On Folk versus Formal Religion: or, Why I Hate Hollywood's Corruption of Epic Texts

 Siegfried, the hero of the North, and Beowulf, the hero of the Anglo-Saxons (1909) [Public Domain] via Wikimedia

Beowulf by Unknown

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is the first time I have read this epic poem but having seen the horrible 3D movie (cartoon?) beforehand, my imagination was all awry. Of note is the Christian versus pagan context that is completely missed by the movie, and also the context of the story is all over the shop. I was confused by the epic poem's plot but have since learnt that there are three seemingly disjointed stories, and there is no Angelina Jolie dragon for the two heroes to have slept with. Indeed, the movie makes Hrothgar and Beowulf look like idiots. The only part of the movie that made any sense in the context of the ancient text was the coastguard riding up to challenge Beowulf's armed warband (one of the typical "look at me I'm in 3D" shots with his spear). The rest just makes me angry at the movie! I drew some parallels with the Christian/pagan issue with my coinciding trip to Hong Kong. On a visit to Lamma Island, I asked my Chinese-speaking colleague about the Tian Hou Temple. She replied that it was something about the Queen of Heaven. I wondered whether it was Buddhist or what and looked it up when I returned to the hotel. It was interesting that Tian Hou evolved into the Empress of Heaven from a humble goddess of water and fishing. As Hong Kong originated as a fishing village, that makes sense. I have since learnt that various religious practices from Buddhism were incorporated into the worship of the polytheist local gods, and during numerous political eras, local deities were accepted and encouraged by governments over the centuries where these helped with civil stability (during the Han Dynasty, I think). Such Chinese "folk" religions are known as "Shenism". This interested me no end! Yet another thing I knew nothing about. In Beowulf, I felt the same tension between folk and formal religion, and it is clear that the text provides witness to the early days of Christianity in the region. I also felt I had seen numerous movies that draw on the different plots of the text. It is short and quick but would take several readings to better piece together the confusing plots, but others have agonised over this sufficiently for me to know my confusion was not just poor attention to detail!

View all my reviews

On the Usefulness of Philosophy: or, It is stupid to want to abolish bad weather

A Philosopher Lecturing with a Mechanical Planetary (1766).
Joseph Wright of Derby [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain de Botton

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This was an airport buy and a flight read. De Botton covers Socrates, Epicurus, Seneca, Montaigne, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche in an effort to point out that:

Not everything which makes us feel better is good for us. Not everything which hurts may be bad.

In effect, to regard "distress" as "bad" is "almost as stupid as the will to abolish bad weather". This was useful reading, and works in well with my reading of Seneca, Montaigne, and Nietzsche, and provided a helpful overview to my current reading of Epicurus, and also Tina Gilbertson's now-read Constructive Wallowing. Two quotes struck me:

A man's peace of mind does not depend upon Fortune - Seneca (p. 97)

and

I have begun to be a friend to myself - Seneca citing Hecato (p. 103).

This was an easy read but made easier by my familiarity with the other authors. Had I read this without that understanding I have developed over the last year, I would have missed much. Yet I think it is a good overview of why:

The unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates.

De Botton's work also provides an interesting introduction to the use of reason and choice to overcome what distresses us.

View all my reviews

Constructive (W)allowing: or, What Makes Me Cringe Makes Me Stronger

The Scream by Edvard Munk, 1893. Public Domain via Wikimedia.

Constructive Wallowing: How to Beat Bad Feelings by Letting Yourself Have Them by Tina Gilbertson

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

This book is written in large print with large line-spacing and uses graphics to fill the pages. The result is a large book that would otherwise be rather small. It is more of a manual with tests and activities. I learnt a good deal from this book about having one's emotions, and it supplements Stoic philosophy neatly in that it provides a way to "have" one's emotions without necessarily acting on them. For the Stoics, we have our emotions but it is our behaviour that is good or bad, rather than the external event. I have found Stoic philosophy useful in that through daily practice and reflection, one can learn to accept what one can and cannot control, and be "indifferent" to external events. But to be Stoic is different from being stoic, yet there is little to address the emotions that one inevitably "has", other than to choose how one reacts to one's emotions. Gilbertson's approach is like a Stoicism for the emotions. Through daily practice, one can learn to experience one's emotions through (w)allowing. An interesting approach to understanding emotions is to exchange the words think and feel in a sentence. If the words are not interchangeable, then it is a feeling. For example, "I feel angry" does not work as "I think angry". Whereas "I think I have been treated unjustly" and "I feel I have been treated unjustly" are interchangeable, hence the former is an emotion but the latter is not. Recognising and giving names to one's emotions is one approach to let emotions happen (as opposed to acting on them). Keeping a three-times daily journal to record how one feels over a two-week period is an interesting way to recognise emotional patterns and to practice recognising, naming, and experiencing one's emotions. I must admit that most of the book made me cringe a little, and I found myself unable to read it in public - the thought of someone seeing me reading this book probably explains why I scored a 14 on the test, and therefore I probably need to (w)allow in private! Like Stoic journalling, I can see the point in (w)allowing, and the drip, drip, drip of experience and reflection working to improve oneself. The final straw was on reflecting on how I feel/think, I stumbled upon "I feel guilty/I think guilty" - here I am naming my emotion. But no, there is a section devoted to guilty - being guilty is a fact, not an emotion. Obviously I have much to learn and while I still cringe at this book, I will be adding some of Gilbertson's activities to my daily journalling ritual, which at present includes James Allen (referred to by Gilbertson), La Rochefoucauld, and The Daily Stoic, and I will see what happens. I found Gilbertson's work via my subscription to Psychology Today, and I have since read many of her articles which are available online.

View all my reviews