One wonders whether philosophy or religion any longer form a part of Western society. Reading the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius has failed to engender anything approaching either complete interest or enthusiastic embrace. Modern gossip is that religion of any description is doubtful even though admittedly stimulating for some (often a mixture of wishful thinking and coffee hour). Stoicism and epicureanism compete for convenient interpretations of “Don’t worry, be happy”. And finally logic is the blunt instrument by which the means and the end are respectively sanctified.
It is perhaps a reflection of my own bloodymindedness that I cannot tolerate direction from anyone – whether philosophic, religious or logic. Instead I prefer to ruminate within the mould of my own mind upon the entirety of the dilemma which confronts me – whether life, death, materiality, reason or morality. Without of course knowing the truth of such speculation, I imagine that most of us are inclined to defer to our own judgement ultimately. The proclamations of others are at best euphemisms, the slang of propriety which inevitably reflects the intended wholesomeness of the proponent.
But the world of the Roman philosophers has markedly changed over the subsequent 2000 years. Though we still live, die, lust and opine, there are so many manifestations of alteration and discovery that the “best of all possible worlds” is no longer either digestible or realistic – consider global warming, plastic contamination, agricultural poisons and psychiatric ailments. Nonetheless amidst this surge of inescapable truths we manage to maintain within ourselves a diagram of reasonableness and implacability. Though the language of worldly governance and personal behaviour may have changed significantly, there remains a catalogue of terms which apply to conduct and understanding of the “condition humaine”.
La condition humaine est définie comme « les caractéristiques, événements majeurs et situations qui composent l’essentiel de l’existence humaine, tels que la naissance, la croissance, l’aptitude à ressentir des émotions ou à former des aspirations, le conflit, la mortalité ».
Il s’agit d’une question très vaste, qui a été et continue d’être l’objet de réflexions et d’analyses dans un grand nombre de domaines : anthropologique, artistique, biologique, littéraire, historique, philosophique, psychologique, religieux, sociologique, pour citer les principaux.
In both human and animal functioning I have observed accommodation. It would be inaccurate to assume that, even in an era lacking in so-called religious fervour, we are void of an instinctive sense of honour and perception, those attributes of resilience, wisdom, and inner peace as well as one of global community. Indeed as technology overtakes the world – bringing us each within closer reach of one another – our wisdom has expanded commensurately. At the same time the characterization of philosophy has changed from one of god and man to one of science and commonality. Commensurately the human mind has adapted to the associated necessities wrought by familiarity and nearness. Magically – so it would seem – people now approach the mandates of themselves and others more liberally. We cannot contradict the inevitable alterations any more than death.