Living by Courage, Generosity & Wisdom

Finn Janning says empathy and compassion are necessary for our thriving and even our survival.

“Mother died today. Or maybe yesterday. I can’t be sure.” These are the opening lines from Albert Camus’ novel The Stranger (1942). If these words seem gruesome, it is because the reader has an expectation that a ‘normal’ person simply has to know when his or her mother died. Expect this not, says Camus. Or perhaps he is saying, keep an open relationship with death. The French writer may also be asking: Does it make any difference? Today, or yesterday – my mother is dead!

However, it doesn’t get any better with regard to the reader’s possible expectations when the novel’s protagonist Meursault – the one whose mother is dead – does not seem to grieve at her funeral. On the contrary, he falls in love with a girl during the ceremony. Afterwards they go to the beach, where they bathe, and subsequently make love. The girl wants to marry Meursault, and he tells her that it is of no consequence, but if she really wants to, he will go along with it.

You can read the rest of the essay in Philosophy Now, Issue 148: February/March 2022

Hvorfor lĂŠre at lĂŠse, skrive og regne, hvis man ikke kan tĂŠnke?

Jeg har lÊnge vÊret af den overbevisning, at filosofi bÞr udbydes som et selvstÊndigt fag i folkeskolen. Ikke kun for at fastholde det nysgerrige, legende og fantasifulde, men i lige sÄ hÞj grad for at fremme en kritisk sans. 

Den usikkerhed, som flere forbinder med at leve i en prĂŠstationskultur eller en postfaktuel (eller pandemisk) verden, synes nemlig ogsĂ„ at have fremmet en moralsk relativisme, til tider en nĂŠrmest resignerende ligegyldighed. 

Det er, som om ingen helt ved eller bekymrer sig om, hvad der lĂŠngere er passende og upassende. Eller ogsĂ„ mener de – helt modsat – at have patent pĂ„ den rigtige og ekskluderende ideologiske sandhed.

LĂŠs resten af kronikken i Politiken

DÄrlig opdragelse

Hvordan kan vi som samfund sikre, at alle borgere uddannes i empati, kritisk tÊnkning og moralsk dannelse? Hvordan kan vi i fÊllesskab undgÄ, at smÄ sÞde, blÞde drenge bliver til mÊnd, der krÊnker og diskriminerer? I stedet for at overlade opdragelsen af drenge til Jordan Peterson kunne vi som samfund gÞre filosofien obligatorisk i folkeskolen, skriver filosof Finn Janning. Han mener, at vi som samfund bÞr hjÊlpe hinanden med at frigÞre os fra alt det, som holder os fanget.

”Man fĂždes ikke som kvinde, man bliver det.” SĂ„dan skriver forfatter og filosof Simone de Beauvoir i sit hovedvĂŠrk Det andet kĂžn.

Det er en ikonisk sĂŠtning, der gennem Ă„rene er blevet debatteret grundigt. Det afgĂžrende i sĂŠtningen er verbet: ”at blive.” PĂ„ den ene side er der tale om en transformationsproces, der finder sted over en periode. Du bliver pianist, lĂŠge eller blikkenslager gennem Ăžvelse, uddannelse og praksistrĂŠning.

PÄ den anden side er der tale om en pludselig Êndring. Kvinden, der bliver mor, idet babyen fÞdes. Eller personen, der fÄr stillet en diagnose og bliver krÊftpatient. I denne udlÊgning er der en klar skillelinje mellem fÞr og efter.

SpĂžrgsmĂ„let er, om en pige bliver kvinde pĂ„ den ene eller anden mĂ„de: som noget gradvist eller med et fingerknips. De fleste de Beauvoir-forskere vĂŠgter den gradvise tilblivelsesproces – en tilblivelse uden et klart slutmĂ„l.

For eksistentialisterne Simone de Beauvoir og Jean-Paul Sartre handler det om, at alle mennesker – uanset kĂžn, race eller seksualitet, skal vĂŠre frie til at blive – leve – som de Ăžnsker. Af samme grund er der mange mĂ„der at vĂŠre og blive kvinde pĂ„.

Skabelsen af samtidens borgere

Problemet, som de Beauvoir belyser i sin bog, er, at samfundets strukturer – biologiske, historiske, kulturelle, psykologiske, religiþse, mytiske, etc. – har virket kontrollerende, hémmende og diskriminerende, hvorved den enkelte pige ikke frit kunne vélge at blive den kvinde, som hun þnskede at blive.

Jeg tĂŠnkte pĂ„ denne Ă„bning, da jeg lĂŠste Isabella Miehe-Renards glimrende anmeldelse af den canadiske psykolog Jordan B. Petersons nye bog Hinsides orden – 12 nye regler for livet.

Psykologen Peterson fremstÄr som en velment pendant til vores egen danske Svend Brinkmann. Begge taler om at forpligte sig, stÄ fast og turde satse pÄ noget for at skabe dybere mening.

Begge leverer nogle simple leveregler, der har godt tag i samtiden, hvad enten det drejer sig om at tage nejhatten pÄ, eller ikke at gÞre noget, du hader. En vÊsentlig forskel synes dog at vÊre, at den canadiske professor har et bedre tag i de unge drenge.

Jeg tror, at en del af svaret herpÄ sandsynligvis kan findes i de Beauvoirs ikoniske sÊtning. I disse MeToo-tider vokser interessen for de Beauvoirs forfatterskab. Og med god grund.

Men i samme forbindelse kunne det vĂŠre interessant, hvis hendes tanker blev anvendt mere stringent. En ting er ensidigt at klandre et patriarkalsk system for alle samtidens problemer; en anden ville vĂŠre, hvis alle samfundets borgere – inklusive kvinderne – kiggede kritisk pĂ„ deres rolle og ansvar i forbindelse med skabelsen af samtidens borgere – bĂ„de drenge og piger.

Hvis prÊmissen er, at mennesket er noget blivende, sÄ gÊlder dette for bÄde kvinder og mÊnd.

Hvad er gÄet galt i opdragelsen af drengebÞrn?

Og her vender jeg sĂ„ tilbage til Jordan Peterson, der ”opdragende” taler om at tage vare pĂ„ sig selv, vĂŠlge sine venner med omhu, ikke at lyve og balancere mellem kaos og orden. Hvilket er noget, som mange mĂŠnd tilsyneladende har svĂŠrt ved.

I de sidste halve Är er det blevet klart, at flere magtfulde og mindre magtfulde mÊnd i Danmark har opfÞrt sig upassende. De har ikke respekteret andre menneskers grÊnser, enkelte har sÄgar foretaget decideret diskriminerende og voldelige overgreb.

Det undrer mig, hvordan det kan vére, at flere ménd – og drenge – ikke besidder et ansténdigt moralsk kompas. Eksempelvis viser en rapport fra Danske Gymnasielevers Sammenslutning, at hver fjerde kvindelige gymnasieelev har véret udsat for krénkende kommentarer.

Det er uacceptabelt.

Hvordan blev umiddelbart uskyldige drenge til mÊnd, der ikke kan opfÞre sig ordenligt? Hvad er gÄet galt i opdragelsen af drengebÞrn?

Opdragelse er et anliggende for begge forĂŠldre – sĂ„fremt begge er tilstede – og for staten. Eksempelvis bĂžr folkeskolen sikre, at bĂžrn, der opfĂžrer sig racistisk eller kvindehadsk, rettes til efter samfundets normer. Det er oplagt at spĂžrge, om uddannelsessystemet har vĂŠret for tolerant, eller blot ikke besiddet de rette vĂŠrktĂžjer til at sĂŠtte ind overfor moralsk upassende opfĂžrsel eller holdninger?

Har seksualundervisningen vĂŠret upassende? Jeg tror det.

Omvendt Ødipuskompleks

Antagelsen har sikkert vÊret, at spÞrgsmÄl om moral og vÊrdier bÞr foregÄ i familien. Dette er dog et sats, da ikke alle familier praktiserer lighed, frihed og retfÊrdighed omkring spisebordet.

Et andet underbelyst omrĂ„de er, hvorvidt bĂžrn – isĂŠr drenge – overbeskyttes af deres mĂždre. Personligt – og her er jeg farvet af at vĂŠre bosiddende i Spanien – tror jeg, at omfanget af overbeskyttende og ekstremt tolerante mĂždre er relevant at belyse.

Jeg har oplevet flere spanske mĂždre – ogsĂ„ dem, der betegner sig selv som feminister – der ser igennem fingrene, nĂ„r deres egen sĂžn er involveret i upassende og diskriminerende adfĂŠrd. Jeg har sĂ„gar hĂžrt mĂždre undskylde for deres sĂžnner, ligesom jeg har hĂžrt mĂždre anklage pigerne, fordi de (pigerne) har forledt deres sĂžnner.

Endelig har jeg de sidste par Är arbejdet sammen med et par psykologer, der hjÊlper drenge i alderen 11-14 Är med at vende tilbage til folkeskolen. Historien er den samme: Faren er fravÊrende, drengene sidder derhjemme og spiller computerspil uden megen anden social kontakt end moderen.

NÄr psykologen foreslÄr, at drengen vender tilbage til skolen, sÄ er det gerne moderen, der modsÊtter sig, fordi hun er bange for at miste kontrollen over sin sÞn, har psykologerne fortalt mig.

Der er tale om et omvendt Ødipus-kompleks, hvor, i dette tilfÊlde, moderens tiltrÊkning til et barn er problematisk.

Selvom der ikke er tale om et videnskabeligt bidrag, kan jeg ikke lade vÊre med at tÊnke pÄ, om der en sammenhÊng mellem de ganske ukritiske mÞdre i Spanien, og sÄ det skrÊmmende niveau af mandschauvinisme, hustruvold og drab i selvsamme land?

Jeg ved det ikke.

Opdragelsen er et fĂŠlles ansvar

Til gengÊld ved jeg, at mange drenge aldrig lÞsriver sig fra deres mÞdre (og omvendt). De lÊrer aldrig at tage ansvar for deres egne handlinger. De formÄr ikke at stÄ til regnskab for, hvad de har gjort eller gÞr.

De forbliver umyndige. Den tyske filosof Immanuel Kant talte om, hvordan barnet gĂ„r ud af umyndigheden – gĂ„r ud af hjĂŠlpelĂžsheden – som en modningsproces. Flere danske mĂŠnd er tilsyneladende juridisk myndige, men eksistentielt og moralsk umyndige. De besidder ikke modet til at bruge deres egen forstand, ville Kant sige. De fremstĂ„r dumme.

Betyder det sÄ, at problemet med mÊnd, der krÊnker piger og kvinder, er kvindernes egen skyld? Nej, selvfÞlgelig ikke. Opdragelse er et fÊlles anliggende; et fÊlles ansvar.

Som Camus skriver i Pesten: â€Jeg levede med ideen om min egen uskyldighed, hvilket vil sige, uden nogen som helst ide.”

Det drejer sig om, hvordan vi – som samfund – sikrer, at alle borgere uddannes i empati, kritisk tĂŠnkning og moralsk dannelse. Hvordan kan vi i fĂŠllesskab undgĂ„, at smĂ„ sĂžde blĂžde drenge bliver til mĂŠnd, der krĂŠnker og diskriminerer?

Set i det lys kan jeg godt forstĂ„, at Peterson er populĂŠr blandt drenge, da mange sikkert har savnet, at der bliver opsat nogle klare regler for dem. GrĂŠnser er vigtige. Men i stedet for at overlade opdragelsen af drenge til Peterson – der i Isabella Miehe-Renards anmeldelse fremstĂ„r som en semireligiĂžs paternalistisk forkynder – sĂ„ kunne vi som samfund gĂžre filosofien obligatorisk i folkeskolen.

UndersĂžgelsen fra gymnasierne viser, at vi som samfund skal starte tidligere. En eksistentiel feminisme er en pĂ„mindelse om, at alle mennesker strĂŠber efter frihed, hvorfor feminisme ogsĂ„ er i enhver tĂŠnkende mands interesse. Som samfund bĂžr vi hjĂŠlpe hinanden med at frigĂžre os fra alt det, som holder os fanget: SĂ„som dĂ„rlig eller mangelfuld opdragelse.

FĂžrst bragt POV International

Ikke alting er et spĂžrgsmĂ„l om kĂžn

I en artikel bragt Information (den 3. juli, 2019), skrev jeg fĂžlgende:

“AdfĂŠrd er altsĂ„ ikke partout kĂžnsbestemt, men snarere tegn pĂ„, at en person er mere eller mindre velfungerende.

Mine egne erfaringer til trods ser jeg ikke mig selv som offer. Jeg er snarere et menneske, der har erfaret livet pĂ„ godt og ondt.”

Det var pĂ„ baggrund af denne artikel, at TV2 News kontaktede mig onsdag den 16. september 2020, og spurgte om jeg ville medvirke i Go’ Morgen Danmark, den 17. september.

I interviewet, genkalder jeg et par episoder, der ligger omkring tyve Ă„r tilbage (og ikke 10-12 Ă„r, som jeg fĂ„r sagt). De stammer fra forskellige arbejdspladser i DK. Pointen med mit bidrag var, at upassende adfĂŠrd ikke partout er kĂžnsbestemt – en ganske banal pointe (jf. min kommentar i Information).

Jeg kalder mine erfaringer upassende, da jeg pĂ„ ingen mĂ„de vil klassificere dem, som overgreb eller krĂŠnkelser, men snarere smĂ„ ubehageligheder, der – for mit vedkommende – skabte momenter af forlegenhed (pga. arbejdskontekst og stor aldersforskel).

Der er i dag en tendens til, at alt reduceres til et spĂžrgsmĂ„l om kĂžn, hvorved feminismens frigĂžrende kamp ĂždelĂŠgges.  Eksempelvis, Ăžnskede den franske filosof, forfatter og feminist Simone de Beauvoir ikke en verden, der er der er feminin. Snarere plĂŠderede hun for en verden, hvor intet menneske (lĂŠs: intet kĂžn, race eller seksualitet) er noget i sig selv, men altid stĂ„r i et forhold til de andre. Hun ville ikke have meget til overs for nogle af nutidens mediefeminister, der opererer med et mandligt versus et kvindeligt princip, hvor manden reprĂŠsenterer en aggressiv gĂžren, mens kvinden er en samhĂžrig vĂŠren, der modsat manden har sans for nĂŠrhed og omsorg. Kvindelighed er intet i sig selv, sagde hun, fordi alle mennesker er forbudne. Som Beauvoir skrev i Om alderdommen, ”et liv har vĂŠrdi, sĂ„ lĂŠnge det tilskriver vĂŠrdi til de andres liv, ved hjĂŠlp af kĂŠrlighed, venskab, indignation og medfĂžlelse.”

Beauvoirs eksistentielle feminisme er en pÄmindelse om, at alle mennesker strÊber efter frihed, hvorfor vi ogsÄ bÞr hjÊlpe hinanden med at frigÞre os fra alt det, som holder os fanget. Det, som blandet andet holder os fanget, er bl.a. dumme generaliseringer. Det, som vi har behov for er netop en kultivering af kÊrlighed, medfÞlelse og venlighed; en accept af at vi alle sammen er forbudne, gensidigt afhÊngige.

Af samme grund er feminisme ogsÄ i hÞjere grad et politisk projekt, end et filosofisk.

Jeg har tidligere skrevet om #Metoo, medfĂžlelse og kultur her.

Om fodboldspilleren Cristiano Ronaldo, sexisme og misogyni her.

Om feminisme her

When life blooms

I’m pleased to announce that my new book, When life blooms – Breathe with Jeppe Hein will be released November 28th.

The publisher writes about the book:

“Danish artist Jeppe Hein soared to the top of the international art scene before the age of 35. His works were showcased at the world’s finest exhibitions and sold for sky-high prices. Then suddenly his body said stop. In 2009 Hein went down with stress.

In this book philosopher Finn Janning follows Jeppe Hein’s development from the tome immediately after his diagnosis with burn out and onward – a period where Hein underwent psychoanalysis and developed and interest in yoga, breathing exercises and spirituality.

Janning shows how spirituality has become more present in Hein’s works, and in the book, he develops an existential philosophy in continuation of the artists spirituality and art.”

I may add:

Although I was commissioned to write this book, I aimed at turning it into a philosophical biography that describes the life of the artist Jeppe Hein. In doing so, I’ve tried to exemplify Gilles Deleuze’s idea that “life is not personal,” that is to say, each life is a case study.

I choose this approach as a way of addressing the narcissism of the artist without making the narrative confronting, or in anyway judgmental.

Instead, I illustrate how Jeppe is formed by the major cultural trends during the last 40 years, such as the growing accelerating and spirituality and social entrepreneurship. He is an artist of his time.

It’s a book that tests and nuances the popularity of today’s spirituality through a philosophical, primarily existential lens.

ENJOY

 

Philosophy as fiction

“For me, philosophy is a way of living and not an academic discipline that requires you to swallow a certain amount of information to pass. Most great novelists are philosophers. The Danish philosopher SĂžren Kierkegaard once said that literature in order to become philosophy must become fiction. I like that. It also shows that the distinction between philosophy and literature is rather new—perhaps stemming from Kant—but does it matter if Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, de Beauvoir, and all the others are classified as philosophers or writers?”

Read the rest of the interview in Under the Gum Tree.

We’re All Accountable

… From my essay on sexism, morality, identity politics, and compassion:

“I remember Rebecca Solnit saying something about men being the problem—not all men, but men. And she’s almost right. Because men, as philosopher Simone de Beauvoir said about women, aren’t born men; they become men. Weinstein didn’t come into this world as a sick misogynist. He, like all those like him, was formed by the culture in which he was brought up.

Luckily, I think, I spent a lot of time with my mother and my sister. Yet, many small boys spend time with their mothers, and less time with their fathers 
 or, at least, they used to. Does this mean that even women—some mothers—are favouring their sons? Encouraging them to see themselves as better than girls? Telling their daughters to passively obey?”

Read the entire essay here.

To Think Philosophically?

”If philosophy did not exist, we cannot guess the level of stupidity [there would be]. Philosophy prevents stupidity from being as enormous as it would be were there no philosophy. That’s philosophy’s splendor, we have no idea what things would be like 
 So when we say ”to create is to resist,” it’s effective, positive, I mean.” – Deleuze, L’AbĂ©cĂ©daire de Gilles Deleuze.

What does it means to think philosophically?

I don’t think that only philosophers think or reflect. Rather, philosophers do so in a distinctive way by creating concepts that can help us see things we weren’t aware of before. It can be the way Simone de Beauvoir made many readers aware of the problematic assumption that men were the first sex and women were merely a diversion. It reminds me of how Deleuze and Guattari, years later, said that for far too long, the hegemonic ideal has been a white, 33 year old heterosexual man called Jesus, which not only discriminates, but also hinders our thinking. In a broader sense, be open toward other ways of living. This is also why solely giving advice, potentially, takes away the responsibility from each of us to be accountable for our actions.

So while we all – or most of us – think daily about what to eat, wear, do, etc. (especially if you have children who need healthy lunches and clean clothes), thinking philosophically requires that we pay attention to the present moment — that we critically reflect on what is happening, including evaluating our own behavior. It emphasizes that philosophy can’t teach you what to think or give you clear steps to attaining peace of mind. However, it can nurture critical thinking that can help us evaluate various forms of thinking. Instead of telling us what to think, philosophers can help us clarify how thinking is possible and perhaps even show us what philosophical thinking looks like.

For example, today it seems rather convenient to say that people who voted for Brexit or Trump can’t think, but here we might just be showing our own arrogant tendency for moralizing, i.e., judging. Instead, differences in opinions are an invitation to confront our own possible lack of understanding. Why do they believe that this is right? Once we get a better grab of their life-situation and moral reasoning, then we might show how the arguments behind these votes exhibit incoherent thinking. Thus, empathy for difference is not a blind acceptance but an ongoing process of questioning.

Similar, Trump voters, for example, seem to fear women, blacks, Mexicans, homosexuals, etc. He discriminates and represses what scares him, but more importantly, he does so based on irrational feelings of fear. He acts stupid. Yet, we should still ask whether Trump is the main problem, or whether it’s the ideology created him and later put him in power. There is, of course, no evidence that shows that men, in general, are better than women at anything, no evidence that Caucasians are better than blacks, etc. His value judgments, therefore, are not based on facts, but ignorance. But how can ignorance seduce so many?

So, although philosophy should not be about giving advice, it can still be taught. People can learn to become more aware about their own unreasonable beliefs and recognize their blind spots, such as whether they unintentionally discriminate by how they use language, etc. Such teaching is not taking away personal responsibility, but instead giving responsibility back to the people so they can become informed citizens and think for themselves.

Another example may illustrate this. Today, the media talk a lot about “fake news.” (I wonder whether all this talk is true or an example of how the concept of fake news can be used strategically.) People seem to ask: Who is responsible? Who should control it? However, instead of blaming Facebook or any other medium, I think it is troubling that so few people apparently are capable of critically questioning the news they receive — the sources, motives, agendas, and how the news is framed. Also, it seems as if many believe that objective journalists exist, even though everything is subjective. The truth is not out there, but created through our engagement with the world. Even journalists who strive to deliver well-researched news are still colored by their career objectives, personal beliefs and ideas, editors’ input, etc.

Therefore, if people really can’t think for themselves, then teaching them how to think becomes a social responsibility for all of us — mostly through schools.

Luckily, I have seen a growing trend, which I embrace, in which philosophy is being taught to children. I think that going forward, teaching philosophy is the best way to combat future sexism, racism, and other discrimination, the sad consequences of not being able to think philosophically. I stress best way because teaching people how to think won’t necessarily guarantee that they don’t repress, discriminate or violate other human beings, still self-knowledge tend to minimize self-deception in most sane people.

Plato's Academy

Plato’s Academy, Athens: Philosophy was from the beginning open to the world, in direct relation with the world – in the streets, parks, etc. Philosophy for all!

Meet the Author

For me, philosophy is a way of living and not an academic discipline that requires you to swallow a certain amount of information to pass. Most great novelists are philosophers. The Danish philosopher Sþren Kierkegaard once said that literature in order to become philosophy must become fiction. I like that. It also shows that the distinction between philosophy and literature is rather new—perhaps stemming from Kant—but does it matter if Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, de Beauvoir, and all the others are classified as philosophers or writers?

Read the rest of the interview in Under the Gum Tree.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑