On the Denigration of Interiority
November 29, 2020
What exists?
That is the central question in our discussion of reality.
To be able to examine this question we rely upon how we experience that which exists. The role of the observer is essential to understanding fundamental laws of nature such as quantum mechanics and relativity. The state of particles depends upon the role of the observer. Speed and motion depends upon the position of the observer.
I mention this to bring you a strangely hopeful message: Your role in the universe is consequential. Your effect is scientifically quantifiable. Each movement that you make sends ripples into the universe.
I lapse into this emotional plea because I see a distressing trend in contemporary discourse that could most generously be described as a malignant brand of stoicism:
Author and philosopher Mark Manson invites his readers to rid themselves of self-indulgence and to focus upon the question of what is good. He warns that self-absorption (meta-feelings) acts as a barrier to a rational path to self-fulfillment. Moreover, he warns:
Much of the social strife that we’re experiencing today is the result of these meta-feelings. Moralizing mobs on both the political right and left see themselves as victimized and somehow special in every miniscule [sic] pain or setback they experience. Greed skyrockets while the rich congratulate themselves on being rich in tandem with the increasing rates of anxiety and depression as the lower and middle classes hate themselves for feeling left behind.
However, the irony and paradox in the phrase “fuck your feelings” is obvious. A strong emotional reaction to emotion itself is evident. Speaking of meta-feelings… 🤔
Manson’s advice is unmistakably in the stoic tradition. Stoicism begins in the Hellenistic era. An old college philosophy textbook that I have says that new philosophical movements (including stoicism) during this time “led people to think primarily of themselves and how they as individuals in a scheme of nature could achieve the most satisfactory personal life.” 1
The text goes on to provide the historical context for the rise of these philosophical movements:
These new directions in ethics were brought about to a great extent by the historical conditions of the times. After the Peloponnesian War and with the fall of Athens, Greek civilization declined. With the breakdown of the small Greek city-state, individual citizens lost the sense of their own importance and their ability to control or perfect their social and political destiny. Individuals increasingly felt this loss of personal control over collective life as they were absorbed into the growing Roman Empire.
Manson’s work is characterized as Millenialist. The self-help offered is in lieu of a decreasing standard of living for the middle class and a dismantling of the post World War II global order. It’s not surprising that a stoic philosophy would become ascendant.
The empowerment that Stoicism provides comes at the cost of eradicating any confidence in an individual’s agency in the external world. You might not be able to control what is going on in the world but you can control how you respond.
I don’t have a problem with Manson’s brand of stoicism. Unfortunately, I can’t get past the fact that the phrase “fuck your feelings” has also become a pernicious fascist mantra in some circles.
In the Trumpian context “fuck your feelings” is offered as a facile remedy to ills supposedly brought about by years of civil rights legislation, progressive fiscal policies and regulations that have aimed at making life fairer for the average person. The gist is that life isn’t fair so stop feeling bad or at all about it. One is called a snowflake if one feels that children shouldn’t be caged at the border. One is not a patriot (on the side of “what is good”) if one feels sickened when one sees the non-stop video documentation of abuses within the criminal justice system.
Years of struggle to make society more just have been guided by raw emotions. Powerful emotions. Emotions that inspired the courage to seek and enact justice for the greater good of humanity.
The strength of emotion is that it is intuitive. One doesn’t have to take the time to painstakingly craft a general epistemological and ethical model to understand that people being killed for a minor traffic violation is wrong. Rational thought isn’t the only component of ethical behavior.
Furthermore, current research shows a relationship between general intelligence and emotions. Emotions are not simply a vestigial remnant of a primitive mind. Feelings are an important component of how we treat others and an important factor in how we act ethically in a social context.
No doubt about it, navigating feelings is often challenging. Feelings are unavoidable. Nevertheless, to ask someone to cast aside their feelings is like asking them to cast aside their humanity. Having emotions shouldn’t be something that one should feel ashamed of. Moreover, the notion of being able to stamp out emotional challenges through reason and choice alone risks stigmatizing legitimate mental health issues.
I would go so far as to say embrace your emotions. Emotions are part of who you are. They provide context for your experiences. Feelings are an essential part of the observational framework that you use to understand the reality around you.
1 Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993), 108-109.
