'Count no man happy until he is dead.' So says Aristotle, quoting Solon, one of the wise men of ancient Athens, and agreeing with him.
Even death may be too soon if Aristotle is right - and I think he is - that happiness is not a short or even a long term state of mind, not something that belongs in a list with a burst of elation, a pang of sorrow, a twinge of pain, a bout of giddiness, and the like. It also is not a longer term feeling of well-being such as alcohol, marijuana, and other substances can induce.
Nor is a happy life one where pleasant states of mind overbalance unpleasant ones. There are pleasant states of mind to be had through anticipating things you are going to do or undergo later on. Think of how enjoyable it can be to plan a holiday. Such states of mind are sometimes illusory in that upon engaging in the activity or the passivity, frustration, disappointment and boredom overtake you. An unhappy life could be one in which less time was spent feeling frustrated, disappointed and bored than was spent in pleasant anticipation. Or a life could be full of pleasant remembrances, nostalgic delight occupying most of one's time in the otherwise dismal atmosphere of a prison cell, the new tyrant having ended your pleasing days of ruling and living luxuriously.
Aristotle's word that we translate as 'happy' was 'eudaimon', and Greek thinkers had a lot to say about eudaimonia. Some recent writers prefer to translate the Greek word as 'flourishing' or 'well-being'. Others stick with 'happiness' and ask us to notice the meaning of 'happy' in 'happy outcome' or 'happy ending' or in a phrase such as 'these happy isles' to speak of Britain in its glory days. That meaning is the thing to keep in mind when you think about what living a good life is supposed to be.
The infelicity of 'happy' as the word we want is also indicated by this: When we imagine a human life entirely free of fear, of sorrow, of grief, utterly devoid of distress or suffering, are we not imagining a shallow life? I am not suggesting that it is a good thing to let suffering thrive, to see to it that poverty, sickness and hunger enhance the lives of the lower orders. In that connection, Simone Weil's words are apt: 'In the social realm it is our duty to eliminate as much suffering as we can; there will always be enough left over for the elect'.
Aristotle and Plato both held that a necessary condition of living a flourishing life, of eudaimonia, was that it had to be a just life, an ethical life. Plato had a striking notion of being just as achieving harmony of the soul. We can get the word 'soul' out of the idea by speaking, in post-Christian terms, of being decent, getting your act together and having your priorities right. I don't myself mind talk of the soul so long as it does not mean a substantial item, a thing which can exist without a body. Simone Weil is helpful here too. She speaks of the soul in terms of harm that can be done to the life of a human being without injury to the body.
Plato and Aristotle, despite their agreement about the necessity of decency for a good life, disagreed about the sufficiency of it. Roughly speaking, Aristotle thought that happiness, eudaimonia, was vulnerable to the vicissitudes of fortune. No matter how good a person you might be, the world could still crap on you. Plato knew perfectly well that the world could crap on the just man, but he thought that could do no harm. The crap could not blight or diminish the excellence of the life of a just man. The harmony of the soul persists no matter how discordant the surroundings happen to be. Plato also argued, perhaps because he so much hoped that, in the long run, the unjust would get their come-uppance. The 20th Century was blessed with a man who held Plato's view. A leading principle of Groucho Marxism is a pithy expression of Plato's ethics: 'Time wounds all heels'. I am sure many of you have heard of the fallacy of deducing what ought to be the case from what is the case. Groucho here indulges in the converse fallacy, deducing from what ought to be the case that, eventually at least, it will be. He derives 'is' from 'ought'.
So far I have wanted to bring out how reflection on living well, being happy, flourishing, leads to some idea of judging or evaluating the life of a person. And the opening remark 'Count no man happy until he is dead' suggests that such an evaluative conception is not a subjective matter; the person whose life is evaluated is not the only one to make such an evaluation. It is possible for the person whose life is under consideration to get it wrong, to suffer from error. A good deal needs to be said about the source of such errors, how much it is a matter of illusion or delusion, of self-deception, of willful avoidance of knowledge, victimization by deceit, etc
The main thing Aristotle and Solon had in mind was the possibility of events occurring after someone's death that bear on any judgment to be made about his or her life. Central concerns and ambitions in someone's life may be well be on track at death, but suffer derailment afterward. It may be as clear cut as an earthquake killing a man's entire family at his graveside. Surely, in such a case, we can pity the person, perhaps with the words: 'The poor sonofabitch'. Of course someone may react differently, saying 'Well, he doesn't know and won't find out, no need for pity.' If we think differently on this we are having a more or less serious evaluative, even I would say, ethical disagreement. Maybe it is more like an aesthetic disagreement. I don't really care exactly what sort of disagreement it is. It is not, no matter how you think of it, that one of us is making sense, the other failing to.
I want to focus on is one strand in the conceptual fabric we find here. I want to focus on beliefs of great importance to a person, beliefs central to his or her grip on who he or she is and what his or her life amounts to. How much does it matter if such beliefs are false? A way to filter out the relevant beliefs from others, many of which are sure to be false, is to ask whether and to what extent, a person would be devastated by finding out the truth. By devastation I mean what can lead people to think of their lives no longer making sense, no longer seeming worthwhile, drained of meaning. I shall also consider the question of the extent to which, if at all, we should disabuse others of such false beliefs if we are placed to do so. What it is to be so placed is itself of interest. Whose business is it? Surely not just that of anybody who knows the relevant truth. That will also involve the issue of how important truth, in the aspect of truthfulness to others, is. That is a nice topic in its own right, though I don't think anybody anymore holds the medieval Christian view, and the view of Immanuel Kant, that lying is never justified.
So there are two questions. First, can not knowing insulate a person from harm, exempt his or her life from being a proper object of pity? Is it right to say that what you don't know doesn't hurt you even if it is something that had you known it, would have devastated you? Second, what is appropriate if you are placed in a position to inform someone of what will devastate him and refraining from doing so will itself be a refusal of truthfulness on your part? Reflection here not about the nature of truth or about the ludicrous idea that there is no such thing as truth I am taking truth for granted and asking about how much and why it matters.
In his drama The Wild Duck, Henrik Ibsen, provides an instance where we readily judge that it would have been better to leave others with false beliefs, in particular beliefs about the relations a man's wife had to a powerful benefactor of hers and his, before and perhaps during the marriage. A child's paternity is rendered uncertain by revelations a friend of the husband is determined to make. The friend is zealous about openness and honesty in marriage. It is all a disaster; the daughter, 14 years old, an attractive and loving child, kills herself out of an induced need to prove she loves her father via a sacrifice of something precious to her The zealous has urged the girl to kill a cherished wild duck that is kept in the attic. The girl applies the advice, but not to the duck, shooting herself in the way she is told to shoot the duck, one bullet in just the right spot on her breast.
In this play, one cannot say that the man and his family are flourishing; they are not doing very well and he is as asinine in his way as his zealous friend is in his. There is no doubt that, as one of the likeable characters in the play, a Dr. Relling, says, it would have been better to leave them as they were. Relling thinks that it is generally better to leave people with their lies; he speaks of helping people to construct or hold on to lies that enable them carry on.
Still we do have here a case of truth being devastating, or received as devastating by the self-dramatizing father. A feature of the play is that the main victim of the destructive force of truth is the child, who is not mired in false belief. She is devoted to her father, or the man who may not be, but may be, her father. But he cruelly rejects her when he learns he is probably not her father. The mother is uncertain and, 15 years having passed with her as a caring and dutiful wife and mother, she cannot see why it matters. Few are those who not stand on her side.
I do not think that we can say of Hjalmer, the father, anything like 'poor fellow', something more like 'silly clod' comes to mind. He is not really a victim of deceit, though it is true that his wife was not completely open with him. The only character to be pitied is the child. With Hjalmer, we are, or I am, disposed to deplore his agonies over not being a biological father when he has been quite a good father to the child and she a devoted and charming child. Anyway, we do not have here a case of a life's worth or happiness blighted by illusion or delusion. Hjalmer's discovery of the truth about his benefactor and his wife and his doubt about his paternity do not blight a good life; at most a somewhat shabby life has removed from its brightest patch, the attractive, lively and devoted daughter, Hedvig.
We certainly get a case here for saying 'What they don't know is not hurting them'. And for saying that Hjalmer with his false belief, which was somewhat the product of avoidance of evidence, would have been better off, lived a happier life, without the intrusion of his friend's zealousness Dr. Relling's therapy of letting people live with their falsehoods, with their lies as he puts is, is vindicated.
I now have to resort to my own, perhaps perverse, aptitude for fiction for further cases. There are two.
Here is one scenario: George, a very successful salesman, is on his deathbed at the relatively early age of 60. His wife Mabel and best friend, Fred are at his side, each holding one of George's hands. George is dying in a glow of warm conviction and remembrance of the loyalty of these two, the most important people in his life. Tender farewells are exchanged and George expires. Fred and Mabel look across to each lustfully, shovel George out of the bed, and proceed to vigorous humping in the deathbed, a corpse sprawled in the centre of the room. We learn from their talk that, whenever possible - and George was, after all, a traveling salesman - they have indulged in these orgiastic delights, for 30 years.
The words that come to mind as I envisage the scene and attend to the crumpled body on the floor those I have used earlier: 'The poor sonofabitch'. If George is not an appropriate object of pity, I do not understand what pity is. But as I said earlier, if you are inclined to withhold pity in the light of the thought that George never knew of the duplicity of Mabel and Fred and was generally pleased his work and life, then you and I are having some kind of ethical disagreement. I agree with Thomas Nagel who says that it is hard to see how it can be that knowing something could be harmful, as devastating as some things can be, and yet be harmless if unknown.
Maybe our disagreement belongs to ethics somewhat indirectly. If you think no harm has been done because Fred and Mabel succeeded in hiding their disloyalty, mustn't you think that they were not acting wrongly or badly. A strict utilitarian must, I think, hold that since their disloyalty did not, in fact, cause George to suffer, Fred and Mabel did no wrong. Maybe their haste in having at it in the deathbed is a kind of disrespect for the dead, but their pleasure might easily outweigh that, if such things can be weighed against each other. Strict utilitarianism has anyway to stretch to deplore disrespect for the dead.
Here is my second story: Giovanni is a dying. He is a prosperous and respected Sicilian winegrower. His prosperity was much helped by his two sons who emigrated to New York many years ago. Giovanni worked hard when the boys were young to get them educated and gain admission to Harvard, where they both studied law and joined large corporations in NYC. The sons visited Sicily frequently and invested in their father's winery, which prospered. Giovanni took in his best friend and neighbour, Luigi, as a partner, absorbing Luigi's smaller, adjacent winery. The partners have been fortunate to avoid the imprecations of the Mafia, and their winery has flourished as has their friendship.
The sons and their families are expected soon for a final visit, Luigi having telephoned with the sad news of impending death some weeks ago. Giovanni is so fragile that his doctor forbids him a telephone on his sickbed. Luigi has assured him that he will take any calls and contact the sons again if they do not arrive as expected. They do not, and Luigi pursues the matter. What he learns is appalling. The sons, while indeed having studied at Harvard, were enticed into being lawyers for the Mafia, eventually into occasional assassinations of public officials and businessmen who were threats to Mafia operations. One of the inducements to getting entangled with the Mafia was assurance that their father's business in Sicily would never be touched.
Luigi uncovers all this along with the devastating news that the sons will almost certainly be sentenced to death in the electric chair, their crimes having finally caught up with them. Giovanni is sure that Luigi has looked into the tardiness of the sons and when Luigi next visits the sickbed, about to be a deathbed, Giovanni asks him what is happening, why are the sons not here to bid farewell to their father? It is, after all, their great success in America and their generosity to him and their own flourishing lives that have done so much to make his own life worthwhile, especially given how much he worked and sacrificed early in his life to set them on a hopeful path..
Luigi is aware of all this and aware that another thing in Giovanni's life, and his own, has been their friendship and trusting partnership. No joy or sorrow, no elation or frustration, no satisfaction or disappointment, no problem or plight or crisis was ever anything but shared or communicated between them. Luigi knows it will devastate Giovanni to learn about his sons, especially their impending executions. But Giovanni has asked him what is happening. Luigi has no doubt that if Giovanni realizes or finds out that he is being lied to by Luigi, that will itself have some devastating force. He has to decide whether or not to lie to his dying friend.
I have no good idea as to how to finish the story. One thing I am sure of, though, is that, whether Giovanni learns the truth or not, I could not say that he had a good or a happy or a flourishing life. The prospering of his winery was, unbeknownst to him, fostered by crime. He is surely as proper an object of pity as was George in my earlier tale. As for Luigi, well, I would not like to be in his shoes. I do not see how he can avoid doing something he will find it hard to live with.
I have given cases where it makes sense to pity a person and to evaluate a life more or less negatively, in spite of the person involved being ignorant of or deceived about the relevant facts. So it can be that a life fails to be a happy one, a flourishing life, despite the likelihood that the one who lives the life would think of it as a good life. But can I generalize? Can I maintain that for any life, the falsehood, illusoriness or even delusiveness of deeply important beliefs, despite the falsehood never being revealed, is a blight on that life, a basis for pitying the person embedded in falsehood.
by Lloyd Reinhardt, Philosopher | Read more:
Image: via
Even death may be too soon if Aristotle is right - and I think he is - that happiness is not a short or even a long term state of mind, not something that belongs in a list with a burst of elation, a pang of sorrow, a twinge of pain, a bout of giddiness, and the like. It also is not a longer term feeling of well-being such as alcohol, marijuana, and other substances can induce.
Nor is a happy life one where pleasant states of mind overbalance unpleasant ones. There are pleasant states of mind to be had through anticipating things you are going to do or undergo later on. Think of how enjoyable it can be to plan a holiday. Such states of mind are sometimes illusory in that upon engaging in the activity or the passivity, frustration, disappointment and boredom overtake you. An unhappy life could be one in which less time was spent feeling frustrated, disappointed and bored than was spent in pleasant anticipation. Or a life could be full of pleasant remembrances, nostalgic delight occupying most of one's time in the otherwise dismal atmosphere of a prison cell, the new tyrant having ended your pleasing days of ruling and living luxuriously.
Aristotle's word that we translate as 'happy' was 'eudaimon', and Greek thinkers had a lot to say about eudaimonia. Some recent writers prefer to translate the Greek word as 'flourishing' or 'well-being'. Others stick with 'happiness' and ask us to notice the meaning of 'happy' in 'happy outcome' or 'happy ending' or in a phrase such as 'these happy isles' to speak of Britain in its glory days. That meaning is the thing to keep in mind when you think about what living a good life is supposed to be.The infelicity of 'happy' as the word we want is also indicated by this: When we imagine a human life entirely free of fear, of sorrow, of grief, utterly devoid of distress or suffering, are we not imagining a shallow life? I am not suggesting that it is a good thing to let suffering thrive, to see to it that poverty, sickness and hunger enhance the lives of the lower orders. In that connection, Simone Weil's words are apt: 'In the social realm it is our duty to eliminate as much suffering as we can; there will always be enough left over for the elect'.
Aristotle and Plato both held that a necessary condition of living a flourishing life, of eudaimonia, was that it had to be a just life, an ethical life. Plato had a striking notion of being just as achieving harmony of the soul. We can get the word 'soul' out of the idea by speaking, in post-Christian terms, of being decent, getting your act together and having your priorities right. I don't myself mind talk of the soul so long as it does not mean a substantial item, a thing which can exist without a body. Simone Weil is helpful here too. She speaks of the soul in terms of harm that can be done to the life of a human being without injury to the body.
Plato and Aristotle, despite their agreement about the necessity of decency for a good life, disagreed about the sufficiency of it. Roughly speaking, Aristotle thought that happiness, eudaimonia, was vulnerable to the vicissitudes of fortune. No matter how good a person you might be, the world could still crap on you. Plato knew perfectly well that the world could crap on the just man, but he thought that could do no harm. The crap could not blight or diminish the excellence of the life of a just man. The harmony of the soul persists no matter how discordant the surroundings happen to be. Plato also argued, perhaps because he so much hoped that, in the long run, the unjust would get their come-uppance. The 20th Century was blessed with a man who held Plato's view. A leading principle of Groucho Marxism is a pithy expression of Plato's ethics: 'Time wounds all heels'. I am sure many of you have heard of the fallacy of deducing what ought to be the case from what is the case. Groucho here indulges in the converse fallacy, deducing from what ought to be the case that, eventually at least, it will be. He derives 'is' from 'ought'.
So far I have wanted to bring out how reflection on living well, being happy, flourishing, leads to some idea of judging or evaluating the life of a person. And the opening remark 'Count no man happy until he is dead' suggests that such an evaluative conception is not a subjective matter; the person whose life is evaluated is not the only one to make such an evaluation. It is possible for the person whose life is under consideration to get it wrong, to suffer from error. A good deal needs to be said about the source of such errors, how much it is a matter of illusion or delusion, of self-deception, of willful avoidance of knowledge, victimization by deceit, etc
The main thing Aristotle and Solon had in mind was the possibility of events occurring after someone's death that bear on any judgment to be made about his or her life. Central concerns and ambitions in someone's life may be well be on track at death, but suffer derailment afterward. It may be as clear cut as an earthquake killing a man's entire family at his graveside. Surely, in such a case, we can pity the person, perhaps with the words: 'The poor sonofabitch'. Of course someone may react differently, saying 'Well, he doesn't know and won't find out, no need for pity.' If we think differently on this we are having a more or less serious evaluative, even I would say, ethical disagreement. Maybe it is more like an aesthetic disagreement. I don't really care exactly what sort of disagreement it is. It is not, no matter how you think of it, that one of us is making sense, the other failing to.
I want to focus on is one strand in the conceptual fabric we find here. I want to focus on beliefs of great importance to a person, beliefs central to his or her grip on who he or she is and what his or her life amounts to. How much does it matter if such beliefs are false? A way to filter out the relevant beliefs from others, many of which are sure to be false, is to ask whether and to what extent, a person would be devastated by finding out the truth. By devastation I mean what can lead people to think of their lives no longer making sense, no longer seeming worthwhile, drained of meaning. I shall also consider the question of the extent to which, if at all, we should disabuse others of such false beliefs if we are placed to do so. What it is to be so placed is itself of interest. Whose business is it? Surely not just that of anybody who knows the relevant truth. That will also involve the issue of how important truth, in the aspect of truthfulness to others, is. That is a nice topic in its own right, though I don't think anybody anymore holds the medieval Christian view, and the view of Immanuel Kant, that lying is never justified.
So there are two questions. First, can not knowing insulate a person from harm, exempt his or her life from being a proper object of pity? Is it right to say that what you don't know doesn't hurt you even if it is something that had you known it, would have devastated you? Second, what is appropriate if you are placed in a position to inform someone of what will devastate him and refraining from doing so will itself be a refusal of truthfulness on your part? Reflection here not about the nature of truth or about the ludicrous idea that there is no such thing as truth I am taking truth for granted and asking about how much and why it matters.
In his drama The Wild Duck, Henrik Ibsen, provides an instance where we readily judge that it would have been better to leave others with false beliefs, in particular beliefs about the relations a man's wife had to a powerful benefactor of hers and his, before and perhaps during the marriage. A child's paternity is rendered uncertain by revelations a friend of the husband is determined to make. The friend is zealous about openness and honesty in marriage. It is all a disaster; the daughter, 14 years old, an attractive and loving child, kills herself out of an induced need to prove she loves her father via a sacrifice of something precious to her The zealous has urged the girl to kill a cherished wild duck that is kept in the attic. The girl applies the advice, but not to the duck, shooting herself in the way she is told to shoot the duck, one bullet in just the right spot on her breast.
In this play, one cannot say that the man and his family are flourishing; they are not doing very well and he is as asinine in his way as his zealous friend is in his. There is no doubt that, as one of the likeable characters in the play, a Dr. Relling, says, it would have been better to leave them as they were. Relling thinks that it is generally better to leave people with their lies; he speaks of helping people to construct or hold on to lies that enable them carry on.
Still we do have here a case of truth being devastating, or received as devastating by the self-dramatizing father. A feature of the play is that the main victim of the destructive force of truth is the child, who is not mired in false belief. She is devoted to her father, or the man who may not be, but may be, her father. But he cruelly rejects her when he learns he is probably not her father. The mother is uncertain and, 15 years having passed with her as a caring and dutiful wife and mother, she cannot see why it matters. Few are those who not stand on her side.
I do not think that we can say of Hjalmer, the father, anything like 'poor fellow', something more like 'silly clod' comes to mind. He is not really a victim of deceit, though it is true that his wife was not completely open with him. The only character to be pitied is the child. With Hjalmer, we are, or I am, disposed to deplore his agonies over not being a biological father when he has been quite a good father to the child and she a devoted and charming child. Anyway, we do not have here a case of a life's worth or happiness blighted by illusion or delusion. Hjalmer's discovery of the truth about his benefactor and his wife and his doubt about his paternity do not blight a good life; at most a somewhat shabby life has removed from its brightest patch, the attractive, lively and devoted daughter, Hedvig.
We certainly get a case here for saying 'What they don't know is not hurting them'. And for saying that Hjalmer with his false belief, which was somewhat the product of avoidance of evidence, would have been better off, lived a happier life, without the intrusion of his friend's zealousness Dr. Relling's therapy of letting people live with their falsehoods, with their lies as he puts is, is vindicated.
I now have to resort to my own, perhaps perverse, aptitude for fiction for further cases. There are two.
Here is one scenario: George, a very successful salesman, is on his deathbed at the relatively early age of 60. His wife Mabel and best friend, Fred are at his side, each holding one of George's hands. George is dying in a glow of warm conviction and remembrance of the loyalty of these two, the most important people in his life. Tender farewells are exchanged and George expires. Fred and Mabel look across to each lustfully, shovel George out of the bed, and proceed to vigorous humping in the deathbed, a corpse sprawled in the centre of the room. We learn from their talk that, whenever possible - and George was, after all, a traveling salesman - they have indulged in these orgiastic delights, for 30 years.
The words that come to mind as I envisage the scene and attend to the crumpled body on the floor those I have used earlier: 'The poor sonofabitch'. If George is not an appropriate object of pity, I do not understand what pity is. But as I said earlier, if you are inclined to withhold pity in the light of the thought that George never knew of the duplicity of Mabel and Fred and was generally pleased his work and life, then you and I are having some kind of ethical disagreement. I agree with Thomas Nagel who says that it is hard to see how it can be that knowing something could be harmful, as devastating as some things can be, and yet be harmless if unknown.
Maybe our disagreement belongs to ethics somewhat indirectly. If you think no harm has been done because Fred and Mabel succeeded in hiding their disloyalty, mustn't you think that they were not acting wrongly or badly. A strict utilitarian must, I think, hold that since their disloyalty did not, in fact, cause George to suffer, Fred and Mabel did no wrong. Maybe their haste in having at it in the deathbed is a kind of disrespect for the dead, but their pleasure might easily outweigh that, if such things can be weighed against each other. Strict utilitarianism has anyway to stretch to deplore disrespect for the dead.
Here is my second story: Giovanni is a dying. He is a prosperous and respected Sicilian winegrower. His prosperity was much helped by his two sons who emigrated to New York many years ago. Giovanni worked hard when the boys were young to get them educated and gain admission to Harvard, where they both studied law and joined large corporations in NYC. The sons visited Sicily frequently and invested in their father's winery, which prospered. Giovanni took in his best friend and neighbour, Luigi, as a partner, absorbing Luigi's smaller, adjacent winery. The partners have been fortunate to avoid the imprecations of the Mafia, and their winery has flourished as has their friendship.
The sons and their families are expected soon for a final visit, Luigi having telephoned with the sad news of impending death some weeks ago. Giovanni is so fragile that his doctor forbids him a telephone on his sickbed. Luigi has assured him that he will take any calls and contact the sons again if they do not arrive as expected. They do not, and Luigi pursues the matter. What he learns is appalling. The sons, while indeed having studied at Harvard, were enticed into being lawyers for the Mafia, eventually into occasional assassinations of public officials and businessmen who were threats to Mafia operations. One of the inducements to getting entangled with the Mafia was assurance that their father's business in Sicily would never be touched.
Luigi uncovers all this along with the devastating news that the sons will almost certainly be sentenced to death in the electric chair, their crimes having finally caught up with them. Giovanni is sure that Luigi has looked into the tardiness of the sons and when Luigi next visits the sickbed, about to be a deathbed, Giovanni asks him what is happening, why are the sons not here to bid farewell to their father? It is, after all, their great success in America and their generosity to him and their own flourishing lives that have done so much to make his own life worthwhile, especially given how much he worked and sacrificed early in his life to set them on a hopeful path..
Luigi is aware of all this and aware that another thing in Giovanni's life, and his own, has been their friendship and trusting partnership. No joy or sorrow, no elation or frustration, no satisfaction or disappointment, no problem or plight or crisis was ever anything but shared or communicated between them. Luigi knows it will devastate Giovanni to learn about his sons, especially their impending executions. But Giovanni has asked him what is happening. Luigi has no doubt that if Giovanni realizes or finds out that he is being lied to by Luigi, that will itself have some devastating force. He has to decide whether or not to lie to his dying friend.
I have no good idea as to how to finish the story. One thing I am sure of, though, is that, whether Giovanni learns the truth or not, I could not say that he had a good or a happy or a flourishing life. The prospering of his winery was, unbeknownst to him, fostered by crime. He is surely as proper an object of pity as was George in my earlier tale. As for Luigi, well, I would not like to be in his shoes. I do not see how he can avoid doing something he will find it hard to live with.
I have given cases where it makes sense to pity a person and to evaluate a life more or less negatively, in spite of the person involved being ignorant of or deceived about the relevant facts. So it can be that a life fails to be a happy one, a flourishing life, despite the likelihood that the one who lives the life would think of it as a good life. But can I generalize? Can I maintain that for any life, the falsehood, illusoriness or even delusiveness of deeply important beliefs, despite the falsehood never being revealed, is a blight on that life, a basis for pitying the person embedded in falsehood.
by Lloyd Reinhardt, Philosopher | Read more:
Image: via
