Complacency, Stoicism and compassion
by Bob on July 29, 2007
Compassion is an essential item on the human list of things to have. Except in our times, few would people seem to have it or practice it anymore. Real compassion.
Stoicism is philosophically useful as a school but can be harsh in modern times and even considered cold by many humanitarian standards.
Complacency might very well be running rampant for those who are in need of actual compassion from others. It's also a factor for the givers of compassion who at best might also become complacent.
When a person is terribly downtrodden, he can become quite complacent in his sadness to the point where life itself becomes meaningless, a forced habit, institutionalised as a daily habit, driven by Pavlov-ian stimuli and commands from people who are taking charge of the person's life, such as counselors and bureaucratic authorities and other seemingly well-intentioned people.
Giving up in such a downtrodden situation is endemic to seemingly hopeless situations. People in such unleveraged positions lose their hope, and get caught in a system of abandonment and conditioned by the municipal and governmental super-structure which administers thereto. Simply put, they are abandoned, lose all hope finally, and are lost in "the system" with no thread to get them out of the a labyrinth of the Minotaur similarly which Ariadne got Theseus out of with her ball of thread. There just is no Ariadne and no ball of thread. So one is lost in the maze. One becomes institutionalised. One is off society's radar scope.
The modern flavour of Stoicism leaves people who are in need, out in the cold. "Get yourself together, help yourself" society screams at the downtrodden, and if they don't or can't get things moving, they are cast out simply and trivially as losers and lazy people.
Life just isn't that simple. Human beings are not that simple. But it's convenient and non-committal and evasive to think so. It is even Spartan: throw seemingly useless people off the side of the cliff into oblivion. Keep the community strong with only fit people and productive workers and eliminate the rest would seem to be this point of view.
So, seeing a person on the ground, injured, asking for assistance, one would tell the person to get up and help himself. Sort of the antithesis of the moral of The Good Samaritan.
Some say if we don't help ourselves, no one else will. That's again a harsh judgment. It's only partially true. And it is symmetrical for all involved.
There is a profound difference between compassion and sympathy, and the rather complicated emotion of pity which implies a kind of disinterested condescension in many cases.
Aristotle points out very succinctly this difference in the shades of pity. He does this with regard to moving emotions in poetry and tragedy when composing works, but the meanings are clear. He writes in his Poetics VI, that:
"Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions."
Action, then we see, is an important aspect of helping someone in distress.
We continue in his Poetics XIII:
"A perfect tragedy should, as we have seen, be arranged not on the simple but on the complex plan. It should, moreover, imitate actions which excite pity and fear, this being the distinctive mark of tragic imitation. It follows plainly, in the first place, that the change, of fortune presented must not be the spectacle of a virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity: for this moves neither pity nor fear; it merely shocks us. Nor, again, that of a bad man passing from adversity to prosperity: for nothing can be more alien to the spirit of Tragedy; it possesses no single tragic quality; it neither satisfies the moral sense nor calls forth pity or fear. Nor, again, should the downfall of the utter villain be exhibited. A plot of this kind would, doubtless, satisfy the moral sense, but it would inspire neither pity nor fear; for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves. Such an event, therefore, will be neither pitiful nor terrible. There remains, then, the character between these two extremes, -that of a man who is not eminently good and just,-yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty. He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous,--a personage like Oedipus, Thyestes, or other illustrious men of such families."
In our context, pity would seem to stranglate the situation further, and leave the downtrodden as simply pitiable creatures without a way out.
There is also a danger with corporate charity, as well there is with governmental institutionalisation. Someone in England once wrote an essay which said true Charity and caring begins with one's own feet, not someone else's feet. And it must be effective help. Just giving someone a meal will not solve the bigger problem as if really one person could solve the bigger problem at all. It would seem to behoove us to solve littler problems fully and conscienciously as the Good Samaritan did.
We must, as a world, think hard about this situation. Compassion is an essential feature for humankind.
The rock group Devo modeled themselves on the name of a concept in life called Devolution. That's a definite cause for pause. "Let the sunshine in" as the song went even though that was hoping for the entrance to The Age of Aquarius, an age of love, light and humanity. The 1969 song "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In" commonly known as "The Age of Aquarius" from the play "Hair", has these lyrics:
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius! Aquarius!
Ah, would it have turned out as such. Seemingly societally unattainable, but we would seem to need it now. As Francois Villon wrote, "Ah, but for the snows of yesteryear". Then again, hindsight is always 20/20 and perfect, and we remember biblically that Ruth turned into a pillar of salt when she looked back when she wasn't supposed to. We must cope somehow with all this and help to repair the universe: Tikkun. Social Justice. To corrupt Villon a bit -- ah, but for hopes of yesteryear.
And we should all have another sober look at Godfrey Reggio's brilliant 1983 film Koyaanisqatsi which comes from the Hopi prophecies. Life of moral corruption and turmoil. World out of balance. Sounds familiar. All too familiar.