The Wisdom of Surrender: Samuel Beckett and Quietism | Hacker News Reader

The Wisdom of Surrender: Samuel Beckett and Quietism

aeon.co

52 pointsvo2maxer19 comments

> Dostoevsky had himself adopted an attitude of ‘gentle and total resignation’ that brought him – like Molinos and Schopenhauer before him.

As can be gleaned from the ending of Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky's version of quietism comes from Christianity, but not from Miguel de Molinos. It is hesychasm, and it would have been nice for the article to do a more thorough dive into the roots of this practice in Christianity – and I mean all Christianity, not solely the Catholic church where it was demonized, but the other side of Christianity where it was adopted as a core tenet.

I'm referring to Eastern Orthodox, which would have simply been "Christianity" to Dostoevsky. Hesychasm was a sort of ritual prayer to retire "inward" and away from all the senses in order to achieve a more direct union with God, often by using a word or a mantra to concentrate and free the mind. This practice was characterized as "magic" or "mysticism" by Western Christianity [1], as was alluded to in the article.

In any case, it dates from Gregory Palamas in the 13th-14th century, ahead of Molinos' 17th. Interestingly, there is a lot of argument about whether hesychasm is quietism, even though quietism is the translation of the term hesychasm – my guess is because nowadays the Catholic church is trying to be more friendly with the practices of the Orthodox, recognizing them as fellow Christians, but trying to avoid contradicting its previous word. [2]

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palamism

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palamism#Confusion_with_Quieti...

Catholic acceptance of hesychasm is not new but dates from the rise of the Uniate churches. In exchange for the Greek Catholics recognizing the Pope, Rome accepted all those traditions in spite of whatever contradictions they might have posed to Roman Catholic dogma.

> "Hesychasm was a sort of ritual prayer to retire "inward" and away from all the senses in order to achieve a more direct union with God, often by using a word or a mantra to concentrate and free the mind."

This precisely describes several variations of meditation style pre-dating Christ, let alone 13th-century Christians.

Hence it being demonized by one half of Christianity, I imagine. Accusations of syncretism and heresy and magic and mysticism and other things that make/made the Catholic (and Catholic off-shoots e.g. protestantism) side of Christianity uneasy.

This is confusing to me, because it seems very similar to repeated Catholic prayer. Isn't the effect similar?

FYI - for a gentle introduction to hesychasm, I'd strongly recommend "The Way of a Pilgrim". Eastern Orthodox, and simply written (in terms of understanding it). For a more involved approach try the "Philokalia" - but be prepared for heavy reading, and make sure you are getting the right book as the title has been used for other works.

I think the quietist thread in Beckett is a strong part of his aesthetic, but let's not omit (as the author does) the reality that Beckett also worked with the French resistance against the Nazis. His art explored the suffering and futility inherent in the human condition, but his actions were not those of a person who simply surrendered.

What the article calls quietism has to do with inner non-resistance. That doesn't imply outer non-resistance. The two are probably orthogonal.

"Surrender" in this sense means something like fully facing reality and not demanding that it be other than it is. Easier said than done, of course. Someone who can do that probably becomes more capable of action, because they can bear the consequences of their actions.

There's a story of Beckett walking with a friend in Paris when a guy approaches saying how he's just been robbed and can he have Beckett's jacket. Beckett takes off his jacket and hands it to him. They walk on. The friend says: "why did you do that? he obviously made that up". Beckett says: "I couldn't take the chance of being wrong." I'm not sure why I thought of that just now, but he was clearly an extraordinary human.

> What the article calls quietism has to do with inner non-resistance. That doesn't imply outer non-resistance. The two are probably orthogonal.

it sounds similar to Taoism's "be like water", the orthogonality is also in the concept of ying/yang it seems https://www.einzelganger.co/be-like-water/

>"Surrender" in this sense means something like fully facing reality and not demanding that it be other than it is. Easier said than done, of course. Someone who can do that probably becomes more capable of action, because they can bear the consequences of their actions.

It sounds reminiscent of some principles coming from stoicism. I'm not well versed in these concepts but it doesn't sound too far-fetched as IIRC parts of stoicism have been adopted by later currents of thought.

something like fully facing reality and not demanding that it be other than it is

Which is nowadays reinvented as mindfulness, if I understand correctly.

I don't know if it's been reinvented. "Reality as-is" has always been the basic foundation of Buddhism, which is built on meditation, which flowers mindfulness.

Serves me right for trying to incorporate sarcasm in writing. You're right, and I did not mean to imply that mindfulness itself is new, just that it recently had its own moment in the (western) hype cycle.

>What the article calls quietism has to do with inner non-resistance. That doesn't imply outer non-resistance.

In the abstract, I agree. But certainly for many people they may seem intuitively to go together -- see, for example, the comment of another user in this same thread, who asks "I wonder how does this feel in practice? what does it feel like to be without striving? to surrender? I understand this intellectually but I struggle to understand this in practical terms."

All I was trying to emphasize was that the practical, real-world side of Beckett was substantially more bold and generous than one might suppose based on some of the themes in his art, which is a point your anecdote about the jacket also makes.

> Nevertheless, [Quietism] was embraced by a thinker who had a significant influence on Beckett’s personal outlook and literary vision: the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860).

anyone who wants to read more about Schopenhauer, it took me a while to start as a non-philosopher so maybe this is useful to some.

Schopenhauer assumes one is familiar with not just all his previous work, but also all the thinkers influencing him, as well as Greek, Latin and several European languages (who wouldn't!!?). Despite, this his "Parerga and Paralipomena"[0] provides a very accessible glimpse into his ideas and the person (it has been translated into other languages too).

Reading him (oddly) has also made Kant more accessible to me (something I thought I had given up trying to understand). While I don't agree with every single thing Schopenhauer said (he is a raging critic of Hegel & Fichte - probably anyone that he didn't agree with lol) his ideas remain worth looking at. A shame he doesn't get more recognition in the non German speaking world. (maybe some people here into philosophy know why he hasn't gained more traction (especially for Parerga and Paralipomena)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parerga_and_Paralipomena [1] https://archive.org/search.php?query=Parerga%20und%20Paralip...

I wonder how does this feel in practice? what does it feel like to be without striving? to surrender? I understand this intellectually but I struggle to understand this in practical terms. What does it mean to have no desire?

It can't possibly mean anything, because it isn't possible. I say this as someone who has been very much "into" this stuff for decades, I have studied scores of religions, practices and philosophies, and have become somewhat good at some of these things. The more I learn, the more I realise that "lack of desire" is just as extreme (and misguided) as the western-style obsession with desire.

My conclusion is this: desire is the fundamental force driving all of life. It's foolish to fight it. Embrace it. But only after you've realised that you are NOT it.

It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Look into Albert Ellis and "long term hedonism".

Thank you, I wasn't familiar with Ellis. What a delightful chap!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com