Love as a Tragic-Comic Bet

 

Love as a Tragi-Comedic bet
(Philosophy in Letters)

 

Note to Readers:

Young György Lukács in his Soul and Form (1911) established a style of doing philosophy that was new and unique for his age. He was only 25 years old and had yet to be introduced to Marxism. Much long before the official rise of Existentialist philosophy in the 1930s and 1940s in the works of German and French thinkers like Heidegger and Sartre, Lukács created his own version of existentialism in this book by grappling with literature, literary criticism, and life and thought of Kierkegaard. He complains about philosophy not being in touch with concrete questions of life and its meaning and tragedies and in his words tries to push philosophy to walk with literature.

His innovative views needed an innovative style of writing. The introduction of Lukács' book takes the form of a letter written for a friend. Another chapter is in the format of a play where philosophical arguments are presented in the form of a conversation between three friends (two men and one woman in a love triangle)

This style of philosophy in the form of writing letters stuck with me since I engaged with Young Lukacs’ work. Here, I am following in his footsteps, like an amateur of course. I am trying to think philosophically about love in the form of writing a letter to a comrade/friend.

 

 

Dearest Comrade,

Finally, I have a chance to write to you. I write better, much better, when I am calm. When I am just reflectively sitting back and watching the flow of the river of life passing by me. When I deeply feel like I have nothing to lose but the warmth of my smile to another fellow human being, a stranger, the chance of telling them it is going to be alright, comforting them,  telling them "Breath buddy! Stars are still going to glow beautifully through dark and cold nights, and nothing can take that away from us."

I think living like “you have nothing to lose but your humanity” is a good principle to live by. I love this fearless, generous, and patient way of living. I wish I could have lived like this, could have always been mindful of this fearlessness. We become the miserable subjects of daily life under capitalism if we internalize the rules of the game. Social structures give us motivations, constrain our possibilities, and assign our costs to our actions. Under an oppressive social structure based on inhuman capital accumulation, this set of choices turns into a deprecating gamble of fear and greed. Our human soul and human relations are lost in this game if we take it too seriously. One can hardly get out of the gambling house. The only realistic way to survive in this dark casino is to rig the game. Social structures (cultural and economic environment) motivate you mostly by fear, by scaring you of the consequences. It would be great for "the House" if one is deceived by the casino to believe that "not playing" is not an option. That is, not only losing is scary and costs you a lot so you have to always try and hope for the next win, but also the idea that not playing is even more costly. That there is nothing more to life but winning.

My whole point is that you can be sentenced to life in a casino, and you might have no option except to eventually bet on some games but you can still choose to buy or resist the ideology of the casino. You can still see that losing is not the worst, not achieving cannot take away everything, winning in an inhuman game does not say much or count much, and finally, not every game is worth playing. 

My life has turned out to be a bet on philosophy. It is one of the few games left and there is some meaning to it beyond daily fear and greed. My win does not directly rely on exploiting others or their suffering. A professor and researcher can contribute to humanity beyond the game of capitalism. But academic philosophy is still in the same casino. Winning or losing in it does not say much or count much. Enjoying it, however, does speak volumes. It is a genuine form of human life, to increase your understanding of the world.

The same is true about betting on love. This is one of the few games capitalism has left for us in which humans can all flourish, in which they do not maximize profit, in which their wins do not directly lead to exploitation or suffering of another human, You can concretely contribute to humanity, in the form of an individual human being, the beloved. You can create a human world within the boundaries of lovers. "two people communism", as Badiou has put it. You can experience firsthand what is it like to be human, to care in a human and genuine way, to be responsible in a human way, and to do something for the sake of itself and not profit. However, just like philosophy, love is still a game within the boundaries of the casino. Its outcomes are beyond your control. In a world constituted by a casino-like logic, the odds are always against the survival of a world constituted by the logic of love (care, unity, responsibility). Enjoying love, regardless of the outcome, however, speaks volumes. 

In this casino, loving is a contradictory thing. Love by definition requires safety, stability, and a trustworthy future. But there is no guarantee in this casino. People cannot guarantee where their fear and greed, their luck are going to take them. They cannot guarantee even if they are going to have a stable future. Therefore, many have dropped the idea of betting on love. So many will drop it as soon as the interference of other games begins. Love is this glorious practice of contributing to humanity in the concrete form and daily mundane life. However, you have to either drop it or love it without a guarantee of an outcome. Love without falling is like painting without color, protesting injustice without anger. You care, you grow kind, and you love but you have to always be prepared to let go when its time comes. You can lose some paintings, and you can forget some poems you have written, you do not have to turn your back on painting, poetry, and love. One should always understand that there are times in life in which one has to accept the fate of separation despite best efforts. 

Yes, I argue, I claim, that love is both dramatic and mundane. It is comic and tragic. It is dramatic because you are contributing to and experiencing one of the most real ways of being human, it is among the best things and most meaningful things that a human can do. Euphoria and frustration, care and sympathy, commitment and patience. It is a compressed package of all experiences that make us human. It is a trip you have to go on before you die. However, it is mundane, because you have to do it in small boring details of daily life. You have to do it despite the fact there is no audience to see the epic of daily life. It is like playing the role of Hamlet for no audience. You are assigned this big task. The fate to do justice to your life. And there is no one to see the epic, sometimes, not even your partner.

 It is comic because imagine how laughable it is that someone acts and continues to act on love with no guaranteed outcome and no audience. It is also tragic. Imagine how sad is that actor. She is hoping for safety in a world where safety is not given. 

Now, this is what we are left with. Loving under capitalism is a comic-tragic bet. It is not a safe bet. It should not be the only bet you have. The best way is to not keep all of your eggs in one basket. That is, try all possible ways of contributing to humanity and experiencing the richness of human connection and life. One might fail in love, but not in friendship or protesting injustice and science or vice versa. Love is part of the package and not all of it. This is the best way I know to survive in this Casino.

Yours,

Farid