Professor Ruti distinguishes between "persona" and "character" which, "captures something about the wholly idiosyncratic and potentially rebellious energies that, every so often, break the facade of that persona."
When our character asserts itself, "what is fierce and unapologetic about us undermines our attempts to lead a 'reasonable' life."
"Unfortunately, we live in a culture that finds such insurrections threatening, not least because they make us less predictable and therefore harder to control. [Hmm, maybe...Yeah, I think that's more right than wrong.] This is one reason we're constantly reminded of the importance of leading a happy, balanced life..." [Keep 'em happy~control, yeah, okay.]
"One could even say that, in our era, the idea that we should lead happy, balanced lives carries the force of an obligation.." [Yeah, I think that's right.]
"...[W]e are getting a general education in emotional numbness; essentially, we are taught to fear aliveness in all of its manifestations." [Hmm...yeah. Okay.]
She cites to Adorno: reminders to be happy which saturate our culture.
"...nothing makes us more docile than the societal 'happiness scripts'...
"...our fixation on the ideal of happiness diverts our attention from collective social ills..." [Maybe]
"Worst of all, we become callous to the lot of others, assuming that if they aren't...perfectly happy [it's their fault.]" [WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Wrong, that's a ringer. No. Americans are not a less empathetic people for their birth right/obligation to pursue happiness.]
"...cultural injunction to be happy..."
"...consider this basic psychoanalytic insight: Human beings may not be designed for happy, balanced lives." [I have wondered if that were so. She does not cite to any, like, psychoanalysts as authority for that basic insight. The one psychoanalyst she does cite to, earlier in the article, is Freud, which if you're going to cite to one, that would be the one! She cites Freud for the following proposition: People "want to become happy and to remain so," precisely the opposite basic psychoanalytic insight she avers here.]
"Might some of us not prefer lives that are heaving with an intensity of feeling and action but that do not last quite as long..." [Me, her, yes. So, "some of us," yes. Most persons? No. Most people would not want their chests heaving from a heart attack due to their lives heaving with intensity of feeling.]
"isn't a degree of tension a precondition of our ability to recognize tranquility..." [Yeah. Like that. Sort of like Beckett.]
"Might not the best lives be ones in which we sometimes allow ourselves to become a little imprudent or even a tad unhinged?" [I do imprudent at times; I do unhinged. Ergo: one of the best lives? No. No, I don't thing I've lived one of the best lives for my unhinged imprudence. I don't think I've lived a good life.]
Artists, eccentric intellectuals. [Starry, starry night. Paint your palette green and gray...]
"ideological nature of our faith in the value of poise and equanimity. [Hmm, don't know.] If we had grown up in a different society, we might celebrate other traits--say, absolute dedication to a cause--instead." [Maoist China!]
"It's also possible that the more we pursue happy, balanced lives, the more bland and boring, the more devoid of character, we become." [Objection! speculation. Dude, everything's possible, that's possible, don't be intellectually lazy. Do you mean to say "It is likely?" "It's reasonable to think?" Then, say that. Don't say "It's also possible." Upon rephrasing, yes...well. One of the things I object to about the American "pursuit of happiness" is it's limitlessness. Just: pursue happiness, no limits on that. Own slaves? Pursue happiness! Impregnate your slave women? Pursue happiness! The contradistinction Dr. Ruti has set up here is between the pursuit of happiness as balanced, bland and boring, and character: imprudent, unhinged. No. That's wrong. The p.o.h. does not necessarily lead to bland, boring lives. Unhinged imprudence, even "sometimes,"...Unhinged imprudence sometimes...the best lives? No. Thomas Jefferson wrote "pursuit of happiness" into the Declaration of Independence and was an Epicurean... and slaveowner who impregnated Sally Hemings. Life of T.J.: not bland and boring.]
"...character includes not only what is pleasing and gracious but also what appears volatile, disorderly, unwieldy, and even a bit tumultuous or derailing. Our character routinely mortifies the more refined parts of us." [I agree with those statements. "Man is the sum of the things that he's done and the choices he's made in his life." Character, in Dr. Ruti's definition, includes all those things, volatile, disorderly, unhinged imprudence. Those things are not "good," not "moral," not "nice." And the alternative is not "bland and boring." That's a false dichotomy she has set up here.]
"Adorno proposes that awkward, embarrassing gestures preserve 'a tract of vanished life,' I understand this to mean...lapses of composure..." [I don't know what that means, or what Adorno meant by that; it doesn't seem reasonable that he meant by that what she understands that to mean.]
Hannah Arendt in turn talks about an ethereal 'aura' that is implicit in our demeanor but cannot be reduced to any of our qualities...This inimitable aura tells others something about the deepest layers of our being..." [...? Don't know what that means.]
"This is why [She's concluding] there is something quite hollow about the ideal of a happy, balanced life [Hollow. Hmm, I don't know. Hollow? I don't know.] It's why I think that underneath our quest for vibrant health lurks a tragic kind of discreet death: the demise of everything that is eccentric and messy about human life." [Maybe. I don't know. It's possible.]
When our character asserts itself, "what is fierce and unapologetic about us undermines our attempts to lead a 'reasonable' life."
"Unfortunately, we live in a culture that finds such insurrections threatening, not least because they make us less predictable and therefore harder to control. [Hmm, maybe...Yeah, I think that's more right than wrong.] This is one reason we're constantly reminded of the importance of leading a happy, balanced life..." [Keep 'em happy~control, yeah, okay.]
"One could even say that, in our era, the idea that we should lead happy, balanced lives carries the force of an obligation.." [Yeah, I think that's right.]
"...[W]e are getting a general education in emotional numbness; essentially, we are taught to fear aliveness in all of its manifestations." [Hmm...yeah. Okay.]
She cites to Adorno: reminders to be happy which saturate our culture.
"...nothing makes us more docile than the societal 'happiness scripts'...
"...our fixation on the ideal of happiness diverts our attention from collective social ills..." [Maybe]
"Worst of all, we become callous to the lot of others, assuming that if they aren't...perfectly happy [it's their fault.]" [WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Wrong, that's a ringer. No. Americans are not a less empathetic people for their birth right/obligation to pursue happiness.]
"...cultural injunction to be happy..."
"...consider this basic psychoanalytic insight: Human beings may not be designed for happy, balanced lives." [I have wondered if that were so. She does not cite to any, like, psychoanalysts as authority for that basic insight. The one psychoanalyst she does cite to, earlier in the article, is Freud, which if you're going to cite to one, that would be the one! She cites Freud for the following proposition: People "want to become happy and to remain so," precisely the opposite basic psychoanalytic insight she avers here.]
"Might some of us not prefer lives that are heaving with an intensity of feeling and action but that do not last quite as long..." [Me, her, yes. So, "some of us," yes. Most persons? No. Most people would not want their chests heaving from a heart attack due to their lives heaving with intensity of feeling.]
"isn't a degree of tension a precondition of our ability to recognize tranquility..." [Yeah. Like that. Sort of like Beckett.]
"Might not the best lives be ones in which we sometimes allow ourselves to become a little imprudent or even a tad unhinged?" [I do imprudent at times; I do unhinged. Ergo: one of the best lives? No. No, I don't thing I've lived one of the best lives for my unhinged imprudence. I don't think I've lived a good life.]
Artists, eccentric intellectuals. [Starry, starry night. Paint your palette green and gray...]
"ideological nature of our faith in the value of poise and equanimity. [Hmm, don't know.] If we had grown up in a different society, we might celebrate other traits--say, absolute dedication to a cause--instead." [Maoist China!]
"It's also possible that the more we pursue happy, balanced lives, the more bland and boring, the more devoid of character, we become." [Objection! speculation. Dude, everything's possible, that's possible, don't be intellectually lazy. Do you mean to say "It is likely?" "It's reasonable to think?" Then, say that. Don't say "It's also possible." Upon rephrasing, yes...well. One of the things I object to about the American "pursuit of happiness" is it's limitlessness. Just: pursue happiness, no limits on that. Own slaves? Pursue happiness! Impregnate your slave women? Pursue happiness! The contradistinction Dr. Ruti has set up here is between the pursuit of happiness as balanced, bland and boring, and character: imprudent, unhinged. No. That's wrong. The p.o.h. does not necessarily lead to bland, boring lives. Unhinged imprudence, even "sometimes,"...Unhinged imprudence sometimes...the best lives? No. Thomas Jefferson wrote "pursuit of happiness" into the Declaration of Independence and was an Epicurean... and slaveowner who impregnated Sally Hemings. Life of T.J.: not bland and boring.]
"...character includes not only what is pleasing and gracious but also what appears volatile, disorderly, unwieldy, and even a bit tumultuous or derailing. Our character routinely mortifies the more refined parts of us." [I agree with those statements. "Man is the sum of the things that he's done and the choices he's made in his life." Character, in Dr. Ruti's definition, includes all those things, volatile, disorderly, unhinged imprudence. Those things are not "good," not "moral," not "nice." And the alternative is not "bland and boring." That's a false dichotomy she has set up here.]
"Adorno proposes that awkward, embarrassing gestures preserve 'a tract of vanished life,' I understand this to mean...lapses of composure..." [I don't know what that means, or what Adorno meant by that; it doesn't seem reasonable that he meant by that what she understands that to mean.]
Hannah Arendt in turn talks about an ethereal 'aura' that is implicit in our demeanor but cannot be reduced to any of our qualities...This inimitable aura tells others something about the deepest layers of our being..." [...? Don't know what that means.]
"This is why [She's concluding] there is something quite hollow about the ideal of a happy, balanced life [Hollow. Hmm, I don't know. Hollow? I don't know.] It's why I think that underneath our quest for vibrant health lurks a tragic kind of discreet death: the demise of everything that is eccentric and messy about human life." [Maybe. I don't know. It's possible.]
