Cory 2003-08-15

From Summa Bergania

From : David Bergan

Sent : Friday, August 15, 2003 1:54 PM

To : Cory Heidelberger

Subject : First Affirmative Constructive

---

Hi Cory!

My eyes lit up when I read your remark about wanting to win both Policy and LD cases. You know my preference, so let us begin.

I. Value: Stoicism

A. Defined

"Some things are up to us and some are not up to us. Our opinons are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions--in short, whatever is our own doing. Our bodies are not up to us, nor are our possessions, our reputations, or our public offices, or, that is, whatever is not our own doing. The things that are up to us are by nature free, unhindered, and unimpeded; the things that are not up to us are weak, enslaved, hindered, not our own. So remember, if you think that things naturally enslaved are free or that things not your own are your own, you will be thwarted, miserable, and upset, and will blame both gods and men." -Epictetus

In a sentence I will define stoicism as: The proper understanding of ourselves, the things under our control, and things external to us - and the acceptance of everything external.

B. Psychology (the study of the soul)

Understanding the limits of one's scope is crucial for personal well-being. To expect to change things that one cannot is unhealthy to the soul (if not to the body as well). The atheist Carl Rogers has developed the most widely accepted approach to modern clinical psychology fully on ancient stoic texts. He quotes Epictetus liberally.

The main idea is that what makes people miserable and depressed is the conflict of two things: 1) Somebody wants something. 2) That thing they want is unavailable. For example, I will be miserable if I want a Ferrari and cannot have it, want a wife but cannot find one, want to convert a friend to Christianity but he is unwilling, or want my cousin to be alive and he is dead. There are but two resolutions of this fundamental conflict - either I get the thing I want, or else I stop wanting it. Since I usually cannot change the fact of whether I will get the object of my desire, it is therefore wiser to change my desire - since that is in my control.

The principle of stoicism is to limit our wants to only those things we can secure for ourselves. We can legitimately want a tuna sandwich if we have the ingredients in our kitchen or the money to buy one. But to want something we cannot secure by ourselves has the potential to make us miserable, like wanting a sunshiny day for our fishing trip. The stoic (Epictetus) says, "Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well." and "Detatch your aversion from everything not up to us, and transfer it to what is not nature among the things that are up to us."

In practice, he says, "In the case of everything attractive or useful or that you are fond of, remember to say just what sort of thing it is, beginning with the least little things. If you are fond of a jug, say 'I am fond of a jug!' For when it is broken you will not be upset. If you kiss your child or your wife, say that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be upset."

Not being upset, miserable, or thwarted outranks any other personal value I can think of.

C. Holy Men

With the possible exception of Islam, every major religion has stoic examples. Buddha's enlightened path is the 12-step process to becoming a stoic. Nearly every poem of Lao Tzu's _Tao te Ching_ rings with a phrase of maintaining simple desires and moderation. Confucius's second greatest work is called the _The Unwobbling Pivot_ where he expounds on keeping yourself at the axis of your being by distrusting externals and appearances. The pagans give us Socrates who is unmoved by anything but truth even on the day of his death. From Judaism we inherit Esther's example ("After that I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish." 4:16), Solomon's reflections ("All is vanity" Eccles 1:2), and Job's testament ("Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return there; the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." 1:20).

But most importantly to this audience, are the Christian examples. Among the greatest of the saints are undoubtably Augustine and Francis. We find Augustine exclaiming about the stoic philosopher Seneca, "What more could a Christian say than this pagan has said?" And both in his life and more notably in Francis's we witness the monk asceticism which takes the stoic principles to the next level - beyond indifference of externals to actual rejection of them. Saint Francis often returned to his order naked because he would meet someone on the road whom he decided was less well off and give that person all the possesions on him as a gift.

What about Christ? It is difficult to define His character with nearly any word. He provides the teachings for both stoicism and asceticism. Stocisim: "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done." (Matt 26:42) Asceticism: "Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold both in this life and the next." (Matt 19:29)

Yet, why the tears at Lazarus's grave? Why then raise Lazarus? Couldn't He just accept Lazarus's death as part of God's Will? Why the tears of blood and last minute doubts on the cross? Was it just the physical pain?

The lessons and the examples don't line up. In Matthew 6 we have the most convincing literature ever written on putting faith in God and not worrying about any worldly things. His own faith shines as a spotlight through most of the stories, save the two exceptions listed above. Were these instances Jesus weakened by the world to the point where He stumbled from His teaching?

If so, then the teaching takes priority. We don't judge a speech false by the flaws of the orator. Hitler and Charles Manson can speak truth. I hestitate to classify Jesus's tears as flaws in His character (for that would be heretical - even if it is true). Nor do I want to remove them from the Gospel because they add a touching glance at the sensitivity of an otherwise apocolyptic Being.

I admit that it will be hard to put Jesus firmly in the stoic camp... insofar as it is hard to put Him firmly in any camp. And His political views were especially brief.

Nonetheless, the stories of the early Christians show us men and women filled with faith and works despite harsh Roman persecution. They smiled even as they were led to the coliseum to be burned, sliced, or eaten.

D. Modern applications

We have already noted that clinical psychology is paying homage to Epictetus. The defining prayer of Alcoholics Anonymous ends with "[Help me] to change the things I can, to accept the things I cannot, and have the wisdom to know the difference." Elisabeth Kübler Ross's culture-altering book _On Death and Dying_ was a manifesto for us to accept death as natural, as she criticized doctors for making the people's deathbed the surgery table in the emergency room (to die apart from friends and family) rather than their bed at home. And 8-time NBA world champion coach Phil Jackson is a Buddhist. ;)

If the principles of stoicism are sound, then time will not alter the value of them. Will Durant said it succinctly with, "In philosophy all truth is old, and only error is original."

E. Apathy and focus

My Augustana college president was known for his winks and handshakes, and not particularly for his insight. But in an impromptu general address one day he surprised me. Among the glib pointers he offered the incoming freshmen, he emphasized two. The first was to make true friends - ones that you can call in the middle of the night, and whose loyalty will last until the end. The second was to be cautious in your plans. Opportunities and distractions always look alike, and it is important to see from the begining which a particular thing is. Opportunities will sharpen your focus and help you to attain your goals, while distractions lead you away and cloud your plans.

The nature of stoicism coincides with this advice. To make a statue you have to remove the excess marble blow by blow. You have to cut away the waste so that you can reveal the beautiful. Simplicity in life is the same way. All packrats have it wrong. In the name of frugality they save every scrap and trinket and their house becomes a cluttered mess. The proper way to organize a workspace for a task is to remove everything from it that is not essential to the task.

This applies not only to material things but to mental things as well. The fewer things banging around in our heads means that we can focus more clearly on the one or two things that need our attention. Outwardly, it may appear as apathy when I neither read the newspaper nor keep up to date on current event and politicians. But why add the clutter to my mind? Realistically, there is little I can do about any current event. Most people, I gather, learn about them only because they lack the conversational skills to have a discussion about something interesting on their own. And while every two years I get to toss a ballot in the box for my governmental representatives, my 1-in-800000 say in the election hardly seems to justify more than 5 or 10 minutes of prep work. Furthermore, my 'apathy' is strengthened by my idea that this is a ridiculous way to run a nation: by popular vote among a mob as ignorant as I am.

But I may not be alone on this postive view of trashing physical and mental clutter. What does it mean when Jesus suggests for us to pluck out our eye or cut off our hand if they are sinful? Is that to say that the clutter of our life is to be expunged even if the clutter is our own body?

F. Refuting the myths of stoicism

The common misconception about stoics is that they are either a) not loving or b) not fun. Nowhere in my reading have I met a stoic that suggested we limit either our love or our fun. What we should limit are our desires. If our desires are easy to meet, then we will always be enjoying ourselves. You can find a stoic headbanging at a rock concert, riding the rollercoaster, going back for seconds at the buffet, hunting deer with a bow and arrow, skydiving, scuba-diving, parasailing, snowboarding, skateboarding, painting, writing poetry, flattering women (or men), sunbathing, fishing, playing chess, playing basketball, reading, relaxing, praying, meditating, studying, training, acting, or sleeping.

Just because the stoic has aligned her soul such that she is able to accept misfortune, does not mean that she has to be indifferent to fortune. Giving up frowns does not necessitate giving up smiles. A stoic can love her car (or her jar) and find substantial happiness in it. But if the car has an accident and she continues life without missing a beat, that does not mean that she didn't love the car beforehand. Many people assume that a person's love for something or someone is measured by how much they miss it when it is permanently gone. I contend that it is perfectly reasonable to love something fully when it is here and shed minimal tears when it is gone. Love for the presence of something does not implicate sorrow at the absence of that thing. It is for the small minds of gossip to assume that because a man does not cry his eyes bloody at the death of his wife, he must therefore have been having an affair or some other marital strife.

Stoicism is misconstrued as having an indifferent attitude toward everything. However, the attentive person realizes that it is only an indifferent attitude toward misfortune.

II. Application: Love-centered Vs. Life-centered health care

A. Death is nothing dreadful in itself.

"What upsets people is not things themselves but their judgments about the things. For example, death is nothing dreadful (or else it would have appeared dreadful to Socrates), but instead the judgment about death that it is dreadful--that is what is dreadful. So when we are thwarted or upset or distressed, let us never blame someone else but rather ourselves, that is, our own judgments. An uneducated person accuses others when he is doing badly; a partly educated person accuses himself, an educated person accuses neither someone else nor himself." -Epictetus

B. Illness is nothing dreadful in itself.

"Illness interferes with the body, not with one's faculty of choice, unless that faculty of choice wishes it to. Lameness interferes with the limb, not with one's faculty of choice. Say this at each thing that happens to you, since you will find that it interferes with something else, not with you." -Epictetus

C. Priority should be placed on love.

Almost always quality outweighs quantity. Which driver wants 100 junked cars rather than one that runs? Which teacher would rather grade 100 mediocre papers than 1 great one? Which general would rather lead 10 regiments of cowards than 1 platoon of heros? Similarily I think that any living person should prefer 1 year of fulfilling activity to 100 years of monotony.

When Elisabeth Kubler-Ross interviewed terminally ill patients for 2 and a half years before writing her book, she found that what the patients wanted was not more life, but more love and respect. They were fine with idea of dying sometime within the next year, but sad that because they were terminally ill most of the population avoided them as some sort of taboo. As if somehow the fact that they were ill was a reflection that they were morally bad. This taboo seems a natural consequence of a cultural that is engaged so competitively against death. The terminally ill patient is someone that is not playing on our team, because our team scores points against the Reaper all the time. We bury most of the Reaper's points, but the patient a living reminder of his domain.

Let's weigh the pros and cons of our culture's fierce competition against death.

The pro is obviously that we try harder to keep people alive and therefore live longer. Which could mean days, months, or years of smelling flowers, holding grandchildren, writing letters, making stained glass windows... or watching TV. (Let's face it, most retired people send for groceries and plop down in front of the tube all day.) Also, the doctor and the family sometimes have less guilt because they can rest at night knowing "they did all that they could" to save their mother, father, child, or whoever. This guilt, however, is a product of the competition... if dying wasn't perceived as losing, they wouldn't feel guilty unless there was gross negligence.

Cons: Terminally ill patients are estranged. People die on the surgery table apart from their loved ones while the doctors are worrying if they missed anything that could result in a malpractice suit. Costly heroic surgeries are always performed regardless if the patient can afford it or even want it. People rising from such surgeries are often not as complete as they were beforehand - lacking memory, senses, or limbs... and nearly always confined to an undesirably strict diet and a dozen pills a day. Comatose patients stay plugged in despite not having shown any vital signs for years. Death - an universal event for humans - is perceived as evil and undesireable even though many people have testified in their last seconds that the act of death is nothing more painful or scary than the physical pain of whatever killed them.

In short, it seems to me to be a quality vs quantity issue. Ask every old person and it will come down decisively that the 'Golden Years' are full of annoyance and pain. My great uncle (a Lutheran pastor) and his wife have daily displayed as many of the Christian virtues as they could - a perpetual cheerful disposition being one of them. And then one day my dear great aunt (on whom I have never seen anything but a smile) was brought to tears of frustration as she described how hard the last couple years have been with her husband's sight growing dimmer, hearing going softer, incontinence becoming more frequent, and memory fading. Nor did she much enjoy her own medical issues when they trimmed 18 inches off her colon because there might have been a tumor. I can hardly stand to think of it without depressing myself. Do admirable men and women have to be reduced to pain and griping? Yes, a true stoic would take all these misfortunes with indifference. But should we be in favor of a culture that insists on creating misfortunes?

I contend that the fierce competition with death must be dampened. I am not (yet) advocating euthanasia. I do advocate that reasonable measures should be taken by a doctor to save people's lives. But heroic surgeries, surgeries against a patient's will, surgeries on people that are not likely to live for more than 2 years, leaving comotose people plugged in for more than 6 months, and surgeries that will likely leave a person less complete (ie no memory, hearing, etc) even if they do succeed, I think all should be strongly doubted and mostly rejected.

Now I'm open for cross-examination...

Your friend,

:) David

--David Bergan

"I do not have to think, I have plenty of meat."

-The response from an Eskimo when asked "Of what are you thinking?"