
Only the Lonely - jlangenauer
http://www.stephenfry.com/2013/06/24/only-the-lonely/
======
flatline
> I don’t want to be alone, but I want to be left alone.

I have always suffered from this as well. Perhaps it is just a touch of
introversion? I have a happy marriage and family but I often need time all to
myself or I just get overwhelmed by the constant stimulus of...other people. I
don't even necessarily do anything different than I would with my family,
though I generally try to work on my own projects or study something
interesting.

~~~
asie
As somebody who has cancer, mentioned in the article and mentioned right next
to diabetes (cringe), I look at the people complaining about how human
interaction is complicated and life is difficult and I am left speechless.

Fuck people, make an effort. Do it for the dying ones.

~~~
ANTSANTS
That portion of the article is referring to _clinical depression_ , not
general loneliness and unhappiness. You just demonstrated his point (that
people have a hard time seeing mental conditions like bipolar disorders as
_actual diseases of the mind_ and not just bad attitudes) quite nicely.

Pardon me for being frank, but when I pause to imagine having my life taken
from me before I was done living it, or being so profoundly unhappy that I
would sincerely attempt to kill myself, I can only see both as terrible in
their own right. There's no sense in trying to compare the severity of one to
the other.

~~~
asie
Your life is not "taken from me before you're done living it".

You get to keep it. For a while at least.

------
javajosh
Personally, I think it's great that Fry has been so forthcoming with his
travails. It helps others tremendously to know that they are not alone.

I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue? This is
a discussion of the rational justification, independent of brain-chemistry.
Hamlet is right for the wrong reasons. These are my beliefs:

The only real reason to continue is because you think that you can contribute,
in at least a small way, to the long-term well-being of humanity. You, an
individual, are a cell in a vast organism of humanity, and your duty is to
find something useful to do. There are many ways to do this, as a (spiritual,
physical) healer, as a (artistic, technical) creator, or as a player of
(business, political) games (who, by the way, use the output of the first two
types in the game).

The "long-term well-being of humanity" itself has many possible expressions.
On the largest scale, it means making sure that humanity itself can survive
any calamity. That means not only taking care of this planet, making sure that
it can sustain life, but it also means reaching and colonizing other places in
the solar system and galaxy. Given the incredible work required to build a
self-sustaining colony orbiting the Earth (which is the only viable option
given our level of technology) maintaining intellectual freedom is paramount.
Constructing social/political/economic systems that reward power to those with
self-restraint, and engender trust in those who could harm us is also
important. On a smaller scale, raising children is crucially important,
because the organism of humanity needs new cells to replace the cells that
die.

Comedians like Stephen Fry are our philosophers. They perform a remarkable
feat of alchemy, taking the banal horrors of political and social life and
transmuting them in to something funny, something insightful, something that
makes you think. Humor is an effective coping mechanism when we face our own
prejudices, our own contradictions and, importantly, the same mistakes we see
in others. Too often our leaders, and indeed we ourselves, don't laugh enough
at the tragedies of our age - for laughter is more powerful than hate, because
it criticizes injustice but mercifully leaves behind the terrible burning that
anger creates.

Please, Stephen, continue.

~~~
javert
Sorry, but this is a load of disgusting hogwash.

Life is not about sacrificing for the good of the collective.

People who tell you that do NOT have your best interests in mind.

~~~
javajosh
> Life is not about sacrificing for the good of the collective.

Good heavens, is that what you heard? Sacrifice means giving something up; I'm
talking about gaining something, in this case a goal that is actionable,
useful, and very difficult to achieve. You are clearly free to pick that
purpose for yourself (I hope you do), or pick another purpose, or none at all.

And we are both free to advocate for our choices in the hopes of inspiring
others who, at least in my case, may not have thought about it in quite these
terms. You clearly don't like the sound of my purpose, so why don't you share
yours?

~~~
javert
> I'm talking about gaining something, in this case a goal that is actionable,
> useful, and very difficult to achieve.

What exactly is that?

> so why don't you share yours?

Just as the body has a pleasure/pain mechanism, so the mind has a
joy/suffering mechanism.

The biological purpose of this mechanism is to give you joy when you
experience physical pleasure, and pain when you experience physical pain; but
moreover, to regulate the _anticipation_ of physical pleasure/success and
physical pain/failure. That anticipation is mediated by your rationally (or
not) chosen values. There is more that can be said about this... for example,
self-esteem comes from building a character that allows for the rational
assumption that you can expect continued success as an organism, and the
rewards thereof.

So, my purpose is to experience joy and happiness in my life by choosing and
pursuing rational values, given the constraints I mentioned above.

Obviously, the amount of philosophy you can do in an online comment is pretty
limited. What I've said is just a summary. After all, I started in ethics,
whereas a full philosophical exposition would start with metaphysics or
epistemology.

Since your post was mainly about other people, let me say: other people are
valuable to me, because they can be friends, lovers, trading partners, etc.
So, there are _good_ arguments to be made for helping others. I think arguing
it from "duty" is not doing it in a rational way and will lead to bad
conclusions.

By the way, I want to make it clear that when I called what you said
"disgusting hogwash," that wasn't a reflection on _you_ at all. I just wanted
to call out what I saw as a bad argument that I think could influence people
to go in a very bad personal direction.

~~~
javajosh
>> a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve.

> What exactly is that?

This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully, or
perhaps at all, as answering that question was it's subject. I suggest you
read it again, and perhaps this time more slowly and with an open mind.

> your post was mainly about other people

This also implies that you did not read my original comment well or at all.

As for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too
hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive. But thanks for the
clarification.

> very bad personal direction.

...and yet, you seem to have judged my view as bad without comprehending it.
How can you do that if you don't know what it is? Perhaps you are goading me?
Well, I'll write this one comment, in the hopes that you really will re-read
what I wrote and understand it.

~~~
javert
> This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully

No, I did. And I re-read it before my second response. I don't think what you
listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either
actionable or useful. I was hoping you would clarify your thoughts on that
point.

I was disappointed by your last comment, because I think it was made in poor
faith. Your accusations that I didn't read your comment carefully or may be
goading you are in poor faith. Furthermore, I took the time to carefully
respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored
it.

> for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too
> hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive.

I think it's a pretty appropriate response when somebody calls for people to
sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective.
Pointing out that that is what it is, _is_ a substantive criticism.

~~~
javajosh
> I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of
> humanity," is either actionable or useful.

Shortly after, I mentioned two examples of such: working toward the
colonization of other worlds at the large scale, and having children in the
small. These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable.

> I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of
> life, and you completely ignored it.

It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a
"Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused.
Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a
profound emptiness.

> when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness
> for the good of the collective

I defy you to show where I said that or implied it. Living for a higher
purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand
placed the Truth above all else. Egoism was merely an expression of the
acknowledgement of that Truth. I am not an adherent to Objectivism, but I
don't believe that even the most fervent Objectivist could blanch at my
proposal to work to achieve the stars. Or do you think that Objectivism
requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested
economic market? Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would
have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught.

~~~
javert
> These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable.

Who are they useful for? Future humans? If every generation just lives to make
the far future better, instead of enjoying life, I think it's all rather
pointless.

That's why I question the utility of what you've given. If you claim something
is useful, it has to be useful _for someone_ to do something worth doing.

Rand wouldn't disagree with going to space, but she would ask, "For whom?" and
"to what end?"

> Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a
> profound emptiness.

It's maximizing happiness, not pleasure.

> Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of
> Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else.

That is absolutely a false characterization of Rand.

> Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely
> as agents in self-interested economic market?

It's a philosophy, not a religion. It doesn't require anything, and it doesn't
have adherents. To answer your question, no, it doesn't consider that
everything worth doing be framed in terms of economics.

> Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at
> your narrow view of what she taught.

Rand was not an idealist. She explicitly rejected idealism. Rather, she
defined exactly what it means to neither make the mistake of being either
idealistic, nor rejecting all abstraction.

I can assure you that Rand would _not_ recoil at my (at least) approximately
accurate portrayal of her views. I should say that some of the finer details
of my point about the pursuit of pleasure/pain and joy/suffering are, I think,
my ideas, not hers, but I think they are completely commensurate with what she
wrote.

> It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a
> "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused.

Thank you for apologizing. However, you do not understand Rand's views well
enough to legitimately dismiss someone just because they agree with Rand.

~~~
javajosh
1\. I'm still not seeing backup for your claim that I was asking anyone to
sacrifice themselves for the good of others.

2\. You should read Objectivist Epistemology, where she connects her ethical
system to her metaphysics. It's fairly execrable as philosophy goes, but it
does underscore my point that she's fundamentally driven by her idealism,
particularly about the nature of truth. (BTW that's why it's called
Objectivism and not Selfishism).

Anyway, you really do sound like a young Randroid (again). In a few years
you'll see that, well, she was wrong. Emotions are not vestigial. Reason is
one tool in the box among others. And when self-interest, rather than self-
restraint, becomes widely accepted as the criteria for merit, we end up with a
system like we have today, where a docile public unable to even articulate a
criticism of abuse of power, since there is no such thing as "abuse of power"
in a framework that rewards only self-interest.

Adieu.

~~~
javert
I've tried to engage productively with you, even to the point of chiding you
for being rude without retaliating myself, but now you're just being an
asshole.

I've been studying philosophy as a hobby/passion for many years. I've read the
work you're referring to, and a whole hell of a lot more. You have a very,
very naive understanding of Objectivism.

> Anyway, you really do sound like a young Randroid (again). In a few years
> you'll see that, well, she was wrong.

Likewise, you really do sound like a young <X>, and in a few years, you'll
realize how wrong you are about everything.

That is, literally, the sum of your argument. That is really pitiful.

And for all you know, I could be a 55 year old philosophy professor (though
I'm not).

~~~
jtheory
I only skimmed this exchange, and I have no dog in this fight, but you should
be aware -- you seem to be the only one using obscenities, and you started
this exchange with "Sorry, but this is a load of disgusting hogwash".

None of these comments are very friendly-feeling to me (on either side...
you're both obviously feeling defensive), but if you start the exchange with
that kind of comment, you're the first to deploy obscenities, you're more
actively insulting, etc., you can't really claim the higher ground at the end.

I hope this is useful... it's hard to discuss these kinds of things, but if
you can manage it (without getting tangled up in attack/counterattack) it can
be rewarding.

~~~
javert
It's been a personal goal of mine to get to the point where I never say
something online that I wouldn't say in person, and so far I've made a lot of
progress, but it looks like the next step is to never use obscenities.

So, you're right, thank you, and that is helpful.

I strongly disagree that I was more actively insulting. I think a detailed
reading of the conversation speaks for itself on this.

------
ctdonath
_it’s the thought behind the most famous speech in all history. To be, or not
to be._

In high school I started memorizing that for no particular reason. Upon
completing a test, I idly doodled it in the margin waiting for the class to
end, and handed in the paper. The next morning, the teacher cornered me in the
hall and delicately asked if everything was OK. Bewildered by the time & tone
of the question, I suddenly realized what Hamlet's soliloquy was about.

~~~
jtheory
I enjoyed reading through this speech again just now -- I have a strange sense
that my thinking has been clouded every time I've read it in the past
(primarily in school), but now I can grasp it.

That said, I don't agree with Hamlet at all, and the real problem is far
deeper than he realizes. I'm also surprised that Stephen uses this soliloquy
to capture his own thinking.

"To sleep: perchance to dream" \-- that's the turn, but Hamlet is worried
about the _afterlife_ , about supernatural judgement. He's very right to be,
in context -- he's already met a ghost. But isn't Fry a vocal atheist? Isn't
he already sure that "no dreams will come"?

I don't think I've ever had "might go to Hell" as a reason against suicide...
I was already most of the way to atheism by the time I was playing with these
kinds of thoughts as a teenager.

It's also a cheat, in a way -- sort of like "I don't kill people because I'm
afraid then I'll burn in Hell" is much less moral than "I don't kill people
because I understand the pain and harm of murder, and I don't want to inflict
that on anyone".

The real problem of answering "to be or not to be" is that suicide isn't as
obviously morally wrong as murder. Yes, harm is done -- the people around us
can be devastated, for example -- but for a mind in sufficient pain, it's not
hard to attenuate the imagined future suffering down to nothing, and I've
talked to lots of people actively doing this ("they say they love me, but
they'll be happier when I'm not here causing them so much trouble..."). And it
doesn't work to argue someone out of depression, of course, though I'm afraid
I learned that lesson the stupid way.

------
kposehn
I've always thought that if you know someone is suicidal, don't always make it
apparent that it is on your mind.

Sometimes they just need to have a person who lets things be normal - someone
who knows what is there, but doesn't let it change the tone of every
interaction.

That seems one of the most helpful things you can do, in my opinion.

~~~
thaumaturgy
It is extremely difficult to know how to interact with someone with
depression.

Often, you're right, it would be fantastic to just hear from someone who
invites themselves over for lunch and a game on the weekend. Other times, you
really want to be able to just have a deep conversation with someone, to be
able to let your guard down for a while and talk about troubling things openly
and honestly. Unfortunately, that's often unrealistic: the other person has to
be in the mood for it, you have to feel safe enough about it to not shy away
from it because it might be made a big deal of later on, when you're feeling
better.

------
hjay
"The strange thing is, if you see me in the street and engage in contemplation
I will probably freeze into polite fear and smile inanely until I can get away
to be on my lonely ownsome."

This is me. I feel lonely all the time, yet when people approach me for
conversation, I smile and respond with the least amount of words possible, and
long for the moment I can be on my own again.

------
joebeetee
..."what the fuck right do I have to be lonely, unhappy or forlorn? I don’t
have the right. But there again I don’t have the right not to have those
feelings. Feelings are not something to which one does or does not have
rights."

This is a great quote. Having been exposed to significant poverty and hardship
growing up, I am often unnecessarily and overly harsh on celebrities and
privileged people - this quote stopped me in my tracks.

Then I begin to think about the life/health that I have and start to feel like
the jammy one.

Sorry Sir Stephen, wish I could help in some way.

------
paganel
Maybe lots of people already know about it, but I'll just copy-paste this in
here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7X7sZzSXYs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7X7sZzSXYs)

It's not an anti-dote (to loneliness and everything), it just genuinely helped
me from time to time and I hope it will also help others.

------
estacado
Suicidal thoughts as a disease may not only be solely genetic, but may have
something to do with lifestyle/environment, like other diseases. I wonder how
many starving Africans actually have this disease.

~~~
Millennium
First World Problems (tm): because the people you don't sympathize with are
just playing life on easy mode.

------
NovemberWest
I don't deal well with being alone, but I am also an extrovert. Loneliness and
being alone are very much different things. I was much, much, much lonelier in
a marriage where love had died than since my divorce, though I was
romantically "alone" a long time (however, my sons still live with me so I
have rarely been literally alone).

------
baby
I don't understand how nihilist people (as I am) who are suicidal (as I am
not) are still alive. As long as I can recall I've never had even one thought
about killing myself, but if I did I can easily imagine that I would have
killed myself.

------
andyhmltn
I'm deeply thankful to Fry and everything he's done in this regard. Had I not
watched him talking about his experiences so openly I would not have noticed
myself acting in a similar manner.

------
gadders
I can't help feeling a bit cynical about Stephen Fry's suicide "revelation".
After gaining all the news coverage, the very next day he announced some new
TV project of his. Coincidence?

~~~
jtheory
Perhaps he's starting a new TV project he's pleased about, has his meds well
in order, and is feeling strong & stable enough to discuss this now?

Or should he wait until nothing's happening in his professional life? Then the
cynics would say look, it's been 6 months since he's done anything important,
and so he has this suicide "revelation" to get back into the spotlight.
Coincidence?

