MENSCH

This excerpt from a post by Ken Matsushima on his blog begins:
​
​ '....Wouldn't we all love to live in a society that ensured our basic needs (food, shelter, clothing) and provided a satisfying degree of self-expression and self-worth?'

(Ken refers to a book written by Francis Fukuyama. For the full context, see the original post.)
​
.... However, in the course of interpreting Hegel, and the Platonic philosophical foundation used by Hegel, Fukuyama seizes upon the Greek concept of "Thymos" (sometimes spelt “Thumos”), which is discussed in depth in Plato's "Republic." Over the course of his discussion, Fukuyama becomes very attached to the term. He repeatedly calls upon it when analyzing the forces which lead to democratic social and political systems. But unfortunately — perhaps because he is a neoconservative, but more likely, because he is a mechanist — Fukuyama fails to really understand what "Thymos" means.

In Fukuyama's hands, the word becomes almost a synonym for "selfishness" (though selfishness in a non-pejorative sense). People want to be proud of themselves, to feel a sense of having achieved something, and of being valued. They do things to try to demonstrate that worth, and when it is either ignored or demeaned, they get angry. If they have no say in decisions, it offends their “Thymos.” Therefore they tend to prefer democratic social systems (etc. etc.)

There is some truth to Fukuyama's line of reasoning, but unfortunately, he missed the true sense of what "Thymos" means — or rather, what it meant to the ancient Greeks. Thymos, it turns out, is a very intriguing concept. It has a bit of a "mystical" quality in Plato’s hands, which Fukuyama was utterly incapable of absorbing. Turning to the works of Plato, Democritus, and others dating back as far as Homer, it is interesting to see what a central role it plays in the Greek concept of the Soul.

Nowadays many people are prepared to argue that "there is no such thing as a soul", seemingly oblivious to the most basic rules of logic : Before you can prove either the existence or nonexistence of something, you need to define, clearly and without ambiguity, what that "something" is. And when we begin looking at words such as “Psyche (Soul)” and “Thymos”, it is astonishing to see how much importance the concepts are accorded by the people who laid the very foundations of our modern "reason" and "logic".

To the Greeks, the "soul" consisted of all those features of life which were not physical. Thought, language, emotion, and even Consciousness itself — all of these things clearly exist. But they are not a part of the physical body. Therefore, by definition, they must be part of the soul. Before the word “soul” received all the baggage and accoutrements that Christianity (and other religions) applied to it, it simply referred to those elements of a living creature which cannot be classified as part of the “body.”

The Greeks, who laid the foundations of our entire Western edifice of logic and philosophy, defined the soul in just this way. A living creature has two parts — a physical part and a nonphysical part. The physical part is called "the body". The non-physical part is called "the soul".

As the Greeks looked within, and applied the logical, scientific method to what they saw, they began to realise that the Soul includes many distinct (and sometimes even contradictory) features. Proceeding with their logical analysis of the Soul, they divided it into parts. One of the most famous descriptions of these parts, and how they operated, was given by Plato in the dialogue "Phaedrus". In that dialogue Plato’s teacher, Socrates, offers a metaphor to explain how the human mind works: that of a chariot.

The "Logos" - conscious, rational thought — serves as the charioteer, using its logical (Logos) skills, knowledge and experience to guide the course of the chariot. The motive power which drives the chariot is provided by two horses — "Eros" and "Thymos". Eros, of course, includes the meaning that we use today, but it encompasses more than just love and lust. It also incorporates other physical passions such as hunger and thirst, as well as the "acquisitive" urge (whether for land, cattle, wives, gold, or any of the things that weren't around in Ancient Greece).

The second horse — called the "Thymos" - was also an urge or a driving force, but it compels one to seek something that is not physical. Thymos includes the desire for recognition, the need for self-realization and a sense of accomplishment, as well as things like friendship, intellectual stimulation, recreation, competition and so on. The word is sometimes translated into English as "spiritedness." Interestingly enough, the Greeks associated Thymos with breathing. In both meaning and philology it corresponds to the Hindu idea of "Atman" (the self) . . . which also happens to be derived from the word for breath.

It isn't my intention to discuss the mystical characteristics of this "Thymos" — at least not today. What interests me is what Socrates thought about the Thymos. To him, it was the more admirable of the two motivating forces. Naturally, the "Eros" horse is a very natural and necessary thing. A man who didnt have the Eros motivation would forget to eat, drink and reproduce. But for Socrates, the Thymos urges were what made man a noble creature. It was the Thymos that made a man try to achieve greatness, honour and dignity. It was the source of generosity, pride, compassion, ambition and friendship. A person who cultivated his Thymos, and who succeeded in realizing the things that Thymos inspires - that was the Greek definition of a "hero".

Fukuyama apparently missed the more "spiritual" characteristics of Thymos, because modern "academic" thinkers tend to dismiss that sort of motivation as "fuzzy-headed nonsense". Leave the discussion of morality, dignity and integrity to the priests and the parsons. We only discuss rational things. If you say that humans are driven by their desire to prove their worth, to be admired, to have status, to be important — now that makes sense. We even have words to describe people who get those things: a bigwig, a star, a tycoon, an idol, an entrepreneur, a mogul, a celebrity.

It is a shame that Fukuyama failed to understand the other aspects of what "Thymos" means. But then, I suppose that makes him a rather typical modern man. In today’s society, we celebrate the self-serving and self-aggrandizing aspects of success ... which are really as much Eros as Thymos ... but have almost completely lost touch with the other aspects of "heroism". Maybe that is why so many people sense that their lives are empty… that they have no meaning. So many seem to have have forgotten what it means to fulfill the "spiritual" aspects of their Thymos. No matter how big their car is, or how many zeroes on their paycheck, they still lack a true sense of self-worth and self-realization. Does anyone even aspire to be "heroic" anymore?

Actually, that is a silly question. Nowadays the word "hero" has been so cheapened that we can no longer even use it to try to describe the sort of person who is motivated by Thymos. So it is no wonder that Fukuyama missed it.

Too bad he didnt have a Jewish grandmother. . . .

Because she would have taught him another word — one that still resonates with the same meaning which the ancient Greeks intended when they described the ideal qualities of the individual, and of human society. Fukuyama’s hero, Hegel, was pointing to this word when he described the essential — that's right, ESSENTIAL — characteristics of the "ideal state". She would have taught him that if you really want the world to be a better place, you need to be a Mensch.

Though I did not have a Jewish grandmother of my own, I did live in a neighborhood with a large Jewish population, and I can still hear the echoes of their bobeshi lectures, taking my friends to task after some teenage folly: "Feh! You little schmendrik, stop imitating all these goyish schlemiels and be a mensch. You don't need to worry about what other people do! Be a Mensch!

A mensch is a person who can be relied on to act with honour and integrity. But the Yiddish term means more than that: it also suggests someone who is kind and considerate, in touch with the feelings and needs of others. The word carries a spiritual nuance, as well. A mensch is a man whose attitude towards every human is one of personal responsibility fused with deep compassion. He lives his life with a profound sense that his own personal needs and desires are limited by the needs and desires of other people. A mensch acts with self-restraint and humility, always sensitive to the feelings and thoughts of others.

​A mensch is driven by an innate decency, motivated from within and not out of regard for social recognition. A mensch will act on principle at times when it may be a very hard thing to do. Martin Buber's Tales of the Hasidim provides a more well-rounded exposition of these concepts, but regardless of your religion, anyone who understands the nature of the Soul can intuit the meaning of the word. The Greek concept of the Hero and the Chinese concept of the Sage both embody the same meaning.

I am convinced that the biggest problem we face in the world today is not war, or political and economic turmoil, or global warming, or oppression, or poverty, or hunger, or disease, or any of these things. Those are just the symptoms. The PROBLEM is that this world doesn't have enough Mensches. Maybe if we can just figure out a way to cultivate more of them, our other problems would start to get solved as well . . . .

I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you want to make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and make the change'

The End of History, and the Last Mensch
http://www.reverse-engineering-the-soul.com/index.php/blogposts/3-last-mensch

Gary's Note
ALRIGHT, COMING TO THE 'WHAT ACTIONS': The PROBLEM is that this world doesn't have enough Mensches. Maybe if we can just figure out a way to cultivate more of them, our other problems would start to get solved as well . . . .

YES, THIS HAS BEEN MY CONCLUSION AS WELL:
I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you want to make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and make the change

ONLY, A LITTLE DIFFERENT:
Rather than focus on changing my ways, such as breaking bad habits and forming good ones according to my ideas of good and bad, I feel any change results not from my efforts towards it, but from cultivating my inner longing to feel the more refined qualities in my everyday awareness and experience. When my only desire is to surrender all desires to the One Light, change happens. When I surrender all constrictions, contractions, resistances and reactions to the One Light, there is no more need to talk of change! When I yield to my inner knowing and wisdom, surrendering my will to the will of the Soul, a super Mensch is born!

Of course, being on the course I am on, I feel the One Light movements and meditation are clearly one way 'to cultivate more Mensches.'