(1) “Nothing is certain but death and taxes. (Benjamin Franklin)”

(2) Carpe Diem! (“Seize the day:” Horace Odes [Book 1, Poem 11], where he writes, “Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero,” which means “Seize the day, put no trust in tomorrow.”)

Holderlin calls language “that most dangerous of goods (Fragment 13, IV, 246) that is proper to humans.  Heidegger comments that:

Only where there is world—that is, where there is language—is there supreme danger: altogether the danger, which is the threatening of being as such by non-being. Language is dangerous not only because it brings the human being into a particular danger, but is what is most dangerous—dangerous—the danger of dangers—because it first creates, and alone keeps open, the possibility of a threatening of beyng in general. Because the human being is in language, he creates this danger and brings the destruction that lurks within it. As what is most dangerous, language is what is most double-edged and most ambiguous. It places the human being into the zone of supreme achievement, yet at the same time holds him within the realm of abyssal decline [Verfall]. How we are to understand this will become clear from a second fragment on language.  (Heidegger, Martin. Hölderlin’s Hymns: “Germania” and “The Rhine” (Studies in Continental Thought) (p. 100). Indiana University Press. Kindle Edition.)

Heidegger notes for Holderlin one of the great tragedies of language is once the essential word is uncovered, it immediately begins to fade.

The supreme happiness of the first, creative telling is at the same time the deepest pain of loss, for first-born are sacrificed. The language that originarily grounds beyng stands within the fateful necessity of a decline, becoming leveled off into worn-out idle talk that nothing is able to escape, precisely because it gives rise to the semblance that in its manner of saying—if only it were a saying—beings would be reached and grasped. To say an essential word intrinsically entails also already delivering this word to the realm of misinterpretation, of misuse and deception—to the dangerousness of the most direct and contrary repercussions of its determination.  Each—the purest and most concealed as well as the most commonplace and shallow—can become caught up in a clichéd way of talking… The poem allows itself to be reported, and indeed correctly, in the manner of paraphrasing its content. This possible reconfiguration into something we report can apply to all telling. For example, a prayer that calls upon the gods can be reported in statements: The man spoke to God, and his appeal has such and such content. Similarly, the kind of telling that is the asking of a question can be reproduced by reporting the content of the question. Such reporting carries with it the appearance of a reproducing, and yet this telling is the opposite of a genuine reproducing, repeating, or retelling in the manner of an appealing, for instance, or of an asking of the question. The unlimited possibility of transforming all originary saying into a kind of report of itself entails that language itself constantly endangers its own essence and thus remains inherently dangerous—indeed the more unconditionally so, the more essential the very telling is.  (Heidegger, Martin. Hölderlin’s Hymns: “Germania” and “The Rhine” (Studies in Continental Thought) (p. 103). Indiana University Press. Kindle Edition.)

We do not live Aristotle’s thought as he did.  What was great in Aristotle was not just his product, but that he was able to pose the question of Being more originally than Plato in the face of idle talk and common opinion, and did so reworking a conceptual toolbox he received from the tradition that wasn’t sufficient to the task.  For example, he defined humanity in terms of language, which we incorrectly translate as “rational animal.”  Clearly, if you’ve ever seen dogs hunt, they can be extremely logical and rational, making perfect “sense” and “making plans” in the situation.  Rationality certainly isn’t peculiar to humans. So, what did Aristotle mean?

Ever wonder about the meaning of life: what it’s all about?  We generally say it’s becoming wise.  What is wisdom?  The above sayings (“Nothing certain but death and taxes;” and “Carpe Diem, Seize the day”) that begin this article are seen as 2 little nuggets of wisdom that humans have uncovered over the course of our sojourn here on earth.  Both are universal observations.  But they are not the same.  The first is more of a humorous observation about the human condition that in the 90s you would have gotten watching Seinfeld or other later sarcasm shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or the Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert.  Pop sarcasm like pop philosophy are in kinship since both move according to the principle of contradiction, and so mirror one another playing with the syllogism/sill(y)gism form.   For example, Reductio ad absurdum is a method of refuting a claim by extending the logic of the opponent’s argument to a point of absurdity. This is effective in debating and hilarious in sarcastic comedy. This is why sarcastic political comics like John Stewart seem like they will be poignant politicians.  I think Robin Williams made a movie about this.  The second saying is what in everyday parlance is called a “philosophy,” which means a general outlook and life strategy.  The first saying refers to how human existence is destined, the human condition, while the second suggests what to do to attain your “happily ever after.”  The first is primarily descriptive of destiny/fate, while the second is primarily prescriptive.  The first is unquestionable, while the second is a suggestion.  Death and taxes is inevitable, while “seize the day” is a general life strategy which may or may not be employed by a person and may or may not be good/useful in a particular situation – and one could certainly adopt the opposite principle to “seize the day” with similar success.  Obviously, if you unwittingly apply “seize the day” in the wrong situation the result can be tragic. 

As for an opposite philosophy, one could consider: Memento Mori – This Latin phrase means “remember that you must die.” Rather than focusing on seizing the day, it encourages contemplation of one’s mortality, which can lead to a life lived with more caution, preparation for the afterlife, or a focus on legacy rather than immediate gratification.  In Stoicism, while not directly opposing “carpe diem,” Stoic philosophy often emphasizes acceptance of fate, focusing on what one can control (virtue, reason) rather than being overly concerned with immediate pleasures or outcomes. Stoics like Seneca and Marcus Aurelius advocate for a life of moderation, reason, and inner tranquility, which contrasts with the urgency and sometimes hedonistic undertones of “seize the day.”  The act of delaying or putting off actions to a later time could be seen as an opposite behavior to “carpe diem.” This mindset might prioritize future planning or waiting for the “right” moment over immediate action. 

This perspective provides a counterbalance to the immediate, action-oriented approach encapsulated by “carpe diem,” the two offering different lenses through which to view life’s priorities and actions.  Of course, such a Philosophy of restraint could cause one to miss out or also lead to disaster if employed in the wrong circumstances.  Immanuel Kant famously had the opportunity to marry but thought about it so long the woman married someone else. 

The competing mandates are basically “life advice” and “self help” and so has resulted in an endless procession of gurus, one of the most popular current ones is The Let Them Theory: A Life-Changing Tool That Millions of People Can’t Stop Talking About by Mel Robbins.  In the past we’ve got similar pop philosophy/psychology from Dr. Phil and Deepak Chopra.  Oprah has a popular show on her network OWN that offers similar pop theology: “Super Soul Sunday.”  It is no accident that Oprah’s theological life advice show was birthed in the United States where theological jargon spouted by fundamentalist Christian Pastors like Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland and T.D. Jakes is presented along with representative conservative biblical PhDs who have to sign a confession of faith to keep their college jobs.  The other side of the board are Critical New Testament specialists who teach New Testament at accredited secular universities who lament how fundamentalists misrepresent historical Christianity and the historical Jesus.  For example, it does not play well in the pews to note Matthew invented material about Jesus to present him as the New and greater Moses.  See my thoughts on the Next Quest for the Historical Jesus here.

The phrase “nothing is certain but death and taxes” is most famously attributed to Benjamin Franklin. He wrote it in a letter to Jean-Baptiste Leroy on November 13, 1789, stating, “Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”  However, the observation predates Franklin. An earlier, similar expression appears in Christopher Bullock’s 1716 play The Cobbler of Preston, where a character says, “’Tis impossible to be sure of any thing but Death and Taxes.” Additionally, Daniel Defoe wrote in his 1726 work The Political History of the Devil, “Things as certain as death and taxes, can be more firmly believed.”  While Franklin popularized the phrase, the concept was already in circulation, with Bullock and Defoe providing earlier iterations. Franklin’s version, however, is the one most widely recognized today.

We’ve been thinking previously about Holderlin and the idea of “Homecoming,” going away and learning the true meaning of home.  I also linked to “Glory Days” by Bruce Springsteen who says something similar but then has this odd little line:

I think I’m going down to the well tonight

And I’m gonna drink till I get my fill

And I hope when I get old I don’t sit around thinking about it

But I probably will

Yeah, just sitting back, trying to recapture

A little of the glory, yeah

Well, time slips away and leaves you with nothing, mister

But boring stories of Glory days

We noted the philosopher is on a different path from everyone else, and so this distance gives perspective.  The philosopher is not “caught up” in the everyday.  Like what?  Perhaps if we follow Nietzsche a proper analogy could be the philosopher is like the awkward kid at a party who desperately wants to fit in but spends his time going around the party house pretending to examine the plant, the bookshelf, etc.  Why do we so immediately have recourse to an analogy?  To be sure, clever liberal and conservative politicians can and do invent mutually exclusive analogies to illustrate and defend their outlooks, “spinning” a political phenomenon. 

Philosophy is different and is seen more as amusement, although this is far from the truth.  Certainly, it can be a fun pastime to test your thinking by trying to figure out philosophers, or poets, or sudoku, or crosswords.  These are skills you can master, like bass fishing.  It’s remarkable how philosophy students spend so much time “evaluating” the great geniuses of history like the great thinker’s theories are so obviously flawed in their ideas.  Perhaps the “obviousness” indicates a misunderstanding on the part of the student?  It would be much more productive to ask a student to fight boredom and map out the argument in Plato’s Laches than come up with criticisms of Plato’s theory of forms.  It is not by accident that Bloom in his philosophy of Education taxonomy of thinking wrongly has such high regard for evaluative thinking. 

Advice on how to live is a kind of fairy tale, “happily ever after” approach to human life, like with advertisements that promise a happily ever after if you buy their product.  I noted saying one above points to the human condition.  Certainly, it is peculiar to humans to exist in and according to an understanding of the human condition.  Heidegger says in “Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics” that humans are worldly, animals are world poor, and leaves and stones are worldless.  This all has resulted in bizarre interpretations of Heidegger’s thought by commenters.  Aristotle says the distinctive character of humans is our relation to language.  To be sure, your dog or cat can be clever or cunning, and certainly have their own language, but no dog understands the “dog condition” any more than the cat understands the “cat condition” or the ape the “ape condition.”  Heidegger also says humans have “geist” or “spirit,” and so we embrace (and oppose) the “Zeitgeist,” the “Spirit of the Age.”  The dog does not relate to a doggy “Zeitgeist.”

It’s important with Heidegger to think of the “who” of the human condition rather than the “what” of “human nature,” since such a nature is an illusion, where for instance two twins can have diametrically opposed ways of being and, if coming from the same abusive home, could have diametrically opposed results.  Causality in human life is not like causality in nature.  One twin could have terrible PTSD from her upbringing, while the other as Nietzsche says “From the military school of life: What does not kill me makes me stronger.”

Here’s a fun anecdote:

Thales of Miletus, a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, is famously known for having predicted a bumper crop of olives. According to Aristotle’s account in “Politics,” Thales foresaw an exceptionally good harvest for olives one year. He then leased all the olive presses in the area at a low price during the off-season. When the harvest turned out to be as bountiful as he predicted, he rented out the presses at a high price, making a significant profit. This story is often cited as an early example of using knowledge and foresight for economic gain.