Archives for category: Philosophy

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

On its face, the maxim of never giving up is fairly straight forward and positive. Life is hard, and quitting doesn’t move you forward. Simple. Easy. No notes. However, being pointlessly analytical is what we do here, so there will be notes regardless.

This maxim has undergone some helpful iterations for our purposes here: comedian W.C. Fields cleverly rephrased it as, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.” This approach offers further practicality; what’s the point in carrying on when there are very likely better things to do with your time? One who only ever tilts at windmills will never slay a real giant. However, there is a tragic, quixotic romance to a life spent fixated on a single task but never quite achieving it. This begs the question, is it the effort or the success being championed by this arbitrary New Year’s adage?

I don’t think I remember this boss in Elden Ring

If you make a pass at someone that you’ve got a crush on and they reject you, there is a clear failure and an opportunity to try, try again. However, is this an opportunity for further clichés about fishes and the sea, or do you continue to try to woo that same individual? In most other instances, further attempts are dedicated to the same task until one achieves success, but with dating, the obvious alternative is bringing your courtship to the feet of another. Tasks are often amorphous and don’t always intuitively direct where efforts ought to go irrespective of how we might have perceived their conclusion. If we attempt a hobby like playing guitar and can’t get the hang of it, is it quitting if we pick up another instrument? Another hobby? Even if we wanted to quit to avoid the embarrassment of being a damn fool, how do we know what that quitting looks like?

Or perhaps we fail, and in that failure, we succeed in alternative terms. Perhaps the one that got away ends up murdering their spouse in a jealous rage, or after abandoning the guitar, we pick up badminton and find an ecstasy unknown in any other pursuit. We have further cheap platitudes about blessings in disguise, and these remind us that our expectation and understanding of failure are often incomplete.

Better than sex!

Or say we succeed in traditional terms: we successfully woo the loved one, or we nail the guitar. But then the relationship doesn’t work out because they cheat on us, or we don’t keep up the effort and lose the guitar in the attic. At what point does success bleed into failure? Is Rudy a success because he participated in a single play for Notre Dame? Would it have been an equal success if he played more games at a different university? Or if he dedicated his life to a longer-term goal beyond a single game of football? If a Rudy-esque success story never accomplished anything else in their life because of a massive concussion obtained from a late tackle, would it still be considered a ‘success’?

We attribute failure and success to an end, with varying degrees of effort as the means to achieve that end. But the thing about life is that nothing ever ends. Even after death our actions continue to have ripple effects on the lives of those we’ve touched. Both success and failure become nearly impossible to define if you zoom out to any meaningful degree. Quitting too loses some of its gravitas when you realize that it invariably leads to yet another task. Our lives are not a series of distinct instances, each with their own measurable quality, but a churning river in constant flow. Success and failure are fluid, and intermingle together almost harmoniously as we evolve and grow in ways that are often outside of our control.

Maybe he should have just stuck to football

As much as he is a fool, we would still admire the tenacity of our single-minded Don Quixote, just as we would still admire Rudy if he never got to play for Notre Dame. What distinction is there really between Sisyphus rolling one boulder up a mountain or rolling several different boulders up a mountain? Does it matter if he makes it to the top, or do we imagine Sisyphus happy in the effort?

Camus’s absurd hero only loses credibility if the heart isn’t in it. A child making a play at trying a new food after having predetermined it to be gross is the antithesis to effort, and some never grow out of this. Whether in success or in failure, the try, try again requires intention. All told, the outcome is irrelevant if we approach our effort in good faith.

If The Myth of Sisyphus seems horribly outdated, remember there are still people today who only find real meaning in lifting up heavy things only to drop them back down again

Our original maxim, despite its superficial benignancy, is itself a quixotic drive at damming the river of life into a forced end. There are no ends; there is only trying. If you fail, continue to try. If you succeed, continue to try. Try to date whomever you please. Try the guitar or badminton. Try to joust a literal windmill. Do so with intention, or quit and find something where the intention is strongest. The ends will never matter so long as you find value in the effort.

Virtue ethics are one of the oldest established ethical systems in the West. They gave the ancient Greeks traits to try to embody and paragons to try to emulate. Aristotle came up with a list of virtues with the intention of giving people a guide on how to live life successfully. Not a step-by-step instruction, but more of an encouragement toward a better way of living. It is this striving that creates the good life, the eudaimonia, where we live in flourishing happiness. We are at our best in our active virtue in the way that a horse is at its best while running, for just as the purpose of the horse is its speed, so too the purpose of a human is to live virtuously. Virtue is what we aim for, what we strive for, and in that striving, we are living well.

Being virtuous, according to Aristotle, is found within the golden mean. The best life is lived in moderation – neither to be rash nor cowardly, we should live firmly and courageously. Neither miserly nor prodigally, we should live charitably and generously. Aristotle produced a list of virtues within this golden mean as the foundational structure upon which our eudaemonic life can be built. The happy, flourishing life is one of acting honestly, patiently, modestly, and friendly.

Good to know that righteous indignation is a virtue, or I would be screwed

To become virtuous, one must obviously learn how. Virtue is a skill. One is not born patient, as anyone exposed to a child will discover. Virtues are imbued into the individual by the sage, the one who has achieved their good life. It is up to society to produce its sages so that virtue can be passed on from one generation to the next. The purpose of life is to lead a good one, and so ideally we would want a culture that aims to socialize its young toward virtue.

The problem with virtue ethics is that we always do by default. Children will be socialized and taught how to be virtuous according to the culture that surrounds them; it’s just that those virtues will differ from culture to culture. Christian culture encourages the virtues of forgiveness and mercy whereas a Buddhist culture would focus on the serenity required to relinquish attachments. Who we see as our sage determines the virtues toward which we aspire, whether the Buddha or the Christ.

Jesus was known for shunning the marginalized and praising the wealthy, so probably something along those lines

Despite the persistence of religion, these sages of yore are no longer as influential as they once were. You might have been able to guess this by your having previously scoffed at Christian culture being described as forgiving. This is because we have abandoned those cultures, if not in name then at least in practice. Today, our culture is one of capitalism. Our sage is the billionaire.

Perhaps you are unswayed by my assertion. However, people write books about how to become wealthy, encouraging particular behaviours that will surely lead to financial success. There are schemes, podcasts, cults, and conferences. Television has created an entire genre of entertainment where people go to absurd lengths to become wealthy, and fixates on the traits of the winners as the key to their success. Each of these methods demand a certain “type” of person if that person wants to succeed. If you stay poor, it’s because you just didn’t inhabit the virtues of the wealthy.

The subtleties of capitalism

A quick Google search turns up a myriad of numbered lists providing the Top Habits of Billionaires. The wealthy set goals and follow them with single-minded determination; they dream big without fear of failure; they spend their time learning and surrounding themselves with people smarter than they are; they take care of themselves by eating and sleeping right; and finally, of course, they are cautious with their money. One could easily turn this into a list of virtues similar to that of Aristotle. The billionaire sage is focused, driven, prudent, curious, social, and bold. Many of these could even exist in alignment with those of Aristotle.

The thing is, the virtue ethics of the Ancient Greeks was self-fulfilling. Living well is its own reward. Hence why moderation is important, even in our virtue. There is no such restraint within capitalism, however, because the goal isn’t virtue in-itself: it’s money. There is no moderation in the virtues of today because capitalism necessitates infinite growth. The concept of the golden mean is antithetical to the voraciousness of the capitalistic system. Today, one is virtuous for the sake of something outside of virtue, which means that the virtues themselves are only of secondary value. The “Hustle Culture” and “Grind Culture” that have sprung up as the pinnacle of these modern day virtues is toxic for exactly this reason. It is physically and mentally exhausting to live this “good life” because the demands put on us aren’t driven by any idea of a eudaemonia but by what was once considered a cardinal vice: avarice.

“I want golf clubs! I want diamonds! I want a pony so I can ride it twice, get bored, and sell it to make glue!”

The other problem with capitalistic virtue ethics is that they’re a lie. Social mobility has little to do with one’s virtue. The ability to actually improve your financial situation is low, and has been getting worse for decades. Wages are going down, so we’re making less money than our parents. The only place where incomes are rising are for those who are already rich. The decline of unions, the change in technologies, barriers on education… these are the things that are keeping most of us broke, not our personal vices. No matter how early you get up or the number of goals you set, your economic situation probably isn’t going to change all that dramatically.

A society will necessarily create its own virtues. Societies are created by humans, and humans need to know how to behave well to fit in with their neighbours. We will always have virtues, and we will always have sages. However, it is important to observe what those virtues demand of their adherents, or if living like the sage actually allows one to become like them. The modern virtue ethics of capitalism are viciously idolatrous in both regards. The Renaissance was in many ways a return to antiquity to absolve Europe from the hollowness of the medieval period. With capitalism, our virtues are equally hollow. While I am not so nostalgic to demand a return to the Ancients, it is at least clear that our current virtues leave much to be desired.

Those in the West live fairly comfortably in democracies. Sure, some of us are technically constitutional monarchies, but our overall vibe is still pretty democratic. Partisan politics always seem to claim to be the voice of the people and not the voice of the king, so there are at least overtures to democracy. And yet, we still tell kid stories that revolve around princesses. Disney has a veritable pantheon of them and isn’t seen as an enemy of democracy (barring the inanity that is the state of Florida). Celebrating someone in the queer community is to call them a “queen.” The monarchy remains embedded in our culture across the spectrum, from the capitalists to the queer dissidents.

The usage of these monarchist tropes certainly don’t aim to be anti-democratic. Disney princesses rarely do any actual governing or promote policy measures; they typically go on adventures, solve mysteries, and sing songs about how many thingamabobs they own. If there is a queen or king involved, they may even have a short temper you certainly wouldn’t want in an autocrat, but it’s never viewed in that context – they’re just a mean ol’ parent who doesn’t let their teenage daughter have any fun! The monarchies in these stories are about as apolitical as you can get.

The queer coding for villainy, on the other hand, is far more obvious.

So why have the story told through the lens of monarchism at all if its function as a form of government is completely irrelevant to the plot? Why is Ariel a princess when she can just be some random girl with an overprotective father? The same story works if they’re poor and Triton is a working single father who is trying to raise his daughter alone, but she isn’t focused on taking care of herself or her future; she’s focused on hoarding useless junk. These stories don’t need monarchism, so why romanticize a form of dictatorship most countries killed a whole bunch of people to overcome? Monarchies are bad, you guys! Remember? Remember how America fought a war and France killed a lot of people to get rid of them? Democracy and monarchy are antithetical toward one another, and we’re supposed to love democracy!

The Beauty and the Beast fairytale takes place only a couple of decades before this happened in France. Let’s just say that those two did not live happily ever after, and you know, maybe they shouldn’t have!

Edmund Burke is the father of modern day conservatism, and he was a staunch opponent of democracy in his time and opposed the French revolution. He recognized the failures of the contemporary monarchies that were being resisted, but believed ultimately that there still ought to be an elite governing the masses, and if the current group were a failure, then they were just the wrong kind of elites. Monarchism, and the aristocracies that are associated with that type of rule, are elites who dictate how the world ought to be run. When viewed in this context, we can see that this ideology can actually be applied quite comfortably to our capitalist system. The elites are the rich, and it is right and good that they influence our democracy, because they are better than the rest of us. They’ve proved it by being richer than us in a competitive market. They won; we lost. They earned their place in the aristocracy, and therefore their voices count more than ours. Forget democracy, we shall be governed by those who can buy out the most of their competitors.

A bad elite whom ought to be resisted, in comparison to all the good elites that we should never resist because their rule is natural and righteous

This is why queer people call each other “queen,” to infer that their peer is an elite. Queer people are often downtrodden and dispossessed, and reclaiming some power by stealing the language of elitism is a way to overcome that. It could even be argued that the usage is satirizing the idea of elites, as drag satirizes gender and patriarchy. I expect each person who calls out, “Yas Queen!” has their own reason for doing so, but at its core, it is a reference to an elite, whether ironic or genuine. I’ve also started seeing people refer to men as “kings,” and this trend does not appear to have any of the irony that it really ought to.

Similarly, with no hint of irony, stories about princesses create an image in a child’s mind that there are groups of people who are simply better than others. If there’s a dragon or a mer-witch, then thank God we have a class of people capable of handling them. We wouldn’t want to trust that kind of responsibility to the peasants! Readers naturally empathize and insert themselves as the hero of the story, and so they believe themselves to be that class of person: it doesn’t matter what station in life you’re born into, when you read a story with monarchical characters, all of a sudden, you’re an elite too. And if you’re not, you could be! Just say your prayers and take your vitamins, and by God, maybe you’ll be rich some day too!

Poverty is real and brutal in Agrabah. You can be extrajudicially killed by the police for stealing a loaf of bread, but that certainly can’t be the fault of the monarch! See, if you want to escape poverty, just find a magical lamp! Aladdin proves his worthiness and becomes royalty through merit, his poverty a miscalculation rather than a systemic injustice.

These stories naturalize power imbalances. That’s why monarchism is still included in these “tales as old as time” despite being irrelevant to the story. Kings historically claimed a divine right to their rule, and while that trope has fallen out of fashion, cultural monarchism still seeks to naturalize the righteousness of the elites of today’s society. Our modern princess stories might have empowered women wearing the tiara, no longer requiring to be saved, but it’s the empowerment of the Girl Boss who still functions within an unequal capitalism. She deserves to be the She-E-O; she’s better than those seamstresses making fast fashion out of Bangladesh, and don’t you question it! If you are born into a situation where succeeding in capitalism is essentially out of the question, well, you’re just destined to peasantry. Accept it. Your betters will make all the important decisions about your life. Here’s a fun song about living under the sea to explain why.

See? The peasants are happy because they get to eat the grasses that the corpses of decadent and opulent kings fertilized. Those kings may live longer and have more of their needs met because of their wealth, but the important thing is it’s natural and therefore cannot be questioned.

Democracy necessarily requires equitable access to the functions of power. If someone isn’t able to have their voice heard, then that’s not a democracy. These stories are not subtle about being anti-democratic: they literally have kings and queens in them. We celebrate and romanticize the monarchy because some groups of people benefit from undemocratic structures cementing their neo-aristocratic roles as pseudo-lords within a plutocracy. To even compliment someone as a king or queen is to normalize that these hierarchies are natural and good, and that we ought to celebrate whatever power, however small, we have within them. Who benefits from people thinking that humanity is divinely segregated into natural categories? Certainly not the vast majority of us.

To call me “queen” is to call me tyrant. To idolize a princess is to deify the robber barons. Perhaps instead, Yas comrade!