Bored to Death
by R.J. Snell
March 25, 2011
We live in days of distraction.

In his book A Secular Age, Charles Taylor distinguishes between the enchanted and disenchanted worlds. The pre-modern person lived in an enchanted world where meaning was not created but rather found in things themselves—the world was full, sometimes frighteningly full, of meaning. A bone fragment from a saint retained the sanctity and curative power of the saint, rogation days were particularly good days for planting crops and ensured a bountiful harvest, or a procession of the Virgin’s image could drive evil spirits away, for things themselves possessed their own meanings and powers, and persons lived alongside those meanings rather than creating them. Consider the popular beliefs associated with Candlemas in the late medieval period whereby the candles themselves were thought capable of protecting people from storm, sickness, and devil, or, if used by witches, of bringing harm and torment. A culture that believed in such things was likely to have a stance towards the world and its things which assumed that the world was “charged,” full of meaning, and thus to be respected, and sometimes manipulated, according to the understood rules of that world.

Things are quite different for the contemporary, postmodern Western person, occupying a disenchanted world, an uncharged world, where things are thought to mean only according to the meanings we provide to things.

So while on a given day in either 1450 or 2011 a person could alike feel irritated or angry or greedy, still the conditions of belief have changed so substantially between that charged religious world and this disenchanted secular world that the meanings of those stances are quite different. If one was alienated and estranged from the ordering of the universe in 1450, one was alienated, in a very real sense, from the ordering chosen by God; if one is alienated from the universe in 2011, one is alienated from nothing really, just a coldly impersonal set of forces. The historical and social situation has changed the meaning of our possible stances towards the world, and, correspondingly, to the possible meanings of our world.

To be a human is always to face the world with a particular stance and from a particular position. Unlike the dispassionately staring camera, we dwell in the world in a variety of moods and places, changing not just ourselves but our worlds of meaning as we do so. If my stance towards the world is one of eager and passionate interest, I tend to find the world sparkling and captivating. If I rather aggressively seek profit and gain, I tend to find the world and its inhabitants as resources or competitors. If I am bored, the world will fail to engage.

This is true of each and every person, and since each of us takes a particular stance at a given time, we will not always inhabit similar worlds of meaning—yours is now captivating, mine is now an irritant—even while we may be quite near each other in space and time, perhaps even in the presence of each other. Still, despite the particularity, as social and historical beings we might expect certain tendencies to emerge whereby persons in one cultural space, even when maintaining their own personal differences, share a vision of the world that tends not to be found in other cultural spaces.

I suggest that the stance toward the world most evident in the historical and social space of contemporary Western life is a stance of boredom. Many of us no longer find the world beautiful, or good, or of worth, and since the world and the things of the world are quite worthless in themselves, they bore us. Of course, since we too are inhabitants of this world without worth, we find almost no worth in other persons either, or in ourselves. At the same time, many find this boredom impossible to give up—we like this stance, we like the boredom—because the meaninglessness of the world allows us to treat it and others and ourselves exactly as we wish. We are free! Since the world, for us, does not have the weight of glory, we owe it nothing and can do with it precisely as we wish. But a culture of freedom without truth, a culture where freedom is unchecked by the good of being, ends up as a culture of death. Our bored culture is a culture actively engaging in a revolt against limits, place, order, and we are willing to harm and kill our world, each other—especially the weakest among us—and ourselves in a pique of freedom.

To live in a disenchanted, unencumbered world of freedom intoxicates us, to be sure, but it also casts us adrift existentially, morally, and spiritually. “What are we to do?” “What are we for?” “What is the good life?”—these and other questions are complicated in a culture where freedom itself is a final authority, and freedom that cannot be thickly defined because of the fear that definition would limit, define, and spell an end to freedom. We simply don’t know why we exist, and we hate any answer which might compel us to limit our empty freedom and actually attain the good.

Freedom is for us, now, an idol, and our conception of freedom is so absolute that we increasingly perceive any limits to be illicit and impermissible—I think of the old slogan from 1968, “it is forbidden to forbid.” So absolute are the demands of our new god that even the limits of place, of body, of community, of our own human nature, are thought a trap.  Our new freedom, this freedom from dwelling in the density of being, is a prison—a prison of freedom. Flattened and unhooked from reality, our lives can seem arbitrary and insignificant, and only an increasingly shrill insistence of our own significance remains—an insistence bearing no weight. This weightlessness, this unbearable lightness of being, results in the torpor of meaningless, the spiritually enervating results of a life considered not worth having or living.


R. J. Snell is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Philosophy Program at Eastern University.

Receive Public Discourse by email, become a fan of Public Discourse on Facebook, follow Public Discourse on Twitter, and sign up for the Public Discourse RSS feed.

Copyright 2011 the Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.


Public Discourse
Around the Web
Planned Parenthood's
Hostages

Robert George
O. Carter Snead

The Wall Street Journal

Pro-Life Aristotle
Christopher Kaczor
National Review Online

Does Sex Ed Undermine
Parental Rights?

Robert P. George
Melissa Moschella

The New York Times

Theology up for debate
at SCOTUS?

William P. Mumma
The Washington Post

Religion
and the Bad News Bearers
Rodney Stark and Byron Johnson
The Wall Street Journal

Protected in Law,
Cared for in Life
Ryan T. Anderson
First Things

Review of Wilhelm Ropke's
Political Economy
Ryan T. Anderson
First Things

Closing the Book on Open Marriage
W. Bradford Wilcox
The Washington Post

How to Reduce Ricidivism?
With Faith-Based Volunteers
Byron Johnson
Dallas Morning News

Sex and the Empire State
Robert P. George
National Review Online

Religion, Reason,
and Same-Sex Marriage
Matthew J. Franck
First Things

Review of Apples of Gold in Pictures of Silver
Ryan T. Anderson
First Things

How Freedom Rings
Ryan T. Anderson
Weekly Standard

Goodbye to Globalisation
Harold James and Matteo Albanese
Project Syndicate

The Gosnell Case and American Abortion Law
Matthew J. Franck
National Review

Present at the Creation
Ryan T. Anderson
National Review

Debt and Democracy
Harold James
Project Syndicate

American Identity and the Challenge of Islam
Jennifer S. Bryson
Contending Modernities

Playing the Hate Card
Matthew J. Franck
Washington Post

What Is Marriage?
Sherif Girgis
Robert P. George
Ryan T. Anderson

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

The Changing Culture War
Ross Douthat
New York Times

Unmarried with Kids
Jennifer Luden
NPR

The Politics of Humanity
David Tubbs
American Spectator

Laws of Thought
Ryan T. Anderson
National Review

Religious Respect a Two-Way Street
Jennifer Bryson and Robert P. George
Philadelphia Inquirer

The Generation That Can't Move On Up
Andrew J. Cherlin and W. Bradford Wilcox
Wall Street Journal

Reject "Burn a Quran Day"
Jennifer S. Bryson
Washington Post

Review of Reasonable Faith
Ryan T. Anderson
First Things

Review of The Social and Political Thought Benedict XVI
Ryan T. Anderson
First Things

Free to Choose
Ryan T. Anderson
Weekly Standard

Vast Dangers - Confirmed
Hadley Arkes
First Things

Daddy Was Only a Donor
W. Bradford Wilcox
Wall Street Journal

To the Teapartiers
Luis Tellez
Daily Caller

A New Voice for the American Right
John Haldane
Standpoint

Confused on Fertilization
Patrick Lee and Robert P. George
National Review

Lame Ducks in Love
Harold James
Project Syndicate

Review of God, Philosophy and the University
Ryan T. Anderson
First Things

Review of Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide
Ryan T. Anderson
First Things

The Weight of Smut
Mary Eberstadt
First Things

Faith in Government
Ryan T. Anderson
Weekly Standard

The Victims of Internet Pornography
Katherine Kersten
Minneapolis Star-Tribune

The Nixon Shock Doctrine Revisited
Harold James
Project Syndicate

Getting Serious About Pornography
Anonymous
National Review

The Liberal Dance with Incoherence
Hadley Arkes
The Catholic Thing

The Lukewarm Generation
W. Bradford Wilcox
First Things

Back to Basics
Ryan T. Anderson
National Review

Last Lecture
James R. Stoner
First Principles

Why Big Banks Will Get Bigger
Harold James
Turkish Weekly

Love in an Economic Downturn
W. Bradford Wilcox
National Review

The Return of British Anti-Semitism
Gabriel Schoenfeld
The Weekly Standard

Robert P. George:
The Conservative-Christian Big Thinker
David D. Kirkpatrick
The New York Times

Can the Recession Save Marriage?
W. Bradford Wilcox
The Wall Street Journal

The Holy Seers
Ryan T. Anderson
The Weekly Standard

Voice of Love, Hand of Repression
Hadley Arkes
The Catholic Thing

Reason for Faith
Ryan T. Anderson
The Weekly Standard

The Evolution of Divorce
W. Bradford Wilcox
National Affairs

The Value of History
A review of Harold James
The Economist


Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts
Robert P. George
The Wall Street Journal
img