This is a very interesting argument. I think sadness can be either an effect, or a cause, and that when it's an effect, it probably is brought on by a health problem. One feels sorry for himself. Not much one can do about it. However, it's also true that many people indulge in this state, mostly because they don't know better.
Take death and grief, for example. Someone dies at the age of, say, 74, and for someone else it's a catastrophe. Well, in many cases, because death has never been really investigated, from a philosophical point of view. The information and insight is out there. We have that incredible statement by Epicurus: 'Death is nothing to us: as long as we are alive, we aren't dead, and when we'll be dead, it won't matter to us anymore.'. This is applicable to oneself, but also to someone else who died. It doesn't matter anymore to them. That surely says something more than just what people superficially know about dying.
You have the Stoics, such as Seneca, even saying that grief is self-serving: if one understands the above, then what Seneca said won't seem so exaggerated, although I would not go that far: it's natural to grieve, and even him said this: 'We may grieve, but we must not wail.'.
Even Schopenhauer absolutely vouched for joy and hope, here's some of his thoughts, mainly taken from his Parerga:
''...we should not start to tremble and fear the worst as soon as the thunderclouds gather, but consider the possibility that they may pass. Then we realize we were tormenting ourselves over things that in fact did not happen.'.
''....we should always open the door wide to cheerfulness, where possible...''.
However, I think it's important to see sadness as either a cause, or an effect. The above generally applies to sadness being a cause. But even where it's an effect caused by something real, it's possible that we might be exaggerating our reaction. In that case, I think, it's a lack of insight: the person just doesn't know or understand what these philosophers discussed. So he expects people live forever, it might be, or that life is made of certainties. They never really learned anything much, let's face it. They are a bit like children, blaming the government, politicians, this or that, instead of seeing the big pictures, as Schopenhauer said.
With grief as a cause - my suspicion is that if we observe the experience directly (before loading it with interpretation) it can change how it feels, and our judgement of it.
/ And I'm a big fan of Epicurus, but while his ideas can help reflect, I'm not sure this can eliminate pain around loss, or that doing so would be desirable.
/ From memory tho: I don't think he sought to ditch any given feeling but rather enable us to keep perspective and equinimity in the face of feelings - where eudaimonia, or the realisation of wellbeing is not being thrown by the human gamet etc
/ but I'd love to know if you have a different take?
''It is a moral imperative to cultivate that which expands your power, and to shun that which reduces it.''
And I completely agree. This is a pretty neat statement. Many people feel sad, but when you see what they do, they make you go 'Duh? What were you expecting? You gambled your money away, lost them, and now you are mourning. This is something you could have avoided. Blame your greed and hope to get rich quickly, instead of being sad.'.
This is actually something I myself did (gambling) a very long time ago. The point is, more often than not, we build the pre-requisites for feeling sad later, hence your statement is an excellent, simple guideline to follow.
In principle, I get this. But - can I add something? My work looks at how meaning isn't a given (Wittgensteinian approach used here), and sadness as a response to a feeling of isolation, a sense of a loss of meaning. We can't just shake that off. Finding meaning takes time, in community and with witnesses. Without it, a dimming of our power is inevitable, I think.
Very interesting article. Interesting ending with the thought of 'self mastery' as the antidote to sadness. I wonder if we view the opposite of sadness as joy. Then what brings the greatest joy? Maybe we can view that in terms of serving others, and the joy of having God with us?
There is something compelling in the argument that prolonged passivity diminishes our power. Spinoza’s insight that sadness represents a decrease in our capacity to act remains profoundly relevant. In that sense, emotional contraction does have ethical implications.
But we must tread carefully before redefining sadness itself as a moral failure.
Sadness can be a signal. It can arise from loss, injustice, betrayal, grief, or unmet developmental needs. To frame it primarily as ethical deficiency risks confusing consequence with choice. Not all diminishment of power is voluntary. Not all contraction is cultivated. Sometimes it is adaptive. Sometimes it is protective.
Agency matters. Discipline matters. Responsibility matters. But so does psychological reality.
The Stoic reminder that we can choose our response is powerful~ yet choice is not exercised in a vacuum. Nervous systems carry history. Trauma shapes perception. Developmental environments influence resilience long before “radical responsibility” becomes available.
The deeper ethical task may not be to condemn sadness, but to understand it well enough that it does not become identity. To recognize when sorrow is a messenger, when it is a teacher, and when it has outstayed its welcome.
Joy may indeed expand our power to act. But compassion ~ especially toward the parts of ourselves that contracted in order to survive ~ is also an ethical achievement.
Power expands not through denial, but through integration.
And perhaps the moral imperative is not to never feel sadness ~ but to refuse to remain unconsciously governed by it.
Thanks for you post. I always enjoy reading your work!
Now, on sadness, I'm not sure I agree (or at least not with all of it. But I do enjoy a good disagreement &am hoping you do too, so here goes.:)
A. I don't believe there is a necessary link between sadness and our capacity to act.
If we dwell in sadness, or indulge it to the point of self pity etc? Then maybe. But acknowledging sadness exists in yr body? (Especially when something sad did happen? eg. Your relationship ends, or your pet does? This strikes me as a natural consequence of love that can aid healing, and help reconnect you to others) And scientifically? There is something about the chemical composition of tears that lends weight to ideas, and specific teqniques on processing emotions. (If this is interesting am happy to dig up the ref)
B.Sadness need not only be ugly, dispiriting, or 'bad' - either ethically, or as an aesthetic experience. (Yes, this is a bit of a mushed up/compound point) But eg think requiems, nick cave music, or even rumi poems. Sadness often coexists with a whole rainbow world of thoughts, feelings, sensations that contain a litany of connections: in which what makes us sad, happy, good or bad are kind of energetically joined at the hip.
C. There are spiritual practices in which practitioners (& increasing evidence supports claims that sadness (and other sufferings) neutrally observed (without value judgement), help us shift past things quicker (some say 90 secs), increase our capacity for joy, and expand our empathy for others.
Again, happy to dig up refs if debate or comparing overlaps would be fun.
In any case, thanks again for your posts. They are always stimulating and I read nearly every week :)
I think Murakami once said in his book about running and marathons that pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional.
Suffering is often a kind of meta-narrative … complaining about pain, adding a story on top of the sensation itself.
I find it a very interesting thought experiment, although it’s easily said from a higher ground. People usually talk about how they dealt with pain in retrospect … it becomes a personal narrative of overcoming.
But people with serious depression can’t simply overcome their feelings. And that’s probably not what he meant by sadness anyway, since depression tends to lie deeper than ordinary emotional pain.
Still, I think it’s helpful to deal with pain in ways that allow some form of escape or relief, since most pain is temporary … even if, in the moment, it doesn’t feel that way.
For me personally, it’s the belief that my body can only produce a limited amount of emotional pain — an amount I am still able to endure.
But there are also forms of pain that kill the meta-narrative and you wouldn’t be able to tell yourself a way out.
in addition, sadness might really be brought on by a chemical imbalance in the brain. I believe this is why some people committed suicide, I am talking about smart people, like David Foster Wallace. I think it almost impossible that someone like him did not consider what Spinoza said. For some people it's not just 'sadness' but a lot more, it seems. Then you have people who committed suicide because a woman rejected them, these kind of ridiculous and pathetic reasons. This is certainly moral weakness and where what Spinoza was saying, would apply, I believe.
This is a very interesting argument. I think sadness can be either an effect, or a cause, and that when it's an effect, it probably is brought on by a health problem. One feels sorry for himself. Not much one can do about it. However, it's also true that many people indulge in this state, mostly because they don't know better.
Take death and grief, for example. Someone dies at the age of, say, 74, and for someone else it's a catastrophe. Well, in many cases, because death has never been really investigated, from a philosophical point of view. The information and insight is out there. We have that incredible statement by Epicurus: 'Death is nothing to us: as long as we are alive, we aren't dead, and when we'll be dead, it won't matter to us anymore.'. This is applicable to oneself, but also to someone else who died. It doesn't matter anymore to them. That surely says something more than just what people superficially know about dying.
You have the Stoics, such as Seneca, even saying that grief is self-serving: if one understands the above, then what Seneca said won't seem so exaggerated, although I would not go that far: it's natural to grieve, and even him said this: 'We may grieve, but we must not wail.'.
Even Schopenhauer absolutely vouched for joy and hope, here's some of his thoughts, mainly taken from his Parerga:
''...we should not start to tremble and fear the worst as soon as the thunderclouds gather, but consider the possibility that they may pass. Then we realize we were tormenting ourselves over things that in fact did not happen.'.
''....we should always open the door wide to cheerfulness, where possible...''.
However, I think it's important to see sadness as either a cause, or an effect. The above generally applies to sadness being a cause. But even where it's an effect caused by something real, it's possible that we might be exaggerating our reaction. In that case, I think, it's a lack of insight: the person just doesn't know or understand what these philosophers discussed. So he expects people live forever, it might be, or that life is made of certainties. They never really learned anything much, let's face it. They are a bit like children, blaming the government, politicians, this or that, instead of seeing the big pictures, as Schopenhauer said.
Thank you for your essay!
Hey PL! Interesting reply!
With grief as a cause - my suspicion is that if we observe the experience directly (before loading it with interpretation) it can change how it feels, and our judgement of it.
/ And I'm a big fan of Epicurus, but while his ideas can help reflect, I'm not sure this can eliminate pain around loss, or that doing so would be desirable.
/ From memory tho: I don't think he sought to ditch any given feeling but rather enable us to keep perspective and equinimity in the face of feelings - where eudaimonia, or the realisation of wellbeing is not being thrown by the human gamet etc
/ but I'd love to know if you have a different take?
''It is a moral imperative to cultivate that which expands your power, and to shun that which reduces it.''
And I completely agree. This is a pretty neat statement. Many people feel sad, but when you see what they do, they make you go 'Duh? What were you expecting? You gambled your money away, lost them, and now you are mourning. This is something you could have avoided. Blame your greed and hope to get rich quickly, instead of being sad.'.
This is actually something I myself did (gambling) a very long time ago. The point is, more often than not, we build the pre-requisites for feeling sad later, hence your statement is an excellent, simple guideline to follow.
In principle, I get this. But - can I add something? My work looks at how meaning isn't a given (Wittgensteinian approach used here), and sadness as a response to a feeling of isolation, a sense of a loss of meaning. We can't just shake that off. Finding meaning takes time, in community and with witnesses. Without it, a dimming of our power is inevitable, I think.
Very interesting article. Interesting ending with the thought of 'self mastery' as the antidote to sadness. I wonder if we view the opposite of sadness as joy. Then what brings the greatest joy? Maybe we can view that in terms of serving others, and the joy of having God with us?
There is something compelling in the argument that prolonged passivity diminishes our power. Spinoza’s insight that sadness represents a decrease in our capacity to act remains profoundly relevant. In that sense, emotional contraction does have ethical implications.
But we must tread carefully before redefining sadness itself as a moral failure.
Sadness can be a signal. It can arise from loss, injustice, betrayal, grief, or unmet developmental needs. To frame it primarily as ethical deficiency risks confusing consequence with choice. Not all diminishment of power is voluntary. Not all contraction is cultivated. Sometimes it is adaptive. Sometimes it is protective.
Agency matters. Discipline matters. Responsibility matters. But so does psychological reality.
The Stoic reminder that we can choose our response is powerful~ yet choice is not exercised in a vacuum. Nervous systems carry history. Trauma shapes perception. Developmental environments influence resilience long before “radical responsibility” becomes available.
The deeper ethical task may not be to condemn sadness, but to understand it well enough that it does not become identity. To recognize when sorrow is a messenger, when it is a teacher, and when it has outstayed its welcome.
Joy may indeed expand our power to act. But compassion ~ especially toward the parts of ourselves that contracted in order to survive ~ is also an ethical achievement.
Power expands not through denial, but through integration.
And perhaps the moral imperative is not to never feel sadness ~ but to refuse to remain unconsciously governed by it.
Sorry for accidental double post! (Am on my phone posting first time & all thumbs:)
Thanks for you post. I always enjoy reading your work!
Now, on sadness, I'm not sure I agree (or at least not with all of it. But I do enjoy a good disagreement &am hoping you do too, so here goes.:)
A. I don't believe there is a necessary link between sadness and our capacity to act.
If we dwell in sadness, or indulge it to the point of self pity etc? Then maybe. But acknowledging sadness exists in yr body? (Especially when something sad did happen? eg. Your relationship ends, or your pet does? This strikes me as a natural consequence of love that can aid healing, and help reconnect you to others) And scientifically? There is something about the chemical composition of tears that lends weight to ideas, and specific teqniques on processing emotions. (If this is interesting am happy to dig up the ref)
B.Sadness need not only be ugly, dispiriting, or 'bad' - either ethically, or as an aesthetic experience. (Yes, this is a bit of a mushed up/compound point) But eg think requiems, nick cave music, or even rumi poems. Sadness often coexists with a whole rainbow world of thoughts, feelings, sensations that contain a litany of connections: in which what makes us sad, happy, good or bad are kind of energetically joined at the hip.
C. There are spiritual practices in which practitioners (& increasing evidence supports claims that sadness (and other sufferings) neutrally observed (without value judgement), help us shift past things quicker (some say 90 secs), increase our capacity for joy, and expand our empathy for others.
Again, happy to dig up refs if debate or comparing overlaps would be fun.
In any case, thanks again for your posts. They are always stimulating and I read nearly every week :)
I think Murakami once said in his book about running and marathons that pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional.
Suffering is often a kind of meta-narrative … complaining about pain, adding a story on top of the sensation itself.
I find it a very interesting thought experiment, although it’s easily said from a higher ground. People usually talk about how they dealt with pain in retrospect … it becomes a personal narrative of overcoming.
But people with serious depression can’t simply overcome their feelings. And that’s probably not what he meant by sadness anyway, since depression tends to lie deeper than ordinary emotional pain.
Still, I think it’s helpful to deal with pain in ways that allow some form of escape or relief, since most pain is temporary … even if, in the moment, it doesn’t feel that way.
For me personally, it’s the belief that my body can only produce a limited amount of emotional pain — an amount I am still able to endure.
But there are also forms of pain that kill the meta-narrative and you wouldn’t be able to tell yourself a way out.
A really interesting read! Thanks!
in addition, sadness might really be brought on by a chemical imbalance in the brain. I believe this is why some people committed suicide, I am talking about smart people, like David Foster Wallace. I think it almost impossible that someone like him did not consider what Spinoza said. For some people it's not just 'sadness' but a lot more, it seems. Then you have people who committed suicide because a woman rejected them, these kind of ridiculous and pathetic reasons. This is certainly moral weakness and where what Spinoza was saying, would apply, I believe.