Macleans:
This is a paradox, isn’t it, making meaningful films about the meaninglessness of existence?Woody Allen:
I have no real answers or knowledge of these things, I only have my feelings about them, and I’m ready to explore all the possibilities. My own personal conclusion concurs with what seems to be the everyday finding of our physicists, that it was an accident, that it will end, and it was just an odd little phenomenon that has no meaning, that [it] wasn’t created by any super-being or with any design, it’s just a chance phenomenon and a micro-speck in an overwhelming, violent universe, and it will end, and everything that Shakespeare did and Beethoven did, all of that will be gone, and every planet will be gone, every star will be gone–down the line–but that’s where we’re headed, out of nothing to nothing.And yet the trick, to me, seems to be to find, not meaning, but to be able to live with that and to enjoy life. By enjoy it I don’t mean sybaritically, I mean to be able to find some kind of MO where you can enjoy your life, even if it’s abstemious and you spend your life in a monastery and you enjoy culturing flowers and pea pods every morning or something, but if that will get you through it in some decent way, that’s the best you can hope for.
To live with the awful truth, we’re endowed with this denial mechanism. Some people have less of a denial mechanism than others, but without it, if you faced the real truth all the time, it’s very, very unpleasant.
From a Macleans interview with Woody Allen (volume 121, number 1, January 14, 2008)
Yep, he sums up pretty well the fact that his way to deal with life’s uncertainty is to take an arbitrary and ill-informed view of life and consider it to be the definitive truth.
He says « I’m ready to explore all the possibilities ». But is he really? He then speaks of his « own personal conclusion ». So, is he still exploring or has he found the truth? He seems to think that he has found the truth, and even that he knows how it feels to face it all the time :
« Some people have less of a denial mechanism than others, but without it, if you faced the real truth all the time, it’s very, very unpleasant. »
But how would he know? May I suggest that Woody is simply trying to deny uncertainty and replace it with certainty? May I suggest that this unpleasantness simply comes from facing falsehood?
He then adds that this conclusion of his « concurs with what seems to be the everyday finding of our physicists. » May I suggest that his view of the everyday finding of our physicists needs an upgrade?
Let’s ask some scientists :
« [Is mind] primary or an accidental consequence of something else? The prevailing view among biologists seems to be that the mind arose accidentally out of molecules of DNA or something. I find that very unlikely. It seems more reasonable to think that mind was a primary part of nature from the beginning and we are simply manifestations of it at the present stage of history. It’s not so much that mind has a life of its own but that mind is inherent in the way the universe is built. – Interview with Freeman Dyson in U.S.News and World Report, April 18, 1988, 72. »
« The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment. – Bernard d’Espagnat, “The Quantum Theory and Reality,†Scientific American, Vol. 241, No. 5 (November 1979), pp. 158-181. »
« Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experiments in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. – Erwin Schroedinger (Schrodinger (1961) claims that the Vedic slogan “All in One and One in All†was an idea that led him to the creation of quantum mechanics.) »
(More quotes at the bottom of this post : http://thedailypoligraf.stewart-explorations.net/?p=595)
The real « awful truth » that Woody can’t face is that there’s no answer yet. Scientist have yet to complete their task, so how can one reasonably suppose that everything is understood, basing oneself upon incomplete findinds? Maybe tomorrow another Einstein will discover something that’ll turn everything upside down once again. Who knows, really?
Now I want to read Woody’s response to Christopher!
Christopher, the quote starts out with « I have no real answers or knowledge of these things, I only have my feelings about them, and I’m ready to explore all the possibilities. »
How does that conflict with your saying « The real ‘awful truth’ that Woody can’t face is that there’s no answer yet. »?
He’s not saying he’s got the answer, he’s saying these are his feelings based on the evidence he sees and how he feels.
To me, his whole reply says « I have no answer, and here it is! »
(seems like the kind of joke he would find funny… ;o) )
Seriously, it seems to me that for someone who’s « ready to explore all the possibilities, » he doesn’t try very hard. I mean, I know it can be hard to lose one’s attachment to doom and gloom, but if one is to choose an arbitrary worldview there are better possibilities than this.
Thank you for this. He’s not often interviewed. It’s nice to hear what he’s up to.
To Christopher: When you say « there are better possibilities… » what are you basing your judgement on?
@ Hugo : to me, the worldview that Woody is describing is dangerous because it can lead straight to apathy and disengagement. You know, « what’s the point, if it’s all meaningless and it’s going to vanish in the end anyway, give me something (alcohol, dope, pills, tv, paste your favorite) to numb my brain and get me through the day until it’s all over. »
Or it can lead to individualism, materialism, consumerism. « If we’re all headed for the void anyway, let’s have fun while we’re here, who cares for the repercussions of our actions! Let’s lie to each other and steal from each other! The people we don’t know are just chance phenomena and fated-to-die-micro-specks and we don’t feel their pain anyway. As long as we’re materially rich and we get what we want, who cares if we deplete the planet, and who cares if it makes us sicker and sicker by the day! Let’s not think about that. Here, have a glass of wine with your pill while I’ll get us something to fill our oversized bellies. »
« We don’t know, but not knowing is unpleasant, so let decide that we do know, and then use that as a base to justify our course of action. And don’t tell us that we really don’t know yet, because that’s way too unsettling and we don’t have time for that because we already have more than enough on our hands as it is and surely that can’t be because of our worldview. And please don’t ask what’s the logic of abhorring religion and at the same time putting our faith in a scientific model full of laws and dogmas and mysteries that we assume we fully understand even if it’s still under construction and most probably based on an unfounded assumption. »
Again, if one is to choose an arbitrary worldview while we try to understand what’s really going on, what’s this experience we call life, at least make it one that promotes humanity and preservation and openness and exploration. Don’t you think it’s better?
I don’t know if Woody Allen can ever be taken that seriously. We have to remember that he became famous and popular because of that « doom and gloom » of his, and the way he plays with the concept.
@Christopher: Thinking the way he does doesn’t necessarily lead to disengagement. You can have that point of view but decide that since we’re all in this together, we better try to make things easier for one another and promote humanity and openness. You become motivated by civility, respect, and the desire to make things better for all humans (and all life forms while you’re at it), without relying on an external code of conduct that tells you what’s right and wrong (and threatens to eventually punish you if you don’t stay in line).
And what’s the scientific « unfounded assumption » that you are referring to?
Now, Martine : YOU sum it up really well. ;-)
@Martine : I agree, of course (« … it CAN lead straight to apathy and disengagement… », « Or it CAN lead to individualism… »). In my opinion, some worldviews don’t foster that kind of attitude, at least not as directly as fundamental materialism can.
The assumption that everything in the universe can be represented as a bunch of fundamental particles interacting with each other (i.e. the atomic model of Democritus), seems incompatible with some of the findings of quantum physics (e.g. see the quotes in my original reply and/or those in the post linked above). Some of the physicists who have explored that road even postulate that what we call conscience is fundamental, matter being only one of its derivative.
In that perspective, others hypotheses, such as the idea that the laws of physics are invariant throughout the whole of time and space, are probably assumptions too.
To me, religions are better viewed as knowledge bases from which it is possible to acquire rich and rare teachings and better understand human nature, and reducing them to codes of conduct and threats of punishments is erring by superficiality.
Sure, here in the province of Quebec we haven’t been exactly well treated in the past by our former Christian authorities, but still, judging religious beliefs according to the use some people make/have made of them is like mistaking the performance of the car for those of its driver.
From personal study and experience, I would say that Buddhism is a most excellent illustration of how religion can be an evolving framework to be tried and tested and adapted as one grows, a vehicle that one can effectively put to good use on the road of life.
As for codes of conduct and punishments, one doesn’t need religion for that. Just take a good hard look at how our society is organized, and at how we treat each other. Codes of conduct and punishments are everywhere, and I’m not talking about the written, legal kind. I’m referring to the unwritten kind, the way people who are different, or behave differently, or who hold different beliefs, be they john does, immigrants, political figures, or even the pope, are sometimes being treated by individuals who think they know better.
« To me, religions are better viewed as knowledge bases from which it is possible to acquire rich and rare teachings and better understand human nature, and reducing them to codes of conduct and threats of punishments is erring by superficiality. »
Reading this, I am tempted to say that this reduction we are talking about is practiced by a vast majority of people in the world who call themselves religious. People who are interested in the true, challenging teaching at the base of their religion seem rare these days, but you are right that we cannot judge a car on the quality of its driver.
Then again… If a certain kind of car seems to generate irrational behavior in most of its driver, we’re allowed to start questioning its original design. ;-)
It all comes down to choice, yes. It’s about choosing a vision that allows us to get through life. As Woody Allen said: « And yet the trick, to me, seems to be to find, not meaning, but to be able to live with that and to enjoy life. »
I think he probably meant more in « enjoying life » than this interview accounted for. Or maybe I’m reading more into it!
I think gloom doesn’t have to oppose openness, or doom oppose preservation. Promoting humanity in fact would be taking into account all these seeming contradictions. I think what Woody is saying is to try to enjoy life despite its finite nature. It matters little whether the planet will explode, expand, implode, or not. The ultimate finitude is the death of the individual; even the individual who speculates on the Earth’s tragic fate.
For someone who’s into open-ness, you seem to have a hard time dealing with fatalist attitudes!
>>> Reading this, I am tempted to say that this reduction we are talking about is practiced by a vast majority of people in the world who call themselves religious.
It’s tempting to agree, but then again I don’t know the vast majority of people in the world who call themselves religious, so I’d rather not make the assumption… ;o)
>>> Then again… If a certain kind of car seems to generate irrational behavior in most of its driver, we’re allowed to start questioning its original design. ;-)
We’re always allowed to question its original design… ;o)
That a behaviour is perceived as irrational by some doesn’t make that behaviour irrational. For instance, perhaps some perceivers think they understand the whole context in which the behaviour arises when in fact they don’t, and thus come to an incorrect conclusion. Perhaps by actually following the impulse to question, they would get to the information they miss and understand the rationale of the situation.
On the other hand, that a behaviour is perceived as rational by some doesn’t make that behaviour healthy. For instance, it would seems reasonable enough to simply cut oneself off from a part of one’s mind which has been wounded or which is hard to assume. But is it healthy ?
In my experience, human beings have, by their very nature, « inner necessities » that justify some of their stances and/or behaviours. By inner necessities I mean those recognitions that we can block for a while using denial mechanisms, but that we simply can’t suppress completely.
A very good illustration of such an inner necessity is at the heart of the story of Michel Leblanc / Michelle Blanc (http://www.michelleblanc.com/2008/01/12/pas-par-quatre-chemins/).
Love is another, probably more universally experienced.
In the end, that behaviours are perceived by some as rational or irrational has little relevancy as far as the individual is concerned in as much as inner necessities have to be acknowledged and acted upon.
>>> I think what Woody is saying is to try to enjoy life despite its finite nature.
I disagree. To me, what Woody is saying is to try to enjoy life despite one’s belief in its finite nature.
>>> It matters little whether the planet will explode, expand, implode, or not. The ultimate finitude is the death of the individual; even the individual who speculates on the Earth’s tragic fate.
Objection your honor! The witness is being irrational by mistaking his belief system for the definitive truth. Who can truly claim to know the ultimate finitude of the individual without having experienced it for themselves ?
If we believe that matter is fundamental, then surely it can be hard to imagine that life can be anything but finite, and that conscience can remain when the body dies.
If we believe that conscience is fundamental, then it matters little whether the whole material universe explodes, expands, implodes, or morphs into the primeval chicken who lays the primeval egg (and not the other way around). It matters little whether the physical body is dead or is alive.
But at this point in history, who can claim to know which one is fundamental ? Shouldn’t we keep exploring instead of pretending we know that Earth’s fate is indeed tragic?
>>> For someone who’s into open-ness, you seem to have a hard time dealing with fatalist attitudes!
Choose your favourite :
a) « Seem » being the operative word here… ;o)
b) Hmmm… I’m not sure Hugo. To me, this whole dialogue could be taken by some as undeniable proof that I deal rather well with « fatalist attitudes. » May I suggest that you are projecting your own discomfort ?
c) Fatalist: « Anyone who submits to the belief that they are powerless to change their destiny. » Aren’t destiny and meaninglessness in contradiction ?
d) I just have a hard time dealing with belief systems that don’t acknowledge themselves as such, and/or present themselves as definitive summations of that which is, generating disrespectful behaviours in some of their proponents.
Choose carefully now, or you could change your destiny! ;o)
@Christopher: Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to write about this issue/choice/philosophy on my blog. Your vision is challenging… and you’d make a great lawyer! ;-)