Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Are Good People Only Happier in Fiction? (Great Plays and Philosophy, Part 1)
Miss Prism in The Importance of Being Earnest, by Oscar Wilde:
The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means.
I have often failed to find this line funny because I find it so easy to think of it as just a straightforward statement of how fiction should be written. Plato’s Republic suggests exactly this, and Oscar Wilde was too smart to not know it.
Yes, Oscar Wilde was definitely playing with Plato here: In Socrates’ suggested strategy for the Aesopization of poetry, the good must end happily and the bad unhappily in fiction. And I’ve always thought that this is actually the default way for fiction to go–at least children’s fiction.
Yes, I know, I know–the world isn’t quite that simple, and the good suffer, and the bad seem to prosper sometimes, etc., etc. Plato was well aware of that issue–ask me about Book X of the Republic sometime! And I’m way ahead of you, actually. In this article, I wrote about these complexities of the real world, Plato’s Republic, Plutarch’s response to Plato, the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, and more!
But of course, the line actually is funny if you read it the right way, especially if it’s delivered well, which I’m not quite sure I did myself.
Yes, yes, I did indeed play Miss Prism.
My senior-year English class put on this play, and some of the guys had to play female roles. Say what you like about Judy Dench’s Lady Bracknell, but I say Kevin’s Lady Bracknell was even better.
Next time we’ll try with a splendid one-liner playing with Aristotle! Until then, here’s Miss Prism from the 1952 version, and the line is delivered admirably:
.
Published in Literature
Unless one is mentally disabled, one must believe that one is something.
One must believe that one is Good, or else one must believe that one is Bad, or else one must believe that one is neither Good nor Bad because Goodness and Badness do not exist (which strikes me as antithetical to being Good), or else one must believe that one is neither Good nor Bad because one is ignorant of the possibility that one is either Good or Bad.
I’m still surprised that none of you have hit upon the slam-dunk rebuttal to my logic, probably because the slam-dunk rebuttal is not itself logical.
I doubt it. I don’t even know what you mean anymore–if I ever did.
Um, no. That’s not how things that come in degrees work.
From “The Good must not believe they are X” it does not follow that they must believe they are not-X.
How about “Stop this sophistry”? That’s logical enough.
You must be a lot of fun at parties!
I don’t buy the idea that considering one’s self to be good is a sin. The sin of Pride involves elevating yourself above others or elevating yourself at other’s expense. You don’t need to do that in order to know you are doing good works. If we had no knowledge of whether or not we were doing good, then there would be no moral compass from which to guide our actions, and the rule would be “anything goes.” We would probably be leftists.
The goal in my humble opinion is to be joyful, which is possible at all times and in all places. Happiness is fleeting.
And then there’s this: Jews say shana tova on Rosh HaShana (Jewish new year) which means “have a good year,” as opposed to “have a happy year.”
Or one must believe that, without Christ, they are nothing – and only in Christ do they do anything resembling good.
And since most of the happy, good people I know are very mindful of that – where their thoughts are centered on Christ – I again reject your false dichotomy.
Oh, I don’t think you have to go to death row to find comparatively unhappy people. The progressives I know (some in my family) are the most miserable people I know. It’s almost as if it’s their job. What am I going to find to be unhappy about today?? Even, “how can I make my “loved” ones join in my misery today?”
Well that’s the best proof of my superior philosophical prowess that I ever did see. Imagine, being in the same category as Hegel!
;-)
I’ll let you know if I’m ever invited to one.
;-)
Stina’s getting closer to the slam-dunk rebuttal, but not quite there yet.
This is not the Catholic view. It’s not the Biblical view either.
After the creation of man: “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” [emphasis mine]
People can be good by the grace of God — by accepting the free gift(s) they’ve been given. I imagine almost everyone has had the experience of someone they know living a saintly life. Mis is right to point out the problem of pride in one’s goodness. It’s always a temptation to credit oneself (and part of our fallen human nature) when one should always praise God for the goodness He’s created in and through you.
All glory to God for the goodness in our lives!
Western Chauvinist is getting really warm.
Ok fine, I’ll jump to the conclusion, since WC basically got there, and I don’t want to have to return to this thread again because I’ve got actual work I have to do today.
The Good cannot believe they are Good, so they believe they are Bad. This should make them unhappy, but they are made happy by the grace of God.
If God does not exist then The Good cannot be happy (largely because Good & Evil are meaningless in a Godless universe).
Nope, I don’t believe that. I believe what God said — He made us [very] good — and then we fell. But fallen doesn’t mean Bad (Calvin’s total depravity). It means fallen from grace, which is restored to us by living a Christian life (especially through the Sacraments, which are God’s work, not ours), in and through Christ’s Incarnation, Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. He made us good, in His image and likeness, but the Fall caused our concupiscence (tendency to sin). The tendency is an effect, not the substance.
Then how do you explain good people who do not believe in God, but are happy nonetheless?
We seem to have some failure to communicate.
It’s a line from the New Testament. If we can catch what it means in context, it’s most certainly the biblical view.
The Catholic view is that things are created good by G-d, and that G-d is goodness itself. This is basic Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, and Aquinas.
Is that even the same topic?
It’s one thing to say that goodness or happiness depends on belief in G-d.
It’s another thing to say that goodness or happiness depends on the existence of G-d.
Good point! I’m not sure that I understood Mistheocracy’s line of reasoning completely.
I don’t know… are they happy? Striving to be good for the sake of goodness can be it’s own kind of slavery. And it doesn’t usually make one happy, especially if they fail to live up to the standards they’ve placed on themselves.
Faith in God is delicate. It does not necessarily make you a better person. But it gives you confidence that what happens is for the best and indefatigable conviction that things will turn out well.