Try to live an ordinary life

When I called you to arrange an interview with you, a philosopher, about the meaning of life, you replied: it is illusory that philosophy helps us find it.

There are philosophers, such as Wittgenstein, who have argued that philosophy is a kind of therapy, but I do not believe it is. Philosophy can offer us how to understand the meaning of life, its purpose or happiness, but it does not provide ready-made formulas. It doesn't say: do this and then it will come true. You can do what philosophy praises and still find neither the meaning of life nor happiness.

So it is something completely different than coaching and self-help books in bookstores.

Yes, exactly. I value anything that helps people ease their suffering, and since I don't know much about coaching and self-help books, I avoid criticising them. I respect philosophy for treating people as adult, full-fledged entities, not as children who need to be told what to do. Authors of self-help books do not know you, but they show you a path. Nietzsche, Sontag, Wittgenstein and Murdoch say: "I see it this way and you are an adult, you have your sphere of freedom and you can do with it whatever you please."

My children come to me here, my son asks me if he can watch a cartoon. "No, because in two hours you are going to Franek's and we're going to have a film night in the evening," I say. "Go and take care of real life."

And did you know, mother, that watching and playing is also real life for them? This is a different generation, our meaning of life does not necessarily have to be the meaning of our children's lives.

I know that, but when Stach plays too much, everything else becomes unattractive to him. The stimuli from games and cartoons are so strong that other games pale, so he lies and is bored, which pisses me off, but I think mainly because I dream about lying down and becoming bored, but I can't.

See how interesting it is in the context of our conversation. In recent years, it has been rightly shown that the consumption of pleasure does not exhaust the meaning of human life. I have concluded that philosophers often speak to us with a sense of superiority, speaking from the perspective of a particular social class. When I criticise sinking into consumerism and pleasures, am I not also showing superiority? Kant said that a meaningful life is the use of rationality, but is that not the perspective of a person who is privileged because all their basic needs have been met?

I myself think that the space of the screen distracts the child and is addictive, but sometimes I wonder whether I wasn't doing the same as children in front of the screen today when as a teenager I was constantly reading books and using them as an escape.

I watched MTV non-stop as a teenager, and yet my mind developed properly.

Perhaps technologies can also give us the meaning of life?

But in all that is virtual, I am concerned about detachment from sensuality. You need to have a bit of Italian in you: eating, drinking, walking barefoot on the grass and having sex are the things that give meaning to your existence.

Philosophy does not write off the body. There are trends according to which sense should not be sought in lofty ideas, but in the implementation of direct contract with the world, and especially with other people.

It is quite classist to see the meaning of life only in the intellectual sublime. People without an education or innate intelligence also have the right to meaning in life.

Of course. The meaning of life as a rational reflection based on knowledge is attractive to a small group of people, and besides, why do we think it will make us happy?

Today, people often ask about the meaning of life out of concern for their own uniqueness. Now, as a philosopher, an educated person, belonging to some elite, I will tell you what this meaning of life is. I'm special, right? And walking barefoot on the grass or watching a series are available to everyone, so the possible sense of life that comes from them does not make anyone special. It bothers many people because they don't want to be ordinary.

The world of small things is close to me, I am a great fan of ordinariness. The need for the extraordinary will sooner or later lead us to hyper-individualism and an escape from community life. Besides, it forces competition: who is better? Whose children are more outstanding? It seems to me that from here it is very far from happiness and sense.

We have a lot of this racing in the bubble of our rather poor and rickety middle class.

But we should remember that this class also has the right to seek happiness. The question is whether we absolutely need to specify one universal model of it. Sartre would say that the meaning of life is manifested in choice. Of course, we may ask if we really have this choice, formatted by the modes of upbringing and socialisation, but Sartre's view is worth attention. I do not want to indiscriminately criticise the middle or upper class because I believe that the class into which a person is born is neither their fault nor their merit. And just as one should not judge the lower class, one should not condemn intellectuals like: "You know nothing, you just keep sitting with your noses in books all day and we work hard." It is hard to blame someone for being shaped by the conditions in which they found themselves and for using them to their advantage.

Our reality is insanely narcissistic, we all talk about ourselves all the time. It is difficult to be ordinary under these conditions.

Too bad. Where did the question about the meaning of life come from? From the fact that a sense of absurdity arises in people as to their existence. We ask ourselves if I was born into this world by accident. Philosophy looks for answers in the sphere it describes as "higher", "spiritual", "sublime". Today, uniqueness, and the supposed meaning of life behind it, are perfectly inscribed in the logic of contemporary capitalism. You wear some amazing clothes, you drink an amazing drink, you eat amazing food – these are mundane things, but we've given them an incredible rank. You'll buy another unusual piece of clothing, wrap another logo around you and find meaning in this. Philosophy replies that this will not work. Meaning does not come from what is "on the outside". Hence I am talking about ordinariness: hug someone, feed a child, read a book, do the usual job well. In this way, you can regain the sense of the non-absurdity of your existence. However, I do not know if we are able to come back to this at a time in which everything must be extraordinary. Which parent will say that they want an ordinary child and wishes them an ordinary life?

The pandemic won't help us? Maybe it's time to understand that our next trip to Bali, where all our friends have already been, won't give us meaning?

Perhaps. Though I wonder if the fact that we now perceive another human as a potential threat will not disrupt our wonderful tendency to seek relationships with other people. Generally, I observe with sadness that as soon as bans are lifted, we go shopping. There is a void in us today that we want to quickly fill.

Nonetheless, the pandemic has certainly made us think that we are finite beings. When we understand this, we also start looking for meaning, justification for our being. Life makes sense precisely because we are mortal. If we weren't, nothing would matter, everything could be changed, repeated, and implemented in a thousand different ways. Each day gains value because it can be the last one.

Since the meaning of life is not to be situated on the outside, but inside us, what about the pursuit of good?

Here we should say something about eudaimonia, meaning fulfilment understood as the realisation of a life that will give satisfaction and contentment, but at the same time a life that is improvement, blossoming in humanity. What does it mean? Philosophy suggests ways, that the point is to enthusiastically fulfil your needs, but not to hurt other people.

The children come, Lusia asks if I will tie a string on a bauble for her, because they are decorating the Christmas tree. "I'll do it later, put it over here," I say.

I had a thought but they came with the baubles and I forgot it.

Hanging baubles fits in well with our conversation. This is something we do only for a moment. We are going to take this Christmas tree down in a moment anyway, and yet we cherish this ritual. It gives us joy and a sense of meaning, as well as a certain sense of security resulting from repetition.

I want to ask you about not hurting, but I have to check on the kids because it's quiet. This is where my heart leaps in my throat because I have the impression that my daughter is hanging upside down from the bed before I realise it is a big teddy bear dressed in her clothes.

You say: do not hurt. Okay, I won't lie, steal, hit, offend. But what about buying a pair of trousers I need from a chain store? It was sewn in Bangladesh, and I do not know if it wasn't made by a woman or a child exploited for pennies by the company. But if I don't buy it, maybe I am condemning the woman to prostitution and the child to starvation?

Being a good person today is more difficult than ever. Our responsibility doesn't go that far, you have no direct influence on how the trousers were made. I think it is harmful in the long run to tell people that they are directly to blame for what is happening to the environment because they buy a lot and throw away a lot of rubbish. The crux of the problem lies not in the life of an individual, but in today's capitalist system. Sure, it matters whether you buy a blouse at a store or a second-hand shop, but it's still not your fault that kids are exploited in sewing rooms. These issues must become political, not single choice issues for an individual.

Therefore, I believe that it is better to focus on everyday life, because there it is easier for me to recognise where the harm for which I am responsible is taking place.

Stach comes in and asks if he can show his sister a game in Roblox. "Yes, but not a scary one. And no killing!" I call out to him.

Or maybe it is better that he plays at killing rather than to actually kill? There are studies showing that, for example, the Japanese watch very aggressive films, including hardcore porn, and perhaps thanks to this they do not have to implement this aggressiveness in the real world.

Or maybe a hobby or a passion can make life meaningful? Nowadays everyone does some form of climbing or parachuting.

I see here rather the need for the extraordinary and stimulation. We are surrounded by so many stimuli that when they momentarily disappear, everyday life becomes unattractive. The interesting thing is that we have to show the world everything we do in order to convince everyone and ourselves that we are extraordinary. The problem is that if we have to convince others about it, we probably doubt this uniqueness ourselves.

One can also be unusual in ordinariness. For example, in the simple act of baking bread. Everyone on my Facebook feed is baking bread.

You should note that someone's day is not made unusual only by baking bread, but by showing it on social media. I have been observing and analysing gossip portals for years, and there thing like, a celebrity going for a walk with a child, are announced in a very noisy way. Accompanied by a photo of an actress or singer with her pram. Is it about praising everyday life, or convincing someone that for some unknown reason everything a celebrity does is extraordinary? Ordinariness photographed and announced to the world via the Internet is not the ordinariness which I am striving to appreciate here.

Then let's talk about real relationships. Friendship seems to me to be the purest form of these because it is so voluntary and so precious, though not indispensable, unlike a roof over one's head or food.

Friendship can definitely be considered as the basis of fulfilment and meaning in life. It is devoid of the emotional struggle component that often accompanies love, be it romantic love or love for children or parents. Usually there is some baggage and conflict in it, and in friendship we have unconditional being with someone. Philosophy praises living together very much, including living in friendship. Even if our lives don't make a lot of sense to us, being with friends is always valuable.

If community is important, maybe serving others could bring meaning to our everyday lives?

It is certainly an element of the so-called good life, also in the Christian tradition. And it is not about sacrifice, but rather about altruism, which also occurs in nature, among animals. Altruism gives a sense of fulfilment, and philosophy indicates that helping is an autotelic value: helping for the sake of helping brings something good to our lives. Even if we get nothing material from it, we feel satisfaction.

And wisdom? Can pursuing it help us in our search for fulfilment?

Probably yes, but I think certain concepts and slogans work well at a certain point in time, and I don't know if today a call to seek wisdom would be effective, or we would have to replace this word with something else.

"Wisdom" is not sexy enough?

I think that today, unfortunately, we are more familiar with the word "self-improvement" understood as a rather narcissistic focus on oneself.

And freedom? What does it mean and what meaning can it bring to our lives at a time when for some people it is freedom not to wear a mask?

Freedom is still a value, but today it is closely connected with the individual. Philosophy has always shown that freedom collides with the good of the community. In order to achieve it, I have to give up some of my freedom. Those who do not want to wear face masks or vaccinate prefer individual freedom to what can happen to the community – and consequently to them. For our own well-being, for the sake of the planet, it would be better to develop all theories, philosophies, messages and narratives in which the community is more important than the individual.

However, you have to be vigilant, because such a narrative often contains a message: you must sacrifice yourself, and usually the weakest do: women, the poor, the coloured. The privileged ones have already achieved a lot of goals, have brought about a crisis, and are now calling on everyone else to give up some freedom.

What about our inner freedom? The personal, intimate that Rosi Braidotti writes about?

You mean what she calls internal nomadism? Braidotti says we are changeable, situational, not bound to one identity for good. So we don't have to travel to distant countries or surround ourselves with objects to have access to our own diversity.

Braidotti shows that I can find my place in life in all circumstances only thanks to my mind and openness. It makes me realise that freedom is really nothing on the outside.

And only then is it true freedom, because no one can limit it. Sartre said that everything can be taken from a person except what they think or want. Even in a life-threatening situation, you can think what you want.

And Braidotti appreciates diversity: just because I'm a mother doesn't mean I end there, I'm still a woman, a thinker, somebody's friend, a daughter. The spaces in which I can exercise my freedom are extensive, contrary to what is imposed on us today: that we can only find it in consumption and in pursuing a career.

What I like about Braidotti is that, according to her, we don't have to make up our minds about the way we are once and for all, we can change in the course of our lives – in a fundamental way. As long as we have enough courage and flexibility.

And that's the kind of creativity that can make sense. Sartre said that the meaning of life must be created, we cannot rely only on what is given to us. We make the effort to implement our own existential project.

On the other hand, it is worth recalling the warning of Zygmunt Bauman, who recognises that today's world forces us to create ourselves as works of art. The world, due to the enormity of the possibilities it offers, puts enormous pressure on us to do something with ourselves, and this can be very difficult for many people. Hence, he claims, so many raging populisms: people are looking for a sense of security and constancy, tired of countless life opportunities.

I liked the quote from Wittgenstein that he didn't know what we were here for, but it was definitely not to have fun. Very adequate for the year 2020.

We expect quite often that life will be pleasant, and for centuries happiness and the meaning of life did not come down to pleasure, that is a modern invention. A sense of fulfilment was associated with the need to make an effort. Anything that is supposed to give a more lasting sense of meaning requires work, hassle, and time.

Or maybe just looking for it makes sense?

We can find such an idea in philosophy. I once read a passage that said you don't know if life makes sense, but you have to live as if it does.

Natalia Waloch talks to Aleksandra Derra, philosopher

Interview published on wysokieobcasy.pl on 2 January 2021.