Delighting in Pessimism: Schopenhauer and “Melancholia”
December 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm 3 comments
An online acquaintance who watched the movie Melancholia remarked the other day how similar it seemed to be to the pessimistic worldview of German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). In Melancholia, the main character is utterly depressed because it actually seems rational to be depressed and disgusted with humanity, and, so she thinks, it would be better for humanity not to exist. Just like Schopenhauer wrote: “We have not to be pleased but rather sorry about the existence of the world.” He wrote that “its nonexistence would be preferable to its existence,” because at bottom it “ought not to be.”
Cheery stuff, I know. In line with that, in the movie there is a planet called “Melancholia” about to collide with the earth, promising to make the wish for its nonexistence come true.
On the other hand, Schopenhauer did actually argue against suicide. If I remember correctly, his argument went something like this: You need to get to the point of not caring whether you live or die, and since you don’t care, why bother killing yourself? The problem of living will take care of itself soon enough. Why shoot yourself while you are already falling down a cliff? Just let yourself fall until you hit the ground.
I must confess, I’m not always in the mood for reading Schopenhauer. Although he can be quite amusing at times. In fact, he sometimes seems to take great delight in formulating his pessimism, seasoning it with a large dose of wit. He positively revels in his pessimism. And therein lies a paradox. He wishes to deny life, and yet in the act of formulating his denial he affirms life. Writing about his pessimism, clothing it in delightful language, becomes his way of escaping pessimism.
Though I haven’t yet seen the film, maybe the same could be said about Melancholia. The movie is said to be hauntingly beautiful, and isn’t creating a beautiful movie about life on earth being meaningless an oxymoron? Creating a movie, especially a beautiful one, is not an act that denies life; it is an act that affirms life. The appreciation of beauty has long been one of the major ways in which people have found meaning. If one is a true pessimist who doesn’t believe in meaning at all and wants everyone to not care about life, one should create destructive art—art that is ugly and fragmented and confusing, as some 20th century art has been.
Some philosophers, of course, have said that it is only by staring long and hard at the approaching planet Melancholia, so to speak, that we gain a true appreciation for life. Heidegger, for instance, thought that it is by deeply contemplating one’s own eternal non-being that one begins to understand what being is. And another Existentialist, Sartre, considered the approaching annihilation of oneself to be a kind of liberation. Since nothing mattered in the long run, you are free to choose what you want to do with life. Nietzsche, too, saw in existential despair the hope for creating a new humanity.
As different as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre were, they all shared an atheistic outlook on the world. And what I appreciate about them is that they did not gloss over what they perceived to be the consequences of their atheism. They looked long and hard at the approaching planet Melancholia, and they asked: Given that it’s all coming to nothing, what ought we to do? How shall we live? What choices shall we make?
Whether we are atheists or believers of some kind, it seems that many of the activities we occupy ourselves with are designed to distract us from these ultimate questions. If we watch movies like Melancholia at all, we are very happy to see a comedy again or joke with friends or do our work so that we don’t have to think about our approaching death.
On the other hand, is Heidegger right? Isn’t there something to be said about simply living in the moment, without pondering death? If you are an atheist, you don’t think your pondering will change your eternal fate anyway. So why not simply eat and drink and be merry, like David Hume, another atheist, was so good at doing? And if you are a believer, most religions seem to stress that taking care of your neighbor who is in need right now is more important than worrying about your particular rewards in the afterlife.
Given the atheistic presuppositions, who is right? Heidegger or Hume? Or neither?
Cheers.
Entry filed under: Art, Philosophy. Tags: Atheism, death, depression, Existentialism, Heidegger, Hume, Melancholia, Nietzsche, Sartre, Schopenhauer, suicide.
1.
rockomnibus | December 13, 2011 at 4:31 am
Thanks for that summation of thoughts. I’ve often wondered how important it really is for me to understand/comprehend certain existential concepts, and while the journey can occasionally be rewarding, to what extent does it become escapism from reality, etc. Do I really need to concern myself over the various doubts about whether God exists or not? Is life nothing more than a continual game of hide-and-seek where I should be in search of the ultimate clue?
I’ve determined not to fret over discovering incontrovertible evidence, but living my life as an affirmation to an existing God, not being forever in dress rehearsal mode in an effort to get all the details just right for primetime. On another level, I believe we can still appreciate things that we can’t comprehend. Likewise, I don’t think we give our own selves enough credit for what we internalize — that there is probably much that we in fact do understand without realizing we do, as well as much that is a part of our makeup that we have a conviction of without being able to articulate it adequately through language. In short, we don’t know what we know.
I think the ponderers who “have to know” are mostly that way because they want to increase their sense of security as well as their sense of identity. They want to know something with more confidence and to be able to apply purpose to it. On the other hand, the non-ponderers likely feel that purpose speaks for itself and is part of all they experience, that it is what it is, and trying to distill it down any further than that becomes mind games. We’ve toyed with even those notions we can experience first-hand, such as love, for millennia without getting a firm grip on them. This would suggest more ambitious endeavors such as the existential realm are a pipe dream, at least at any point during our lifetimes or even our grandchildren’s grandchildren.
I want to delineate agnosticism’s passiveness from a form of theism’s activeness. The theist can very well say he doesn’t know, but that he has an existential hunch, if you will. The agnostic typifies perfectionism as one who isn’t ready to commit to any stance yet until everything falls into line, which can be a rationalization giving one a false air of ambivalence, when in all likelihood he isn’t actively pursuing the truth.
So then from the atheistic point of view, the ponderer of existential hasn’t really shut the door yet, though he wishes no association with the agnostics so as not to lend any more credibility to the unknown. They feel they need to cancel out the theist’s beliefs, and thus they deny the theists’ affirmations to keep a balance. Ultimately, an atheist by definition shouldn’t be concerned with existential matters, so they are so in name only.
2.
jacobschriftman | December 14, 2011 at 3:23 pm
I appreciate your thoughtful comment, rockomnibus. Keep ‘em coming!
I continue to find the thought about the passivity of agnosticism challenging. Although, don’t you think there is also something to be said for scholarly disinterestedness, being highly interested in issues without feeling the need to pick a side and become an apologist or a polemicist, particularly when dealing with issues that seem nearly impossible to be resolved? Surely we can use fewer ideological battles and more mutual understanding in the world?
Also, I think I understand your point about atheists being by definition not concerned with existential matters, the lack of concern being, so to speak, the “a” in “atheist” (= “without god”). But that seems to equate questions about existence with questions about God/gods. Many Existentialists would disagree with such an equation. Of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre, Heidegger was the only one who did not shut the door firmly on the existence of God. Yet all of them most certainly thought deeply about what existence is and what it means to exist as a human being in the world. Don’t you think that it is very much possible to think deeply about your existence in the world (=Existentialism) even after you have decided that you absolutely cannot believe in God?
Or have I misunderstood your point?
3.
rockomnibus | December 17, 2011 at 4:06 am
Thanks, Jacob. These are interesting discussions.
I see your point about a broader definition of existentialism, which would entail further exploration on the part of the thinker. There are probably many layers to this. My inclination is that a great deal of atheists don’t truly believe it’s impossible for a supreme being to exist, but they don’t want to be bothered with the proposition or any of its affiliations. They don’t want to lend any credence to theists at all in the intellectual ring. These atheists are thereby in denial, not wanting to consider any further their belief about it. So I should revise my statement to say that in my view some atheists are existentialists, but only because they’re not true atheists.
I agree, it’s sad that there’s an “us vs. them” mentality, but I think in philosophical discussions in general, if there is a side with a weaker position, it will tend to make the debate more personal and try to turn it into more of a competition instead of a coming together. It will try to lecture instead of try to understand. The stronger side will tend to welcome additional thoughts on the matter and won’t feel as threatened. I think this gives us clues on where the best arguments are pointing. Philosophy should never be politicized, but unfortunately philosophers are human and therefore subject to bias, taste, allegiance, emotion, etc., which will always cloud the judgment no matter how hard we try to remove them from our thinking.
Likewise, I’m wondering if it might be reasonable to suggest that pure atheists are ipso facto materialists, and as such they “limit” their view to only material concerns. They have already cancelled out further exploration outside of that realm, but the unseen is an interesting chunk to dismiss outright. In this sense, the theist is willing to explore a wider array of possibilities, and the agnostic to some extent as well (along with the pseudo-atheist).
The pure atheist as materialist has already made up most of his existential mind, in that he has already concluded that everything is merely impersonal energy and chemicals – no more, no less, end of story. Within those confined parameters, they “explore” the vast possibilities, and always with a caveat. In my estimation, this is existentialism lite, and so not a real existentialism.
I would also say that from what I’ve read from atheists (not sure about the classical philosophers, but speaking of my contemporaries), they for the most part have not expended much effort toward theism (or even spirituality) before dismissing it, so I don’t think one could say they’ve given it a good shake before concluding it to be a dead end. I don’t think they spent much serious time on discovering the possibilities of a supreme being, but instead tried to find God in the laboratory, and when He didn’t reveal Himself there, they threw their hands up in the air – and not as a sign of worship.
So I would concur that, yes, many atheists could indeed be thinking deeply about their existence, but if they were truly shutting the door, as you said, then to me that would mean they’ve selectively chosen the possibilities for the universe in advance, which makes their version of deepness pale by comparison. Essentially they’ve narrowed down what they’re willing to explore. That’s not to say that atheists are any less intellectual than theists, but they’re just more stubborn, with regard to these matters.