Design for Living

Regard, Concern, Service, and Love

Friedmann, Kennel

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781532632068
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Philosophy of Religion

Written in 1954 but unpublished in his lifetime, Robert Friedmann's Design for Living asks that pertinent existential question: how should we live? Drawing on literary, philosophical, and theological sources, Friedmann's answer begins with a critique of utilitarian ethics and popular apathy, and proceeds through an existential preparation that ascends in confessional style to the question of the meaning of human life, culminating in a fourfold set of principles: regard, concern, service, and love. Along the way, Friedmann's critical eye remains clearly fixed on his object of study--lived experience, and not abstract principles detached from day-to-day life--and he intentionally guides his reader step by step up the mountain of spiritual and ethical inquiry in a deliberate and serious attempt to educate the heart, mind, and soul. At once accessible and scholarly, while troubling our contemporary divide between religion and the secular, Design for Living presents a rare vision of human meaning and purpose that will appeal to scholarly and public readers alike.

Part 1

Preparation

Schweitzer, Kagawa, Gandhi, Tolstoy, Woolman—a noble company of men from whom we might well learn how to educate the heart. However, it can hardly be expected that their ways will be generally accepted without serious criticism. What these men represent, the critics will say, is certainly fine and worthy of our admiration. Nevertheless, their principles can never be made into a general pattern of behavior for everybody. They represent extreme attitudes, only rarely attainable, and there are certainly other, more down-to-earth ways of shaping one’s life along moral lines which offer easier realizations. Why climb mountains if there are beautiful vistas also on hills around us? Moreover, is not every radicalism somehow provocative? Are we not also compelled to acknowledge that ours is not, strictly speaking, an age of Christian ideals, as science and technology have taught us different pursuits full of happiness and satisfaction?

It is the purpose of this chapter to enter into a critical study of these other ways toward life’s design, and to find out whether they will lead to this end or not. No general agreement is expected because, fundamentally, these questions are not decided by way of arguments but by way of an inner attitude or style of life. P. Sorokin’s three types of “sensate,” “ideate,” and “ideational” might usefully be quoted here as such attitudes or styles.2 They speak different languages, hence do not understand each other easily. It is further a question of seriousness and concern. The easier the answer, most likely the less serious was the question. After all, not everybody is aware that there is a question at stake—life is taken as it occurs, at least as long as it is fairly bearable, and the quest for design is rashly answered: live as everybody lives, or live by having a good time, be decent, and all will be right. And the highest ambition might be couched in the formulas, “be yourself,” or “realize your full personality,” and then you will have achieved the maximum of what you can ask for in life. Unfortunately, life is a rather complicated affair and is not so easily satisfied once you look deeper into its problems. And if our first statement is only partly true, namely that we have to educate our heart toward greater sensitivity regarding meaningfulness and general human concerns, then how can we be so rashly satisfied with stereotypical answers? The education of one’s heart is a long and searching process, though rewarding in the end; and it seems to be worthwhile to embark on this long intellectual adventure to understand better what somebody once called “the grim business of life.”

2. Sorokin, Social and Cultural Dynamics.—Ed.

Chapter 1

What Design for Living is Not

The Case of Hedonism

The easiest and most popular of all answers to the question of what we seek in life is Hedonism, the theory that pleasure is the end and purpose of life, or its highest good and value. It is a theory of old tradition and remarkable persistency. The Greeks have taught it (for instance Epicurus) as well as modern Englishmen (who devised the name Utilitarianism for it). Although it is not really difficult to show its inherent fallacies, people will yet continue to stick to it in spite of all, for it has a ready appeal to common sense. To give a good illustration of recent times, we might point to a round-table discussion in 1948 concerning the meaning of “pursuit of happiness,” man’s third inalienable right stated in our Declaration of Independence. The majority was openly leaning toward this ideal of life’s enjoyment. One correspondent of Life magazine expressed it quite graphically:

. . . a way of life in which everyday needs are automatically gratified: the pantry is full, the closets have ample clothing, the radio, the washing machine, the car, and other comforts are complete. Into this existence I would introduce the pleasure of good companionship . . . I would include music, good books, and those things generally classified as cultural refinements . . . And my final requirement would be that other’s and I might enjoy our particular forms of happiness in such a manner that our desires would in no way conflict.3

One might readily admit that this writer actually expressed the ideal of a good many people, and one can almost hear the question in the background: “After all, what is wrong with that?”

It all depends on the basic attitude that we accept. The ideal of the writer is obviously plain hedonism disguised by the reference to “cultural refinements.” What is actually striking is the ideal of “automatic gratification” of life’s desire, something which a friend of mine once wittily called “pursuit of happiness through gadgets.” Does that not smack pretty much of a fool’s paradise, with its vain dream of happiness, of doubtful substance? But this is not the place to argue for or against a particular formulation which was quoted mainly for the sake of illustration. That our scientific and naturalistic age, the “sensate” culture, as Sorokin calls it, is particularly predisposed toward hedonistic viewpoints is without question and needs no further comment. It is up to us, however, to inquire more in detail about what this position means and implies, and by what arguments it may be refuted, or at least be demonstrated as unfit for any higher and nobler interpretation of life.

The hedonistic idea appears in many forms and formulations. We meet it as detached withdrawal from the affairs of this world in the famous gardens of Epicurus where friends practiced a restrained enjoyment of the amenities of life. We find it again as desperate skepticism regarding the values of life in the writings of the wise Preacher of the Old Testament which say in so many words that pleasure is nothing but vanity. We find it once more in the robust love of life and lust with Omar Khayyam who does not tire to sing its praise in his famous Rubayat. And then again we meet Hedonism as the dominant mood during the days of the great transition from Medieval to Modern thought, the Renaissance. The somber concept of “sin,” as emphasized by the Christian doctrine, was thrown out together with all its implications. A different philosophy was now espoused: morality is drudgery, and sin is what we now call the enjoyment of life in its fullness. And so it goes on. Jeremy Bentham at the turn of the eighteenth century invented even a “felicific calculus” as the yardstick in life.4 All pleasure, he claims, is basically the same; thus we may figure out how to gain a maximum of happiness (which he identified with pleasure or absence of pain). Pleasure, however, is gained mainly by the pursuit of one’s own self-interest. John Stuart Mill later modified this rather simple philosophy in doing away with the basic equality of all pleasurable experience. That this undermined the entire position of Hedonism will be discussed later on in this chapter. For all practical purposes Utilitarianism was the moral philosophy of nineteenth century liberalism, both in Europe and America.

In our own day, Hedonism has found a new and particularly strong support by Sigmund Freud and his psychoanalysis. When the very depth of our mind is uncovered and the unconsciousness analyzed, then, it is claimed that the psychologist finds nothing there but the “pleasure principle” (in German Lustprinzip).5 The instinctual energies of man derive exclusively (or at least predominantly) from the libido, the urge to gain some sort of pleasure, bodily if possible, or (if transformed) mentally. That such “scientific” proof has given strong support to hedonistic tendencies—vindicating them so to speak—can easily be seen. After all, it is asked, what else could one seek in life but just this, the gratification in one way or another of the pleasure principle? That there is a flaw in this theory, as might be surmised, will be shown presently. It is almost the same flaw which defeats the position of John Stuart Mill.

Pleasure, it should be emphasized here, is not the same as general well-being or, still more, the high satisfaction which derives from a work well done. Pleasure as a guiding principle is understood rather as something valued and sought for in itself, and should not be confounded with something that accrues to us indirectly, as an unintended byproduct. Hedonism therefore does not allow such generalizations as, for instance, that a selfless act and a dedicated life are basically guided by the principle of pleasure. It only beclouds the issue and hardly helps toward its understanding.

Hedonism, we might say, is rooted in a specific style of life. First and above all it emphasizes the self-centered and uncommitted individual whose seeking of pleasure it justifies. That the duties and responsibilities beyond the realm of the ego are waived aside is only natural for this attitude. The story of early laissez-faire capitalism with its unbelievable slums and squalor of proletarian life speaks too loud a language not to be heard. Second: Hedonism is anti-metaphysical in every regard (hence also unsympathetic to religion), accepts a skeptical position, and—since pleasure is such an elusive good—is fundamentally bitter and pessimistic, doubting whether there is any validity in so-called higher values. Hedonism is definitely “naturalistic,” considering humans as biological beings only. Third: (and here we face an existential point of great importance) Hedonism has no answer to the calamities and afflictions of life. How could it be otherwise? We are taught only to figure out how and where to find a maximum of personal pleasure with little regard for the neighbor’s troubles. (Should he not take care of himself?) But when things go wrong and the calculus fails, which way out may man then seek? Neurosis, suicide, crime? These are certainly no inviting answers, but they give us a hint that something must be faulty in the very presuppositions of this philosophy of life.

Is it then actually necessary to refute Hedonism at great length? Its insufficiency to serve as life’s design is so obvious that no serious seeker would stop here. Nevertheless, we have to learn the first lesson first if we ever hope to advance in that great process of educating the heart, and Hedonism is a strong obstacle along this way. It seldom asks the question of life’s design, and concepts such as meaning, value, higher purpose, and the like are little appreciated by the skeptical practitioner. Still, the hedonistic argument is persistent and we must not shirk it. Before entering into this pro and con however, let us make absolutely clear one point which might so easily spoil our entire position. Even though we decidedly decline the principle of Hedonism and its view of life, we likewise decline any sour look at life. Nothing is more creative than a mood of genuine serenity, nothing more positive than genuine joy and, perhaps, a hearty laugh. Life would not be human without it. Of course, such joy is no program or design, but the result or grand finale of a life of earnest endeavors. It was in Beethoven’s great legacy, the Ninth Symphony, that he eventually introduced the tremendous chorus, “Ode to Joy,” the final conclusion of how he had learned to conquer the afflictions of his life. Needless to say, this joy is no profane pleasure, but a sublime experience. On the other hand, whosoever seeks nothing but the light side of life, something which Nietzsche so strikingly called Das Kleine Glück (the little happiness), misses altogether the real joy of life, the great happiness.

The first and most popular argument against Hedonism is its so-called “paradox.” If you seek pleasure for its own sake, you will never find it and will always be fooled. If, however, you do not pursue it but seek higher values of a non-egotistic nature, then pleasure will fall into your lap, as a by-product to be sure, when you thought the least about it. This is, of course, a very old argument, and a very simple one. Nevertheless, we have to open our eyes to see it. Perhaps it was for that reason that Epicurus taught restraint more than anything else.

A second well-known argument, still in need of being thought through, is the “balance sheet of life.” One cannot overlook the fact that pain and suffering are rampant in our existence, and that periods of genuine happiness are the great exceptions. From Goethe, whose life was certainly one of the most harmonious ever experienced, the word is recorded that “taken all in all, life has been want (Entbehrung), and the time of true happiness was not more than perhaps a couple of weeks.” If we look all around the globe and observe the conditions as they really exist, we will see a great deal of suffering, privation, and pain, and perhaps also a small shimmer of happiness in spite of misery and want. To this the “reformer” will answer, “just for that reason let us improve conditions so that everybody might have his good time, if not always, so at least to a great extent.” Unfortunately, the balance sheet will still remain the same. We might be reminded here that Gautama Buddha, the sweet prince of India who gave to the world his great teaching of peace of mind, has uncontestably demonstrated to us the great truth that life is by its very nature suffering. The well-known story of his three outings from his palace may illustrate this point. His kingly father wanted to prevent his son from knowing the ugliness of reality and built a little paradise for the prince. That worked alright, so the story goes, until the prince broke the “golden prison” and went out to see for himself what the world was like. And then he saw with his own eyes the three basic ills of mankind of which no one is spared: sickness, old age, and death. No reformer can abolish these. But hedonists might shut their eyes and drink another cup of wine. It is just a matter of the educated heart. The great Indian prince had it to the highest degree, and so too, the sublime preacher on the Mount who went to those who were in need of the physician.6

If suffering and pain are basic in this human existence, then we must find an answer to conquer them, if not materially (which is impossible) then on a non-material basis. As a matter of course this does not exclude the devotion of a good deal of our energies also to material improvements, that is, to social and technical reforms. But he who devotes his life to such a goal has already transcended the principle here discussed, and serves a purpose yet unexplainable to the hedonist.

The story of the Buddha is perhaps the strongest argument against Hedonism at our disposal. It permits a further elaboration which will reveal another paradox of life that is not always visualized. It says that suffering, hard as it burdens our mind, has its positive side too. With this I mean no justification of evil and suffering, and no “theodicy” of any kind. But a comparison of the life of the proverbial playboy with that of an individual who has to go through hardship, privation, and suffering, will teach us a lesson. To be sure, it might happen that someone lacks the capacity to learn from such experience, and then bitterness and even hatred might come forth from these calamities. But in general, one matures under the impact of difficulties...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword: Robert Friedmann: His Life, His Philosophy
• Acknowledgments
• Editor's Introduction: Discovering the Other Friedmann
• Introduction: The Educated Heart
• Part 1: Preparation
• Part 2: Design for Living
• Part 3: Troubles Ahead
• Postscript: Freedom of Will and the Issue of Escapism
• Select Bibliography