Piece by Tom Hanks on how the pandemic indicates playing solitaire is no longer in the cards, seeing how short and precious our time is.
Is he trolling or what? On the assumption he's not joking, here's my defense of solitaire in the light of pandemic 1/
What's Tom Hanks' reasoning? "If in the past year you played solitaire, even a single game, you wasted that time. Take it from me: I played many hands of the game and have nothing to show for the effort" - I don't see how the pandemic could have affected this judgment 2/
"Covid-19 has taught us that life and health are precarious...Our time is limited and finite. Solitaire squanders what is precious. Don’t ever play solitaire again." - no kidding, Tom Hanks. This isn't exactly news. Philosophers have long pondered over this 3/
For example, Martha Nussbaum's "The Fragility of Goodness" examines how ancient Greek philosophers and playwrights already pondered over the question of luck, and how most of the conditions for a well-lived life lie outside of our control 4/
Folks like Aristotle, Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers realized that a lot of what makes for a good life (wealth, health, even precious relations) are outside of our control and due to luck. You CANNOT just manage your way out of that by playing no solitaire! 5/
Tom Hanks seems to buy into (no surprise) that somehow if you work hard and diligently, then you can insulate yourself from bad luck or at least "optimize" the time allotted to you to the best extent. But folks like Aristotle and Plato realized that this is just delusional 6/
I find the whole idea of optimizing our time here an unacceptable impingement of HR thinking on our own lives. You have zero obligation, to yourself or others, to be an "optimal" person at all times. It is totally fine to waste time with a harmless game like solitaire 7/
Several philosophers have defended the idea that it is fine to be useless. I did a thread in praise of uselessness earlier here (Russell, Wolf, Zhuangzi) 8/:
(related grumble: I also don't like the idea of optimizing your time that is translated into relationships and doing "meaningful" stuff), as we're now also made to feel guilty for working too much and not paying enough attention to the stuff that really matters 9/
Here's a piece by Neil Levy that challenges the "deathbed perspective" namely that you would gain utter clarity about what "really matters"
This is just BS and buys into the weird neoliberal optimizing our lives things 10/ aeon.co/essays/why-is-…
Take e.g., the deathbed regret "I should have worked less".
When I was a postdoc (up into 4 years post-PhD) I worked myself to bits. I was constantly exhausted. Did that reduce wellbeing, cause tensions w friends and family, yes. But could I just magically work less? 11/
The work was necessary to achieve what I wanted. To push extra guilt on people that they should micromanage and time-optimize every aspect of their lives so as to insulate themselves from disaster (e.g., pandemic, unexpected illness) is just delusional 12/
If the pandemic taught me anything then it is that it is okay to waste time, to be suboptimal, because a lot of how well our lives are going is just not within our control, and you can't magically not have a pandemic impact your life by ditching solitaire 13/
So, it's a Saturday. If you can afford to, just waste time. Do whatever you like. Watch a Netflix show. Play solitaire. Doomscroll on Twitter. Don't feel pressure to optimize your life. Your life is not some project to be micromanaged. Give yourself permission to just be. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
April fool's jokes are interesting for philosophers of language.
Here are some conditions that an ideal April fool's joke meets: 1. The joke needs to be such that it becomes very clear from the context of April 1 that it must be a joke, i.e., implausible but not impossible ...
So, e.g., "Magnus Carlsen has retired from chess" is wildly implausible. But not impossible. In the context of April 1, it becomes very clear it must be a joke. 2. The joke must not be nasty and hurt the victim
It's also interesting to note how many different traditions there are. E.g., in Belgium it was customary to request something that was plainly impossible, such as a drinking bowl for fish, or the G-clef (clef and key is the same word in Dutch).
I am teaching on the numinous and religious experience tomorrow--so here is a brief thread on Galdalf and Saruman, and how they instantiate very different kinds of magic, which correspond to different ways of understanding magic and the supernatural 1/
Brandon Sanderson makes a distinction between two kinds of magic in fantasy: soft and hard magic systems.
Hard magic: follows rules (a bit like alternate-world rules of physics)
Soft magic: does not follow rules, preserves our sense of wonder 2/
Sanderson argues that Tolkien uses different kinds of magic, from hard to soft. E.g., the rings are quite hard magic--they make you invisible, they make you powerful, and they slowly turn you into Gollum.
Similarly, rules apply for the palantiri
Worth quoting Sahlins' (1972) remarks on the original affluent society: "there are two possible courses to affluence. Wants may be "easily satisfied'' either by producing much or desiring little. 1/
"The familiar conception... makes assumptions peculiarly appropriate to market economies: that man's wants are great, not to say infinite, whereas his means are limited, although improvable... 2/
"thus, the gap between means and ends can be narrowed by industrial productivity, at least to the point that "urgent goods'' become plentiful. But there is also a Zen road to affluence, departing from premises somewhat different from our own... 3/
Today I am teaching Zhuangzi, Wolf and Russell on the good of uselessness. Since the idea of usefulness and efficiency is so deeply ingrained in our society, so integrally a part of our "philosophical plumbing" (as Midgley calls it), I think a brief thread on this is in order 1/
Many passages in Zhuangzi push back against usefulness, efficiency, and welfarism, for example this one in book 1 where Huizi complains to Zhuangzi about a gnarly, useless tree. Just chill! Says Zhuangzi 2/
Or this one about the gourds and the salve. Huizi complains about giant gourds that are too large as containers but would be great to float with. Zhuangzi says to his friend he simply is not thinking broadly enough about purposes 3/
Been thinking about the monastic life.
Monks and nuns throughout the ages have deliberately aimed for a lifestyle many would recognize as our pandemic lifestyle: boring, predictable, with a few close people or alone.
What can their choices tell us about our lives now?
Thread 1/
After a year in pandemic world, we see articles like this that frame the pandemic as having very negative effects on our minds. The article quotes a neuroscientist saying "We’re all walking around with some mild cognitive impairment" - are we? 2/
The Desert Fathers and Mothers, the earliest monks and nuns, deliberately chose a life of isolation (either by themselves or with a few close people), conveniently close enough to a river, a city, but still, predictable, boring, not fun, why did they choose lives like that? 3/
About a year into this pandemic, I'm craving physical, embodied experiences. So I'll occasionally put a photo that's in my photo library that I took, for enjoyment. This is a wonderful watercolor by JRR Tolkien, taken in Oxford when I lived there (in 2016).
Me in the Musée d'art contemporain in Montreal in 2016