Anxiety as a consequence of being human
We have looked at the causes of our love of entertainment. Let us look to an area of life that is both caused by and causes such love: anxiety.
The autonomous person knows what he is and guides his life by that belief. This knowledge is theoretical; it concerns general principles. In this instance, it involves the specific difference of humanity—what makes us different from other species.
Anxiety is, among other things, the feeling of one who is uncertain about what and who he is. Anxiety is provoked by a lack of knowledge. Anxiety is the result of investigations into those topics that most regularly elude the mind’s grasp. For instance, one cannot see the future, and thus becomes anxious out of fear for the possibility of it going poorly. The future is not the only field rife with anxiety. The epistemic terrain is treacherous in the topography of human nature and the abyss of individual interiority.
To be anxious is a mode of consciousness. It is the feeling of uncertainty. The emotion felt along with anxiety, fear, contains the suspicions of paranoia, but is more localized than generalized. It is a felt manifestation of limitations. It is the nearest one comes to an awareness of the outer state of impotence. Protracted anxiety atrophies the will. One wants something more, but has been so long unable to know what that something is, one is unable to do more.
How does entertainment bear upon autonomy? Entertainment keeps us away from gaining knowledge. Its object, after all, is to captivate, not to edify. This would not be as much of a problem if a person already knew what they needed to know. How, though, could a person know what she needs to know to be autonomous if she never pursued wisdom? How can a person pursue wisdom if she does not allow herself to be engaged during her leisure time? Thus, love of entertainment causes anxiety by preventing investigations into areas of knowledge needed for autonomy.
Even if someone took the time to ponder such questions, she would not find the answers quickly. Humans are a thorny bunch to theorize about. It appears other creatures are the sorts of things that have natural ends by which we can measure each individual member of the sort. An acorn will grow into an oak tree. This is the acorn’s essence, what it is supposed to be. If it does not become an oak tree, we judge it deformed, diseased, or otherwise unsuccessful. There is such diversity amongst the final products of human seeds, we wonder where we can find a standard of measure for ourselves.
The confusing state of human affairs gives rise to debate. Philosophers dispute whether or not, for humans, essence precedes existence or existence precedes essence. In plain language, the question is whether a person is a member of a class of beings meant for a certain end (e.g., to become happy, to become rational, to know and love God, etc.) from inception or whether a person exists without a pre-established identity or purpose. In the latter scenario, everyone creates an identity or purpose for herself through living life and making choices.
Observe that both parties to the disputation must concede the indisputable fact that a person first knows of his existence before he knows of his essence. This fundamental truth is the germ of much anxiety. What I am meant for? Where is my home? Is there nothing more for me to pursue beyond wealth and its trappings? One is restless in those possibilities and thus becomes anxious.
How would one go about answering what one is after all? We have capacities and abilities, freedom and duties. We have possessions. We have bodies. We have personal histories. How could this all fit together into one neat explanation of an essence that describes all people? How could one know one’s design without appearing dogmatic? Truth and opinion are less distinguishable the more conviction infuses the topic. Where else would more excitement be aroused than in response to such humanly fundamental questions?
Concealed in the chronology of knowledge is the source of the weightiness of life and the lamentable state of many of our contemporaries. First we are, then we know we are, and only then do we begin to wonder what we are. Every person at some point in her maturation wonders what she is. Given the elusiveness of the answer, we opt not to pursue the question. We do not have to know what we are, so we stop asking. When we move to this phase of being, we transition to a state of despair.
If one was to venture a proposal on the subject, one would be set up for the greatest disappointment. To start, one would risk being judged poorly by others. (Only a fool thinks we have a grand purpose!) Worse still, one would risk being wrong. (Only a fool thinks she know what our purpose is!) How could one endure error here—living under one notion and then being brought out of it into the humiliating light of truth? What unspeakable regret!
Skepticism seems the safest bet. But what is the skeptic to do with himself then? Whatever he wants? Whatever the whimsy of his society dictates? This makes an effigy out of a man. He is packed with kindling that cannot withstand the first spark of inquisition. Surely autonomy does more than grasp at those straws. Could the refuge instead be cynicism?
Now we wish we would never have indulged our curiosity. No, it is easiest not to pursue frightful questions. Leave behind the question of what sort of thing we are. Dismiss it as academic and archaic. Dismiss the question as useless. Let's be practical.
Anxiety as a consequence of self-reflection
Practical reason is the faculty of adjusting means to ends. A person wants food, so (in the contemporary context) she goes to the grocery store. In deciding to make such a trip, the person has exercised her practical reason. Practical reason thus requires you to know what is personally possible for yourself, i.e., your own personal means. To know this, you must know yourself.
Now we have raised a whole new question. The question of who you specifically are remains even if you have dismissed the question of what it is to be human. What is your identity? For a thing to be identical, it must be the same despite alterations in time and space. What about you does not change? More importantly, what about those identical features is fit to guide your life?
Rather than theorizing, we need to introspect. Although the tool is different, the result is often the same. Watch the fever of anxiety flare up again in response to these other weighty questions. We know that we have these bodies, these faculties, and these possessions. Yet, we do not know what to do with them because that would require an intimate understanding of our personal possibilities and their respective importance.
To the anxious person, a conception of identity is viewed as a burden rather than a blessing. When we answer the question of who we are, we limit ourselves. When we are “this” we are, by implication, not “that.” ‘Could “this” be all that I am?’ the anxious person wonders.
Let us start on the surface and work our way in. The first candidate for identity is the most superficial: the perceptual definition of a person. When a person sees herself captured in an image, she sees herself fixed. She thinks in response to the image, ‘This is who I am.’ Whenever she looks at a photograph or reflective surface, she sees roughly identical image to what she remembers. She thinks it this a source of her identity.
Stopping here will not suffice. There is a gnawing truth biting into the person who rests in superficial definitions: that is not all. There is more to us than that. Beyond what meets the eye, there is the conventional list of name, height, weight, race, age, education, and occupation. The totality of the list seems incomplete. ‘Am I just a 5’10”, 160 pound, Caucasian, 30 year old?’ Is this how I can be summarized?
We can expand the considerations beyond those fixed uniquely to us. Surroundings, shared interests, and locations can be so constant in a person's life that identifying himself with them comes naturally. We may add occupations, hobbies, hometowns, and relationships to the list of identifiers. ‘Am I a political science major working in a menial job?’ Is this what I have become?’
If the assessment is honest, it will be open to unsavory definitions. Do our flaws define us? ‘Am I a lackadaisical son? A luke-warm lover? A C+ student? A body twenty pounds overweight?’ No, that is too self-loathing. Let us supplement this list with commendations. ‘Am I attractive? Wise? Strong?’ Yes, but…
Impatient for results or suspicious of those reached, we stop pursuing the questions once more.
If one feels poorly, one can either leave what is felt or leave the one who is feeling. The exterior world (what is felt) is not normally so distressing as to require chronic distraction. Addiction to distraction suggests the thing taken leave of is the self, not the problematic definitions. One is always keeping company with oneself. One is always relating to oneself. To take leave of oneself, one alters one's identity. Misidentification of self can cause an urge to escape. Such is the case when a person laments an incomplete definition. Anxiety gives way to despair and the person leaves herself rather than the mess.
Entertainment for the Anxious
We cannot be free from anxiety because we cannot be rid of uncertainty. Without being able to move forward to greet our ignorance and strain to learn, we look to the next readily available option. We can suppress the awareness of our trials. Who one is appears problematic, so one despairingly departs from the problem. Anxiety can be ignored and entertainment can help. We can continue with the simple knowledge that we are--that we are what we see in the mirror, that we are hungry, thirsty, and tired. We can live our whole life tending to those conditions. Thus, anxiety causes the love of entertainment by making captivation more desirable than introspection (and its consequent disturbances).
Preoccupations with wealth and entertainment whisk people away from considering their identities. Wealth and entertainment exclusively emphasize and utilize the exterior. Wealth is won outside of oneself. Wealth is worn outside of oneself. Entertainment is drawn from outside of oneself. Entertainment draws one away from oneself. Interiority has no place in these concerns.
Entertainment is popular among adults because of what we have done (e.g. worked) and where we are (e.g. the contemporary culture). It is also widely desired because of how we feel (e.g. anxious and tired). Indeed, it is most useful in addressing desires. Entertainment efficiently manages problems of consciousness since it is something of which to be conscious. Rather than pursue the queries, we run from them and into the arms of entertainment.
In response to anxiety, we search for something else to occupy our thoughts and distract our sentiments. Enter entertainment. To be a distraction, one must first be aware of something else. A distraction diverts consciousness from one object to another. Some distractions are unwelcome, as when the sound of a machine interrupts a conversation. Other distractions—entertainment being one of them—are invited. A person chooses to watch television or plug into a game rather than attempt some other duty or answer a pestering question like what or who one is. Via distraction, we suppress our unease. We paint over the cracks in our foundations rather than excavate and rebuild.
Some means to suppress anxiety are inherently immoral (e.g., violence), others are moral (e.g. charity), and others are neutral. Entertainment, as we established earlier, is neutral in itself. For each individual, the choice of entertainment is more or less warranted given their character and circumstances. Entertainment may be abused like any other method of psychological suppression. Entertainment as distraction is unwarranted suppression. Entertainment as relief is warranted suppression.
Once more, look to medicine as a guide. When one is sick and seeks treatment, we call him wise. When one is well and seeks treatment, we call him a hypochondriac. The former is honest with himself; the latter makes believe. Oh the irony! The hypochondriac is sick, but not sick with a disease to be treated by pain medication or antibiotics—not sick how he thinks he is sick. The hypochondriac is justified in seeking treatment, but not the treatment he actually seeks! So it is with the lovers of entertainment: they need something to be mindful of, but not that which they choose to mind.
The distinction between distraction and relief is largely contextual. The justification for an individual's choice to suppress tension is found in the state of the person when choosing. In certain contexts, distraction is indicative of despair. Despair is personal resignation. When we either sense we have fallen short of our goals or have ceased to pursue them, we despair. Despair is a mode of consciousness that poses a threat to one's mental or physical integrity. The threat lies in hopelessness. Without hope, one is unwilling to be active. In this way, inactivity also leads to lethargy. (Note how inextricably linked this illness is with its symptoms.)
One can be undisturbed while being empty. One can steal contentment. Distraction is a tool with which people pick the lock on the gate to happiness. If one does not notice one's hunger, one can be spared the pangs. Prolonged suppression of the appetite leads to starvation, after which one is spared everything. Lamentably, we are more apt to notice the fact of a vacancy rather than the kind of vacancy. One intuits something is missing, but does not go farther. Woe to them who, rather than ascertain what is missing, stuff themselves with whatever it is at hand. That which one needs bears no causal relationship to that which is at hand. What is nearby may be a remedy, but how good is it? It may be a shoddy fix, like patching a tire with bubble gum. For the mind, the vacancy of hope is all too often packed with entertainment.
This is the danger with convenience generally. There is nothing wrong with freeing yourself, but what are you freeing yourself up for? Let us take a page from the book of economics. Remember the notion of a cost-benefit analysis. It costs you something to free yourself from a responsibility. Do so only if the benefit you receive is greater than what it costs you. The cost for entertainment is your attention and a portion of your assets. Is being unaware of anxiety worth more? What a horrid notion of value when one prefers being pleased to being human, which always involves more than the pleasant!
But that is our tendency: to take the path of least resistance. ‘This charge of autonomy: who asked for it? Not I! Would that we took it easy instead! Where is that remote?’
No comments:
Post a Comment