Ricardo Villarreal

Think, Therefore Think Again

How Death Makes Us More Alive

by

Train TracksWe become thinkers the very precise moment when we acknowledge death and discover our own mortality.

I believe the first time I truly grasped the concept of death and realized I will die one day was when I was 8 years-old. I was at home reading the shocking news about the Mexico City earthquake of 1985 and the number of deaths from the tragedy.

I remember the uneasy feeling in my body and the impossibility of doing something about it as I was holding the newspaper and seeing the word “deaths” in the story.

As I discovered that death was real, thinking about how to deal with this topic started to become serious business as well.

In his book, “The Questions of Life”, Spanish philosopher Fernando Savater says that if death is the eternal state of not being, then we have already defeated it: the day we were born.

And even if it is only one time we will defeat death, this one time and opportunity we have of being alive, every day and instant that we continue to live and enjoy life will be triumphantly ours.

With this, not only does one start to think more about life the moment we know we will die, but we also begin to feel more alive than ever.

What do we know about death? Certainly not much. We do know, as Savater explains, that death is very personal and non-transferable. We cannot die for someone else, we can only die our own death.

But death, besides being distinctly personal, is also an accurate concept of true impartiality. Death does not discriminate on race, gender, or socioeconomic class; there is no individual who can escape from it. In the eyes of death we are all equal.

The certainty of death is what gives more importance to our lives. Everything we do, all our work, our hobbies, our social interactions… are all ways of resisting death.

But death is such an incomprehensible thing and so inevitably personal that it also represents the biggest fear for most people.

Some people fear about the unknown that follows death and confront such distress believing in a supernatural after-life world: a mystical place of eternal joy or punishment.

Others, not believing in gods rewarding or punishing humans, fear about the possibility that there is absolutely nothing after death, and that nothing is quite terrifying to them as well.

Perhaps a comforting way to digest this topic comes from Greek philosopher and atomic materialist Epicurus who advises on why we shouldn’t worry nor lose sleep over death: There is nothing to be afraid of because we never coexist with death and we will never feel death, as feeling is an activity (and privilege) of the living.

To feel distressed about the (gazillion) years ahead of us in which we will no longer be alive is just as capricious as to worry about the billions of years before we were born.

If we did not feel any pain being absent for all those billions of years, why should we feel concerned about a future of eternal absence?

Savater also mentions that part of the anguish we feel about death has to do with facing two difficult realities: all the joys of life we will miss when it comes to our own death, and because it will leave us without those we love in the case of others’ deaths.

It’s the conscience of death that makes life a very serious issue to think about. It’s mysterious and marvelous, a type of miracle for which we must fight and constantly reflect.

So death inevitably makes us thinkers. But not thinkers about death itself, but about life. And that should make us feel more alive and grateful.

A popular proverb says, “no one is too young to die, nor too old to live one more day.” It’s up to us to fully take advantage of the time we have and live the best life we can.

 

 

Saramago y la Democracia

by

Elecciones¿Puede la democracia ser la salvación del futuro de la humanidad y de garantizar un mundo socialmente justo?

Es posible que sí, pero implica que la democracia se discuta y se reinvente, nos dice el escritor y Nobel de Literatura José Saramago en la conferencia “El Nombre y la Cosa” (2006), que quedó plasmada en el libro del mismo nombre.

Entrando en materia sobre la democracia, Saramago nos traslada brevemente a su origen en Grecia (Siglo IV, a.e.c.) citando dos principios de Aristóteles:

Por un lado, “en la democracia los pobres son soberanos, porque son el mayor número y porque la voluntad de la mayoría es ley.”

En segunda instancia, con el objetivo de garantizar la igualdad y la libertad, Aristóteles nos dice: “la igualdad pide que los pobres no tengan más poder que los ricos, que no sean ellos los únicos soberanos, sino que lo sean todos en la proporción misma de su número.”

Así que muy pronto topamos con una discrepancia y ponemos en duda la legitimidad de la democracia, pues nunca en la historia de la humanidad los ricos han sido una población mayor a los pobres, y los ricos siempre han gobernado el mundo, al día de hoy.

Pero, ¿qué hay del poder del voto que inventaron los griegos? ¿No es el voto la expresión máxima que, siendo derecho de todos, valida el funcionamiento de la democracia?

Pues no. Resulta que dentro del mismísimo proceso de votación encontramos un verdadero conflicto democrático, ya que el voto es al mismo tiempo entrega y renuncia de nuestra voluntad política.

Saramago nos ilustra cómo en el preciso instante de ejercer nuestro derecho al voto e introducirlo en la urna, nuestro sufragio ya no nos pertenece como electores. Y a partir de ahí el político, diputado, o gobernante utilizará el poder según sus intereses, que en muchas instancias no es el del ciudadano que introdujo su voto en la urna.

Por eso es muy sencillo ver que no funciona este proceso democrático. Solo basta darse cuenta del tipo de gobernantes que tenemos; políticos que han abusado de este hueco que hay en el proceso democrático que no los obliga a ser dignos representantes del pueblo.

Porque confío que ninguna población sana, de raciocinio medianamente decente, y con un mínimo de respeto, elegiría a los corruptos que tenemos en el poder.

Dice Saramago, una democracia bien ejecutada debe ser como el Sol que a todos ilumina por igual.

Pero el poder no lo tiene la gente. Es más, el único poder que existe es el económico, el que todo lo mueve, el que controla las cuerdas del teatro llamado gobierno.

Y ese poder económico no es democrático porque no lo eligió el pueblo, ni tampoco contempla la participación ni el bienestar del pueblo.

Ese sistema de organización social que equivocadamente llamamos democracia, es realmente una plutocracia, un gobierno de los ricos para los ricos.

¿Qué hacer entonces? Pues debemos reformar la democracia. Y para ello tenemos que empezar por discutirla, por admitir que no funciona para el beneficio de la gente.

El autor nos advierte que de no hacer nada y de continuar con un concepto de democracia cada vez más putrefacto, no solo terminaremos por perder enteramente la democracia, sino que se perderá también la esperanza de ver un día dignamente respetados los derechos humanos para todos.

La dimensión política del pueblo debe ir mucho más allá del sufragio. Votar cada cierto número de años no es suficiente para mantener una democracia efectiva. Debe haber mayor participación ciudadana.

Si el verdadero poder es el económico, y el principal problema es que ese poder no es de la gente, pues la respuesta está en buscar la manera de que sea la ciudadanía la que penetre y tome el control de los organismos económicos y financieros de los que autoritariamente se les ha aislado.

Para acercarnos a un sistema democrático más justo, Saramago señala que una democracia política debe ir de la mano con una real democracia económica y estar aunada a una democracia cultural.

Pero esta fórmula estructural tampoco servirá de mucho en una democracia que no se autocritica, en una democracia que no se autoevalúa, y que no haga por vigilar la manera en que los gobernantes usan el voto que los puso en el lugar que ocupan.

Solamente a partir de la reflexión, del pensamiento crítico, y del deseo genuino de dialogar y tomar acciones constructivas podemos contribuir a reformar la democracia y a transformar nuestro mundo en uno más justo.

 

Is Success an Enemy to Your Happiness?

by

Success and Happiness CloudsIn most work environments success is defined in several ways, including the accomplishment of business goals, working for a big name organization, amassing substantial wealth, obtaining job promotions, receiving honors, enjoying material luxuries, and so on.

Most of these triumphs, in the modern global society we live in, are individual in nature and often consummated in a stressful scenario of competition.

To be clear, competitive success can be good when it genuinely challenges us to be better persons improving our professional growth, but not when it becomes a self-inflicted pressure with the whole purpose of outshining our neighbors and colleagues.

Just as success can be a part (I repeat, just a part) of our happiness, it can also contribute to our unhappiness if we don’t understand what to make of it.

Putting too much emphasis upon competitive success can be detrimental and can leave us emotionally empty if we cannot find what value it gives to our lives.

Work that is poisoned by a false sense of competition can lead to envy, where instead of deriving pleasure from what you have, it derives pain from what others have. Don’t fall into this trap; avoid such superficial comparisons that can blind you to see how truly fortunate you are in life.

But, what is success really? The meaning of success for me could be completely different than yours. And that is perfectly fine.

When you widen your mind and your interests, when you listen to your heart and your true self, and when you put the things you care about and the people that truly matter to you in the right place in your life, you will be closer to defining your success. It doesn’t have to be something complex.

In fact, success for me is as simple as achieving life balance, where all the key ingredients of life contributing to our happiness receive equal importance in their own time.

When it comes to professional life, the quality of the work I do and the positive impact it has in contributing to the betterment of society are very important to me in measuring success. I have never been attracted to a good paying job whose responsibilities are essentially trivial for humanity.

No matter what profession you may have, you can find a way for it to be successfully rewarding while achieving excellence and meaning. And with it, happiness.