QA 18. (Oct 09) Feeling lucky? Or getting what’s yours

Scene 1. Walking along Vancouver’s False Creek, two joggers stride past me just as one remarks to the other: Entitlement is a terrible thing. Well. I couldn’t agree more.

Scene 2. A friend sends pictures of her island cottage. Lucky you! I reply warmly.
What the #$% is luck?! she flames back. I mean, I get it, but ‘lucky’ can be used to express envy [hatred] at someone else’s good fortune… I’ve always railed at it because I have always worked my ass off and pushed all the edges and risked losing everything.

What entitlement and luck have in common is the role they play when we try to understand circumstances as consequences.

Philosophy began with the problem of explaining change, its hows and wherefores. In the physical world, these have been scientific questions of means and mechanics, conditions, causes and effects. Think of Newton’s laws of motion.

In the subjective world, we like to think that stuff happens in a similar, predictable one-thing-leads-to-another way. This is not unreasonable. We are, after all, able to learn from past experience, and we can see things coming. We get the sense of a universal moral order. Maybe we believe that virtue will be rewarded. Or that dogs will eat dogs. Whatever the content, the world now makes some sense. (I say “the world” makes sense, but it’s actually us doing the work while the world worlds merrily on.)

The bad news is that this feeling of comprehension – in its root sense of grasping or laying hold of – leads to problems. The first is the contradictory evidence that must be ignored, denied, twisted, or dismissed as luck. Another is that we start to take the universe personally, interpreting everything in terms of what we think is meant to happen, what we deserve or are entitled to. Prize or punishment. And we start making hateful comparisons, looking around to see if we’re getting a fair deal, and setting ourselves up for envy, resentment or complacency. Even nastier, we begin to read other people’s situations as signs of their “true” character or history. Is somebody suffering? Must be their fault, their karma. Or, in cases of the clearly undeserving wretched (including ourselves), we put it down to bad luck or hard times.

Is any of this folderol necessary? I don’t think so. Return to the original observation: events arise from causes and conditions in a manner which appears orderly. That still seems true. We can – and should – learn to work more skilfully with this. But outside of controlled experiments (which life isn’t), it’s hard to be definite about causal chains. We also can’t be so sure about the goodness or badness of our present situation. And we’re not so sharp about predicting the future either.

So I think a little humbleness is in order. By all means, develop a worldview, but try not to let it block out the world. Build with flexibility and grace. Inhabit it lightly. Less scorekeeping. More play.

QA 17. (August 09) The path of stupidity

What a mess we make when a person’s worth is measured by their perceived intelligence. The “smart” ones strive to distinguish themselves and the “stupid” ones struggle to get by. It’s precisely a stupid mess, both cruel and irrational. How could anything thrive in such bitter soil?

We have begun to realise that there is more to intelligence than was believed back in the glory days of phrenology, eugenics and IQ tests. Now we recognise different kinds of intelligence and tend to accept a more open-ended concept of human potential. This is well and good: our ability to appreciate others increases as our understanding of intelligence becomes more complex. But it doesn’t go far enough to break the “smart-is-good/stupid-is-rubbish” bind. While the fundamental mistake is to think that there is a quality by which some people can safely be deemed more worthwhile than others, I am here today to praise stupidity.

QA 16 (July 09) “There was this goat”

What do you do when someone says something to you that you don’t understand?

It happens all the time. The someone may be someone we know or a stranger. The event might be inconsequential or it might be important. It is always unsettling. The usual, easy choice is to let it go by, hoping that the miscommunication will either become clear or fade away in time. The safe choice is to dismiss the other as incomprehensible, or to interpret the misunderstanding away.

The difficult and risky choice is to walk into the confusion and ambiguity of not knowing quite where we stand with this person who is speaking to us. There was this Goat: Investigating the Truth Commission Testimony of Notrose Nobomvu Konile is the story of such an adventure.

QA 15. (June 09) Essence of philosophical counselling

I have been explaining, exploring and writing about my philosophical counselling practice since I began in 2002. I’ve presented papers at conferences here in South Africa and in Canada and the US, which are available on my website along with other published articles. But recently a couple of friends challenged me to cut to the chase, and get down to the bare bones: what is this thing you do with people? And so here it is, in less than 300 words! – the essence of philosophical practice.

Who should come to a philosophical counsellor? Basically, anyone who finds the idea appealing – but likely candidates include those who are regularly told that they “think too much” (and get really, really annoyed by that), or those who feel blocked by worries or confusion. It’s not about being intellectual or having high language skills or being able already to clearly express yourself and your troubles. It also isn’t about studying philosophical traditions, although these provide useful resources. Philosophical practice goes back to philosophy’s roots of love (philo) and wisdom (sophia).

QA 14. (May 09) The first priority

www.newsinphotos.co.za

What should be the single priority for the new South African government? In his Sunday Times column (3 May 2009), Mac Maharaj invited readers to answer this question, following Peter Bruce’s observation that a government that tries to fix everything achieves nothing. “Let us… find some common purpose, which is the first step to success.”

But because any choice refers to a prior and more fundamental commitment – to the criteria by which we choose – it seems to me that clarity of purpose is at least as necessary as common purpose. What we believe the government’s priority should be depends on how we understand its purpose, and this in turn will shape the way it functions and is evaluated.

So here’s my response:

QA 13. (April 09) Tug of war, tug of words

Michael the teacher was talking about what he says to new classes to disarm them. To disarm them? An ambiguous phrase. Did he mean to charm the children or to take away their weapons? Which reminded me of the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas’s view that discourse (conversation, dialogue) is the way we can engage with each other without violence. Which started me thinking about how we use language to arm and disarm ourselves and each other.

QA 12. (March 09) In defence of ego

“Struggle is ego.”

“All ambition is vanity.”

“I’ve been meeting my ego a lot recently.”

These three comments came my way over the course of a few days. They all seem to express some nervousness, disapproval or dislike of “ego”. Is that fair? Is ego simply a problem?

QA 11. (Feb 09) A wedding

For David and Corinna, 21 February 2009

What does it mean, to marry?

Marriage is an event, both simple and extraordinary. Something will be accomplished, here, today. Something will end and something begin. To marry is “to unite intimately”. It is rite of passage in which two lives are transformed. Two singular people say I – I will, yes – and find themselves we, us. First person plural.

This event takes place through words that are spoken: a solemn vow, a promise made, carried on the breath “from your lips to God’s ear”. One pledges one’s troth, one’s truth. Whatever words are used are words of honour. I take you as my husband, my wife, and I give my life into your care. In this exchange, the two become as one.

QA 10. (Dec 08) Radical maturity?

The other day someone spoke of “maturity”, and I thought how quaint. With all the changes that befall us in the world, and all the changes we try to make, how rarely do we experience – or desire – simple ripening, that something should grow into its own fullness, in the fullness of time. So, I wondered, what’s that about?

Mostly, it’s about hatred of the present and the past it rode in on.

QA 9. (Nov 08) Doing without drama

Walking by a farm dam, one frog after another leaps into the water ahead of me. Plop! One jump out of danger, a kick underwater into the silt and out of sight. I notice how natural creatures simply do, without drama.

Some of us, however, adore our theatrics. Should I stay or should I jump? Here? There? (And why is it always me who has to jump?) Like this? Watch me! Now? Too late! And then the danger (if there is a danger) either passes by or our little drama frog gets squashed. Either way, it never knew what happened. Silly frog. Silly us.