"Love in the Ruins"

  I seem to have remembered reading a book by Walker Percy called Love in the Ruins, back when I was in my 20s. Though I can't quite recall the gist of the idea that Percy wanted to impart, I think that he was trying to suggest that people are most passionate in the moment when they are the least pressured to live up to the aspirations of their civilization. Hence--love in the ruins. But of course, Walker Percy was a Catholic, and no doubt, the symbolism he wishes to impart is far deeply Christian in the sense of seeing the broken Christ "in the ruins" as the consummation of human love and salvation. One would think that the consummation is the mastering of the many laws of God as mentioned in the Old Testament. But the paradox here is that it is precisely in human imperfectability--in sin, in brokenness, or in mortality--that humans can find their salvation and ecstasy. 

     And why is that? I think it's because, like I suggested before, people are literally "ruined" by the achievements of their civilization, many of which are far too high for people to accomplish. We are literally standing on the shoulders of giants. The result is a kind of dizzying despair which wonders, "how can I possibly live up to all that's been given to me in the world?" How can I repay the kindness of the many ancestors that have come before me? In contrast, reveling in the ruins, one comes to realize that in fact it was never the purpose of life to make oneself into an immortal edifice or a statue. To the contrary, it is in demolishing the letter of the law that a spirit can emerge from it that is truly passionate. This passion consists in a certain kind of profound relief, meaning that in spite of all these giants surrounding of me, I am still capable of being redeemed--not through my own effort but through the all encompassing forgiveness of another. It is knowing that there is salvation in brokenness, in imperfection, and in ruins themselves.

Suffering and Gratitude

"If the immediate and direct purpose of our life is not suffering then our existence is the most ill-adapted to its purpose in the world: for it is absurd to suppose that the endless affliction of which the world is everywhere full, and which arises out of the need and distress pertaining essentially to life, should be purposeless and purely accidental. Each individual misfortune, to be sure, seems an exceptional occurrence; but misfortune in general is the rule"

Schopenhauer, "On the Suffering of the World". From Essays and Aphorisms

One of the most startling paradoxes I am trying to explore recently is the link between suffering and gratitude, and how these two states of being go hand in hand. Without suffering, there is simply no grounds for gratitude, and this is one key thesis that I want to explore through the writings of Schopenhauer. But before I even go there, I want to explore the quote that begins "On the Suffering of the World".

Is the purpose of life, as Schopenhauer suggests, to suffer? This seems too pessimistic for some, and even a bit too fatalistic. But contemplating suffering as a kind of purpose can be a sort of relief in a sense. This is because suffering itself becomes more and more part of a bigger plan that has a story and a meaning to it. Suffering, according to this view, is not lacking in purpose, but rather makes a kind of sense as a person progresses through the suffering and sees it to the very end. To really experience suffering is to know what kinds of things one is attached to that is leading one to suffer. And I think Schopenhauer wants to say that the final lesson of suffering is detachment from the desire that gave rise to suffering in the first place.

Suffering, then, is not an accident, and nor is it something that one can sidestep. But only when a person is really and fully reconciled to suffering itself can they directly and fully experience the source of suffering, namely a strong desire that life goes in the ways that we want it to proceed. Rather than simply wanting certain things to happen according to plan, I strongly desire that they go according to my plan. I concretize a strong sense of self around that "strong desire" to have things my way. The opposite of this rigid sticking to desire is a kind of flexibility.

When Schopenhauer remarks about "the endless affliction of which the world is everywhere full", he suggests that we are essentially surrounded by suffering. Like a fish that is surrounded by water, we simply cannot help but suffer from not getting our way, or not fulfilling the many desires that come to mind. But if the world becomes a reflection of this inner suffering, we feel less isolated and more inclined to learn from the world as the mirror of the innermost state of being. Wars, then, are not just senseless clashes between strangers. They are, rather, the result of an inner striving that comes from the craving to exist and thrive. The world becomes a story through which one can connect their innermost vexations and conflicts. In fact, perhaps the world itself is simply a reflection of agonizing desires that people face within.

How is this the ground for gratitude? I think that when we begin to accept the idea of being surrounded by suffering, we might finally accept that there is no way to transcend it. But Schopenhauer generalizes suffering enough that it does not pertain to particular choices I make. Suffering just is, and it envelops the whole of being regardless of decisions made or not made. But rather than being a form of bad faith or irresponsibility, this view of suffering could allow people to become more detached from the consequences of decisions and therefore more able to accept the consequences. Most of all, we don't feel alone in suffering, since it is fundamental to Schopenhauer's metaphysics of the will.