Conquering Depression: Underscoring The Significance Of Purpose w.r.t Chap 1 Of Bertrand Russell's 'Conquest Of Happiness'

 

Bertrand Russell is a name that requires no introduction. One of the 20th century's most prominent mathematicians, his is a name also synonymous with a curious branch of Western philosophy, known as analytic philosophy. This particular brand of philosophy is characterized by its focus on clarity of prose, rationale based argumentation, both features quite heavily featured in any piece of writing attributed to Russell. Being a student of philosophy,  keen to make sense of the quintessential 'bigger picture' one eventually gravitates towards such clear, nuanced analyses which are simultaneously simple to understand. Bertrand Russell's prowess is in such simplicity.

I personally found unhappiness to be Russell's substitute for depression. There was a time when the deadly disease of tuberculosis was categorized as 'consumption'. I feel as if whenever he talks of unhappiness, he is instead pointing towards something beyond mere disillusionment or the simple feeling of being 'bummed out'. By invoking the mention of unhappiness, he is pointing towards a larger reality beyond the confines of sadness. Knowing Russell, one should know better to read between the lines rather than stick to the surface. The sad fact of life is that unhappiness is intrinsic to the human experience. When you know, you know.

Russell begins his treatise by saying that animals are happy as long as they are healthy and have enough to eat. Human beings, being part of the animal kingdom, should also be but in the modern world, their need for happiness has evolved. This can be explained by  Abraham Maslow's 'hierarchy of needs' model. This model states that a human's needs for contentment are structured in such a way that the physiological needs such as food and shelter, are only the first rung of the ladder. These are followed by safety needs i.e. protection, law, security etc. Then come the love and belonging needs, the unavailability of which leads to a plethora of crises. Then come the esteem needs i.e. the need for respect, recognition and status which come from dignity, independence, achievement and mastery. Finally, come the self-actualization needs which ensure the achievement of an individual's potential. By dint of his essay, Russell alludes to the last three: the love and belonging needs, the esteem needs and the self-actualization needs. If one is depressed, they would already know that they are not alone in feeling the way they do. Conversely, if they are content they should then focus their energies on whether their friends feel the same way. When they have thus reviewed their peers, they should proceed to train themselves in the art of reading faces and extending the same privilege to strangers they would meet in the course of an ordinary day.

Unhappiness or depression, though varied, is an unchanging reality. Although it lies deep beneath the surface, yet its presence leaves a stain upon the individual, manifesting itself in behavior. Even in the most modern metropolis, complete with its own vibrant hustle and bustle, the underlying depression is still there. It is what catalyzes the rat race of materialistic pursuits. Fast or slow, it doesn't matter. The point is that the race is going on. The slow are as willing to partake in the race as the fast ones, the difference is that they cannot afford the time to look around them, lest their hard-earned spot be taken over by another waiting in the wings. From the point of view of an observer, both the fast and slow are moving at a uniform pace, striking an awkward parallel with Newton's law of inertia: if they were somehow to hypothetically be boxed in a container or vessel, that container would be moving in uniformity, relative to external perspective. Physics of it not properly lining up aside, applying the law,  any observer viewing from the outside, would never be able to differentiate among fast and slow participants in the materialist race. Their final destination is the same, to be in a scramble to pass each other as quickly as possible. Once they start enjoying themselves properly is when they get into trouble.  You see, unhappiness is sustenance for force of habit.

Take alcoholism for example, another unfortunate externalization of depression. Russell posits that misery, in fact, does not love company, it only desires being accompanied. When the deed is done,  is when the hollow lamentation starts. I say hollow, because it continues to be rendered worthless in the face of the much stronger habitual indulgence which is, again, sustained by unhappiness. 

What causes this unhappiness? Primarily, individual psychology, which is a product of a flawed social system. This is where we digress, and pore over a certain case study: science fiction. 

  "So, you don't like real girls?"

This short piece of dialogue, from Blade Runner 2049, Denis Villeneuve's epic sequel to Ridley Scott's 1982 sci-fi epic Blade Runner, is weirdly poignant. The franchise taking its roots from Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, envisions a postmodern, cyberpunk dystopia where humanity and artificially intelligent machines modelled after humans, known as Replicants, co-exist. However the humans being highly colonial in nature,  are intent on creating the androids only as an expendable workforce, to be put down if need be, by specialized police officers known as Blade Runners. Naturally, the Replicants rebel. The most fascinating theme is still not the subliminal postcolonial critique or the commentary on surveillance capitalism in a hyper-advanced world as the more vocal would contend, rather it is the very contrast between man and machine. The lines are particularly blurred when it comes to morality, the Replicants being burdened by conscience and memory, are more human than the self-proclaimed homo sapiens themselves. It is that same almighty baggage as is carried by Ryan Gosling's Officer K, our titular Blade Runner in 2049 (who also happens to be a Replicant), to whom this line is spoken by a human escort he happens to solicit. Employed by the ruthless scion of an all-powerful conglomerate to hunt down fellow Replicants, K by dint of his own humanity, is a loner who struggles to stake his claim in a world he can never truly call his own, a world where others like him are only hunted down and killed once they outlive their usefulness (extracting natural resources) to the corporation producing them simply by starting to think and feel for themselves. To help him cope with his emotional needs, Officer K is equipped with a pseudo-realistic 'partner' by his employers, a holographic model embodying the desirable traits of a devoted, traditional wife. This mirage of companionship is still only a temporary respite in the face of the omnipresent sadness, a sadness that can't be overcome in the company of the otherwise sexually liberated real woman, a sadness only compounded by embarking on the journey of self-discovery.

Now, behold, this piece of information in a real op-ed:  

WHAT if you could tell all your life problems to someone and they would help you deal with them? While most of the conversation around artificial intelligence has focused on what it can do in the business, marketing and knowledge contexts, one increasingly popular iteration is the construction of AI ‘companions’.

Admittedly, the term ‘companion’ may be an exaggeration in the sense that the people using these companions to confide in know that they are not real. At the same time, in the words of one user who spoke to a newspaper, they can often be more attentive, responsive, and concerned than any ‘real’ friends.

Welcome to the realm of AI as a means of talk therapy or just some everyday companionship. It is well known that we live in a world where loneliness has become an epidemic — this does not necessarily mean the physical absence of other people but a sense of alienation even from those that may be around.

These lines have been taken from Ms. Rafiya Zakariya's op-ed in DAWN on December 11, 2024, aptly titled 'Hooked on Artificial Intelligence'.  

Ushering in any brand of dystopia that keeps our fears perpetually heightened, is only inevitable. When men are already unhappy, they would most likely cast aside the fading veneer of humanity and stand at daggers drawn: peace is hardly ever an option when mutually assured destruction is both highly convenient and absolutely necessary. As evidenced by the Blade Runner series of films, the rich and the wealthy make machines only to keep the poor under their subjugation. The benefits of machine production are only so, when the machines are beneficial to the poor, without any sort of classist discrimination in society. Yet here, Russell asks the more grounded question: cui bono (who benefits)? Misery does seem to be the only viable guarantee to a plausible classless utopia, if any.

All such grandiose matters aside, the most important thing is to figure out a cure for the ordinary things as can depress an individual. This is caused largely due to mistaken world views, mistaken ethical and moral frameworks and mistaken habits of life which in turn feed off of an individual's happiness. It is completely within an individual's control to overcome, however. The pedigree of the author to be making such claims is in his own struggles with mental health. Pushed to the brink of suicide, the author then found great solace in the field of mathematics. 

A few personal substantiations for how mathematics brings forth a method out of the madness where there wouldn't be any. As we know, mathematics is the scale upon which the universe is properly balanced (thank you, Luc Besson, for your 100% usage of the brain in creating Lucy). It is infallible. Where science becomes susceptible to the ravages of subjective criticism in light of certain ideological prejudices,  it is the iron-clad rules and theorems of mathematics that stand tall and defiant. To illustrate via example, let's take a topical political statement which has garnered significant controversy in recent times. "Trans women are women" has continually sparked up debates on the biological and sociological front. By all accounts, the debates incorporate a wide range of convincing argumentation, each more divisive than the previous. Add to that, the slightly recent infiltration of trans activists in the field of anthropology, more specifically archaeology, where the 'oppressive' categorization of 'male' and 'female' just had to be forcefully done away with. Trusting science, I would be left scratching my head in confusion at this point. Thankfully, I found I had a much more result-oriented alternative at my disposal. Applying the 'equation in one variable' rule from elementary level mathematics on this otherwise 'complex' and 'multi-layered' problem, et voila, did I hit the jackpot. Not only did my equations (tried making a general equation of the sentence then applied its converse)  have no solution (variables got cancelled out) which illuminated that this 'fact' had no basis in reality but when I substituted the dependent variable in place of the independent one, I found that I could not even define the independent variable. This result astonishingly, is highly rooted in reality as it turns out. In the mock-documentary 'What Is A Woman?', conservative podcaster Matt Walsh went about asking a group of women rights activists advocating for trans rights if they could define what a woman was. The common answer was "Whoever identifies as a woman is a woman". The increasingly radical political stances had thus so egregiously encroached upon the sense of reasoning, that even a simple biological definition continued to be elusive. In light of the result as obtained from our little mathematical exercise above, we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt, that whenever you substitute the exception in place of the rule, the rule simply loses its definitive parameters i.e. can't be defined at all. 

The reason for typing this extensive assortment of words is elucidating the sheer power of mathematics in bringing about a method to the madness. If elementary mathematical rules can settle huge ideological contests, one need only presume that the discipline in its entirety is perfectly capable of saving lives.

This is exactly what it did for Bertrand Russell. Made him enjoy life. It helped him out of his shell of self and in essentially 'deleting' parts of previously acquired knowledge that were no longer useful. First and foremost was his Puritan upbringing. It cultivated in him the 'mistaken habit' of overthinking on sins and foibles. Gradually, according to Russell, one becomes indifferent to himself and instead  centers his focus on the external world, on various individuals for whom one feels affection,  various streams of knowledge that attract one's fancy. This new form of intuitive insight does come with its own fair share of 'what ifs' but these small concerns do not diminish one's essential quality of life and are far better than the myriad problems as can so arise when one harbours a negative self-image. External interests, as long as they remain active, can act as shields against dissatisfaction. Conversely, an interest in oneself that doesn't hinge on an outright obsession, can lead to more progressive activities such as keeping a diary, introspecting or, upon crossing the threshold of self-actualization, adopting an ascetic lifestyle. However, the ascetic is only as happy as the routine of the monastery allows him to be, he has to contend with his soul even in solitary meditation or prayer. Thus, the happiness which stems from religion is impromptu and fleeting in Russell's eyes, contingent only upon the spontaneity of routine which eventually turns pedagogical. A crossing-sweeper can experience the same amount of happiness in lieu of the thrill of a job well done on a daily basis. For the narcissists, Russell expects grass to be touched as soon as can be possible.

Coming to the psychological causes of unhappiness, they are diverse. Yet, there are commonalities. The typical unhappy man is one who has been deprived in his youth of any normal form of satisfaction. He attaches an exceptional value to its attainment and overcompensates by building his whole life around achieving the end, without paying any heed to the means through which the end is to be achieved. The more pressing issue is not the attainment of satisfaction by means of an overly singular focus, rather it is satisfaction through no focus at all, the satisfaction through a self-destructive, hedonistic or even nihilistic lifestyle. An example of such behavior is being intoxicated, with the high only a temporary gratification which chases away unhappiness (only for it to return with more severity, thus leaving one 'hooked on the feeling' so to speak). They expect disappointment and thus are never disappointed, which is marginally better by comparison than the self-absorbed and power-hungry, who believe in the end that is happiness but resort to the wrong means to actually materialize it. Men with a habit of staying unhappy will take pride in their own misery. However, nobody would deliberately choose to be unhappy if they could find a way to be happy instead. If any such men exist, there are too few to be considered. In case the reader happens to be down in the dumps, then Russell hopes what he has written would be more than sufficient of a consolation.

To conclude, Bertrand Russell's vivid detail of unhappiness also qualifies in its own way, as a form of mental health awareness. Given the times in which we live today, the discourses around mental health are more poignant than ever. On social media and in pop culture, mental illness, particularly depression, is aestheticized and glamorized quite gratuitously, to the extent of diluting the severity of the issues at hand. Faux empathy and chronic insensitivity compounds the existing problem, since it is accompanied by the subsequent commercialization of the ideally noble and highly intuitive profession of psychiatry. Depictions of mental health disorders in film and television inadvertently contribute to aforesaid glorification and in their own twisted manner 'pathologize normalcy to normalize pathology'.