the (un)examined life

nothing is permanent, everything is insubstantial

The cradle rocks above the abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness – Vladimir Nabokov

I have been privileged to be introduced to Irvin and Marilyn Yalom through the sheer brilliance of Piatkus’ elegant design of the book that they wrote together, about two years ago in late 2022. I only exercise my right to judge solely based on appearance (at least i hope so) when it comes to books. As luck would have it, I landed myself with a 200 pages long of wisdom and a beautiful love story which came to be, by deliberating extensively on death, and inevitably, life too. It brings me back to the memory of how my core belief system was cultivated during childhood, shaping my perception of these existential considerations.

Over time, they gradually deviated from a theological course to a spiritual one under the influence of literature and philosophy.

At a tender age of seven, I was taught to believe that death is a destination where everyone will be directed to a place of their own choosing. This choice has to be made when one is still alive. This choice involves embracing a set of beliefs and ensuring that you live by them. This choice is absolute. Making this choice would mean believing that those who did not, will not be safe.

For the longest time, I was taught to believe in the concept of having to make this absolute choice. I was taught to believe that it was the only way to live. Embrace a fixed set of rules, and I shall be safe. I shall earn myself a place in paradise. Little did I know that this choice was not entirely mine in the first place. I wasn’t presented with a list of options; I was obliged to accept this choice as my ancestors have done their progenies a favour by ensuring that all should be born into a life that embrace the absolute choice by default.

The default option came with absolute terms for death. All you need to do is live by the rules, and you’ll be rewarded. There is an obsessive fixation on trivial matters – one’s dietary restrictions, one’s attire, one’s perceived role in society, all of which, if weren’t given so much time and energy, could be redirected to more pressing issues: how we all can make the world a better place through kindness and compassion without any forms of prejudice.

As I grew older and observed injustices especially imbalanced gender experiences within this absolute choice, I began to have questions which the absolute choice do not have answers to. It seemed suspicious to me that one gender is expected to serve while the other has leverage over most aspects of life such as finances, marital status, and the other’s sexual decisions. While it can be seemingly fitting during the primitive age, in hindsight, it can be understood that those standards were derived from natural phenomenon – the female anatomy leaves them vulnerable to the consequence of imposed sexual acts or any type of violence (ironically the partiality towards them further perpetuate heinous acts by the very group of individuals who made those standards). But we have moved on from such a circumstance where we are all free to choose, and of course protect ourselves as well – save for the great nation which is currently regressing to the 18th century “make america great degenerates again”.

It does not stop at one gender’s superiority over the other – in the household, in politics etc – the incredulity of this absolute choice exposes unabashedly its controlling nature through dietary restrictions, daily devotions, expedition to the holy land and most of all, obsessive fixation on trivial matters such as attire. Of course these only apply to women who have to be mindful not to arouse the opposite sex with their sense of fashion and not surprisingly, it has been conveyed that adherence to this should all be done in one’s devotion to the omnipotence. I always wonder if I’m the only one overly tickled by this line of logic.

I was of course, a big believer by indoctrination and influence. Had I not been exposed to literature and philosophy, I would have remained one. What reading taught me was that there were other ways to perceive the world and this in itself, is a great example that one is not confined or compelled to embrace the first option that is presented to them. One should be allowed to question and explore. One ought to have the freedom to deliberate on what death and life mean.

We are born free and we should rightly remain so. We ought to be free to choose in all aspects of our lives. From trivial decisions like what we can eat and how we want to present ourselves to major ones like who we want to be and who we choose to love. What the Yaloms have taught me in their book is that to live a life that is truly meaningful is to be able to bring not just your true self but your highest self forward – this means not having to sweat the small stuff, they consume too much of your energy. You’ll also have to remember that you are free, that life is long until it’s not, and that nothing is permanent. 

Be free to live. Be free to love. Only then, will you feel free to leave when the time comes for you to go.

My relationship with Philosophy started when I encountered one of Socrates’ famous dictums, claiming that the only certainty he has about anything was the fact that he knows nothing. It was such an honour to be acquainted with both Philosophy and Socrates through six simple words that hold so much weight.

Greek —           Ξέρω πως δεν ξέρω τίποτα
English —         I know that I know nothing

In that moment, I wish I had stumbled upon it sooner. Perhaps even if I did, I would not have access to the true meaning of Socrates’ words. My untrained mind would have opposed such a proclamation – how is it even possible that anyone can know nothing. Surely, one must have accumulated knowledge through formal or informal education while growing up. It reminded me of something a religious preacher mentioned about scriptures. In the past when the rate of literacy was low, laypeople were not allowed to have access to religious scriptures because they could be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Fast forward to modern times, the religious preacher indicated that one should get oneself educated before delving into those scriptures. My 9-year-old mind felt that this was discriminatory because at that time, I believed that truth ought to be accessible to all, not just those who could afford education. While I credit the religious educators on their best intentions, more can be done to clarify such statements to impressionable minds.

It was only when I morphed into a full-fledged bookworm that I began to reflect on those words. My childhood was spent reading fiction and as I approached teenhood, I moved on to more serious literature. It was then that I was acquainted with Philosophy, spending the following years consuming it as much as I could as I was hungry for answers to questions that religion could not provide. Well, religion did provide some answers but they weren’t to my satisfaction. Here’s where Socrates came in and changed my life. It dawned on me that the panacea to conflicts lies in his proclamation, if only everyone was taught it when they embark on life’s arduous journey of attaining knowledge.

So, what was it that Socrates was trying to say. Here’s my understanding of it.

It is impossible to know everything. Even when you get yourself trained and specialised in one area of study, there are many aspects to that subject which you will not have access to unless you study those too. But when you delve into them, it is inevitable that they lead to other aspects or areas of study. Hence, knowledge and information are infinite. It is metaphysically impossible to know a whole subject, let alone everything else.

Socrates engaged a hyperbole to teach us that we can all be equals through our universal ignorance. Truly then, if we had access to this wisdom, conflicts can be resolved through compromise. Thinking back to the religious preacher, I could appreciate her caution against the ignorant accessing the scriptures. However, she failed to include misguided – either by hubris or greed – intellects. Both the ignorant and misguided intellects are equally dangerous but the latter leverages on the former to support their causes. We see this happening around the world as countries fight for dominance through political manipulations. On the individual level, friends grow spiteful, families get torn apart, children get bullied, all because one party believes that they are better than the other. They are certain that they know more, that they know better.

The mere claim of knowing more should be investigated further. Only when we’re willing to engage in a discussion, as open-minded interlocutors, can we then embrace our universal ignorance and act kinder towards each other. Maybe if we focus on mandating good character as soon as a child is born, instead of perpetuating established systems, cultivating unnecessary hatred towards any groups of people and, indoctrinating solutions to problems generated by previous generations, can we then dream of a better future for the world.

How about if we were all welcomed into the world with a knowledge hymn instead of the usual rush to ensure the certainty of a deity or badgering on the rules of life (both inevitably cultivating a victim mindset), which vary within each cultural household.

We could start with a slightly positive twist to Socrates’ dictum:

We know everything, and yet we know nothing

Only then can we start an honest conversation about life, and everything else that comes with it.