“If
thou wilt make
a man happy,
add not unto his riches but take away from his desires.”
- Epicurus
How
better to start an article on desire than with a quote by Epicurus -
called by many the happiest man who ever lived. And before we
continue, let us not equate the 'man' in his quote with an actual,
male man. Epicurus was one of the few ancient Greek philosophers to
teach women and slaves. Now, to deploy some counter-intuition!
The
culture of desire we find ourselves in is often labelled
'individualistic'. This seems intuitive - a desire fulfilled means
someone is getting what they want. Yet desire is not an
individualism. Desire comes from outside of the self, and depends on
an intrusive external object to manifest itself. It is not a creative
flourishing or self-expression; desiring something and getting it
does not make you a unique individual. We do not choose to
desire things, we merely choose between
desires. This means that desire can, and is, engineered from without.
If
the ability to desire something were determined from within me, I
could look at, say, a tissue and desire it! Yet the tissue is already
mine, it is not separate from me. In the shaky language of property,
I 'own' the tissue. Where is its mystique, its appeal? The tissue
has none. I desire only the superior tissue - the
iTissue 5G,
with its multivarious (but ultimately futile) gadgets. This new,
special tissue lies beyond my grasp, and that is precisely its
appeal. Once something is claimed, tasted, possessed, it loses
appeal, revealed as the charlatan it is. So, it cannot be said that
my desire is individualistic, because once obtained the desire
creates no inner-fulfillment. It is only when a desire is unclaimed
that it can promise
fulfillment.
By
comparison, if I wanted a lute I could get one, but I would need to
work on playing it. The lute would be the beginning
of
an endless journey of self-discovery and creation. My desire to
become better at the lute is vague, an adventure through mist. It is
a journey that can be entirely unique to myself as an individual. My
creative urges on the lute would be spontaneous, seemingly emerging
out of nothing; out of my self? Only I can fulfill this want to
become a master-lutist! Whereas the desire for the iTissue
5G
is direct, highlighted and colourful like the petals of a flower.
Like a bee I would have to buzz along a certain prescribed path to
then obtain the snazzy tissue of my dreams. Most people can fulfil this
desire, ending up in the same place as everyone else, and so it does not
differentiate them from other desirers.
To continue on from the
previous point, the word 'individualist' is bandied about and hurled
at those who are possessive of material objects. Yet to participate
in rampant desiring (i.e. consumerism) is not 'greed', it is
artificial 'need'. It is the lack of individuality, rather than an
expression of it. It demonstrates the individuals inability to
complete themselves. It is the most obvious form of conformity
available to us today! It may be disguised as an individualism -
promising uniqueness or identity for example - but this is a mere
deception. Desire operates at the level of 'Man the herd-beast'.
Desire is encouraged by our environment, it is generated by masses
(if I had to simplify the history of Man into a single sentence, I
would proclaim: 'He has one. Therefore I want one!')
This herd mentality
obscures the true quality of the things we desire. Desire obscures
quality, it does not indicate it. Things that are desired are
desirable because they are desired. A thing will be talked about
because it is talked about. This is herd, not an individualism.
Furthermore, things can become ultra-desirable by virtue of being
exclusive, to make one feel special for obtaining them. This is an
equally spurious reason to desire something. To bring these general
claims into reality, let us consider the following.
Advertising
in the previous era would emphasize that by obtaining a product, this
would raise
one
above all competition; towering over the meagre herd, offering a
step-up into this dream-world of glamour and envy. Today's
advertising tends to be different. It promises to share
an experience with our herd (such as a party-inducing bucket of
factory-farmed chicken) and to demonstrate just how much one is
enjoying oneself among said herd. Both are deceptive ploys, and both
are overly concerned with the herd. Again, it does not sound terribly
individualistic to me.
This demonstrates how
desire is dependent on what others think and feel. It is thus further
removed from 'individualistic greed'. Intuitively, it is much easier to
explain rampant material possession as an individual not considering
what everyone else thinks. This I believe to be the wrong way round;
it is someone all too conscious of what others think and feel who
wants more than everyone else. Yet there is another reason why desire
cannot exist within a healthy individualism: self-control.
For
desire is not 'used up'. The faster one fulfills desires, the more
one wants. For instance, suppose I desired a pair of new socks once
every week. I would become accustomed
to obtaining one new pair of socks a week. Without that one pair of
socks, I would feel frustration, and emptiness. Yet suppose that one
pair was not enough and I lost my discipline. I now purchase two
pairs of socks a week. I now need more socks, and more, and more.
When the novelty of two pairs falls away, I will need three, then
four. Eventually, I am obtaining five new pairs of socks a week, and
I become accustomed to this. Obtaining more socks hasn't made me want
less socks, it has made me want more. Desire operates in cycles of
wanting, followed by acquiring, followed by brief fulfillment, before
returning to 'want'. Paradoxically, being able to get what one wants
faster, simply leaves one desiring more,
as the cycle of 'want' and 'acquire' is shortened.
These cycles of desire
cannot be overcome in their entirety - we are desiring machines. For
this reason, I do not call desire an individualism; desire does not
represent our individuality (and to paraphrase Max Stirner somewhat,
they hardly belong to us at all). An understanding of ourselves as
creatures of 'yesterday-today-tomorrow' could help us understand
where our desires come from, and such an understanding provides us
with greater self-control. Yet nothing can extinguish desire itself,
no matter how much we wish to. The pursuit of relinquishing desire is
itself a painful task. The biblical saints used to go out
into the desert to escape material temptation - something even I
would balk at! Desire in and of itself is no evil, no guilt, nor
shame. As imperfect beings we are bound to have a few vices. It is
merely the means of obtaining our desires - namely how much harm they
cause on the way - that should provoke ethical alarm.
My
conclusion is simple. Being surrounded by desire is not an indicator
of individualism. To be put-upon and judged is not the breeding
ground of self-development and a healthy individualism. Freedom to be
a self-mastered individual is freedom from
rampant desiring. We should not measure happiness in how often we
obtain what we desire; whoever dies with the most toys dies the emptiest.
How soon once one has
possessed something, is one possessed by it?
Selim 'Selim' Talat
