{"id":5672,"date":"2017-03-19T10:38:16","date_gmt":"2017-03-19T10:38:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2017\/03\/19\/seriousness-as-camouflage-of-nullity\/"},"modified":"2017-03-19T10:38:16","modified_gmt":"2017-03-19T10:38:16","slug":"seriousness-as-camouflage-of-nullity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2017\/03\/19\/seriousness-as-camouflage-of-nullity\/","title":{"rendered":"Seriousness as Camouflage of Nullity"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">Eric Hoffer, <em>The Passionate State of Mind<\/em>, Harper, 1955, p. 61, #93:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">The fact of death and nothingness at the end is a certitude unsurpassed by any absolute truth ever discovered.&#0160; Yet knowing this, people can be deadly serious about their prospects, grievances, duties and trespassings.&#0160; The only explanation which suggests itself is that seriousness is a means of camouflage:&#0160; we conceal the triviality and nullity of our lives by taking things seriously.&#0160; No opiate and no pleasure chase can so effectively mask the terrible truth about man\u2019s life as does seriousness.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\"><em> <a class=\"asset-img-link\" href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/.a\/6a010535ce1cf6970c01b7c8e1ff4d970b-pi\" style=\"float: left;\"><img decoding=\"async\" alt=\"Hoffer\" class=\"asset  asset-image at-xid-6a010535ce1cf6970c01b7c8e1ff4d970b img-responsive\" src=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/.a\/6a010535ce1cf6970c01b7c8e1ff4d970b-320wi\" style=\"margin: 0px 5px 5px 0px;\" title=\"Hoffer\" \/><\/a>Summary<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">It is certain that we become nothing at death. We all know this. Yet we take life with utmost seriousness. We are aggrieved at the wrongs that have been done to us, and guilty at the wrongs we have done. We care deeply about our future, our legacy, and many other things.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">What explains our intense seriousness and deep concern given (i) the known fact that death is annihilation of the person and (ii) the fact that this unavoidable annihilation renders our lives insignificant and not an appropriate object of seriousness?<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">There is only one explanation. The truth (the conjunction of (i) and (ii)) is terrible and we are loathe to face it. So we hide the triviality and nullity of our lives behind a cloak of seriousness. We deceive ourselves. What we know deep down we will not admit into the full light of consciousness. &#0160;<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-size: 11pt;\"><em><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino;\">Evaluation<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">There is an element of bluster in Hoffer&#39;s argument. &#0160;It is not certainly known that death is annihilation, although it is reasonably conjectured. But even if death were known to spell the end of the person, why should this render our lives insignificant? One could argue, contra Hoffer, that our lives are significant in the only way they could be significant, namely, in the first-personal, situated, and perspectival way, and that there is no call to view our lives <em>sub specie aeternitatis<\/em>. &#0160;It might be urged that the appearance of nullity and insignificance is merely an artifact of viewing our lives from outside. &#0160;<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">So one rejoinder to Hoffer would be: yes, death is annihilation, but no, this fact does not render life insignificant. Therefore, there is no tension among:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">1) Death is annihilation of the person.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">2) Annihilation implies nullity and insignificance.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">3) People are serious about their lives.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">We don&#39;t have to explain why (3) is true given (1) and (2) since (2) is not true.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">A second type of rejoinder would be that we don&#39;t need to explain why (3) is true given (1) and (2) because (1) is not known to be true. &#0160;This is the line I take. I would argue as follows<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">A. We take our lives seriously.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">B. That we take them seriously is <em>prima facie<\/em> evidence that they are appropriately and truly so taken.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">C. Our lives would not be serious if death were annihilation. Therefore:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">D. Death is not annihilation.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">This argument is obviously not rationally compelling, but it suffices to neutralize Hoffer&#39;s argument. The argument is not compelling because once could reasonably reject both (B) and (C). &#0160;Here is Hoffer&#39;s argument:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">A.&#0160;We take our lives seriously.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">C.&#0160;Our lives would not be serious if death were annihilation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">~D. Death is annihilation. Therefore:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">~B. That we take our lives seriously is not evidence of their seriousness, but a means of hiding from ourselves the terrible truth.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">Hoffer and I agree about (C). &#0160;Our difference is as follows. I am now and always have been deeply convinced that something is at stake in this life, that it matters deeply how we live and comport ourselves, and that it matters far beyond the petty bounds of the individual&#39;s spatiotemporal existence. Can I prove it? No. Can anyone prove the opposite? No.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">Hoffer, on the other hand, is deeply convinced that in the end our lives signify nothing despite all the sound and fury. &#0160;In the end death consigns to meaninglessness a life that is indeed played out entirely within its paltry spatiotemporal limits. &#0160;In the end, our care comes to naught and seriousness is but camoflage of our nullity.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">I can&#39;t budge the old steveodore and he can&#39;t budge me. &#0160;Belief butts up against belief. There&#39;s no knowledge hereabouts.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">So once again I say: In the last analysis you must decide what to believe and how to live. &#0160;Life is a venture and and adventure wherein doxastic risks must be taken. Here as elsewhere one sits as many risks as he runs.<\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia, palatino; font-size: 11pt;\">&#0160;<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Eric Hoffer, The Passionate State of Mind, Harper, 1955, p. 61, #93: The fact of death and nothingness at the end is a certitude unsurpassed by any absolute truth ever discovered.&#0160; Yet knowing this, people can be deadly serious about their prospects, grievances, duties and trespassings.&#0160; The only explanation which suggests itself is that seriousness &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2017\/03\/19\/seriousness-as-camouflage-of-nullity\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Seriousness as Camouflage of Nullity&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[184,549,77,218],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-death-and-immortality","category-hoffer-eric","category-meaning-of-life","category-nothingness"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5672","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5672"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5672\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}