Without going into too much detail, the emotional state since my last post did not move into the drum-beating militaristic mode that I anticipated. Rather, it moved into the diligent, down-to-earth, no time for nonsense and drum-beating, but nevertheless soldierly attitude. My will pushed me to one objective only: do work. I immersed myself in Kant and Shakespeare, thinking about and preparing for lectures, That is not to say there were no lapses. There are always lapses. Wednesday afternoon, after teaching two classes and awaiting the evening class, I bought a coke, purely from desire, knowing it was counter to my best interests. Another day, after already eating, I bought and consumed a large Potbelly Sandwich and Mocha Malt. I still find time to go to a bar and drink a few more beers than I intended. But overall, these were more like farts in my striving, rather than a redirection.
Overall, it was an excellent state to be in. I witnessed my mind expand as it tackled both Shakespeare and Kant from a position of great ignorance (both are people whom I did not know well two weeks ago, and there is still more to learn than has been learned), and saw my inquiry modify my life, lectures, and social interactions for hte better, even when it did not directly regard philosophy.
Philosophy is, after all, not just an academic discipline. It is a way of life.
Stop. In trying to analyze the flow, I need to be exact or my abstractions drive me to pompousness, which always drives one off the road of clarity and truth. On the other hand, my intent is to tackle what is going on right now, and I only need an abstraction
Would it not be nice to have a team of historians, living inside of one’s mind, collecting the facts and creating competing theories of how certain psychological events arose? Competing intellectuals, dedicated in a science that is all about self-understanding. After all, the contours of one’s emotional life is truly complex– only a poor understanding allows us to think that it is simple. As it is in formal history. Those new to the subject, and many who think they are experienced, are often filled with convictions about the most important factors in some eras of history, particularly recent eras. But generally, there is not a single mind that could have developed a clear picture all on their own. A community of intelligent theory-making, fact collecting (never all the facts, that is impossible) historians dedicated to coming to some understanding, but then exposing those theories to the dissenting community, in order for all individuals to consider things that they would not have considered on their own.
Such as it is with the Examined Life. I have met people, repeatedly, that claim “I know who I am.” Because certainly, if there is one thing that a person ought to know, it would seem that it would be themselves. But such a statement is often as pompous as a historian, who, without listening to the community, claims “I know how we got to this particular place in American History.”
Yes, a truly examined life would require a community of sorts, but it is something that must be internalized. To have multiple voices inside one’s own head, all of whom have lived through the same “facts,” but each considering some more important than others, and each creating theories based on their own particular values.
Is this nonsense? I can only speak for myself, but I witness that who I am seems quite different week in and week out. I am a different person, with a different bent of will and a different value of actions, in the morning versus the night, at home versus the school, the bar, the coffee shop or train. And so, in a sense, there is a relevant community in the single life, each examining one’s life from a different perspective, with different methods of analysis and different biases. And this partially explains such odd phenomena as when I look back on my life at different times, and at times feel highly fulfilled and happy, and at other times, looking at the same life with an otherwise identical perspective, concluding that it is entirely a sham.
So, if this is true, what do we make of this? For the sake of the examined life, it is important not to be in the same mind set everytime one engages in reflection. Some people, I have heard it say, think best in the morning, and so only do their writing in the morning. Others say the same about the evening, or certain locations (library versus apartment versus coffee shop, etc.). But the solution rests not in routine, but in the lack of it. Reflect in all these conditions, and take note. Debate with one’s self. It is probably necessary to write it down as well, because the memory of the thoughts themselves will morph too frequently to be noticed by an alternative self-view. Perhaps to bring it to its highest levels, the academic apparatus of journals might be an interesting model. Ideas written in madness move to analytic essays on a particular view, laid out side by side, but then commented upon, and the comments are analyzed and commented upon– a thorough examination of the self.
The self is, as far as I can see, our greatest, most incredible gift. For everything else that we encounter, the subtlety, the complexity, the feeling and force of all things pales in comparison to the self: after all, all of these things only exist for us, within the self, dependent and through the self. And so they, as experiences only and not things in themselves, they are part of the self, not distinct. And so it seems worthwhile getting to know this thing.
Article of Note: First Person Plural, from “The Atlantic,” November 2008, by Paul Bloom.
Natural Causes 