As a teen and young adult, I wanted to read books - especially fiction, especially novels: so I did.
I read a lot of books even when I was very busy doing other stuff: e.g. studying at school or college - even when I was working as a doctor, even when I was a House Officer/ Intern - even when doing the 80 hour shift at weekends...
My point is that I wanted to read novels, so I made time to read novels.
I don't claim any credit for this - I was simply indulging my personal preference - other people have other preferences. But people who claim not to read books "because" they don't have time; are actually saying they don't much want to read novels - they would rather do... something else.
This applies across society. People are able to do what they really want to do, and if they don't much want to do something - then they are easily put-off doing it.
Modern people do not go to church, meet and participate in groups; don't do hobbies like they used to; don't play sports; seldom dance, act or make music. And so on.
Yet people did all of these things and more - somehow but avidly, as best they could - in the middle twentieth century - despite living under the oppressive and invasive conditions of communist dictatorships.
They don't do them because in general they don't sufficiently want to do them; but want to do other things instead.
Busy people nowadays make time, and spend money, to go to the hairdressers for elaborate interventions; get tattooed; go to the gym; go jogging - and interact on social media.
That is what sufficient numbers of people want to do, and they do it.
The problem is in the wanting.
When people's wanting is socially influenced, it is (substantially) externally-controlled; and when that external-control is (overall) malign - then people want to do bad stuff, or at least suboptimal stuff - and they don't much want to do good stuff, so they don't do it.
The effort, time, and money is channelled into doing stuff they want, and that wanting is externally motivated.
What is futile, is to complain/demand that external influences are not making me want better things.
Do we, here-and-now, seriously expect society to want us to do stuff that is good for us?
Do we seriously hope that in the 21st Century in The West - external influencers will start encouraging purposive, meaningful, positive, creative, loving activities?
If we expect a better society as the starting point for better lives, if we intend to reform social institutions such that they will begin to influence people for good; then we will wait a long time, and wait in vain.
But if we want to want better; then we, as individuals, will first need to detach our own wanting from external influences.
We shall need to discover what we ourselves actually want from life; and encourage others to do the same.
7 comments:
I think you may have hit on the key to my puzzle over that category of “dedicated parent, dud grandparent”. Externally there is plenty of encouragement to spend time and money on parenting (especially in negative ways) but when is the last time involved grandparenting was encouraged?
A major reason for Objectivism’s appeal to me as a youth was its emphasis on value choice. We have more freedom than we think, even to for instance choose to like music or food formerly hated. Oism however can’t actualize this where it matters due to its defining ultimate purpose as personal happiness in this life, ergo anything remotely difficult is quickly abandoned.
@Mia - I suppose this post is just an attempt for people to be honest about their priorities, and why they do and don't do things.
Up into my early 50s I was probably a generally highly motivated person with considerable mental energy (but not physical - I was fairly easily worn-down by sustained toil, which is why I could not operate as a clinical doctor) - which was a useful gift in academia in those days. There were quite a few things I enjoyed and wanted to do - which included family stuff, my official work, but also several other subjects.
The point is that there was always time to do all of them. But this also required that I avoided and neglected most other things that other people did instead, included career-necessary/-promoting things such as administration/ meetings/ bureaucracy/ travel/ grants etc.
For me , the example that took the biscuit was when I asked a new colleague what music she liked and she told me she didn't have time to listen to music. Work that one out.
I've long thought that the different between a reader and a non-reader is that, if you ask a reader what they're currently reading, they always have an answer-- even if they haven't been able to read it in a while.
Another sign of a true reader is that they will make their own literary judgements and are willing to enjoy unpopular and unfashionable books.
@Mal - I would not go so far as to say "true" reader for this one: but a reader after-my-own-heart is one who *always* re-reads his favourite books - and continues re-reading them.
Even when I was avidly engaged in exploring the world of literature, in my late teens - classic and new authors, new eras and genres - I was doing a lot of re-reading. Nowadays, I do little-but re-read!
Somewhat on topic, I recently read The Owl Service and really enjoyed it. I’ve never read anything quite like it, very creative. Thanks for the rec!
@Mia - Yes, it's a remarkable achievement - very powerful.
At this point I find new fiction generally unsatisfying and all my favorite authors are dead so what I’m left with is re-reading my old favorites with the sad knowledge they won’t produce anything new. Nonetheless with the best authors you can always find something you didn’t notice before when you read their books again.
Post a Comment