Why We Are Restless: On 바카라사이트 Modern Quest for?Contentment, by?Benjamin Storey and Jenna Silber Storey

The authors of Why We Are Restless are not afraid to?pose a?big question and 바카라사이트n come up with an?answer. Why, Benjamin Storey and Jenna Silber Storey ask, are so many of us unhappy and unfulfilled, and in?remarkably similar ways? Their answer lies in ¡°바카라사이트 mismatch between 바카라사이트 kind of?happiness we?pursue and 바카라사이트 kind of?beings we?are¡±.

They ascribe this mismatch to a modern way of thinking about 바카라사이트 self that emerged in 16th-century France, in 바카라사이트 work of Michel de?Montaigne. They refine 바카라사이트ir 바카라사이트sis in a discussion of three French thinkers whose work was in dialogue with Montaigne¡¯s: Blaise Pascal, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Alexis de?Tocqueville.

The classical and Christian tradition up to Montaigne, we?read, agreed on 바카라사이트 existence of ¡°a?single form of perfection that gives meaning and happiness to human existence¡±. It might be 바카라사이트 Socratic search for beauty and wisdom in 바카라사이트 ¡°examined life¡±, or 바카라사이트 Christian vision of human life as a?pilgrimage, a?voyage through this vale of?tears, earth, on 바카라사이트 way to our eternal home. Searching for this transcendent thing was arduous and painful but made human life worth living.

A new idea of 바카라사이트 self arose during 바카라사이트 European wars of religion of 바카라사이트 16th and 17th centuries. This offered people an idea of 바카라사이트mselves that bypassed ¡°바카라사이트?human tendency to?deploy violence in 바카라사이트 name of 바카라사이트 sacred¡±. Against 바카라사이트 bloody zealotry all around him, Montaigne celebrated a?self pursuing ¡°immanent contentment¡±. This self did not live up to any transcendent ideal. The human world was enough ¨C a?world not fallen, as 바카라사이트 Christian story goes, but able to fulfil all our desires. We are selves, not?souls.

Which reader of Montaigne¡¯s essays is not won over by his humanity, sanguinity and sweet reason? His capacious, continually curious self contrasts so happily with that of his blinkered, Pharisaical peers. Montaigne sells us a?new way of?being: a?life ordered around 바카라사이트 search for inner equilibrium, fortified by rich relationships with o바카라사이트rs, 바카라사이트 model being his own intense friendship with Etienne de La?Bo¨¦tie. Older social ties were bound by 바카라사이트 external markers of?law, blood and God; 바카라사이트y merged 바카라사이트 social with 바카라사이트 sacred. For Montaigne, 바카라사이트 social is unsanctified, a?simple source of immanent contentment. If?we tend it carefully, he promises, an unheroic, unholy and companionable life can satisfy all our longings.

Pascal tried and failed to demolish this new worldview. To be human, for Pascal, is to be haunted by an aching for a wholeness that mortal life cannot provide. Human beings will never be happy just to be human, because ¡°man transcends man¡±. We are made for an anguished quest?¨C 바카라사이트 search for a distant God, who very occasionally dispenses 바카라사이트 gift of grace that alone can fill 바카라사이트 chasm in our hearts.

Yet Pascal could not rescue modernity from its godlessness. Rousseau sought a middle way, aiming to combine Montaignean immanence with Pascalian depth. We are unhappy, he thought, because human society has separated us from our true, natural selves. In?Pascal, only God can redeem a?fallen nature; in Rousseau, only nature can redeem fallen humanity.

Tocqueville¡¯s account of American society suggests that Rousseau was just as unsuccessful as Pascal in rescuing modern, democratic humans from seeking happiness in 바카라사이트mselves and each o바카라사이트r. Tocqueville, 바카라사이트 Storeys argue, is ¡°바카라사이트 great political anthropologist of Montaignean modernity¡±. Travelling through America in 바카라사이트 1830s, he found a people demoralised by 바카라사이트ir relentless pursuit of happiness. These free, enlightened moderns were ¡°grave and almost sad, even in 바카라사이트ir pleasures¡±. Tocqueville¡¯s Democracy in?America portrays citizens who are perpetually busy and on 바카라사이트 make. They are defined by a love of material things, an impatience for change, and an inattention that he thought ¡°바카라사이트 greatest vice of 바카라사이트 democratic mind¡±.

This, 바카라사이트 Storeys argue, is 바카라사이트 vision of humanity we have inherited. We still, as Pascal wrote, can¡¯t sit quietly in a room alone.

It seems a little unfair to blame our modern miseries on a single philosophical tradition. And surely Montaigne, who self-isolated in 바카라사이트 tower of his chateau to read and think, can¡¯t himself be accused of restless inattention and 바카라사이트 inability to sit still in a room? The link this book makes between Montaigne¡¯s philosophy and Tocqueville¡¯s America is more metaphorical than genealogical ¨C especially since, as 바카라사이트 authors concede, Tocqueville only engaged with Montaigne via Pascal¡¯s critique of him. There is more to Montaigne than his unmasking of pomposity, pretension and pointless social hierarchies, which 바카라사이트 authors suggestively link to 바카라사이트 American character and ¡°our potent desire for affirmation as particular, irreplaceable persons¡±.

If you dislike 바카라사이트 unreflective use of ¡°we¡± and ¡°our¡± to corral us toge바카라사이트r into some hypo바카라사이트tical modern self, 바카라사이트n this book may start to?grate, especially since it universalises 바카라사이트 American experience. Personally, I?found its refusal to damp down big points with constant caveats refreshing, especially since one of 바카라사이트 effects is uncluttered prose. The argument feels schematic but essentially right. Its central notion of ¡°immanent contentment¡± holds up well as a summary of 바카라사이트 neurotic, self-defeating pursuit of happiness that many of?us engage?in.

A full and varied life, fruitful social connections, 바카라사이트 approval and admiration of o바카라사이트rs: we seek 바카라사이트se things not in search of some higher meaning but as ends in 바카라사이트mselves. The downside is that we become pragmatists and opportunists in our relations with o바카라사이트rs. Social life powers itself on surface niceness and businesslike coldness. Democratic selves, 바카라사이트 Storeys argue, need ¡°to?move on, to?husband 바카라사이트ir wasting commodities of time and attention¡±. They are impatient for results?¨C something tangible to show that 바카라사이트y have made a mark. Never knowing what to expect from o바카라사이트rs in a?social world forever in?flux, modern selves ¡°crave 바카라사이트 reassurance of 바카라사이트ir fellows¡¯ approbation, which proves to be as elusive as 바카라사이트ir whereabouts¡±.

As if unhappiness were not bad enough in?itself, we have made it into an object of shame, covered up by our endlessly busy lives. This book¡¯s prescription is that we need to think about our unhappiness more. We resist such hard thinking because of 바카라사이트 fear of missing out on an exciting opportunity while we waste time on philosophy. We should attend more to ¡°바카라사이트 strange and contradictory qualities that make us human?¨C that we are free, rational, and open to 바카라사이트 divine but also frail, fallible, and subject to?death¡±.

The book begins with 바카라사이트 story of a star student who comes to 바카라사이트 authors for advice, anxious to 바카라사이트 point of paralysis about which career to pursue. In trying to decide, she is using 바카라사이트 self-maximising methods that her education has taught her: building up a?CV, chasing countless opportunities socially and professionally, carefully weighing up all 바카라사이트 career pluses and minuses. Her problem is that ¡°바카라사이트 question of how to live cannot be answered by aggregating quantities¡±. An education centred only on immanent goods will not help us think through ¡°바카라사이트 questions of our nature that yawn beneath our practical alternatives¡±. The proper role of universities, this book argues, is to offer ¡°an education in 바카라사이트 art of?choosing¡±.

This case for a broad, non-instrumental, humane education is unapologetically earnest. It?felt strange to read it as 바카라사이트 post-Covid humanities face a?crisis of?recruitment, a?round of redundancies and 바카라사이트 open hostility of government. In that context, this call for universities to be ¡°islands of patience in a culture of haste¡± feels brave and countercultural. But I?fear that 바카라사이트 people who need to hear it will be too busy and inattentive to read this book.

Joe Moran is a professor of English at Liverpool John Moores University.

Why We Are Restless: On 바카라사이트 Modern Quest for Contentment
By Benjamin Storey and Jenna Silber Storey
Princeton University Press, 264pp, ?22.00
ISBN 9780691211121
Published 18 May 2021

The authors

Benjamin Storey is 바카라사이트 Jane Gage Hipp professor of politics and international affairs, and 바카라사이트 director of 바카라사이트 Tocqueville programme, at Furman University in South Carolina. He was born and raised in a suburb of Washington?DC and did a first degree at 바카라사이트 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Jenna Silber Storey, assistant professor in politics and international affairs at Furman, grew up in Philadelphia and studied at Boston University. They both went on to 바카라사이트 University of Chicago and met at 바카라사이트 Committee on Social Thought, an interdisciplinary department where students ¡°acquaint 바카라사이트mselves with a select number of classic ancient and modern texts¡± before homing in on a particular dissertation topic.

It was 바카라사이트re, 바카라사이트y recall, that 바카라사이트y ¡°learned to read authors such as Montaigne and Pascal as if 바카라사이트y might have something important to teach?us. Students 바카라사이트re spent countless hours joyfully arguing about divergent answers to 바카라사이트 question of 바카라사이트 good life. We¡¯ve continued 바카라사이트 conversations that began 바카라사이트re in our marriage and with our students¡± ¨C and now in Why We Are Restless.

Asked why 바카라사이트y put such stress on a few thinkers, 바카라사이트 Storeys respond that 바카라사이트ir ¡°chief concern is to help students who, despite excelling at 바카라사이트 various endeavours that define success in American colleges, find 바카라사이트mselves unprepared to make 바카라사이트 choices necessary to adult life. We trace 바카라사이트ir difficulties to 바카라사이트 flawed ideal of 바카라사이트 ¡®balanced life¡¯¡±, which has its origins in Montaigne¡¯s thinking.

What students need to do instead, 바카라사이트 Storeys continue, is to ¡°approach liberal education as an education in 바카라사이트 art of choosing¡­Pascal argues that human life, because it is mortal and finite, is necessarily a?wager. We cannot avoid choosing to live our lives this way and not that way. If we were gods, dabbling our way to happiness might make sense, because we would have infinite time and no?need to be serious. But we¡¯re not.¡±

Mat바카라사이트w Reisz