Introduction
If there is an aspect that characterizes the whole banality of modern life more than anything, then it has to be the very loss of valuing things for their good. Everything in the contemporary world has to be measurable and reduced to its essential components. This metaphysical assertion has plagued the modern thinking landscape since the Copernican revolution during the Renaissance. The mechanical-materialistic worldview was accepted as unquestionable. However, how accurate is it that the world functions as a mere machine?
This view is suspect and open to criticism, not readily accepted as a mere dogma or a given. From what we will see, this worldview has metaphysical and even ideological implications. Criticizing these deeply ingrained notions about the world becomes a challenge, as they are rather seen as common sense if anything else. This is why the task of philosophy is to question dogmas and norms deeply held for centuries.
The futility of utility
Once society used to value things not purely based on their utility value. As mentioned by Lewis Waller in Empires of Modernity, a new psychology emerged. „Exploration was at the heart of the modern expansionist drive that began in earnest in the 17th century“[1] He continues further:
„[In his] 1658 book William Percy's the Complete Swimmer […] he writes there are two only chief ends which are the only inducements to all actions in the whole world and these are pleasure and profit […] these are the main and only objects where on all creatures animal or rational fix their eyes […] English philosopher Thomas Hobbes had written that all action was in the pursuit of power others had started to talk of utility what's most useful to me, but the shift was towards self-interest in 1747 Jean-Jacques Berlin wrote that now let man reflect but ever so little on himself […]“ Lewis Waller[2]
This sets up the psychology of the utilitarian worldview, things are no longer done for virtue, honour, or simply for their own sake. Which later we will see is the key to living a more fulfilling and enjoyable life.
„[S]ince the scientific revolution it was beginning to be assumed that human nature was calculable scientific had simple principles that people act in rational and predictable ways happiness pleasure utility whatever it was pursued stored up or to use a word that the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham invented in 1817 maximized.“ Lewis Waller[3]
It was Hobbes who had written the most about human nature, that „we seek power because it assures us the pleasure.“[4] This is where the modern worldview sees a great limit. For when pre-modern societies sought transcendence and self-actualisation the ultimate goal of existence, modern man, primarily starting in the English-speaking world has now come to terms with the mundanity of life.
While Lewis continues his video essay examining the consequences of such a mindset, here we meet a diversion. I shall look beyond the consequences and build upon what has been set up towards the future. The core of modern society is based purely on survival, there are no longer any sacrifices of resources it seeks to be as efficient as possible. Which fundamentally contradicts the way and how humanity tends to act. This leads us to the second example, where I would like to compare the ancient perception of death to our present ‘utility’ centric lens through the works of postmodernist French philosopher Jean Baudrillard.
Banishment of Death
„For Baudrillard, dying societies banish ‘living’ – the exchange is for mere survival. Survival at all costs, even if it means uploading your brain into the cloud.“[5] Baudrillard contrasts past societies, where death had a place in communal life, with today’s obsession with survival at all costs. Here a mindset shift occurred, as the ancients were more playful, they used their existing generated surplus value for spiritual practices. Be it dancing around a fire or building temples for their Gods and Goddesses. The first images that come to mind are the beautiful Greek Poleis, the Mayan temples, Japanese Shinto shrines and even the Egyptian pyramids.
Even with their own ancient ‘technologies’ and standards of living not even close to those of today, they still managed to pull off feats of wonder that make even the modern man question how they pulled it off. Isn’t it quite ironic? With all the modern ‘advancements’ and progress we have made, we are unable to replicate feats of mastery. It is not a matter of technology here, it is but a matter of a spirit. We could easily surpass the greatness masters of the past managed to do in a heartbeat if we were to set our minds to it.
„Those that are more symbolic with respect to death also tend to be more collectivist, such that even the dead are included in everyday life.“[6] Collectivist societies historically included the dead in their social order, whereas modern capitalist societies exiled them. He goes on further: „it's been the norm in human cultures that the dead have a say.“[7] Many would respect their ancestors who were dead under the belief it would be disrespectful to go against their wishes. This can be a bit binding, however, what we need for the purposes of this essay is merely the attitude towards the dead. Perceive how it never came into question if it is ‘useful’ or ‘profitable’ to do so.
Contrast this with the next statement where he unveils that „our social relations are largely determined by our relation to capital and labour. Our exclusion of the dead (just like our exclusion of the mad and the elderly, to asylums and nursing homes) is based on the fact that they can no longer work or produce capital.“[8] Here we can perceive that the reason for their exclusion is purely due to instrumentality. The dead, like the mad and elderly, are excluded from capitalist systems because they no longer contribute labour or capital.
The metaphysical principles behind such a shift are clear, from a utilitarian point of view, the dead bring no utility. It contradicts the principle that, here death is the ultimate end of life precisely because the subject no longer produces capital value. Thus, to avoid arguing about the existence of a metaphysical ‘afterlife’, I would like to specifically focus on perception of death in the ancient societies. A more symbolic meaning could be derived from it, it would not have been the end itself, at least for the living participants of that society. They provided various and sometimes expensive rituals to honor the dead.
Ancient Rituals as a form of Play
Here the argument I am making is about the relief of surplus value that this ritual has in its essence being in the ritual itself. And I would like to argue as the point of life itself or in casual terms we would convey it as either play or artistic expression. Johan Huizinga in his 1938 book ‘Homo Ludens’ suggests that religious practices embody elements of play. He observes that rituals and traditions, such as consecrations and offerings, can be viewed as forms of play, highlighting the playful nature inherent in these sacred ceremonies.[9]
Comparing Huizing’s conception of play it is evident that a religious ritual such as this has no place in a framework valuing instrumentality above all else. Any moment spent not actively producing or feeding the machine is a moment ‘wasted’ as it doesn’t produce more capital. This at first relatively small aspect of human nature runs contrary to the whole ethos of early modernist thought at the time and surprisingly even today, which we will get into later.
Play is an essential aspect of human nature, it doesn’t necessarily produce viable outputs such as ‘profits’ or is useful in any sense I would go as far as to say it isn’t even ‘pleasurable’ for during any game you experience a large variety of emotions. Be it frustration at a loss, or exhaustion by the end of a swimming competition. Games can and often are not exactly ‘pleasurable’ that is not to say they are not ‘fun’ the two should not be so easily conflated.
One is a physiological state of satisfaction often very temporary that needs to be satisfied constantly and likewise often very individualistic in its nature, this makes it egoistic and self-centred in nature as it is the self that demands to be pleasured. The other is more of a psychological state that varies in intensity and typically lasts longer and minor setbacks cannot take it away. I would even add that setbacks that usually take away from the ‘pleasure’ aspect enhance the ‘fun’. Any game is ‘fun’ when it has a ‘challenge’ attached to it. If the player is constantly rewarded ‘victory points’ that can be pleasurable however it gets boring and thus the ‘fun’ element disappears. It can but is not limited to one person, meaning it can be shared, for example during a game of D&D it is the whole group that is having ‘fun’. It is not inherently ‘selfish’ in this regard. It compounds with other people, when you notice other people having fun it reflects on you, and in turn, they notice you having fun and have more fun themselves.
As such the ancient man was inherently playful, survival was not merely their sole purpose in life. This drive is not inherently dead in humanity per se, as it is so inherent to our ‘nature’ which the early modernist thinkers argued so hard for is that of the highest utility or ‘pleasure’. It would be a ridiculous assertion to posit that the ceremonies to honour the dead are done with ‘pleasure’ in mind. Often they were done with grieving the dead, it has included various emotions and certainly not the mere reduced notion of ‘pleasure’.
Lack of Play in the Modern Man
Here we are to ask why the modern man is so contemptuous in living his office life never questioning for more out of life. We certainly live in a post-scarcity society[10] (unless capitalism leads us into ruin) we have the ability to self-actualize, so then why are we actively preventing that from happening? It is more than evident that this mindset of short-term ‘utility’ and ‘pleasure’ has birthed a consumption-oriented society that cannot be contemptuous until they achieve a short burst of as much pleasure as possible. Often at the cost of long-term stability and higher purpose. This is more than evident in growing obesity rates around the world and further social media addiction.
Not to mention a growing sentiment of anti-intellectualism in the West. As to do any intellectual activity especially those in the arts and humanities take from the immediate utility and profitability of the situation. To gather knowledge one must do it not for immediate profits or instrumentally, it is done with higher purposes in mind or even just playfulness. This inherently contradicts the modern metaphysical assertions about concepts such as ‘human nature’ and signals that there might be more to life than the mere mundanity as they suggest.
For whenever reductionism appears it is almost always done for the natural sciences. Especially since the English-speaking world derives their meaning of the term „sciences“ from the „scientia“ term in Latin. Reffering only to ‘natural’ or ‘hard’ sciences while excluding the humanities. This however is a culturally evolved understanding of science and doesn’t say anything about the objective nature of a ‘science’ itself. In Germanic and Slavic cultures there exists a concept of „Wissenschaft“[11] a tradition that involves any systematic studies/approaches to research. It includes the so-called ‘soft sciences’ such as the humanities and the arts that the English-speaking world is ready to exclude without a second thought. This is a much broader definition of ‘science’ that I myself will adopt and use for future reference. For in the pursuit of knowledge, one must not exclude other perspectives, it would be a grave mistake that many Western scholars omitted often serving a specific ideological agenda rather than being a neutral statement of fact.
Conclusion
In conclusion re-examination of modern values due date is nigh. To move past the reductionism of early Modern English thought. There are but many unquestioned flaws in their conception of philosophy that have pervaded our contemporary world. However, its origins appear in early imperialist endeavours of explorations and conquest which allowed those flawed ideas to spread around quickly. It is important that not even in Europe at the time was there a consensus on highly complex issues such as ‘human nature’ let alone the metaphysical principles or reality. Various thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed a more optimistic idea on human nature. [12]
It is quite easy to jump uncritically at ideas such as this one without really understanding the full implications of them. We have been adjusted to thinking in ways of ‘interest’ or ‘profit’, ‘pleasure’, or ‘utility’ by our modern society. A common talk today is companies planning their spending, doing „risk management“, „maximising profits“ different „interest groups“. It is in critical thinking that we put those concepts into question and examine where have they evolved from. Do they hold up to scrutiny and if we can utilise and define them in other ways? This is the question of a philosopher.
Lastly, I shall leave with a hopeful message that a better society of the future is possible. One without artificial scarcity as imposed by the logic of late-stage capitalism essentially functions on maintaining scarcity for its survival(not the survival of the people within the system). Thus we need to re-adjust our focus from a purely instrumentalist perspective of the eternal present(where we sacrifice a possible future for short-term pleasure or profit). Where we culturally enrich ourselves as a collective by producing cultural texts with a value higher than present enjoyment. Towards a forward-looking self-actualised mindset where we find novel ideas and simply enjoy life for its own sake.