The Consolations of Action

[Parallo]

In his novel Nostromo, Joseph Conrad wrote: 'Action is consolatory. It is the enemy of thought and the friend of flattering illusions.' For those for whom life means action, the world is a stage on which to enact their dreams. Over the past few hundred years, religion has waned, but we have not become less obsessed with imprinting a human meaning on things. a thin secular idealism has become the dominant attitude to life. The world has come to be seen as something to be remade in our own image. The idea that the aim of life is not action but contemplation has almost disappeared.
Those who struggle to change the world see themselves as noble, even tragic figures. Yet most of those who work for world betterment are not rebels against the scheme of things. They seek consolation for a truth they are too weak to bear. At bottom, their faith that the world can be transformed by human will is a denial of their own mortality.
Wyndham Lewis described the idea of progress as 'time-worship' - the belief that things are valuable not for what they are but for what they may someday become. In fact it is the opposite. Progress promises release from time - the hope that, in the spiralling ascent of the species, we can somehow preserve ourselves from oblivion.
Action preserves a sense of self-identity that reflection dispels. When we are at work in the world we have a seeming solidity. Action gives us consolation for our inexistence. It is not the idle dreamer who escapes from reality. It is practical men and women, who turn to a life of action as a refuge from insignificance.
Today the good life means making full use of science and technology - without succumbing to the illusion that they can make us free, reasonable, or even sane. It means seeking peace - without hoping for a world without war. It means cherishing freedom - in the knowledge that it is an interval between anarchy and tyranny.
The good life is not found in dreams of progress, but in coping with tragic contingencies. We have been reared on religions and philosophys that deny the experience of tragedy. Can we imagine a life that is not founded on the consolations of action? Or are we too lax and coarse to even dream of living without them?
Discuss.

[hitancrias]

I'm pretty sure I did not understand everything you tried to say, but I'll respond anyway. Maybe things become more clear later on.

At bottom, their faith that the world can be transformed by human will is a denial of their own mortality.

It is not the idle dreamer who escapes from reality. It is practical men and women, who turn to a life of action as a refuge from insignificance.

Those are quite bold statements you make. I doubt the sole reason behind our actions is to escape from our insignificance. Most people learn to live with the fact that they can't change the course of the world. They live their lives, and try to enjoy them. People know that in the end they will be forgotten, and that their actions will be forgotten. Most people learn to live with that as well and only a few try to make themselves immortal by trying to do something lasting.

I am a dreamer myself and I blame myself for a lack of action. That feeling of guilt stems from the current norm that exists in my social group: "work and use your talents to make the world better, otherwise your life is in vain". I could justify my laziness by adopting your philosophy that by contemplation you accept the real world, and that by taking action you don't, but I won't because I don't see why that is true. Besides that, I think that helping others is important and that requires action. In my vision life is about action; contemplation is necessary to decide on which actions to take. Of course, some people don't seem to think much, which results in stupid action patterns but that doesn't mean that action is stupid by nature. Having said that, I don't deny the existence of consolidating actions. People who are sad often try to do things to forget their sadness, but I don't think that is bad and I don think that all actions are motivated that way.

We have been reared on religions and philosophys that deny the experience of tragedy.

Can you explain how current religions and philosophies deny the experience of tragedy? I simply don't see how they do.

The good life is not found in dreams of progress, but in coping with tragic contingencies.

I don't see how these two conflict. Why not try to improve things that can be changed by setting an ambitious goal and at the same time accept the sad things you can't change?

[Parallo]

Most people don't accept insignifigance. Christian faith and humanism are both founded on the idea that man is above animals. These are the most widespread worldviews. The are both preaching salvation. Things will be better when we get to heavan or things will be better when we progress enough. This constant progression is ultimately going to fail as we are simply another species of animal. Our instincts prevent us from doing what contemplation shows us to be just and right (subjective concepts unique to the human animal in themselves) and this is why with technological advance we get good and bad. There have always been attempts at genocide but hitler could not have done what he did without the telegram and the railroad. We must accept that progression will not make the world a better place, nor will it make it a worse place. What ambitious goal would you set that is possible and doesn't concern that which we cannot change?

As an aside, all actions are from the self, be it the man who distracts himself from the conclusion that we are animals by preaching of science's possibilities or the man who cultivates a sense of well being within himself and a good outward image by giving to charity. We dreamers are just as guilty of this fact as the practical man as our dreams ar indulgent. All is.

[hitancrias]

We must accept that progression will not make the world a better place, nor will it make it a worse place. What ambitious goal would you set that is possible and doesn't concern that which we cannot change?

Progression in medical knowledge certainly made the world a better place for a lot of people. Better communication technologies reduced racism because it is easier to see that people in other countries or from other ethnic backgrounds are very similar to ourselves. Sure, the invention and use of modern weapons made it worse for a lot of people, but in any case there are effects. Our biological nature doesn't mean that the quality of the world as experience it can't change. We are different from animals in a sense that we can stack knowledge over the generations. By doing so, we have changed the way we live. Where things change they can become better or worse. Where things can change, it is good to set goals and try to change things for the good.  For example by setting goals to reduce poverty, illiteracy and starvation, like has been done with the millennium goals. I don't believe in a perfect world, but I see no harm in aiming for it. 

[Parallo]

Communication and infrastructure are what makes modern atrocities so immense. Can you imagine if Gengis Khan had a railroad? Also, the knowledge we gain about the body through medical progression simply makes new and novel ways of killing each other. Our main worry is no longer atomic weapons or biological ones but genetic ones. The way forward isn't the way forward but sideways. I am not a luddite and I do not advocate abandonment of machinery and technological advancement but I do advocate acceptance of our position and an analysis of the faith we seem to have that everything will eventually be right and rosy.
And yes, we are different from animals in the sense that we have language and written records but that doesn't elevate us to godlike status. The human race aren't custodians of the planet earth, we are one part of the life that evolved on it and through our 'progress' we have desecrated it. John Gray called us 'homo rapiens'.

[hitancrias]

The discussion seems to boil down on how we perceive progression in science and technology. You say it has no real influence on the quality of human life, while I say that it can be both positive or negative. Just because there are two sides of the medal, it doesn't mean they balance out. Also, I think that the long run tendency is positive, even if terrible atrocities have happened and still happen. For me it is clear the trend is upwards in terms of health, freedom and intellect.
But besides that, progression in science and technology is not only driven by people who want to improve things, but also by human curiosity. So, even if you could convince everybody that life would not become better or worse by all those perceived improvements, then 'progression' would still continue.

Also, I just thought of a new point. The way we experience tragedy is to some extend relative to what we are used to and what we consider normal. In rich countries people get depressed when they do not get the promotion they expected while in other countries people may get equally depressed by loosing a newborn child (taking an extreme example). Just like a poor man can be happy with something small. This means indeed that progression has no lasting influence on the amount of 'perceived tragedy'. However, while progressing, we compare the new levels of tragedy with the old situation. So the act of progressing, rather than its outcome, determines the level of perceived tragedy. This means that while progressing there is always less perceived tragedy than in a situation without progress, regardless of the absolute characteristics of that situation.

The alternative you give for progression is contemplation and 'coping with tragic contingencies'. In the first post you ask if such a life is possible. I think the Amish came pretty close. They stopped progressing and still limit themselves to the technology that was available in the 1800s. But even while they are not progressing as a community, they might still do on individual levels. Fixing the farm or harvesting crops is also a form of work that can be used to find 'consolidation for our inexistence', as you call it in your first post. Just like most people nowadays are not working in the fields of science and technology and yet may flee in their work.

Since you have started this thread, do you have an idea about how to live without the consolidations of action? Can it be done on an individual basis and if so, do you aim for it? I think it is impossible to progress to a way of living that is based on the denial of the possibility to progress.

Last remark: I think that if you use phrases like "imprinting a human meaning on things", "a truth they are too weak to bear", "faith that the world can be transformed by human will is a denial of their own mortality", "Action gives us consolation for our inexistence" and "philosophys that deny the experience of tragedy", you need to explain much much more if you want people to join the discussion. You can't just talk about 'our inexistance' and assume that people will understand what you mean. Sorry, I had to say it. I greatly enjoy all kinds of philosophical discussions (including this one), but if you drop the heavy words, I think they need far more explanation. Keep up the good work!

[Parallo]

You are quite right, I ought to be more clear. I shall outline it as best I can. Do you know Phaeton? He was the son of Helios, the Greek god of the sun who dragged the immense light across the sky each day, and through a pact his father had made was entitled to ask for anything of his choosing from his father. He choose that he wanted to ride his father's chariot. His father tried to dissuade him from it as he was a mere mortal but Phaeton was having none of it. He drove the chariot into the sky and lost control crashing and causing much destruction.

Mortal man is much like Phaeton. We have decided that we wish to master the world through the use of technology which has set the chariot going. When Zeus, Gaia (Not meaning a god but the organism which is earth), may decide to strike down Phaeton, humankind, with his thunderbolt, much like what happened in the story. James Lovelock has set forth the idea of the Earth as a superorganism and mankind as being an infection or tumor. Either our growth will be checked, we will live in symbiosis or the planet will die.

Also, in discussion of the positive vs. the negative of progress, one thing that Al Queada has thought us is that a small group with a strong ideology can cause as much damage as a rouge state. War has moved from the hands of governments into the private arena much like business has and in this free market and with knowledge on the rise, particularly in genetic mutilation and modification, it means that it will be much easier for wider catastrophic events to occur.

As for how one ought to live, I have always favoured the way of Epicurus. He advocates a simple life and that we ought not to fear death as death is simply absence of sensation and that is something we cannot as living things be concerned with. Once you embrace the fact that you could die tomorrow and it wouldn't matter you will begin to face life with a healthier attitude. We don't need to try to change the world. It will always be rotten. We can at least enjoy the time we have on it to the best of our abilities.

[hitancrias]

Life is easier when you can be happy with little. Yet, when minimalism turns into cold apathy I don't believe one enjoys life to the max. Apathy is often a cheap excuse for people who are afraid of life or lost the trust in their fellow humans because of bad personal experiences. When you say you don't fear death I hope you don't mean you don't value life because it appears to be as void as death.

About the Phaeton story. Thanks for sharing it, it was new to me. We humans constantly challenge our limits. Regularly we cross the line and cause massive damage. Towers that were too high collapsed, spacecrafts exploded, nuclear weapons destroyed entire cities and dams broke causing massive floods in low lying countries. Therefor we should be very careful with new technologies, but at the same time, we should accept that there always will be some risks. I see it primarily as a matter of learning by making mistakes now and then. On the other hand you'll probably say that because of the growing power connected to these new technologies, the mistakes will get bigger and bigger until we finally destroy the world.

I'll leave it at this. I'll be on holidays for the next few weeks, so I probably won't reply much more in this thread.

[Parallo]

Life is easier when you can be happy with little. Yet, when minimalism turns into cold apathy I don't believe one enjoys life to the max. Apathy is often a cheap excuse for people who are afraid of life or lost the trust in their fellow humans because of bad personal experiences. When you say you don't fear death I hope you don't mean you don't value life because it appears to be as void as death.

Ah, that is interesting. I, personally, have lead a blissful life secure in the western world in a middle to upper class family with a healthy number of friends and aquaintances. My view is purely from observation and contemplation. I do not in the slightest fear life. I hold my own quite dear. It is daunting but I plan to enjoy it fully. But let me explain my personal view further as I do not wish you to go away from this believing me to be a cold and heartless person.
Death is void. Pure and simple. While life is characterised by sensations death is defined by the absence of them. Oblivion holds nothing for us and therefore we cannot fear it. The ability to be aware of things and the illusion of being a cognative being is surely something valuable. It is what enables pleasure. Intellectual pursuits, friendship and companionship, good food and good drink, all these things are what fills the void and seperates life from death. It may seem natural to fear these being taken away but when they are nothing is left. How can you miss that which you don't even recall the existence of?

Anyway, enjoy your holiday. This will likely be dead by the time you return. I picked a bad time to post it as Rinenud is away as well. Have fun!

[hitancrias]

But let me explain my personal view further as I do not wish you to go away from this believing me to be a cold and heartless person.

No worries, you made yourself clear now. See you around!

[Parallo]

I find The Garden to be great fun! As it's founder said in one his letters I hadn't read till after the creation of this thread,

Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not.

As always, whatever you are trying to say, someone has said before in a more concise and profound way.