaung) today. Thanks to Twitter, Facebook and other social media, life has devolved into a hodge podge of catch phrases that oscillate from one extreme to the other. 

Thanks to the fact that we have politicized everything relating to human existence, we have lost the sights and sounds of the metaphysics.  How can we expect to enter into a deeper meaning of life, if we are constantly living according to what Twitter feed feeds us?  It may be feeding us but it's certainly not nourishing us.

To be sure, social media has its place.  It can be used for sharing information, sometimes even knowledge, and you may even have occasionally a good conversation with others.  But to expect an existential answer is to expect an improbability. 

Some don't even have enough awareness to know that they are living half-lives, zombies going from one click to the next.  For those, I don't know what to say: maybe you're just a zombie troll and there is no hope for you.  An optimist in me tends to refuse that option.

Writers, pundits, critics - all say that to speak like this is to be nostalgic about the past because we are idealizing it.  Not at all.  I am merely looking at the facts.  Statistically, and how people choose to reveal themselves on the social media, tells us that they do not know the difference between sacred and profane, soul and body, body and mind.  I would even settle for some mind/body dualism in a conversation if people knew that such question even exists.

Digitization and politicization of everything, which should not be digitized and politicized, has made this world into a place that lacks joy and wonder.  Lacking such vision means that we are incapable of seeing the other person face to face, and that incapability leads to a lack of insight.  If there is no insight, there is no discernment, and if there is no discernment, then there is no action.

That is why, despite the illusion that everything is moving so fast, it's not moving at all.  We are just holograms of our potential selves, displaying the stilted animation of our bodies without minds, and certainly without souls. 

This is why, as a society, we have such strange view of sex as well.  It has nothing to do with eros.  It is, I would posit, even worse than anything Victorians imagined because sexual experience (whether excessive, hedonistic, or loving) is found in a non-erotic static.  Today's sex is a white padded cell - a sterile room of one's own in which the other is not recognized at all.  

We are left with loud voices that are not connected to bodies, with meaningless chatter masquerading as profound expressions, with crassness masquerading as intellectual prowess.  It takes courage to be still and to embrace the silence.  

If being free means anything to us, then we will make the first step on the path to the Unknown because the Unknown is more known to us than we might assume.  But we have to be prepared to let go of any expectations and attachments that have politicized and digitized our existence.  Otherwise, we will remain in an illusion, a pretense of real life, and not only will we not know the deeper meaning of our existence but also we will have no idea what politics really is or how digital world can truly be used.   
 

Safe Space and Education Post-Election

I’ve been a teacher (both high school and college) on and off since 2005. As any teacher will tell you, this profession has its positives and negatives. But overall, I really can’t complain, and for the most part, I have been enjoying it.

 

One of the first principles of my teaching philosophy is to create a space that has a great sense of safety for the students. Anxiety or dread or fear are not allowed to seep into the consciousnesses of students in my classroom. There is no room for that. Having gone through Communist educational system (former Yugoslavia), I detested the statist and ideological machinery that moved the gears of totalitarian “learning.” We were all the same. There was no such thing as uniqueness of each student. Teachers had no problems calling us “stupid” if we did not know the answer.

 

As a teacher, I am interested in lifting up students, helping them see their potential and their gifts without totalizing them as human being. My mission and purpose, when I am in the classroom, is to facilitate learning in a philosophical, somewhat Socratic manner, and helping the students make their own intellectual conclusions and take responsibility for them.

 

Safe zones and safe spaces that have been emerging in the universities (particularly after the election) are quite artificial and contrived. There isn’t an ounce of authenticity. Instead, it’s just another heap of regulated and mandated morality that has nothing to do with the entirety of human person. It is way for students to hide in their bizarre refusal to grow up, become adults, and take responsibility for their choices, whether intellectual or deeply personal.

 

One does not discourage hatred and exclusion by creating bubbles of artificial space. It actually encourages such actions, not to mention breeds linguistic and finally, emotional neuroticism. By designating spaces as such, it is as if one may not be a bigot or a hater in one space, but may be elsewhere. Such strange processed and canned attempt at tolerance is bound to fail.

 

Safe space means freedom of expression. With freedom, quite simply, comes responsibility. We are responsible for what we say to others, good or bad. The point of a university or any educational system is to make students into victors, not victims. The point is to make them agile and quick in their thinking, not sloppy and thin-skinned. 

 

The world is a dark place (and students should be aware of that) but it also has many illuminating lanterns of knowledge and acts of good will. Wouldn’t it be better to stop imprisoning students in the world of soft, chewy, and saccharine fantasy land? Wouldn’t it be better to show them that they too can carry illuminating lanterns with pride and intellectual prowess as opposed rendering them poor victims, forever dependent, useless, and unable to take care of themselves?

Anti-intellectualism, provincialism, and cosmopolitanism…what is “the soul of America?”

{This is a way of introducing a topic of cosmopolitanism into the public discourse. I will be exploring this in a series on cosmopolitanism, bringing into the foreground cultural issues of today (for example, a relationship between religion and cosmopolitanism, as a way of trying to understand where we have been and where we are going.}

Tower of Babel, Pieter Brueghel the Elder, 1563.

A society, for the most part, functions on the basis of naming things.  We use language to express ourselves, however imperfect and inadequate it may seem.  Art, especially painting/sculpture and music, transcends the inevitable linguistic barrier.  But when we are dealing with one another, when we are encountering one another, on most occasions, we use language to communicate.  And so, we name things.    In Genesis 2:20, “the man gave names to all the tame animals, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals.” 

Naming is important; it speaks to the uniqueness of our world and the creation.

Let me juxtapose the proper naming to empty labeling of humanity.  I don’t think that we are doing much “naming” these days: in other words, we are not open to life process, we are not actually encountering, judging, thinking, and making a decision.  Unfortunately, we fall into “political party” lines and we recite them creating populism and collectivism, which I really can’t stand.  I have an aversion when someone accepts all the precepts of a particular political system without giving it any thought, without dynamism of human mind.  And this relates to the matters of faith as well.  “A thousand questions do not equal one doubt,” said Cardinal Newman.  So, ask!  Think!  Judge!  Decide!

Falling into a particular party line, whether it’s conservative or liberal, externally, is what bothers me the most.  Let me clarify this.  If you are a “liberal,” then you must dress like a hippie, or an academic, and drive a Volvo, Subaru or VW.  If you are a “conservative,” then you have to like country music, proclaim how ‘merica’s the best country in the world, and you also have to like hunting.  If you’re a “liberal,” then you will constantly criticize your government (that is, Republican government) and will want progress at all costs, without really knowing what this progress is, you will be “open-minded” to other cultures as well, and you’re bumper sticker will say “coexist.”  If you’re a “conservative,” then you will hate those Muslims because they should all perish. They are all the same, and Islam needs to become extinct.

Pretty joyless picture of what it means to be a “liberal” and “conservative” these days, if you ask me.  All of these externals have nothing to do with who you are, in your interiority, in your soul. 

Who has decided that an affiliation to a political party is a deciding factor how you live your life day to day?  That is, who decided that if you like country music, then you are a “conservative” and that if you are interested in other cultures, or you have respect for other cultures, then you are a “liberal?”  This is so silly. 

Does anyone think?  Is anyone present to the reality of the world?  Or put another way, is anyone living in the present moment?

And dialogue?  Ha!  Dream on!  Both conservatives and liberals are too proud and too stubborn to admit that they actually might agree on some aspects in how America should be run.  If I mention the word dialogue or justice or the importance of art expression in our lives, I will be pronounced a “lefty.”  So be it, then.  Then, I am a “lefty.”  And if I speak of tradition and ethical values, then I will be pronounced an arch-conservative, the backward looking person.  So be it, then.  Then, I am an arch-conservative.

I think that we are dealing with here is not so much a difference between a liberal and conservative but with a difference between cosmopolitanism and provincialism.  The question is what is America?  Is America an anti-intellectual nation?  The real “class warfare” in America has nothing to do with economics (although it does play a part).  It is between intellectuals and the “people.” 

Intellectuals have not been exactly a welcoming bunch.  Let’s face it: they talk a lot, they spin theories, they are the elite and the hoi polloi is somewhere down there.  The masses distrust the ways of the intellect.  Just do it!  Don’t think!  Don’t ask too many questions.  The masses don’t need all that fancy talk.

I think that intellectuals have been smeared.  Or rather, those who call themselves “intellectuals,” the elite, are really ideologues and semantic theorists.  Academics certainly fall into that category.  These ideologues make discourse impossible, they confuse the reality of the world with unreal theories, and are not willing to see life from an other’s perspective.  As a result, those of us, who love learning, in other words, who have love of wisdom and praise imagination, are dismissed.  This would certainly be an instance of anti-intellectualism.

We are experiencing a strong level of division, of political polarization and both “liberals” and “conservatives” are guilty of it.  If we’re going to have a dialogue, then we have to begin to listen, first.  And certainly stop ad hominem attacks.  I don’t think we need more polarization.  I am certainly tired of it.  

Don't move beyond the norm - that is the song.  It is the song of collectivism and conformism.  These are forms of totalitarianism, and this, I find to be a far bigger problem than either forms of the Right and the Left.  The danger is in blind following and lack of critical thought.  We have to move beyond the group think, and finally begin to view the person wholistically, as opposed to a set of vacuous, vague, and mind numbing labels.

'Rules' for Intellectuals

In a letter to William Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson wrote: 
 
"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." (April 22, 1800).

I stand by it and I try to live it every day.

Given the fact that discourse is becoming more of a minefield rather than a roundtable, I have decided to present here a few rules for people, who would like to see an improvement in culture, and who would like to raise the level of thought in the public sphere.  One of the reasons why I choose not to focus on universities only is because I think that we have to begin from a larger exteriority (society-at-large) and move toward a specific interiority (e.g., state of the Humanities in universities, etc.).  Despite the fact that I am calling this “Rules for Intellectuals,” my objective is not to create a rigid, immovable set of rules – the title is more of a jab at Saul Alinsky.  My objective is to move from an ideological and “group think” approach into an intellectual and individual thinking whereby two or more human beings can come together in an encounter in order to exchange ideas.

1.     Establishing that there is an order of things

2.     Bringing in a higher level of a conversation, in other words, challenging your intellectual opponent

3.     Before you even engage in an attack of ideology, attack the sloppy scholarship of an ideologue.  Ideologues, by their very nature, do not engage in stable scholarship precisely because they rely on the “shock” of their statements and the inversion of what is good and orderly

4.     Don’t be afraid of what might be a “mad” idea.  You should be secure in your own thoughts and conclusions.  Keep in mind that sometimes a “mad” idea is the best thing which could happen.  The difficult task of thinking is to discern whether the supposed madness is grounded in reality and the order of things, or whether it has the potential to contribute to the erosion of culture, and more importantly to the suppression of human spirit

5.     Use facts and do not be afraid to agree with your interlocutor if in fact you do agree.  It is quite helpful to establish a commonality as well

6.     Do not get flustered.  Emotions can be intelligent, but visible agitations are not

7.     Recognize your interlocutor as a human being first, and understand that you are attacking the ideas, not the personhood.  Only then can you be both intelligent and charitable

8.     Do not force a “conversion” on your interlocutor.  Remain steady.  You are arguing for your position – that is true – but your dialogue partner (as well as yourself) should arrive at the truth by him or herself in their own time, in their own journey, in their own arrival

9.     Never make comments or conclusions on a book or an article or a film until you’ve read it or seen it.  This kind of approach will make you weak. 

10.  Lastly, ideas do have consequences, be they good or bad.  Take the thinking and the dialogue seriously, but never lose a sense of humor or wonder.

Children at Work

On November 3, an article out of the Acton Institute was published bearing a rather strange title: "Bring back child labor: Work is a gift our kids can handle."  Referring to an article by Jeffrey Tucker, "Let the Kids Work," the writer, Joseph Sunde, attempts to expand a theory as to why kids need to work as opposed to be lazy and ignorant.

It's those words "child labor," which are naturally grating. We think of the children at the turn of the 20th century working in factories and coal mines and God knows where else.  Conditions were deplorable for adults, let alone for children.  Although I do not think that Sunde necessarily advocates "child labor" in its historical meaning sense, it is still a very bad title.

Both Tucker and Sunde seem to acknowledge the harsh and inhuman conditions, but the acknowledgement is quickly squashed by a nostalgia for the time they haven't even lived through.  Tucker writes:

"But I also think about their inner lives. They are working in the adult world, surrounded by cool bustling things and new technology. They are on the streets, in the factories, in the mines, with adults and with peers, learning and doing. They are being valued for what they do, which is to say being valued as people. They are earning money."

It is clear from this that Tucker equates value of a human being with earning money.  How do we really know they were valued?  In what way?  Learning and doing?  Exactly what?  

Commenting on Tucker's words, Sunde writes:

"They [photographs of children laborers] also represent the faces of those who are actively building enterprises and cities, using their gifts to serve their communities, and setting the foundation of a flourishing nation, in turn."  

How can we possibly say that "gifts" of these children are being used when they haven't even developed properly, both intellectually and physically?  And who IS benefiting from their labor?  

It gets better.  Here's Tucker again:

"All those photos dig deep into the past and conjure up weird dystopian scenarios, none of which have anything to do with today. If kids were allowed to work and compulsory school attendance was abolished, the jobs of choice would be at Chick-Fil-A and WalMart. And they would be fantastic jobs too, instilling in young people a work ethic, which is the inner drive to succeed, and an awareness of attitudes that make enterprise work for all. It would give them skills and discipline that build character, and help them become part of a professional network."

First of all, kids are allowed to work.  They are free to work wherever they choose to apply.  Second of all, what professional network?  Working for Wal-Mart only sets you up for a career at another Wal-Mart.  That is the truth.   Tucker lives in another time dimension entirely because today, it is very difficult to move from one job to the next.  Employers, for the most part, expect that one gives their entire life to a mediocre job. 


Sunde briefly mentions words connected to the meaning of work, namely, "dignity, meaning, freedom, virtue, creativity, character, and neighbor love."  But they are, unfortunately just that - words devoid of meaning.  He calls for a revolution of sorts:  "Let us not just teach our children to play hard and study well, shuffling them through a long line of hobbies and electives and educational activities. A long day’s work and a load of sweat have plenty to teach as well."

I can hear the Soviet labor song right now in the distance amidst the sounds of tools.

The problem here is that both Sunde and Tucker romanticize manual labor.  The children have to know why they are doing what they are doing, even if it's yard work.  They need a bigger connection to the work itself, and reasoning.  Otherwise such an endeavor promotes collectivist and conformist psychological state. In other words, they will only learn that they should "put their nose to the grindstone" and any creativity and actual human flourishing will be outside of the realm of possibility.  They will become followers.

It also depends what kind of child we are talking about. Some children in their development do not benefit from manual labor at all, and it builds false work ethic. I agree that there needs to be a change in how children are reared, and they need some more grit.

Although I think that the intent is liberty and freedom, both Sunde and Tucker exhibit collectivist tendencies in their arguments.  Their brand of capitalism is actually very collectivist and conformist.  On one hand, they want to create a Randian universe of work, on the other hand, they are practically talking about compelling children to do manual labor.  This is a huge intellectual conflict.

Their arguments are also oddly anti-intellectual.  The truth is that every act of labor is different.  Yes, the problem with schools is leftist indoctrination.  But, to fix that, we should not just hand the kid a shovel!  

We have to be careful not to regress.  Society needs to change and certainly whiny kids need to stop whining.  The obsessive emphasis on "feelings" must stop.  But let us not go into Stone Age!  Children are children, and they should be given responsibilities according to their age.  These propositions of Tucker and Sunde are "one size fits all," and surely children are not like that. If we affirm uniqueness of each individual, then we really can't impose a cookie cutter solution to that individual's development.  There is no virtue in that.