Inspired by Walter Benjamin’s notions of philosophy and of what it means to study, the author proposes to define the good life as the life of freely thinking, spiritually oriented humans.
Walter Benjamin’s foreword to The Origin of the German Trauerspiel contains a great description of what it means to think freely. The reflexive practice referred to as study (Studium) in other works by Benjamin, he here refers to as philosophy (Philosophie). In my book Den skønne tænkning (Beautiful Thinking), I demonstrated that by “philosophy” Benjamin means not the technical way of thinking that characterizes most contemporary professional philosophy, but an openly inquiring way of thinking that provides insight and, thus, also perspective. The deep insight achieved through the hermeneutic contemplation described by Benjamin broadens one’s perspective.
Contemporary human sciences are eager to contribute to the solving of current and future problems. However, if we only address given challenges we limit our horizon, which is devastating to not only the human sciences but also society in general. Good problem solving requires an eye for more than the problem itself, the recognized challenge, and the good life requires even more than that. It requires more of something other than the instrumental mindset characterizing discourses that only intend to “respond to challenges” and “solve problems.”
Ever since the ancient Greeks, philosophers, poets, priests, and other intellectuals have reflected on the good life – what it is and how to obtain it. These reflections include various schools, not least the tradition of virtue ethics originating in the philosophy of Aristotle and the tradition of Protestant ethics originating in the theology of Martin Luther.
According to the protagonists of virtue ethics, having a good life is dependent on being a good person, which presupposes learning how to become virtuous. The task is to develop and exhibit wisdom, perseverance (courage), justice, and self-discipline – as well as faith, hope, and love, the Catholics of the Middle Ages added. However, according to the Lutheran tradition, performing good deeds does not provide a good life; it is not even possible to categorize certain deeds as particularly good. In the Lutheran tradition, the good life rather depends on how one relates to one’s life. Consequentially, in this tradition there is no scale to measure human actions, that is, there is neither a catalog of philosophically defined virtues nor a life guide formulated by the church. The individual must find its own way in life, possibly in conversation with others.
It is the Lutheran tradition rather than the Aristotelian tradition that constitutes the basis of contemporary Scandinavian culture, but in a secular interpretation. In our time, everyone takes it for granted that it is up to the individual itself to create the good life. It is a widespread assumption that having a bad life is one’s own fault and that solving the problem requires seeing a coach or psychologist. What a sad scenario: as one cannot look up a catalog of cardinal virtues or follow a guideline formulated by the church, one must work to improve one’s life, and due to the lack of scale to measure human actions and the consequential impossibility of ever being convinced that one really acts optimally, this work remains endless.
I wish to propose a third option: to define the good life as the life of freely thinking autonomous individuals. This third option does not reject but rather integrates and updates the ethical traditions of antiquity and Protestantism. Moreover, it differs from the current fixation on self-development by not focusing on the psyche of individuals but thinking regarded as a common human disposition. It helps us move from the level of the soul to a spiritual level – from what is merely individual to something that includes all humans.
The human sciences must of course contribute to the solving of current and future problems. It is of greater importance, however, that they demonstrate what it means to think freely and that they do so by practicing such thinking. The human sciences even have a moral obligation to do this: to demonstrate that this possibility exists and what it means to seize it. Such demonstration is necessary because many people do not think freely (in the hermeneutic sense of such thinking described by Benjamin). This lack has various reasons, but Western academics are privileged and are thus morally obliged to embrace the potential of free thought and cherish it, insist on it, and bring it to fruition. Currently this is not happening, however, and the fault is on not only the politicians and administrators but also those university professors who ignore their duty to think freely, whether for anxiety or career reasons.
The surrounding society’s problem with the human sciences is not that they deliver no problem solving or that people think that these sciences cannot contribute this way. The vast majority of the Scandinavian population fully agree that the human sciences are important contributors to the current efforts to address the challenges facing contemporary society. The reason for the disappointment experienced by some people is of a different sort, I think. Their disappointment originates in the fact that the human sciences could be an embodiment and constant reminder of the aforementioned common human disposition to think freely, but instead they replace thinking with semi-industrial production and individualistic career making.
Contemporary university professors may be annoyed that their students talk about “attending school” and “having homework,” as if students were pupils. These professors are no better, however, if they refer to the university as their “workplace” and regard teaching and writing as a “job.” In that case, they involuntarily support the political efforts of recent decades to reduce university employees' strive for knowledge and wisdom to wage work. In the early 20th century, the language shared by university professors was different, which was due to a different mindset. The humanists and theologians of that time did not work or research, since workers were people in factories and researchers or scientists were people in labs. The humanists and theologians studied – not only to achieve degrees, but for life.
I wish to promote the act of studying in the sense of practicing studium, which includes a reference to my initial statement that insight is what provides perspective. The original and by Benjamin used meaning of the term studium deserves a renaissance. He who studies lives well; he realizes the potential we have as humans to unfold as freely thinking individuals. However, from this also follows that what university students currently learn we cannot categorize as studium, and it is thus understandable if they regard themselves as pupils.
To study is to immerse oneself in and reflect on a matter, subject, or question. “Umkehr ist die Richtung des Studiums, die das Dasein in Schrift verwandelt,” Benjamin wrote in an essay on Franz Kafka. According to Benjamin, the kind of employment that deserves to be called studium is not goal-oriented. A person who truly studies keeps returning to the question with which he or she is concerned. Such a genuine student does not move toward a solution that he or she must have anticipated in advance in order to be able to move this way (and obtain a project grant, for instance). Nothing but the question that initiated the study defines the student's endeavor, for “bei ihren Studien wachen die Studenten, und vielleicht ist es die beste Tugend der Studien, sie wachzuhalten.” The study is its own purpose, which means that it is beautiful; the ancient Greeks defined the beautiful as that which has its purpose in itself. A genuine student’s choice of subject matter is thus determined by his or her wish to study precisely this subject matter, not by any wish to please a teacher, department manager, or research foundation. The student studies only to study – not to pursue a career, but because the study is the freely thinking person’s way to breathe.
Projects, meetings, sparring, networking, coffee drinking – all of this is fine, and having the surrounding society in mind and offering one’s knowledge to the wide world is good, as well. The many projects and meetings, answers to challenges and contributions to problem solving, are of no use, however, if they are products of a spiritually narrow horizon, which they will be if we forget the importance of the free thought that broadens the perspective because it provides insight.
References
Benjamin, Walter. “The Epistemo-Critical Foreword,” in: Walter Benjamin, Origin of the German Trauerspiel. Harvard University Press, 2019.
Benjamin, Walter. “Franz Kafka: On the Tenth Anniversary of His Death,” in: Walter Benjamin, Selected Writings, Volume 2, Part 2: 1931-1934. Belknap Press, 2004.
Jørgensen, Dorthe. “Benjamins metafysik,” in: Dorthe Jørgensen, Den skønne tænkning: Veje til erfaringsmetafysik. Religionsfilosofisk udmøntet (Beautiful Thinking: Pathways to the Metaphysics of Experience. Religio-Philosophically Implemented). Aarhus University Press, 2014, pp. 177-255, especially pp. 195-209.
The images are private photos of Igor Mitoraj's “Eros bendato screpolato” (1999) exhibited in Venice as part of the Venice Biennale 2005. Photo copyright: Dorthe Jørgensen.