There is a Polish saying that great Polish literature requires three people to suffer: the main character, the writer and the reader. If all three are suffering book becomes part of the school curriculum.
In Dutch literature it seems that the reader has to suffer while the author describes his newest niche fetish to the reader, usually teenagers in secondary school.
With the (sad?) consequence that many Dutch people never pick up another book by a Dutch author again. If there is one thing that school taught me about Dutch literature is that I want it to die, and I will only read books by foreign authors (especially English) out of spite.
So the question is, how does one maintain hope and joy while taking human depravity seriously? My answer is: by following Christ. Some of Garshin's peers could see this but apparently Garshin himself could not.
This is the path my parents took, and for whatever peace they personally experienced, it involved just dumping their unresolved traumas on their kids in the name of that deity, leaving us with lifelong emotional baggage to work through.
The underlying ideas that could help someone deal with the realities of the world are philosophical intuitions that need no religion to practice.
While not all implementations of religion look like my parents, it is no more perfect a solution than any other, and seems particularly susceptible to the same malevolence against which it claims to be an antidote.
If you actually are curious about a non-religious path, Sam Harris’ work has resonated with me. The book “Waking Up” is an appropriately named and great starting point.
Have you ever considered why fairy tales have persisted? Why do we see the same stories repeated time and time again? Why are tales retold in Disney and Marvel movies to the tune of billions in profit? It’s because the stories resonate, which is another way of saying they present an essential truth. They teach us something about ourselves that help us make better decisions.
The lessons can be misinterpreted, abused, and used to manipulate others, but there’s a reason why those stories in particular persisted.
This is even more amazing when you consider that these stories had to be passed down every generation for thousands of years through word of mouth. It’s a tenuous process. Only the most truthful stories will last through the ages.
Therefore, there is value in telling yourself fairy tales because you might learn something. Even if you’re not religious, you’ve heard many of the stories already through pop culture. It isn’t clear that blinding yourself from reality necessarily follows from being religious.
> Have you ever considered why fairy tales have persisted? Why do we see the same stories repeated time and time again? Why are tales retold in Disney and Marvel movies to the tune of billions in profit?
Yes. Nostalgia and profit. Pre-copyright works are in the public domain. And people will pay for familiar things, especially those that remind them of their youth.
> ...there’s a reason why those stories in particular persisted.
An empathetic or curious perspective would imagine that they had come to hold a negative attitude toward religion as a result of some experience. If you were asking in good faith, it certainly did not appear so.
At risk of triggering an uncomfortable discussion, why does it seem that European intellectuals in general appear more extreme than any of their American counterparts; and Eastern European Intellectuals take that extremeness even further, ultimately creating Communism. Is it "American Pragmatism" that prevents the extreme intellectual from forming in the United States? Is it a cultural respect for complete commitment to one's ideals in Europe that creates these widely accepted extreme intellectual personalities? I am seriously curious.
The US civil war has no pro-slavery philosophers or intellectuals that have any respect, short of those that desire a return to such a barbaric society. While Eastern European philosophy and literature has a wealth of respect from many perspectives to this day.
He's not pro slavery; in fact: Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was publicly a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty." https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slaver...
>"...enslaved more than six-hundred people over the course of his life"
Seems to me that if you do own 600 people over the course of your life you, at least implicitly, condone slavery.
If you want to write him off that quickly, feel free, but you're short sighting yourself. Finding oneself in a society with slavery, Jefferson purchased slaves from owners that abused them, and then did his best to ensure others knew the cruelty of those individuals, triggering a local society shunning of them and repercussions in their church - which at the time was very powerful. Jefferson's own handling and treatment of his slaves was extremely humane considering the status quo at that time.
I also wonder why. It seems to be that Europe doesn't like comfort or pleasure. I like the simple pleasure of drinking very cold water, so I keep water bottles in my fridge, and add icecubes from my fridge ice dispenser.
Even separately, these things were almost impossible to get when I travelled to Europe: most bars and restaurants said they didn't have ice. And the cold water was maybe less warm than the ambient air, but not really cold.
I believe we in the US are more focus on pleasure - and I'd roll pragmatism into pleasure.
They sure as *%#$ like comfort and they do enjoy pleasure, but it’s just a very different perspective to the American one. In Europe they see comfort in just fitting in with the standard things from the status quo; questioning too much and adding too many individual, custom things is seen negatively. In other words, ”we don’t need ice here, stop being such a snowflake.” In America having that individual touch is a more widespread thing, it has more value.
I'd say comfort and pleasure are not elevated with respect as they are in the 'States. Perhaps due to puritanical Christianity and the "Protestant ethic", comfort and pleasure tend to be viewed as luxuries and therefore desirable, therefore within the realm of corrupted desires, and therefore worthy of a form of reserved/frightened respect. I do not see the same value transference in conversations with Europeans.
What a funny perspective, thanks for the laugh. I'm sure there isn't anyone in Europe who enjoys cold water, most of them lost their lives or got deported to the US during the last Tepid Water war /jk.
The fact that you like very cold water and equate that to pleasure doesn't mean that everyone does the same. I don't enjoy cold water with ice in it but I do enjoy very cold beer. Does that mean I don't like comfort or pleasure?
Seems to me that pleasure is linked to personal preferences and also follows cultural lines (regional, national, ethnic, etc).
Funny story, somewhat similar to your ice-water tale.
Went to Greece (Crete) on holiday and I couldn't get my hands on a fresh lemonade no matter what. Lemons were literally falling off trees on the side of the road but serving lemonade was just not part of the local culture. Their view was, why would I want to drink water mixed with lemon juice when I could have better things like fresh orange juice.
Does this mean that Cretans don't like pleasure? No, it just means that they find pleasure in different things.
Americans traded universal healthcare, free college education, maternity and paternity leave, vacation time, and the right to not be murdered by a cop “fearing for his life” for ice cold water. A very pragmatic trade it is said.
