Psycholagny

First Year Seminar
Autumn 2009
Bartscherer


Psycholagny, which according to the explanation on dictionary means the ability to reach or achieve orgasm without any physical stimulation and usually achieved through mental stimulation or fantasy alone, has been extraordinary popular in China recently, especially pervasive on the internet. Far more extended from its original meaning, psycholagny is generally used to describe the behavior that people, far from pursuing what they want in a tangible way, would like to gain satisfaction through imagination. For example, if I want to buy a computer monitor but do not have money currently, I may enjoy the feeling of owning that monitor simply by fantasy. Such action is metaphorically referred as psycholagny.

Saint Augustine’s Confession, since its publication, has been regarded as one of the most thorough examination of author’s soul. What are analyzed in this book is Augustine’s mental transition from youthhood to all the levels and periods in his whole life. Instead of exquisite usage of words or superb construction of sentences or author’s paramount loyalty to god, the significance of Confession is the unusual role of Augustine in his book. Compared with the authors of other masterpieces, Augustine is more like executing an anatomy, putting himself in front of god and waiting for a comprehensive dissection of every thoughts and ideas he has. Since he believes that god is omnipotent, then his confession towards god must be so sincere and true: what is the point for him to hide something in front of a deity who knows everything? With this basis, what exactly is confessed by Augustine to god is the central question regarding this book. Is it some kind of evil, a certain folly hidden deeply in mind, or a mistake which was committed repeatedly?

In book four, the episode in which Augustine and his naughty friends steal the pears has been so controversial, and is also one of the puzzles in Confession. The satisfaction gained from stealing something that is currently lacking of is explainable. However, as Augustine wrote:
I stolen something that I have in plenty and of much better quality. My desire was to enjoy not what I sought by stealing but merely the excitement of thieving and the doing of what was wrong. ….we carried off a huge load of pears. But they are not for our feasts but merely to throw to the pigs. Even if we ate a few, nevertheless our pleasure lay in doing what was not allowed. ( )
People stealing something they have plenty of is odd. However, once we perceive every element in this situation and try not to ignore any details, such behavior can be understood. Putting to much emphasis on “people stealing something they do not need”, Augustine does not mention an extremely important element in the above description—the role of garden keeper. Augustine and his friends, far from attacking garden keeper directly, choose to steal garden keeper’s pears thus make him suffering. Because of their incapability to hurt garden keeper in a face-to-face way (Augustine and his friends are just kids anyway) they decided to achieve the same goal in a more gentle and peaceful way—stealing pears, just like someone who is incapable of buying monitor would rather to immerse himself in the feeling when he use it. This action can be accurately characterized as psycholagny. Through such psycholagny, not only Augustine protects himself from being scolded by angry garden keeper, but also he achieves the success, not in a tangible way but in mind. Such method to gain spiritual victory was described interestingly in Lu Xun’s The True Story of Ah Q (I remember this satirical passage was collected in first year seminar’s reading list a few years ago).
When our miserable Ah Q was beaten by another guy, he did not beat back immediately, instead he only thought in his mind: “damn, I was beaten by my son again; it is such a turbulent and ridiculous world that son even is daring to beat his father.”
As to the reason why these children want to make a fool of garden keeper, we can attribute such behavior to the attraction for children to commit mischief and the nature for them to do something unusual which marks the disobedience of adolescence.

In book three, psycholagny in fact changes into a more generalized form. Instead of using imagination as a tool to achieve certain objective (such as a monitor, or the delight gained from beating other people), psycholagny starts to show up in a larger place. As Augustine starts to be obsessive with theater, especially tragedy, he writes:
I was captivated by theatrical shows. They were full of representations of my own miseries and fuelled my fire. Why is it a person should wish to experience suffering by watching grievous and tragic events which he himself would not wish to endure? ( )
With no doubts, ordinary people can hardly have the dramatic experiences as characters in a show have. For example, seeing the beloved died, experiencing bankruptcy, participating in a revengeful fight with enemy, or accidently being grant a huge amount of money as a mean of legacy, these legendary events, for a normal person who living imperturbably, are so precious. By sitting in theater and watching shows, people can put themselves in so many characters through psycholagny, thus enjoy the feeling of being a valiant knight who kills so many bad people, a conscientious thief who only steals rich people or a beautiful young lady who is falling in love with a handsome prince. However, the reason why Augustine and so many other people like tragedy also needs our concern. Compared with so many fabulous shows yet with happy endings, why only tragedy can successfully captivate Augustine’s mind? The main reason is probably people’s preference to difference between imagination and reality. Would you like to enjoy the feeling of being a princess who has everything you want during the show and realize you are no more but a desperate clerk who is upbraided by your boss everyday when the show is over, or the feeling of being a poor person who lost everything during an economy crisis but notice that you still own a lot, including your wife, two cute daughters and your profitable occupation after the show? The answer is very clear: everyone always values reality more then imagination, and enjoys the feeling of “returning from hell”. By immerse themselves in psycholagny which is full of agony during the show, people can definitely become more relieved in reality.

Also in book five, in which Augustine leaves his mother and departs for Rome, the idea of psycholagny shows up either. As concludes by Augustine, what is confessed by him to god is the evil of deception—the deception to an innocent mother. But when we are looking through the truth behind surface, the reason leads to deception is not mentioned by Augustine himself. He writes:
My motive in going to Rome was not that the friends who urged it on me promised higher fees and greater position of dignity, though at that time these considerations had an influence on my mind. The principle and almost sole reason was that I had heard how at Rome the young men went quietly about their studies and were kept in order by a stricter imposition of discipline. ( )
From his explanation, it seems that the reason for Augustine to commit deception is that the value gained from teaching in Rome is relatively greater then the lose in temporal separation with his mother. However it may not be absolutely true though this explanation constitutes some parts in the final answer. The decision made when people facing the dilemma between great goal and family separation has always been hard; and the people who choose the former has always been regarded as great men. It is such kind of special moral courage which roots deeply in almost everyone’s mind that make Augustine so steadfast, so resolute even with the cry from his mother. Through spiritual transition (imagination), Augustine fantasizes himself as one of many who sacrificed for what they believed. Even though the separation is painful, he still feels contended, for he, finally, can also be called a great man who disregards any obstacles, especially the constraints from family.

From these three most important instances, the answers to questions presented in the end of second paragraph are quiet easy to be understood if not absolutely and unequivocally true. What Augustine wants to confess, at least partly, is the action of psycholagny, which marks a deeply-rooted bad habit in people’s mind. Through carefully ‘anatomy’ and ‘dissection’, Augustine seems to yell to himself: stop psycholagny, if you want to make fun of garden-keeper, you should attack him directly instead of stealing pears; stop psycholagny, if you want to make your life colorful and marvelous, you should work harder and harder instead of dreaming in the theatre; stop psycholagny, if you really love your mother, you should stay with her instead of fantasying to be a hero who sacrifices the family to achieve great goal. However, we should also view things in a different perspective. On one hand, people view psycholagny with disdain, regarding it as a behavior not only embodies people’s incapability but also represents the ridiculous and awkward solution when people notice their incapability; on the other hand, they can not get rid of psycholagny unless they are monks, lamas or people who strictly abide asceticism. Maybe psycholagny is not a kind of evil at all. Lu Xun said in his essay: “Initially, there are no roads on the ground; it is people’s too much walking that makes roads.” If everyone makes the same mistake, then this mistake can not be called mistake anymore.

Interestingly, although Augustine made a great self-criticism about psycholagny in his book, the intention or reason for him to write such a book, to some extent, is also a kind of psycholagny. Only those people with the most moral standard can complete such a confession without any outside pressure. Augustine once again became a great figure by writing a sublime confession, which at the same time testifies the commonplace and omnipresence of psycholagny.

A Friend's Defense

Symposium—a Friend’s Defense
As soon as Socrates ended his speech, an unpleasant noise which seemed to be created in front of Agathon’s house, for certain, disturbed the unisonous conversation between those most prominent sages in the city of Athens. “It is Alcibiades” someone exclaimed, “and he is drunk.” Another one added. Though there was a tiny displeasure in mind, the conversation participants still remained unruffled for the cumulative reputations of being magnanimous they have maintained for so many years. As many people known, Alcibiades was not a good guy, he does not follow the common rules, neither does he ever do something really helpful for general people; some elder in the city even doubted his loyalty. “What is he doing here?” except other people’s qualms, Socrates appeared to be more nervous when Alcibiades shouted:
God, what’s this? Socrates? You have been lurking there waiting for me—and this isn’t the first time: you are always suddenly popping up where I least expect to find you. What are you doing here this time?
This dramatic scene, as Plato wrote in Symposium, did lay some questions regarding the integrity and righteousness of Socrates, for Alcibiades had always been the representative of corrupted youth in the city of Athens. Also, according to the historical record, the most prominent Greek philosopher Socrates was tried and convicted by courts of democratic Athens on a charge of corrupting the youth and disbelieving in the ancestral gods in the year of 399BC. How satirical it was, for what Plato wrote in his masterpiece, that a victim of corruption declared the war against the person who corrupted himself. Also, what made this conversation more significant is the fact that it was a relatively private talk; despite the social restrictions which made people to ponder before open their mouths, what ideas or thoughts presented by Alcibiades in this night were with more freedom. So, for a conversation in which necessary people, appropriate location and theatrical time coincident dramatically, can people who wanted to accuse Socrates use Alcibiades’s speech as evidences? Can Symposium really be considered the proof for the trial?
Back to the first sin committed by Socrates, which was corrupting the youth, the idea of how philosophical education made people to disobey the existent rules or convention in Ancient Athens was clearly presented. It even seems to me that the same idea was articulated metaphorically in another great creator Aristophanes’s comedy Clouds. He used the way which were full of satire to describe a simple story—Strepsiades, an elderly Athenian who faced with legal action for non-payment of debts, enrolls his son in The Thinkery so that he might learn the rhetorical skills necessary to defeat their creditors in court. The son thereby learns cynical disrespect for social mores and contempt for authority and he subsequently beats his father up during a domestic argument, in return for which Strepsiades sets the Thinkery on fire. More significantly in this story is the fact that Socrates was the one who took charge of the Thinkery, which literally made Socrates more inexcusable. With no doubt, the rational thinking pattern which introduced by philosophical study can lead the students to challenge the fixed rules in the Athens society. However, standing as a strong advocator of Socrates, why Plato included the episode of Alcibiades’s speech, which not only seems to disturb the original harmony in the eulogy of love, but also could possibly jeopardize his teacher?
All the questions and doubts in mind still need us to seek answer through the original passage. Starting at 213a and ending at 222c, the description of Alcibiades’s atitude towards Socrates had been witty and ambivalent. On one hand, Alcibiades looked like an outrageous guy for he persistently exposed the ‘dirtiness’ and ‘hazard’ of Socrates; on the other hand, what our complainer said, from another perspective, did increase the forcefulness and persuasiveness of Socrates. Did Alcibiades really resent Socrates? No for sure. It was simply because Socrates’s wisdom was too radical and didactic that made ordinary people hard to accept, thus created the impression that he was so “brutal”. In the 215e, Alcibiades said:
Whenever I listen to him speak (Socrates), I get more ecstatic than the Corybantes. My heart pounds and tears flood from my eyes under the spell of his words. I’ve seen him have the same effect on plenty of others too.
Ostensibly, what this speech unveiled was the miserable condition when Alcibiades and other people heard the voice of Socrates and he even portrayed Socrates as Sirens. But in fact, it not only showed the admiration from Alcibiades towards his teacher, but also helped us to experience how impelling the ways Socrates use to speak are. Powerful argument, accurate pointing and merciless exposure are the indispensable features of them. Moreover, the points in Alcibiades’s speech arranged by Plato showed the pith embodied in Socrates’s teaching method, which commonly known as the most important contribution to Western thought. His dialectic method of inquiry which he largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts such as the Good and Justice, is in order to solve a problem, it would be broken down into a series of questions, the answers to which gradually distill the answer we seek. What Alcibiades said, far from being a profound revealing of Socrates’s contemptible behaviors, in fact more resembled to the exhibition of Socrates’s teaching accomplishment—even in the condition of drunk, Alcibiades articulated his points clearly and systematic; his appearance definitely showed us how to behave like a successful orator.
From another perspective, what Alcibiades said in his speech also showed us the integrity and muscularity of Socrates. His valor in the battles of Potidaea and Delium was highly appreciated and highly venerable in the city of Athens. As Alcibiades recounted, Socrates even saved his life in a battle. Such description in Symposium, with no doubt, will lead us to think about the courage and spirit when Socrates faced the impending execution. Socrates stated when he refused his friends’ rescue: the escaping will let me betray the principles I have believed for my entire life. The death judgment was ruled by a legal court, even though the judging process was biased because of the untruthful description of accuser. If I escaped, then my behavior can be nothing but the giving-up of sublime citizenship.
Finally, the inclination of Plato’s arrangement of symposium stopped at Alcibiades’s love towards Socrates. With the background information that there was a trend of love between males in ancient Athens, the love between Alcibiades and Socrates deserves more of our attention for its relationship between lover and beloved reversed to some extent. Unlike the common situation that adult male seeks the love from adolescent boy, in symposium it was Alcibiades who acted the role of lover. However, Socrates was neither rich nor handsome. Why Alcibiades finally chose Socrates, whose appearance presented through not only symposium but also other books was merely a white male whose youthfulness had already abandoned him and always face the lover’s hospitality with contemptuous scorn? Wisdom, the thing which Alcibiades yearn for but currently lack of, as to Plato, is the only explanation of such puzzle. Alcibiades wants to be as erudite as Plato, as knowledgeable as Plato, also get as much enlightenment as Socrates; and then his aspiration made him a steadfast fan of a person who was older than himself for almost forty years. Plato once again used his protean techniques to indirectly affirm Socrates’ s incomparable accomplishment.
Plato was smart anyway. His wisdom in Symposium, which superficially recorded the evidence of Socrates corrupting youth, at the contrary helped Socrates to exculpate himself from such crime as the courts of democratic Athens had tagged him. Plato was a philosopher himself; while he enjoying the pleasure when immersed himself in the exploration of value, atitude and hierarch, he firmly resisted the fetters the society had given him and other scholars. “The social convention should go to hell”, Plato thought, thus he wrote symposium, “so should the jury consisting five hundred male citizens”.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche used to say: “in the history of Athens there were two of the most beautiful flowers but were nevertheless corrupted by Socrates and one of them was Alcibiades”. But what Plato wanted to say in symposium is far from corrupting youth, Socrates taught them how to behave like an independent thinker, how to use a dialectic perspective to explore the world and how to be strong in front of difficulties.