Contentment is a pretty common topic on the internet. Someone asks what others do to achieve contentment and/or a sense of fulfillment, and the responses are fun stories about hobbies and relaxing and going to places. However, sometimes the notion of contentment is abused. There's a rather common narrative I see that consists of decrying a society where people are too busy-busy to remember what's really important. Supposedly, the culprit is too much ambition. People are always wanting just a little bit more, never satisfied with what they have now.
This problem with this narrative is that it interprets basically every problem as the result of someone's willful over-ambition. People overwork themselves and sacrifice family time for their job... because they need to make money to survive and put food on his/her family's dinner plates. People live through life always anxious about the next problem... because they encounter more problems to begin with. I get that people are just trying to give examples of people missing the forest for the trees, but all they end up doing is showing that they're unable or unwilling to see the other side of the story. No consideration is given to what has happened to people and what they have to deal with. By this logic, it's over-ambitious to try to survive. I wonder what a starving child would think of that.
I guess I'm just really sick and tired of seeing this kind of rhetoric. The worst part is it crosses political and religious lines; apparently it's really easy to preach about "contentment" and have everybody agree with whatever you say, no matter how horrible it is. So what is contentment, then? Of course there's something to be said about being happy with what one has, but surely, there's more to it than pretending that there are no problems in life and it's all in one's head?
You should realize that there is a element of truth to that perspective since one does not become immensely happy if they acquire a significant amount of money or more possessions as most people have a set-point in happiness. I would concur that there is a denialism or "sour grapes" in these type of accounts as they devalue the utility of money, material positions, and career accomplishment in modern society. Certainly a large saving account would allay concerns about job loss and providing for one's basic needs, give one a larger degree of freedom and independence, or purchase more services and goods that would make one's life more convenient, and greater occupational prestige would enhance one's self-esteem and social status.
A few Catholics in my young adult group were railing about "materialism" in this society largely a concern that society has overvalued material possessions and sensual pleasures while concurrently abandoned the more valuable pursuits of piety, family and morality. My retort is a rhetorical expression of aporia* of the meaning of "materialism" and a response that most people have to participate in the economy and society in order to earn a living to purchase vital goods and services. It seems to be an impossibility to decouple one's ecclesiastic life with one's economic and social life. I cannot help but cynically wonder to myself if they are somewhat jealous of those earning higher incomes or have more social status and are merely using the accusation of societal materialism to dismiss those concerns.
*Japanese Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's improved my vocabulary!
Of course there's something to be said about being happy with what one has, but surely, there's more to it than pretending that there are no problems in life and it's all in one's head
For the purposes of political philosophy, I believe one should try to find a satisfactory response to that question. It appears to be a tranquil state of mind that is not disrupted by fears of social rejection, material privation, physiological pain or significant disability, or fear of emotional loss such as losing a love one. It is informed more by negative utilitarianism that seeks a state of ataraxia rather than the crass hedonism of perpetual sensations of gratification, joy, exhilaration, or pleasure. Now the rhetorical question is whether the average person in a developed country can attain the state of ataraxia?
----
I posted this on a Facebook post in reply to someone posting this image on the Facebook wall of a Catholic Young Adult Group. I think my response captures both sides of the contentment issue. Even though I do not explicitly mention "contentment", the figure is suppose reassure one that God is in control on one's life and one should be content knowing that.
Latias: The first and second derivatives aren't always positive.
I don't see how the figure illustrates the point that "His ways are the best". What if one gets stuck in a local minimum or be content with a local maximum?
The person who posted this:
i dont understand some of the stuff u said but i feel like at least in my life sometimes life doesnt go the way i want and i have to go thru very difficult things that seem horrible at the time but in hindsight i realize God allowed those difficult times to get me to His will which is ultimately waayy better that what i think would be best. hope that makes sense
Latias:
the first isn't always positive = things are not monotonically getting better. the rate of things getting better or worse can change rapidly = second derivative isn't always positive. a simple increasing monotonic function is y = mx + b where m is positive. it is just an "upward" slope.
...
Only the first derivative has to be of the same sign (either positive or negative) in order for the function to be monotonic for a given domain. Second derivatives of differing signs are consistent with a monotonic function. Points where the first derivative is zero are usually local minima/maxima if the second derivative maintain the same sign; a counter example is x^3 where its first derivative is 0 at 0 but it is neither a local minimum nor maximum because while its second derivative is negative at x < 0, its second derivative increases at x > 0.
Another person who is an atheist:
Clearly, Christians acknowledge that one's life experiences include "ups-and-downs."
Latias:
Life has many vicissitudes. I really do think the figure betrays several facts about life, especially since it conveys the illusion of progress. One may achieve certain things in life in order to have a better position, such as a more spacious home or improved finances, but in fact, may things one does is simply to keep up and avoid an even more averse position such as extreme penury and deprivation. In other words, life is a red queen's race where you have to run to stay in place, and "success" in this context is merely preventing further exacerbation of one's condition. And that is especially true in the post-Soviet geopolitical regime where financial capital is much more mobile and has access the labor markets of the world. Most people now have to compete in an international labor market, and they are essentially interchangeable and expendable commodities whose value is strictly determined by supply and demand. Due to the increase in global market access due to the post-Cold War globalization, the global supply of labor has gone up and the downward pressure on wages has increased commensurately. Now, in order to compete in this labor market, one would need to have more educational credentials in order to distinguish oneself from the competition, but these credentials do not necessarily improve one's abilities or knowledge but instead signal preexisting dispositions and aptitudes to employers conducive to increase productivity and compliance to the employer's demands. The more salient question is what would happen to those is the fate of those people who lack the necessary aptitude to participate in this labor market. Those would then flounder and then be consigned to position offer little compensation and no prestige, often struggling to merely to survive. As Linkin Park would say:
Forfeit the game
Before somebody else
Takes you out of the frame
And puts your name to shame
Cover up your face
You can't run the race
The pace is too fast
You just won't last
The pace is simply too fast for them!
Progress seems to be an illusory phantasm, and the notion of the "dignity of work" is just a myth in a capitalistic economy the amoral mechanism of supply and demand, mediated by macroeconomic and geopolitical trends, ruthlessly determines the price (and especially value) of labor. Now, it is certainly myopic to suppose one can see God's presence in one's individual life if the background is dour and so disconsolate and dolorous. Now as a Catholic, who still retained strong empiricist views and thinking, I cannot easily ascribe any event or trial in my life as God's will, especially since the will of God is not comprehensible to human intellect nor is it assessable to the human senses.
This is my despair [as the character Aporia would say], and I have maintained these views for many years.
I think the positive aspect of that is that I am able to appreciate, perhaps more than other people, that God's Kingdom is not of this world, but conversely, I am unable to see God's presence in this world, except in very special circumstances. But I am l also naturally pessimistic.
The atheist guy:
Do these macroeconomic and geopolitical trends and any other highfilutin academic, theoretical concepts actually do anything for you? Are you a part of the labor market? Do you wish to change or undermine something and change "it" into what, exactly?
Latias:
Yes, these trends and concepts do help me understand the world, and it led to me very unorthodox political views [I once considered myself a Marxist-Leninist and I retained most those views]. Now tell me is there any flaw or patent falsehoods in my analysis? Certainly one cannot doubt an increase in economic liberalization such as a general decline in trade barriers in international commerce, proliferation of telecommunications, decline in labor unions, privatization of government resources, and offshoring domestic production in the last few decades, especially accelerated after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The net effect of these that trends is that it makes the global economic much more competitive and individuals (and families as Thatcher would say) much less secure.
I have no desire to engage in mainstream political "debates" especially those concerning issues such as abortion nor did I even vote in the last election. The topics that interest a politically active Catholic ("faithful citizens" as the USCCB calls them), either from the left or right of the political spectrum are far different from those that interest me, as I am not that interested in domestic policy, such the legal status of abortion and the marginal tax rates for high earners. I lost faith in contemporary liberal democracy and capitalism years ago, and I was more receptive to embrace alternative political philosophies (and Catholic social teaching has not displaced my positions). My response is not about political ideology, but more about how the seemly inhospitable macroeconomic and geopolitical background (that apparently most people do not appreciate) in our daily milieu can accommodate the position that God is highly activity in one's life and in the affairs of the world. My empiricist tendencies naturally lead me to infer that God has neglected the economic and political spheres of the world; even during periods when my faith is strong (not now), I believed that God's role is largely circumscribed in individual lives (and only then its influence often too ambiguous and subtle to discern) and ecclesiastical sphere. It seems absurd to think the Kingdom of God will be realized on Earth.
