Like prudence, I think that this modern day world generally lacks and dearly needs simplicity. Personally, I love the fact that Sponville makes simplicity a virtue because it does, indeed, enhance the other virtues and serves as a quality foundation for a joyful self. Simplicity means "forgetting oneself, forgetting one's pride and fear…joy versus worry, lightness versus seriousness…" (156). While a simple person can think about the past, the present, and the future and can be quite intelligent, the simple person only lives in the present, not dwelling on problems that have already happened or he or she cannot control. A simple person thinks about what needs to be thought about, but he or she does not worry and mull over things just for the sake of worrying or making life more complicated. In the words of Sponville, "what charaterizes simplicity is its capacity to transcend these [consciousness or thought], to free itself from them and be undeceived by them yet not repudiate them" (151). By keeping life and the self detached from unnecssary worry and doubt about things, one has more opportunity to find joy in people. Because the simple person refuses to let the problems and complexities of modern society confuse or frustrate him or her, he or she can treat other people and themselves more objectively and more openly. Therefore, simplicity could lead to tolerance and humility. There is nothing that the simple person needs to hide nor nothing that the individual is scheming. By laying down a foundation based on "sound judgment unencumbered by knowledge or belief," other virtues like compassion, gratitude, mercy, and generosity become so much easier to exercise. Simplicity, the opposite of duplicity, allows a person to be the best that they can be despite the situation. Without worrying about personal impressions, one can truly be joyful, and joy has been a kind of semi-virtue for Sponville. He has connected it to love, mercy, gratitude, and now simplicity.
Unfortunately, simplicity is hard to come by in modern societies. Part of the reason is that our society seems to treasure complexity. Our technology needs to be innovated even when the old technology works just fine. Our lives seem to be split up into so many little pieces between school, work, friends, and family. And each group seems to get a little different piece of each of us. In other words, rarely are we entirely present. At parties, we keep our cell phones on and let work contact us if they need something. The same is true of vacation time for some businesses. As a result of this fragmented society, many people are stressed and unhealthy. People are running faster and fater just to keep up with life. I think that people and society needs to be simplified somewhat. Simplicity would allow both people and the world to think deeper instead of faster, speak more profoundly than to speak more, and listen more instead of being present everywhere at once. The virtue of simplicity would let us slow down.
I genuinely dislike Comte-Sponville’s chapter on simplicity—which surprises me, because I’ve enjoyed the discussions of each virtue thus far. Perhaps it is because I am not a simple person (can anyone truly be simple in the complex world in which we live?), but I find the concept of simplicity, at least as presented by C-S, to be abstract, extraneous, and contradictory in relation to the other virtues.
Toward the end of the chapter, C-S states simplicity is both a virtue and a grace (page 155). I agree wholeheartedly that simplicity can be considered a grace and a spiritual experience. What, after all, can be more relaxing than to completely relax—to cease analyzing oneself and one’s surroundings, to abandon all concern for appearances, and to consider only current states of being? This concept can certainly be positive. I like the example of the rose that C-S describes on page 150: “Everything is complex and everything is simple. ‘The rose has no why attached to it, it blooms because it blooms, has no thought of itself, or desire to be seen.’ What could be more complicated than a rose for someone who wants to understand it? What could be simpler for someone who wants nothing?” (page 150). To take in the beauty of nature and to value it simply because it exists is pleasant and arguably a key to living a positive and well-rounded life. I see, however, no virtue in this. In my opinion, to cease analyzing oneself and one’s surroundings is, in many cases, to cease being virtuous.
C-S believes that many people “are too preoccupied with themselves, even if their motives are good, and such self-concern is the opposite of simplicity” (page 153). I do not at all believe this to be true. Going by the author’s account, I am not a simple person; I constantly weigh my options when making decisions, I carefully consider how my actions will affect others, and I am concerned with my appearance. C-S argues that there is no need for this concern, and that simple people fall into a natural state of being without it. I, on the other hand, believe that if I did not constantly analyze the situations in which I am placed, I would come across as sloppy, unconcerned, and perhaps even unkind. There are certainly times in which an abundance of simplicity marks a lack of carefulness. Furthermore, I dislike the opinion of both Jankélévitch and C-S that “simplicity is essential to all the virtues” (page 154). C-S states that, “Affected gratitude is not gratitude, affected humility is not humility, and courage that is there merely for display is not courage at all.” I disagree with C-S and Jankélévitch’s definition of “affected.” To the two philosophers, a virtue becomes “affected” when we analyze our motives for applying it, not merely when we do so only for show. When I volunteer, I would consider my action to be generous. I do admit, however, that I “think” about what I am doing (Would my time best be spent doing something else? Is this a worthy cause?), making this generosity a complex rather than simple, and thus an affected, virtue. Does this mean that I’m not being virtuous at all? I think not; I think that it merely indicates that I am being prudent about how my time is spent, which is another virtue in itself.
The concept of simplicity might make our lives easier and more enjoyable, but I feel that it ultimately hinders our ability to be truly virtuous and thus can hardly be considered a virtue itself.
I can really relate to Andrea's comment that simplicity "ultimately hinders our ability to be truly virtuous and thus can hardly be considered a virtue itself." I, like Andrea, am always analyzing everything that I do and am constantly stressing myself with the task of being virtuous and appearing virtuous. At first glance one might think that, if one practices the virtue of pure simplicity at all times, they will not be putting thought into their actions, and will ultimately fail to be virtuous. However, C-S makes a powerful argument. "Simplicity in man--simplicity as a virtue--need not negate consciousness or thought. What characterizes simplicity is its capacity to transcend these, to free itself from them and be undeceived by them yet not repudiate them." (150-151)
Peace.
Simplicity please free me from "consciousness and thought." Free me from worry and constant analysis. C-S states that, "simplicity is possibly nothing more than good sense or sound judgment unencumbered by knowledge or belief and thus open to reality and its simplicity, confronting it each time as though for the first time." (151) Simplicity does not worry about what is to come. Simplicity lives in the present and simply faces each decision as it comes. Simplicity does not linger in the past, but makes the best decision thought possible in the moment and moves forward.
After understanding C-S's view of simplicity in this way, I quickly realized that I am in great need of simplicity. The complexities that I pile upon myself are not worth the stress they cause. "The simple person is a person without pretensions, unconcerned with himself, his image, or his reputation; he doesn't calculate, has no secrets, and acts without guile, ulterior motives, agendas, or plans." (155) Worrying about appearing virtuous, in all reality isn't the most virtuous of acts. However, if we choose to live a more simplistic life, where we act with dignity, but no worries, make good judgments, without stress, we will appear virtuous and will be virtuous without effort. Simplicity is all about making good decisions--right now.
The simplicity of presence. The simplicity of being. These thoughts bring peace to me. I think we all could use a little more simplicity today and every day. Carpe diem.
"The concept of simplicity might make our lives easier and more enjoyable, but I feel that it ultimately hinders our ability to be truly virtuous and thus can hardly be considered a virtue itself. " - Andrea, backed by Karlie.
What about thinking of simplicity in a different way? What if, instead of C-S's intentions be that the virtue imply that one should be simple, that it implied that one should live simply? I seem to recall a very wise man once having twelve really "good friends" who followed him around who both lived simply and preached for others to live simply (See Matt 19:21 [though Jesus says if perfect, I feel as if we can agree that, to be virtuous would be a good step towards perfection, and what could be more simple than what Jesus is suggesting here?]). In this form, simplicity is far from being a "Simple Man", if you will (not to drop a song name in here), and instead is a sign of a deep, intellectual and spiritual complexity. Along the same lines, simplicity, once again, in this form, certainly does not make life any easier, in fact, it probably makes it more difficult. Live Simply, simply living by simple means, I think, is what the virtue of Simplicity would have us do.
Simplicity is a strange chapter. I can sort of see what CS is getting at for some of it--obviously, we want to be straightforward and not devious or manipulative. I would have thought that virtue would be more appropriately called honesty or self-knowledge or something, and I've never really thought of simplicity as a virtue. But CS takes that concept and runs with it to the point I that I wonder how well he thought this chapter out, or whether it works with the rest of the book.
One problem is that I think CS accidently reasons his own book away as useless, or even harmful. He writes that "[Simplicity] sees no point in perpetual self-examination...[The simple man] is not interested in himself to judge himself." This is being written in a book about virtues. As best I can tell, the whole point of the book is to better understand virtue, and presumably apply those lessons towards oneself.
CS says "not so fast." Judging from the simplicity chapter, we are supposed to understand what the virtues entail, but applying them to ourselves is not only counterproductive but wrong.
Also, being virtuously simple apparently means being a fatalist now. "[The simple man] goes his merry way, lighthearted and peacefully. No goal before him, he feels no longing for the past, no impatience for the future." Huh? But there is apparently nothing wrong with planning and scheduling. So...sometimes simplicity is good, I guess, and sometimes not so much.
Note: why does CS use quantum physics as an example of simplicity? ("What could be simpler than E=mc2?") I'm pretty sure quantum physics is pretty complicated.
Prepare to be totally blindsided here, but it seems that simplicity is "essential to all the virtues." I get CS's point, and it is actually a good one, I think. As I understand it, he is saying that all the virtues build on one another, and it is difficult to live a virtuous life without embracing all the virtues more or less equally. Virtues are like the circle of life that way--lose one, and the rest become much more difficult. Still, CS seems to say that every single chapter.
Is there anything good in this chapter? Yes. I think the idea of simplicity as a reaction against narcissism. Narcissism seems pretty prevalent in society, though I can't say for sure, because I only really focus on myself. (Geddit?) I was listening to the radio the other day (mistake), and Pink's song "Fuckin' Perfect." You probably know the chorus but if you don't it goes "pretty pretty please, don't you ever feel, less than, fuckin perfect, etc." I kept thinking that a little of CS's simplicity might make anyone who takes that song seriously a better person*. I also really liked CS's point that "generosity overcomes narcissism, simplicity dispels it...Generosity is a victory, simplicity, a grace."
*Fun fact. Apparently, that song was written for Pink's husband Carey Hart. (Not the "Sunglasses At Night" guy; that's Corey). She's an international superstar; he's starred on the Surreal Life. I'm thinking he might need that song to feel a little better about himself, because he's got to be the beta in that relationship.
“Simplicity is not a virtue supplemental to existence; it is existence itself, inasmuch as existence is all there is and cannot be supplemented. It is also the lightest of virtues, the most transparent, and the rarest” (151-150). I like this definition of simplicity because it is simple. Being simple, living simply, not living luxuriously with name brand everything is existence. Living with the bare necessities (as Baloo from Jungle book would say) is existence itself. When you have only what you need, you cannot supplement that with something else. This is the easiest to understand and the rarest. It is hard to live without what you want. It is difficult to accept that we can live with only what we need. We also want more. There isn’t really a need for a definition for this one and I believe that is what C-S means when he says “the most transparent.”
Dan made an excellent and humorous point. “One problem is that I think CS accidently reasons his own book away as useless, or even harmful.” C-S says, “It sees no point in perpetual self-examination. The human capacity for self-scrutiny, self-appraisal, and self-reproach knows no bounds. … [The simple man] is not interested in himself to judge himself” (156). He is being a HUGE hypocrite here. He wrote this whole book about self-scrutinizing ourselves so that we can be more virtuous, while he himself is not being virtuous because he is not being simple in self-scrutinizing himself. Thus, does his whole book become null and void?
“Intellectually, simplicity is possibly nothing more than good sense or sound judgment unencumbered by knowledge or belief and thus open to reality and its simplicity, confronting it each time as though for the first time” (151). This I can absolutely agree with. Whenever we are taught a new concept in physics, we go back to one we learned in the very beginning of physics and derive the new equation. And whenever we cannot figure something out, we are told to use our common sense in order to start the problem. He continues on to say that thanks to those that came before us, things have been made simpler. He uses the example of E=mc2. While this seems easy enough, it is not as easy as you think. When you are given m and c and told to solve for E it is simple, but when you are given something else and have components and such to factor in, it gets much more complicated. So while he things there is nothing “simpler than E=mc2?” I have to disagree. I think sharing is easier, I think saying thank you is easier, I think the alphabet is easier, I think gravity is easier; E is not simple.
"Simplicity is spontaneity; it is joyous improvisation, unselfishness, detachment, a disdain for proving, winning, impressing. Hence the impression it gives of freedom, lightness, happy artlessness" ( C-S 153). I suppose it would be contradictory to say that simplicity is not simple...but I think there is truth in that statement. While simplicity may result in those things that C-S mentions, it is all a matter of attaining simplicity in the first place. In our culture and world today, where everything is fast-paced and complicated, simplicity is often a foreign concept (at least I think so). "The simple person is a person without pretensions, unconcerned with himself, his image, or his reputation; he doesn't calculate, has no secrets, and acts without guile, ulterior motives, agendas, or plans" (155). C-S puts it as "childhood rediscovered and recaptured" (155). While this sounds like a wonderful state to be in, I'm wondering how many people actually attain it. Is it possible to reach simplicity? According to the definition above, I find it near impossible for anyone to have the virtue of simplicity all the time, let alone often or even sometimes. I suppose, though, that simplicity, like all other virtues, is something to work towards as a goal. I also agree with Ellen's statement above about C-S contradicting himself in talking about not scrutinizing ourselves...how then are we to reflect on what virtues we are lacking in and need to work towards? This makes it almost impossible to be virtuous. I think that out of the virtues we have read about so far, Simplicity is very difficult to reach.
Simplicity can mean lots of things, but I thought you might be interested in some of the more practical, everyday stuff which tends to focus on money and time. A simple life is free from stresses related to not having enough time and/or money. Young people like yourselves are in a good position to start out arranging your lives to be simple.
There are lot so folks who have thought a great deal about how to simplify our lives. Here are a few ideas: Your Money or Your Life http://ymoyl.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/about-the-new-edition/
Affluenza & Escape from Affluenza http://www.pbs.org/kcts/affluenza/escape/index.html
The Not So Big Life This is a commercial site, but has lots of good ideas. It is about living well, not necessarily large. The author is an architect who wrote a series of books starting with The Not So Big House. http://www.susanka.com/
First of all, I must say that for defining simplicity, in one sense, as being able to explain things clearly, I certainly found Compte-Sponville’s explanation of the virtue a bit confusing. When the chapter started out, I was concerned with his lack of reverence for thought and seeking to be prudent and rational, both things he seemed to support in previous chapters. However, I found that he then went on to give good explanations of his thoughts and I was sure that I had grasped or was at least beginning to understand what he meant in his defining of simplicity. This feeling of understanding was ultimately undermined by his conclusion in which it seemed that C-S reverted back to description of simplicity as being a disconcern for just about everything.
I particularly liked C-S’s explanation of simplicity, in the intellectual sense, as being a way to prevent people from “getting lot within themselves and losing contact with reality, from taking themselves seriously , and from obscuring and ultimately standing in the way of the very thing they claim to reveal or disclose” (151). This statement seems to be the most clear of all his definitions of it, or at least the easiest for me to grasp. I can understand the need to step into clarity of thought after being potentially bogged down by scholarly thinking. I feel like C-S’s definition of simplicity here is not saying that we do not need to think about things or not be contemplative about our decisions, but rather that we have to know when to just let go a little bit and take time to not care or not worry so much about everything that affects our lives.
As he continues the chapter, I find myself getting more confused again, especially in his conclusion. However, I think I can sort of still see where he is coming from in that he seems to maintain the generalization of a need for lack of care and worry. I definitely see value in this but cannot say that it is relevant all the time. There is a need for more simplicity in people’s lives today, but, at the same time, I would argue that simplicity is another virtue that is not necessarily needed 100% of time.
Comte-Sponville’s chapter on purity is the one that I have struggled with the most. I do not usually think of simplicity as a virtue, and in fact I’m not sure I quite understand its definition in this sense—even after finishing the entire chapter. At the beginning of the chapter, I was at a complete loss—I felt like Joe seemed to feel—everything he said seemed to be contradictory and rather complicated and seemed to be anything but simple. But as I delved further into the chapter I started to understand more and more what Comte-Sponville was trying to get at—even if I still think he never quite settled on one definition of simplicity. But I do agree with Comte-Sponville that whatever simplicity is, it is an elusive virtue—one I feel like I would know if I saw it but don’t know quite how to define. I first began to truly understand what C-S was talking about with simplicity when he says that “To be simple, then, is to forget about oneself” (154). This is the heart of the matter—even if I believe that C-S is exaggerating here. (How can you ever completely forget about yourself and how would that even be a good thing? He agrees that you are meant to love yourself just as you are called to love others, so how can you love yourself if you forget yourself entirely?) But perhaps he exaggerates just to drive the point home—because forgetting oneself is so difficult and even doing so to a miniscule extent would be a great achievement. I do agree with C-S that I personally like people who are capable of this—the people who I believe are truly genuine. I find that I especially admire people who are genuine enough to admit their own faults. (If they do it genuinely—this can go so far to be nothing but egoism. The people who crave attention so much they talk about even their faults just so they can continue talking about themselves.) There is something incredibly admirable about people who forget about themselves to live among the world without the constant self-consciousness. Like humility, I feel that this virtue is especially needed in modern American society. (maybe the fact that I even keep saying this shows an egoism on my part—maybe even the fact that I’m worried about my own egoism is a lack of simplicity). In a world where everyone feels like they need to “talk about their problems” and where we have stroked our egos with endless self-esteem boosts that I think goes to an extreme where we are simply creating a society of arrogance, simplicity is hard to come by. I agree that simplicity as a virtue of forgetting oneself is vital, but I also think that it may be the most difficult of the virtues. It seems that the very idea of striving for simplicity lessens your simplicity because you have to think about yourself to do so.
As awesome as it would be if the world practiced C-S's simplicity, I don't view it as a virtue. But the lack of drama that it would create if everybody practiced it is euphoric to think about. Imagine, everybody just being chill, and being honest with people, and not over thinking things. Wow, that would be so nice. But I don't think it counts as a virtue. For one thing, it is imperative to self-analyze if we are to become more virtuous. We need to evaluate our actions, and plan future actions if we are to reach our full potential. I don't really see how this version of simplicity helps us to reach that goal. JJ Ruwe
Like prudence, I think that this modern day world generally lacks and dearly needs simplicity. Personally, I love the fact that Sponville makes simplicity a virtue because it does, indeed, enhance the other virtues and serves as a quality foundation for a joyful self. Simplicity means "forgetting oneself, forgetting one's pride and fear…joy versus worry, lightness versus seriousness…" (156). While a simple person can think about the past, the present, and the future and can be quite intelligent, the simple person only lives in the present, not dwelling on problems that have already happened or he or she cannot control. A simple person thinks about what needs to be thought about, but he or she does not worry and mull over things just for the sake of worrying or making life more complicated. In the words of Sponville, "what charaterizes simplicity is its capacity to transcend these [consciousness or thought], to free itself from them and be undeceived by them yet not repudiate them" (151). By keeping life and the self detached from unnecssary worry and doubt about things, one has more opportunity to find joy in people. Because the simple person refuses to let the problems and complexities of modern society confuse or frustrate him or her, he or she can treat other people and themselves more objectively and more openly. Therefore, simplicity could lead to tolerance and humility. There is nothing that the simple person needs to hide nor nothing that the individual is scheming. By laying down a foundation based on "sound judgment unencumbered by knowledge or belief," other virtues like compassion, gratitude, mercy, and generosity become so much easier to exercise. Simplicity, the opposite of duplicity, allows a person to be the best that they can be despite the situation. Without worrying about personal impressions, one can truly be joyful, and joy has been a kind of semi-virtue for Sponville. He has connected it to love, mercy, gratitude, and now simplicity.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, simplicity is hard to come by in modern societies. Part of the reason is that our society seems to treasure complexity. Our technology needs to be innovated even when the old technology works just fine. Our lives seem to be split up into so many little pieces between school, work, friends, and family. And each group seems to get a little different piece of each of us. In other words, rarely are we entirely present. At parties, we keep our cell phones on and let work contact us if they need something. The same is true of vacation time for some businesses. As a result of this fragmented society, many people are stressed and unhealthy. People are running faster and fater just to keep up with life. I think that people and society needs to be simplified somewhat. Simplicity would allow both people and the world to think deeper instead of faster, speak more profoundly than to speak more, and listen more instead of being present everywhere at once. The virtue of simplicity would let us slow down.
I genuinely dislike Comte-Sponville’s chapter on simplicity—which surprises me, because I’ve enjoyed the discussions of each virtue thus far. Perhaps it is because I am not a simple person (can anyone truly be simple in the complex world in which we live?), but I find the concept of simplicity, at least as presented by C-S, to be abstract, extraneous, and contradictory in relation to the other virtues.
ReplyDeleteToward the end of the chapter, C-S states simplicity is both a virtue and a grace (page 155). I agree wholeheartedly that simplicity can be considered a grace and a spiritual experience. What, after all, can be more relaxing than to completely relax—to cease analyzing oneself and one’s surroundings, to abandon all concern for appearances, and to consider only current states of being? This concept can certainly be positive. I like the example of the rose that C-S describes on page 150: “Everything is complex and everything is simple. ‘The rose has no why attached to it, it blooms because it blooms, has no thought of itself, or desire to be seen.’ What could be more complicated than a rose for someone who wants to understand it? What could be simpler for someone who wants nothing?” (page 150). To take in the beauty of nature and to value it simply because it exists is pleasant and arguably a key to living a positive and well-rounded life. I see, however, no virtue in this. In my opinion, to cease analyzing oneself and one’s surroundings is, in many cases, to cease being virtuous.
C-S believes that many people “are too preoccupied with themselves, even if their motives are good, and such self-concern is the opposite of simplicity” (page 153). I do not at all believe this to be true. Going by the author’s account, I am not a simple person; I constantly weigh my options when making decisions, I carefully consider how my actions will affect others, and I am concerned with my appearance. C-S argues that there is no need for this concern, and that simple people fall into a natural state of being without it. I, on the other hand, believe that if I did not constantly analyze the situations in which I am placed, I would come across as sloppy, unconcerned, and perhaps even unkind. There are certainly times in which an abundance of simplicity marks a lack of carefulness.
Furthermore, I dislike the opinion of both Jankélévitch and C-S that “simplicity is essential to all the virtues” (page 154). C-S states that, “Affected gratitude is not gratitude, affected humility is not humility, and courage that is there merely for display is not courage at all.” I disagree with C-S and Jankélévitch’s definition of “affected.” To the two philosophers, a virtue becomes “affected” when we analyze our motives for applying it, not merely when we do so only for show. When I volunteer, I would consider my action to be generous. I do admit, however, that I “think” about what I am doing (Would my time best be spent doing something else? Is this a worthy cause?), making this generosity a complex rather than simple, and thus an affected, virtue. Does this mean that I’m not being virtuous at all? I think not; I think that it merely indicates that I am being prudent about how my time is spent, which is another virtue in itself.
The concept of simplicity might make our lives easier and more enjoyable, but I feel that it ultimately hinders our ability to be truly virtuous and thus can hardly be considered a virtue itself.
I can really relate to Andrea's comment that simplicity "ultimately hinders our ability to be truly virtuous and thus can hardly be considered a virtue itself." I, like Andrea, am always analyzing everything that I do and am constantly stressing myself with the task of being virtuous and appearing virtuous. At first glance one might think that, if one practices the virtue of pure simplicity at all times, they will not be putting thought into their actions, and will ultimately fail to be virtuous. However, C-S makes a powerful argument. "Simplicity in man--simplicity as a virtue--need not negate consciousness or thought. What characterizes simplicity is its capacity to transcend these, to free itself from them and be undeceived by them yet not repudiate them." (150-151)
ReplyDeletePeace.
Simplicity please free me from "consciousness and thought." Free me from worry and constant analysis. C-S states that, "simplicity is possibly nothing more than good sense or sound judgment unencumbered by knowledge or belief and thus open to reality and its simplicity, confronting it each time as though for the first time." (151) Simplicity does not worry about what is to come. Simplicity lives in the present and simply faces each decision as it comes. Simplicity does not linger in the past, but makes the best decision thought possible in the moment and moves forward.
After understanding C-S's view of simplicity in this way, I quickly realized that I am in great need of simplicity. The complexities that I pile upon myself are not worth the stress they cause. "The simple person is a person without pretensions, unconcerned with himself, his image, or his reputation; he doesn't calculate, has no secrets, and acts without guile, ulterior motives, agendas, or plans." (155) Worrying about appearing virtuous, in all reality isn't the most virtuous of acts. However, if we choose to live a more simplistic life, where we act with dignity, but no worries, make good judgments, without stress, we will appear virtuous and will be virtuous without effort. Simplicity is all about making good decisions--right now.
The simplicity of presence. The simplicity of being. These thoughts bring peace to me. I think we all could use a little more simplicity today and every day. Carpe diem.
"The concept of simplicity might make our lives easier and more enjoyable, but I feel that it ultimately hinders our ability to be truly virtuous and thus can hardly be considered a virtue itself. " - Andrea, backed by Karlie.
ReplyDeleteWhat about thinking of simplicity in a different way? What if, instead of C-S's intentions be that the virtue imply that one should be simple, that it implied that one should live simply? I seem to recall a very wise man once having twelve really "good friends" who followed him around who both lived simply and preached for others to live simply (See Matt 19:21 [though Jesus says if perfect, I feel as if we can agree that, to be virtuous would be a good step towards perfection, and what could be more simple than what Jesus is suggesting here?]). In this form, simplicity is far from being a "Simple Man", if you will (not to drop a song name in here), and instead is a sign of a deep, intellectual and spiritual complexity. Along the same lines, simplicity, once again, in this form, certainly does not make life any easier, in fact, it probably makes it more difficult. Live Simply, simply living by simple means, I think, is what the virtue of Simplicity would have us do.
Simplicity is a strange chapter. I can sort of see what CS is getting at for some of it--obviously, we want to be straightforward and not devious or manipulative. I would have thought that virtue would be more appropriately called honesty or self-knowledge or something, and I've never really thought of simplicity as a virtue. But CS takes that concept and runs with it to the point I that I wonder how well he thought this chapter out, or whether it works with the rest of the book.
ReplyDeleteOne problem is that I think CS accidently reasons his own book away as useless, or even harmful. He writes that "[Simplicity] sees no point in perpetual self-examination...[The simple man] is not interested in himself to judge himself." This is being written in a book about virtues. As best I can tell, the whole point of the book is to better understand virtue, and presumably apply those lessons towards oneself.
CS says "not so fast." Judging from the simplicity chapter, we are supposed to understand what the virtues entail, but applying them to ourselves is not only counterproductive but wrong.
Also, being virtuously simple apparently means being a fatalist now. "[The simple man] goes his merry way, lighthearted and peacefully. No goal before him, he feels no longing for the past, no impatience for the future." Huh? But there is apparently nothing wrong with planning and scheduling. So...sometimes simplicity is good, I guess, and sometimes not so much.
Note: why does CS use quantum physics as an example of simplicity? ("What could be simpler than E=mc2?") I'm pretty sure quantum physics is pretty complicated.
Prepare to be totally blindsided here, but it seems that simplicity is "essential to all the virtues." I get CS's point, and it is actually a good one, I think. As I understand it, he is saying that all the virtues build on one another, and it is difficult to live a virtuous life without embracing all the virtues more or less equally. Virtues are like the circle of life that way--lose one, and the rest become much more difficult. Still, CS seems to say that every single chapter.
Is there anything good in this chapter? Yes. I think the idea of simplicity as a reaction against narcissism. Narcissism seems pretty prevalent in society, though I can't say for sure, because I only really focus on myself. (Geddit?) I was listening to the radio the other day (mistake), and Pink's song "Fuckin' Perfect." You probably know the chorus but if you don't it goes "pretty pretty please, don't you ever feel, less than, fuckin perfect, etc." I kept thinking that a little of CS's simplicity might make anyone who takes that song seriously a better person*. I also really liked CS's point that "generosity overcomes narcissism, simplicity dispels it...Generosity is a victory, simplicity, a grace."
*Fun fact. Apparently, that song was written for Pink's husband Carey Hart. (Not the "Sunglasses At Night" guy; that's Corey). She's an international superstar; he's starred on the Surreal Life. I'm thinking he might need that song to feel a little better about himself, because he's got to be the beta in that relationship.
“Simplicity is not a virtue supplemental to existence; it is existence itself, inasmuch as existence is all there is and cannot be supplemented. It is also the lightest of virtues, the most transparent, and the rarest” (151-150). I like this definition of simplicity because it is simple. Being simple, living simply, not living luxuriously with name brand everything is existence. Living with the bare necessities (as Baloo from Jungle book would say) is existence itself. When you have only what you need, you cannot supplement that with something else. This is the easiest to understand and the rarest. It is hard to live without what you want. It is difficult to accept that we can live with only what we need. We also want more. There isn’t really a need for a definition for this one and I believe that is what C-S means when he says “the most transparent.”
ReplyDeleteDan made an excellent and humorous point. “One problem is that I think CS accidently reasons his own book away as useless, or even harmful.” C-S says, “It sees no point in perpetual self-examination. The human capacity for self-scrutiny, self-appraisal, and self-reproach knows no bounds. … [The simple man] is not interested in himself to judge himself” (156). He is being a HUGE hypocrite here. He wrote this whole book about self-scrutinizing ourselves so that we can be more virtuous, while he himself is not being virtuous because he is not being simple in self-scrutinizing himself. Thus, does his whole book become null and void?
“Intellectually, simplicity is possibly nothing more than good sense or sound judgment unencumbered by knowledge or belief and thus open to reality and its simplicity, confronting it each time as though for the first time” (151). This I can absolutely agree with. Whenever we are taught a new concept in physics, we go back to one we learned in the very beginning of physics and derive the new equation. And whenever we cannot figure something out, we are told to use our common sense in order to start the problem. He continues on to say that thanks to those that came before us, things have been made simpler. He uses the example of E=mc2. While this seems easy enough, it is not as easy as you think. When you are given m and c and told to solve for E it is simple, but when you are given something else and have components and such to factor in, it gets much more complicated. So while he things there is nothing “simpler than E=mc2?” I have to disagree. I think sharing is easier, I think saying thank you is easier, I think the alphabet is easier, I think gravity is easier; E is not simple.
"Simplicity is spontaneity; it is joyous improvisation, unselfishness, detachment, a disdain for proving, winning, impressing. Hence the impression it gives of freedom, lightness, happy artlessness" ( C-S 153). I suppose it would be contradictory to say that simplicity is not simple...but I think there is truth in that statement. While simplicity may result in those things that C-S mentions, it is all a matter of attaining simplicity in the first place. In our culture and world today, where everything is fast-paced and complicated, simplicity is often a foreign concept (at least I think so).
ReplyDelete"The simple person is a person without pretensions, unconcerned with himself, his image, or his reputation; he doesn't calculate, has no secrets, and acts without guile, ulterior motives, agendas, or plans" (155). C-S puts it as "childhood rediscovered and recaptured" (155). While this sounds like a wonderful state to be in, I'm wondering how many people actually attain it. Is it possible to reach simplicity? According to the definition above, I find it near impossible for anyone to have the virtue of simplicity all the time, let alone often or even sometimes. I suppose, though, that simplicity, like all other virtues, is something to work towards as a goal. I also agree with Ellen's statement above about C-S contradicting himself in talking about not scrutinizing ourselves...how then are we to reflect on what virtues we are lacking in and need to work towards? This makes it almost impossible to be virtuous. I think that out of the virtues we have read about so far, Simplicity is very difficult to reach.
Simplicity can mean lots of things, but I thought you might be interested in some of the more practical, everyday stuff which tends to focus on money and time. A simple life is free from stresses related to not having enough time and/or money. Young people like yourselves are in a good position to start out arranging your lives to be simple.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_living
http://www.simpleliving.org/
There are lot so folks who have thought a great deal about how to simplify our lives. Here are a few ideas:
Your Money or Your Life
http://ymoyl.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/about-the-new-edition/
Affluenza & Escape from Affluenza
http://www.pbs.org/kcts/affluenza/escape/index.html
The Not So Big Life
This is a commercial site, but has lots of good ideas. It is about living well, not necessarily large. The author is an architect who wrote a series of books starting with The Not So Big House.
http://www.susanka.com/
First of all, I must say that for defining simplicity, in one sense, as being able to explain things clearly, I certainly found Compte-Sponville’s explanation of the virtue a bit confusing. When the chapter started out, I was concerned with his lack of reverence for thought and seeking to be prudent and rational, both things he seemed to support in previous chapters. However, I found that he then went on to give good explanations of his thoughts and I was sure that I had grasped or was at least beginning to understand what he meant in his defining of simplicity. This feeling of understanding was ultimately undermined by his conclusion in which it seemed that C-S reverted back to description of simplicity as being a disconcern for just about everything.
ReplyDeleteI particularly liked C-S’s explanation of simplicity, in the intellectual sense, as being a way to prevent people from “getting lot within themselves and losing contact with reality, from taking themselves seriously , and from obscuring and ultimately standing in the way of the very thing they claim to reveal or disclose” (151). This statement seems to be the most clear of all his definitions of it, or at least the easiest for me to grasp. I can understand the need to step into clarity of thought after being potentially bogged down by scholarly thinking. I feel like C-S’s definition of simplicity here is not saying that we do not need to think about things or not be contemplative about our decisions, but rather that we have to know when to just let go a little bit and take time to not care or not worry so much about everything that affects our lives.
As he continues the chapter, I find myself getting more confused again, especially in his conclusion. However, I think I can sort of still see where he is coming from in that he seems to maintain the generalization of a need for lack of care and worry. I definitely see value in this but cannot say that it is relevant all the time. There is a need for more simplicity in people’s lives today, but, at the same time, I would argue that simplicity is another virtue that is not necessarily needed 100% of time.
Comte-Sponville’s chapter on purity is the one that I have struggled with the most. I do not usually think of simplicity as a virtue, and in fact I’m not sure I quite understand its definition in this sense—even after finishing the entire chapter. At the beginning of the chapter, I was at a complete loss—I felt like Joe seemed to feel—everything he said seemed to be contradictory and rather complicated and seemed to be anything but simple. But as I delved further into the chapter I started to understand more and more what Comte-Sponville was trying to get at—even if I still think he never quite settled on one definition of simplicity. But I do agree with Comte-Sponville that whatever simplicity is, it is an elusive virtue—one I feel like I would know if I saw it but don’t know quite how to define.
ReplyDeleteI first began to truly understand what C-S was talking about with simplicity when he says that “To be simple, then, is to forget about oneself” (154). This is the heart of the matter—even if I believe that C-S is exaggerating here. (How can you ever completely forget about yourself and how would that even be a good thing? He agrees that you are meant to love yourself just as you are called to love others, so how can you love yourself if you forget yourself entirely?) But perhaps he exaggerates just to drive the point home—because forgetting oneself is so difficult and even doing so to a miniscule extent would be a great achievement.
I do agree with C-S that I personally like people who are capable of this—the people who I believe are truly genuine. I find that I especially admire people who are genuine enough to admit their own faults. (If they do it genuinely—this can go so far to be nothing but egoism. The people who crave attention so much they talk about even their faults just so they can continue talking about themselves.) There is something incredibly admirable about people who forget about themselves to live among the world without the constant self-consciousness.
Like humility, I feel that this virtue is especially needed in modern American society. (maybe the fact that I even keep saying this shows an egoism on my part—maybe even the fact that I’m worried about my own egoism is a lack of simplicity). In a world where everyone feels like they need to “talk about their problems” and where we have stroked our egos with endless self-esteem boosts that I think goes to an extreme where we are simply creating a society of arrogance, simplicity is hard to come by.
I agree that simplicity as a virtue of forgetting oneself is vital, but I also think that it may be the most difficult of the virtues. It seems that the very idea of striving for simplicity lessens your simplicity because you have to think about yourself to do so.
As awesome as it would be if the world practiced C-S's simplicity, I don't view it as a virtue. But the lack of drama that it would create if everybody practiced it is euphoric to think about. Imagine, everybody just being chill, and being honest with people, and not over thinking things. Wow, that would be so nice. But I don't think it counts as a virtue. For one thing, it is imperative to self-analyze if we are to become more virtuous. We need to evaluate our actions, and plan future actions if we are to reach our full potential. I don't really see how this version of simplicity helps us to reach that goal.
ReplyDeleteJJ Ruwe