"For any happiness, even in this world, quite a lot of restraint is going to be necessary." -CS Lewis
What is the relationship between temperance and happiness? When does civilizing unruly and destructive nature become being a total buzzkill? WHERE IS THAT LINE?! Is it a lame line? Is the line the foundation of any Good to see from life? Can sacrifice go wrong?
The definition of 'temperance' is super contextually relative, so feel free to use whichever context you want to make your point.
If temperance is a virtuous mean (in the Aristotelian sense) between excess and deficiency, I'm inclined to agree that happier people do range closer to the mean than to the margins. I don't often find myself agreeing with CSL, but if that's what "restraint" means then in this instance I guess I do. But "unruly and destructive nature" (floods, fires, plagues...) can indeed override our best efforts at temperate restraint, and in the worst instances make us profoundly unhappy.
ReplyDeleteBy the way: it appears Google has stopped identifying the authors of our posts, so maybe we all need to start signing them. I'll sign mine "jpo"...
DeleteThanks for the response!
DeleteYeah I agree that there's definitely a balance to be struck between adventure and prudence (the golden mean). In my own life I'm trying to discover what that balance is, hence the question.
In my experience CSL's stuff works great for broad conceptions of theism but isn't nearly enough to justify the entire canon of Christianity. I have a lot of nostalgia for him because he was what got me into philosophy generally, but I'm now convinced that he's too often quoted out of context by facebook moms and apologists.
By 'unruly and destructive nature' I meant primarily human nature (our own natures and the natures of others), but I don't specify that because it works great as an analogy for how stronger manifestations of civilization are possible through understanding, curbing, and redirecting the effects of physical nature (ie the sciences).
I'm a huge economist in the sense that I think the laws of innate human greed and self-interest underpin a solid 95% of everything we do (though I wouldn't go as far as Dawkins does to suggest that an evolved or mutated genetic selfishness is the genesis for all moral imperatives- there are some sacrificial convictions that people have that extend too far beyond that framework), which means that if we don't align our selfish incentives to work towards building, maintaining, and furthering systems that provide opportunity, health, and freedom, we will naturally lead ourselves to some good things, but also plenty of bad things.
A perfect example of the above that works really well to illustrate the point is traffic laws. Here, we provide a direct financial self-interest to those who forego the other risk-management interests associated with driving at a safe speed. We do this by ticketing people who speed. By politically electing to enforce restraint on ourselves and others, we provide the freedoms, joys, and opportunities that traveling on public roads offers. When people drive recklessly, it shows me that they don't place the same value on those things that I do.
However, it is equally common for such rules (whether politically enforced or socially enforced, or somewhere in between) to be levied by those above out of their own greed or ego trip. Right now we're all in a place of trying to weed through which rules serve towards flourishing, which ones serve towards someone else's power, and which ones used to serve towards flourishing but have since outdated (like long division and polynomials being taught in schools). -Attense
**...we provide a direct financial self-interest to those who WOULD OTHERWISE forego the other risk-management interests...**
DeleteFrom the statement, I look at the "unruly and destructive nature" to be referring to human behavior, not "nature", and "civilizing" to be "taming/calming" such behavior. Restraint most definitely is a necessary ingredient to happiness. In part, it is to restrain ourselves from the "unruly and destructive nature" towards others (and our own self!), but also from even thinking in that negative way. To help others see such behavior as destructive is another way to happiness. As far as it relates to the disasters mentioned...be happy that I/you/we are able to offer assistance in some way, no matter how small we may think it is. Every act of kindness is of benefit to the receiver as well the giver!
ReplyDeleteFYI...I can still see your name on your posts. And this is from MEP in case you can't tell it's from Mary!
DeleteThanks for your response!
DeleteThat's exactly what I meant- total indulgence all the time, with no restraint whatsoever, seems to lead to disaster and destruction, whilst total restraint in every dimension seems to lead to never having lived.
It's great that you mention negative thinking as part of our natures that needs restraint- the inner critic that likes to endlessly evaluate and compare is bound to soil happiness! And thinking in general is something that many people (philosophers especially) find themselves addicted to... which is part of why writing is so healthy. Writing helps to empty the mind and tear the veil between us and blatant experience.
Of course, at least in my experience, the fog accrues again, and so then writing becomes important, again...