Tag Archives: philosophy?

Sorry Good Will Hunting, I Need that T.P.S. Report By Monday

Two movies from the late 1990’s stand out as favorites, for me and many others: Office Space and Good Will Hunting.

Both truly stand the test of time, and entertain now just about as well as as they did when released. Both also have something to say about what “Work” is, and what kind of man should pursue what line of it, and what’s respectable or questionable about the choices they make along the way.

Construction labor plays an understated role in both narratives, repelling one protagonist and rescuing the other. Will Hunting (Matt Damon) begins his story as a workman, who is encouraged and motivated to find his way into a more intellectual profession. Peter (Ron Livingston) begins his story as a cubicle drone, who is encouraged and motivated to find his way into a more physically laborious occupation. For what it’s worth, Will Hunting lives in a dramatic universe, and Peter lives in a comedic one – but through its dry humor, Office Space manages to leave the viewer with a moral aftertaste just as significant as Good Will Hunting’s.

I don’t have a grand thesis to accompany to this comparison, it’s just something I noticed and that I’ve wanted to share for a while. I feel like these two movies are celebrated more than most others as time capsules of their era, but I’ve never heard any critic stand them up next to each other for comparison. On the surface they’re wonderfully different films, but at their core, both represent the challenges of a man trying to discover his true calling.

Let’s look at how each character begins his journey:

Here’s Will Hunting, on the job –

And here’s Peter, working –

But by the end of each film, their roles have reversed.

Peter, on the job:

Will, working:

Good Will Hunting (1997) was released two years before Office Space (1999.) It’s reasonable to assume Mike Judge had seen Good Will Hunting as he was writing and directing his film, but who knows whether he was intentionally making a response, or had even registered a connection between the stories.

Nearly twenty years later, enough time has passed for the once brilliant jokes to go just a bit stale, and without their original novelty, these two films now seem to have a lot more in common than they were originally meant to. How’dya like them apples?

the Obstacle is the Way

Ryan Holiday, ‘The Obstacle Is The Way: The Timeless Art Of Turning Trials Into Triumph.’  2014 Portfolio Hardcover, 224 p. 

Holiday’s premise, and that of the philosophers whom he quotes rigorously, is that any challenge in life is best met head on. I was immediately intrigued by the book’s brash attitude. Over and over again, the point was made that obstacles, challenges and trials are essential to the human experience, and attempting to live without them or constantly avoid them is meaningless and harmful.

Breaking the philosophy into three distinct methods, he highlights Perspective, Action, and Will as the means to defeat any hardship.

Perspective, the first, defines how to approach a setback. It is the “fundamental notion that girds not just Stoic philosophy but cognitive psychology: Perspective is everything.” Take an obstacle for what it is: not how it makes you feel, what it might imply for the future, what its cause may have been, etc; these curiosities are just a distraction that do not contribute to its defeat. There is power in the fluidity of perspective, and that facility is an advantage over the stasis of an obstacle.

“Don’t feel harmed – and you haven’t been.” – Marcus Aurelius

The second discipline is Action. “What people who defy the odds do… They start. Anywhere. Anyhow. They don’t care if the conditions are perfect or if they’re being slighted. Because they know that once they get started, if they can just get some momentum, they can make it work.” Action is what follows perspective: once we condition ourselves that an obstacle is only fearful if we think of it as fearful, then we may act to overcome it. Historical examples are packed in to illustrate this concept: Ameila Earhart flew in the face of doubt and discrimination, Ulysses Grant suffered hard losses and had to discard military convention, Thomas Edison experimented with six thousand possible filaments to use in his first light bulb. These stories of right and persistent action “…are not the exception to the rule. They are the rule. This is how innovation works,” says the author. An obstacle requires action, and right action grows naturally stronger according to the weight of the obstacle.

“When the fire is strong, it soon appropriates to itself the matter which is heaped on it, and consumes it, and rises higher by means of this very material.” – Marcus Aurelius

Will. “Our final trump card.” The third discipline of beating challenges. Will is the essence of the fight, and as described in the book’s final section, it is the last thing we may hold on to when action seems to fall short. We may change our perspective, and we may begin to act – but when the first act fails, and the second act follows – it is will that will stand us back up for a third, fourth, or fiftieth try. Abraham Lincoln is offered as the personification of willpower: he was raised in poverty, but educated himself. He lost his mother as a child, his first romantic love passed away, yet he found political office. He suffered from what is now understood as clinical depression, but in his time was just considered an unattractive personal habit of ‘melancholy.’ In spite of all his disadvantages, he often repeated the phrase – “This too shall pass.”

Meditation on the persistence of obstacles is a way to enhance the will: “Behind mountains are more mountains.” Being certain that another challenge exists after the current one means that slowing down or losing strength can only make the next problem more difficult. Being persistently mindful of the cyclical nature of opposition strengthens the will.

In the book’s last pages, a Stoic Reading List is prepared. Inspired by this contemporary reading of classical concepts, I dug out my old copy of Epictetus’, ‘the Art of Living,’ to see how much of Holiday’s narrative was comparable to the wisdom of the ancients. Epictetus states: “Men are not disturbed by things, but by the views which they take on things.”  My copy of  ‘the Art…’ which had sat untouched on a shelf for years, has since been relocated to my bedside. Now I can take 5 minutes every day to remind myself: The Obstacle Is The Way.

 

 

the Four Hour “Lorem Ipsum”

What would I do with the extra thirty-six if I only had to work for four hours, every week?

In Tim Ferris’ book, The Four Hour Workweek, the answer to that question is given less attention than the ‘how-to’ guide for finding oneself in such a quandary. As he recounts his own experience, the author presents the alternative ‘new rich’ lifestyle of time spent dwelling nomadically through Europe, learning languages, and adopting several new ‘kinesthetic’ activities per year as the alternative to cubicle-dwelling wage slavery.

For a creative mind, some of the ideas might be poisonous to accept – Ferris proposes a ‘physical product’ driven business as the only path to a life of R&R; he argues that selling widgets, gidgets and gadgets is the easiest framework for removing oneself from the day-to-day operations of a financial enterprise. Artists, singers, athletes, counselors, teachers, beware – there are no four hour workweeks in your future, if you can’t outsource the manufacture & fulfillment of your muses to virtual assistants in India.

After drawing up thorough instructions on how to pick a market and jump in to the sales fray, Ferris takes a moment to reflect on what it will feel like, when you’ve done enough outsourcing to travel leisurely around the world and spend only brief moments checking email to run your business: ‘It will be hard at first.’

He says it’s in this extra downtime when you’ll come face-to-face with big questions – ‘What’s the meaning of everything?’  Ferris asserts that dwelling on the intangibles may be avoided by frequent jiu-jitsu or tango dancing lessons.

The motivational and analytical quotations peppered into the text are enriching, and appear so often that readers may subconsciously find them as one of the most compelling reasons to keep turning pages. From Machiavelli:

“All courses of action are risky, so prudence is not in avoiding danger (it’s impossible), but calculating risk and acting decisively. Make mistakes of ambition and not mistakes of sloth. Develop the strength to do bold things, not the strength to suffer.” 

The wealth of quotes are thoughtful, and despite the book’s overall ridiculousness, they complement several other useful tidbits buried in the impossible mission of spending only four hours per week doing actual work. For example, the few paragraphs on speed reading were unexpectedly helpful.

With his big plan and fancy quotes, Ferris seems all set to kick up his feet with an umbrella drink and live the dream. But hasn’t this question of one’s obligation to forgo personal pleasure in the name of societal duties been around for a while?

In the publishing industry, for hundreds and hundreds of years, the Latin text ‘Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet…’ (attributed to Cicero, 45 B.C.) has been used as placeholding filler for typesetters to use before final copy was ready. In translation, Lorem Ipsum states…

‘We denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue.’

Uncountable drafts of novels, newspapers, and magazines have used this quote in their creation process. Gutenberg himself may have plated it out. Whatever reason one chooses to argue for its selection, its ancient dictum is stark: Concentrating only on pleasure is bad.

Yet, here is Tim Ferris, flying in the face of 500 years of publishing tradition with an entire volume dedicated to enriching the lives of ‘men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms and pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire…

I’m searching here for some thread of irony in The Four Hour Workweek’s reliance on quotes from big thinkers (Seneca, Thoreau, Bruce Lee…) yet in the end, the author repulses at ‘coming face to face with the big questions.’ And as a reader, after completing the book, you might be wondering whose advice to follow…

Tim Ferris, with a few years on the best seller list under his belt, questing for 80% pleasure and only 20% work?  Or Cicero, and his thousands of years of placeholder-text wisdom: “in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted.”

Perhaps it’s a bit demanding to expect that The Four Hour Workweek will match the lofty ideals set forth by the people whom it quotes (or who its typesetters quoted.) Its presentation is gimmicky, but underneath the goo, there lives some valuable advice and reasonable calls for reflection on the profit-driven and time-crunched modern lifestyle.

 

Parking Lot Philosophy

If the same problem is reached by two different means, should the solving of it any different?

Consider two different people driving two different cars, arriving in a parking lot. The first person is a wealthy older man, driving an expensive car who intentionally parks in the middle of two parking spaces.

The second person is a hurried young mother, two children in tow, who accidentally parks her van too far over in one parking space for the next one to be accessable.

Both of these people have caused the same problem – a parking space is blocked. My reaction to seeing them was different, because of their intent and context of the situation.

If someone needed that blocked parking space, it wouldn’t matter to them the circumstances of why its unavailable. Is it human nature to resent the wealthy guy, but not the mother?

Should people who break the rules on purpose be treated differently than people who break the rules by accident?

Does the establishment of rules imply that there is no such thing as an accident, and that a person should be paying such close attention to the rules at all times that they should never be in a situation that would allow them to be broken?

Should we all just ride bicycles?