I wrote this essay in a Philosophy and Literature course taught by MAJ Knepper. During the course, we encountered numerous interpretations of tragic literature and how these paradigms relate to the empirical human experience. Specifically, I encountered the ideas of Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche. In this essay, I evaluate ideas from both philosophers before implementing them into my analysis of Pedro Calderon’s play, Life is a Dream. Unlike other essays, this assignment prompted students to include their own response to the course content. It forced me to synthesize philosophical concepts, apply them to my own metaphysical perspective, and craft an ethical argument.

 

 

“All of human happiness

passes by in the end like a dream,

and I wish today to enjoy mine,

for as long as it lasts,

asking pardon for

our faults, since it so befits

noble hearts to pardon them!”

 

-Pedro Calderon de la Barca, Life is a Dream

 

  

            In Calderon’s Life is a Dream, the two fundamental questions of philosophy are placed front and center: what is reality? And how do we know? From this point, all of philosophy can emerge. A theory of reality is a theory of truth. Without a conception of the truth, philosophy cannot exist. It is a response to the truth or the absence thereof. In either case, philosophy is dealing with a conception of the truth. The etymology of philosophy supports this idea. Philosophy, if broken apart, is composed of a Greek prefix and suffix: philo and sophia. Philo translates to love, and sophia translates to wisdom. Philosophy was founded on the concept of wisdom. The wise man interprets the world in a specific manner. He says, “Don’t touch a porcupine.” This imparted wisdom is practical, addressing action. And from where does wisdom advise? It advises from a conception of the truth. The wise man says “not to touch” because he believes porcupines’ quills are painful. This is based on a conception of reality, and consequently the truth. Wisdom is a paradigm based on a conception of the truth. Determining what is true is the fundamental ambition of philosophy.

Calderon, in the brevity of Life is a Dream, attempts to answer the question of truth as it relates to human existence. He proposes that happiness and life itself are ephemeral and transient, and that we ought to respond in two ways. First, we must enjoy the illusion of life. Secondly, while in this enjoyment, we must act for the good of others. The combination of these responses creates a moral driven hedonism. In addition, Calderon’s philosophical reconciliation with the transient nature of life relates to a larger stream of philosophy, existentialism. The ideas of Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche relate to Calderon’s philosophy in the first tenant, the illusionary nature of existence. However, they depart from Calderon in regards to the response to the illusion of life. Calderon presents a palatable approach to life. It simultaneously embraces enjoyment and morality. Yet, his philosophy weakens when forced to practically navigate the confliction of pleasure and the good. It is at this fracture point that Christian Hedonism offers a better combination of joy and morality.

Arthur Schopenhauer is key figure in the development of the Existentialist Movement. Although his philosophy predated the central existentialists and was markedly unique, his ideas concerning the angst of life were crucial in the development of existential philosophy. In The World as Will and Idea, Schopenhauer writes, “…the world, life, can afford us no true pleasure, and consequently is not worthy of our attachment. In this consists the tragic spirit: it therefore leads to resignation” (2).  Schopenhauer, like Calderon, questions the value of life. For Calderon, life is an illusion. It is fleeting and cannot offer us any lasting hope or security. Schopenhauer also believes that life will not offer sustained satisfaction, and that it is often misconstrued as to its true, dark, and painful self. However, although they agree on the frailty and ephemeral nature of life, Schopenhauer differs in his understanding of happiness. He states that life can afford us no true pleasure. Only through resignation from the will [lowercase], can man succor a consolation for being born. For Calderon, even though life is transient, there is happiness to be genuinely cherished. Life is illusionary and fades quickly, but there is enjoyment to be experienced. This hedonistic philosophy is expressed in Segismundo’s final monologue, the above quoted passage.

Calderon also shares similar philosophic ideas with Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche is perhaps the most famous existentialist and was largely influential in the development of modern and post-modern philosophy. Like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche argues the “awfulness or the absurdity of existence” (7). However, rather than resigning from the will, Nietzsche argues that we must enter through it. He commands that mankind must throwback the “veil of illusion,” created by the Apollonian, entering into the dynamism and “Primordial Unity” of the Dionysian state (7,1). The Apollonian and Dionysian concept is a complicated and oftentimes shrouded relationship. At its core, the Apollonian represents wisdom and order, while the Dionysian represents unbridled passion and desire. Nietzsche believes that the Apollonian creates a veil of illusion which hides the awfulness and frailty of life. Without this curtain, Nietzsche believes that man would fall into nihilism. Yet, man must also occasionally throw back the curtain and enter into a higher vitality. When Nietzsche calls mankind to into the Dionysian, he calls him into a thrilling and invigorating savoring of passion. This experience is an aesthetic affirmation of life. In many ways, Calderon’s philosophy is strikingly similar. He too argues that our perceptual experience of life is illusionary. Although Calderon does not emphasize the angst of life, he does claim that our perceived reality is only a passing dream. It is not real. It is a veil. In addition, Calderon’s call to “enjoy mine as long as it lasts” reflects Nietzschen ideas (88). Despite reality’s dream-like state, Segismundo determines to enjoy all that he can. His response is not nihilistic, but consolatory. If life is an illusion, Calderon calls mankind to take it for all its worth. Although this philosophy does not involve the Dionysian or a Primordia Unity, it centers around aesthetic affirmation.

There are several ways that Calderon’s philosophy in Life is a Dream reflects the ideas of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Yet, there are major differences between the group. When considering Calderon, his most significant difference with Nietzsche and Schopenhauer is his response to the illusion. Calderon does not adopt the resignation of Schopenhauer, nor does his embrace the unbridled Dionysian. Rather, Calderon claims that the right response to the illusion of life is moral driven hedonism. He calls his audience to enjoy all they can, but ensure that their enjoyment is noble and right. We see this in Segismundo’s final exhortation for nobility through forgiveness: “asking pardon for / our faults, since it so befits / noble hearts to pardon them. (?)”

As I reflect on this philosophy, I am reminded of a concept that is close to my heart: Christian Hedonism. Coined and promoted by modern theologian John Piper, Christian hedonism has a long legacy of followership. Its existence can be traced from the Old Testament through Jesus’ earthly mission. It continues through the Apostles and a long history of theologians like Jonathan Edwards and John Calvin. At its foundation, Christian Hedonism is the philosophy that our greatest good and God’s glory are not separate entities. It embraces Calderon’s exhortation towards joy and morality, while withstanding the pitfalls of Calderon’s consolatory hedonistic moralism.

Where Calderon’s philosophy stumbles, Christian Hedonism triumphs. First, Calderon’s theory encounters a dilemma when the good is challenged. It does not address the question of what the good is, nor does it specify how that applies to life. This is a problem. Calderon instructs men to enjoy life, but also do good. If there is no definition of good, how do we know what we can enjoy? In addition, which is greater: the good or enjoyment? What if the good is painful and immorality sweet? What is man to do? Yet, amidst these questions Christian Hedonism is vindicated. For the Christina Hedonist, the good is defined by an absolute standard of righteousness, God himself. The ambiguity of moral relativism is destroyed, and is replaced by a standard of good that is unchangeable and constant. Secondly, and most compelling, Christian Hedonism argues that the good is never opposed to joy. At first glance this may appear conflicting, but consider this example. Suppose a poor man is given the opportunity to gain a large sum of money by stealing from a store. For the sake of the example, let’s say that if the man does this, he will live leisurely for the rest of his life. All the pleasures of the world will be at his fingertips. Here, it appears the good and joy are opposing each other. Nonetheless, they are not conflicting for the Christian Hedonist. If the poor man steals, he sins against a holy and pure God. Although the thief may be happy for a season, one day he will die. As Calderon states, he will wake up. However, the wicked man will not wake up in his bed; rather he will be in the courtroom of God. There is no pleasure in the world that can compare to the righteous judgement of the Lord. His temporal gain is loss compared to eternal damnation. However, there is hope. If our poor man obeys God, and does not steal, he will still be poor. But, he will be gaining his greatest good, the favor of God. One aspect of God’s righteous law is the condemnation of stealing. When the poor man refrains from stealing, he obeys God, consequently glorifying God. His reward is eternal. Like damnation surpassed earthly pleasure, heavenly reward surpasses earthly discomfort.

Yet, what of the man who does not always obey? What of the wickedness and failure that touches all of humanity? What of us? Are we sentenced to damnation? Has Christian Hedonism become a taunt from the Lord? By no means. The answer to man’s sinfulness is the sacrificial death of Christ. Through Jesus’ death and resurrection, our sins have been paid in full. The punishment we deserve was placed on Christ. Not only are our sins absolved, but Christ places his righteousness on us. We are justified before a holy God, allowing us to enter into the favor of God, the greatest source of pleasure and joy and beauty anyone can experience. We were designed and created to experience the favor of the Lord. Here, in a reconciled relationship with God, man’s capacity for good and joy find their consummation.

What does this mean for Calderon? It means he almost had it. Christian Hedonism is the greater version of Calderon’s philosophy, successfully combining hedonism and the good. It acknowledges that the favor of God is not imparted by merit, but through faith in Christ. Yet, God is glorified when we make much of Jesus through obedience. Thus, standing on the assurance of salvation, man’s purpose becomes the magnification of Christ through faith and works. Christian Hedonism’s practical application is the continual savoring of Christ that manifests itself in obedience to the good, regardless of consequence (pain, persecution, suffering, loss). The reward is secured. Christ had won. The veil of darkness will pass, revealing a daylight which will result in inexpressible happiness and pleasure. The joy of Christ will not be thwarted by angst. For those who trust in Christ, God’s glory and man’s happiness are never divergent. They connect at the crux of the universe, the cross of Christ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Calderon, Pedro. The is a Dream.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy. Translated by William Haussmann, 1872.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Idea, vol. 1, 1818.