What do you think?
Rate this book
Why We Are Restless: On the Modern Quest for Contentment
A compelling exploration of how our pursuit of happiness makes us unhappy
We live in an age of unprecedented prosperity, yet everywhere we see signs that our pursuit of happiness has proven fruitless. Dissatisfied, we seek change for the sake of change--even if it means undermining the foundations of our common life. In Why We Are Restless, Benjamin and Jenna Storey offer a profound and beautiful reflection on the roots of this malaise and examine how we might begin to cure ourselves.
Drawing on the insights of Montaigne, Pascal, Rousseau, and Tocqueville, Why We Are Restless explores the modern vision of happiness that leads us on, and the disquiet that follows it like a lengthening shadow. In the sixteenth century, Montaigne articulated an original vision of human life that inspired people to see themselves as individuals dedicated to seeking contentment in the here and now, but Pascal argued that we cannot find happiness through pleasant self-seeking, only anguished God-seeking. Rousseau later tried and failed to rescue Montaigne's worldliness from Pascal's attack. Steeped in these debates, Tocqueville visited the United States in 1831 and, observing a people "restless in the midst of their well-being," discovered what happens when an entire nation seeks worldly contentment--and finds mostly discontent.
Arguing that the philosophy we have inherited, despite pretending to let us live as we please, produces remarkably homogenous and unhappy lives, Why We Are Restless makes the case that finding true contentment requires rethinking our most basic assumptions about happiness.
We live in an age of unprecedented prosperity, yet everywhere we see signs that our pursuit of happiness has proven fruitless. Dissatisfied, we seek change for the sake of change--even if it means undermining the foundations of our common life. In Why We Are Restless, Benjamin and Jenna Storey offer a profound and beautiful reflection on the roots of this malaise and examine how we might begin to cure ourselves.
Drawing on the insights of Montaigne, Pascal, Rousseau, and Tocqueville, Why We Are Restless explores the modern vision of happiness that leads us on, and the disquiet that follows it like a lengthening shadow. In the sixteenth century, Montaigne articulated an original vision of human life that inspired people to see themselves as individuals dedicated to seeking contentment in the here and now, but Pascal argued that we cannot find happiness through pleasant self-seeking, only anguished God-seeking. Rousseau later tried and failed to rescue Montaigne's worldliness from Pascal's attack. Steeped in these debates, Tocqueville visited the United States in 1831 and, observing a people "restless in the midst of their well-being," discovered what happens when an entire nation seeks worldly contentment--and finds mostly discontent.
Arguing that the philosophy we have inherited, despite pretending to let us live as we please, produces remarkably homogenous and unhappy lives, Why We Are Restless makes the case that finding true contentment requires rethinking our most basic assumptions about happiness.
264 pages, Hardcover
First published April 6, 2021
106 people are currently reading
1381 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
July 9, 2021
This is my second review after I foolishly, and accidentally deleted my first review. Perhaps my thoughts will become more distilled the second time round.
The amount of times I have recommended this book to someone seems sufficient indication that I found it an excellent read. My friend is completing a thesis on liberalism and as part of her research, has read some of the works of Montaigne, Rousseau, Pascel and Tocqueville. In an attempt to understand some of the ideas she raised in conversation, I purchased ‘Why liberalism failed’ by Patrick Deneen. I only made it halfway. It was so dense and inaccessible to someone who didn’t have the basics down pat. I mention this story because ‘Why we are restless’ is incredibly accessible however, it doesn’t comprise on complexity for the sake of accessibility.
The authors have stuck a balance between the philosopher’s original thoughts and their own conclusions, so much so that I am going to show it to my senior students as an example of acknowledging the implications of ideas. Hopefully this reveals the importance of conclusions. As an aside, the ‘solution’ offered by the authors was unobtrusive and prompted further thought. Go them.
As as Christian, I found it helpful to garner a better understanding of different explanations given by philosophers for our restless state and the pursuit of contentment. There were so many parallels between my beliefs and the beliefs stipulated by the philosophers, not just Pascal. It forced me to reconcile my beliefs and reasoning with the reasoning of notable philosophers. A helpful skill.
A worthwhile read.
The amount of times I have recommended this book to someone seems sufficient indication that I found it an excellent read. My friend is completing a thesis on liberalism and as part of her research, has read some of the works of Montaigne, Rousseau, Pascel and Tocqueville. In an attempt to understand some of the ideas she raised in conversation, I purchased ‘Why liberalism failed’ by Patrick Deneen. I only made it halfway. It was so dense and inaccessible to someone who didn’t have the basics down pat. I mention this story because ‘Why we are restless’ is incredibly accessible however, it doesn’t comprise on complexity for the sake of accessibility.
The authors have stuck a balance between the philosopher’s original thoughts and their own conclusions, so much so that I am going to show it to my senior students as an example of acknowledging the implications of ideas. Hopefully this reveals the importance of conclusions. As an aside, the ‘solution’ offered by the authors was unobtrusive and prompted further thought. Go them.
As as Christian, I found it helpful to garner a better understanding of different explanations given by philosophers for our restless state and the pursuit of contentment. There were so many parallels between my beliefs and the beliefs stipulated by the philosophers, not just Pascal. It forced me to reconcile my beliefs and reasoning with the reasoning of notable philosophers. A helpful skill.
A worthwhile read.
September 4, 2022
At least 4.5 stars
Why are feelings of restlessness, unease, and malaise so pervasive today among people that live in some of the wealthiest countries in the world? The authors of this book investigate this question by analyzing the thoughts of four Frenchman — Montaigne, Pascal, Rousseau, and Tocqueville. It’s perhaps surprising how relevant these philosophers are to the subject of our current view of the self and our ideas of what makes a life worthwhile, but the analysis is fascinating and informative.
The model of life that Montaigne sought to promote was itself a reaction against the wars of religion that embroiled Europe at the time. Remarking that it was absurd to desire to kill one’s neighbors over trivial theological differences, he blamed the prevalence of these kinds of atrocities on the importance the culture placed on seeking transcendent truths— those beyond our own lives and human flourishing. In 1572, he retreated to his castle to focus his life instead on pursuing personal contentment. He thus lived his life, as Charles Taylor would define it, within the “immanent frame,” without the need to look toward anything beyond himself — that is, transcendence— for meaning or fulfillment. Needless to say, this comfortable bourgeois lifestyle, although impossible for the vast majority of the populace at the time, struck many of his wealthier contemporaries as quite appealing.
Pascal, a genius and polymath who died at just 39, critiqued Montaigne’s new moral style, claiming that this deliberate “nonchalance”, while providing some fleeting pleasure, does not generally lead to enduring happiness. Indeed, contentment is often elusive— a person at rest will long for activity, while an active person will long for rest. Similarly, when in solitude we become lonely, but when among others we often desire to be alone. Pascal understood man as a human paradox, that “man transcends man.” We long for both happiness and truth, and desire to be ruled by reason and justice, but these lofty goals are beyond our abilities. We are “both great and miserable,” and thus we must turn to the power that transcends us—God. Specifically, the transcendent God who reaches out to us by becoming man, through the Incarnation, revealing God to man, and also man to himself.
Enter Rousseau. He agreed with Pascal’s critique of bourgeois culture, recognizing the persistent discontent of Montaigne’s emulators, but rather than turning toward God, Rousseau preferred to turn to himself and to nature, seeking to find his authentic self. The authors note that, “For Pascal, we are unhappy because we are alienated from God. For Rousseau, we are unhappy because we are alienated from ourselves. For Pascal, nature is fallen but can be redeemed by God. For Rousseau, man is fallen but can be redeemed by nature.” Believing in man’s natural goodness and perfectibility, Rousseau attempted to transform himself by abandoning the institutions that had such a ruinous effect on human nature, but his experiments in both radical solitude and sociability failed to provide either goodness or contentment. Despite the miserable example that was Rousseau’s life, his thoughts proved to be very influential on the modern western view of the self, including the way that Americans came to view themselves and their quest for immanent contentment.
Tocqueville observed that every member of the giant American middle class was straining to achieve immanent contentment through their hard work and ingenuity. He admired the vitality, frankness, and compassion of Americans, but he also recognized looming dangers within their mindset of endless striving:
Tocqueville also realized that the American rejection of formality and hierarchy was a double-edged sword. He saw that “a society that strips away veils, demolishes roles, and annihilates social distance leaves its citizens feeling exposed, helpless, and uneasy. For all of their rigidity, the formalities of aristocratic society taught one how to live. A world without them is a world in which we have both the opportunity and the necessity of making it up all for ourselves. Our hostility to forms [formality] leaves us intellectually, socially, and morally naked.”
The authors discuss how this lack of a place to belong and our endless striving leave us with a pervasive feeling of unease and restlessness. Our desires for what we believe will make us happy—soulmates, family, status, stuff— are often stymied by the real world. But even worse, when attained, they nonetheless fail to provide the satisfaction we seek. This is not a religious book, but a great case is made that when we ignore the transcendent and instead try to live our lives within the “immanent frame,” focusing only on human flourishing — our own and other’s — contentment remains elusive.
Overall, I found the history and analysis in this book fascinating and stimulating, and by its conclusion I was reminded of this quote by CS Lewis: “Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.”
Why are feelings of restlessness, unease, and malaise so pervasive today among people that live in some of the wealthiest countries in the world? The authors of this book investigate this question by analyzing the thoughts of four Frenchman — Montaigne, Pascal, Rousseau, and Tocqueville. It’s perhaps surprising how relevant these philosophers are to the subject of our current view of the self and our ideas of what makes a life worthwhile, but the analysis is fascinating and informative.
The model of life that Montaigne sought to promote was itself a reaction against the wars of religion that embroiled Europe at the time. Remarking that it was absurd to desire to kill one’s neighbors over trivial theological differences, he blamed the prevalence of these kinds of atrocities on the importance the culture placed on seeking transcendent truths— those beyond our own lives and human flourishing. In 1572, he retreated to his castle to focus his life instead on pursuing personal contentment. He thus lived his life, as Charles Taylor would define it, within the “immanent frame,” without the need to look toward anything beyond himself — that is, transcendence— for meaning or fulfillment. Needless to say, this comfortable bourgeois lifestyle, although impossible for the vast majority of the populace at the time, struck many of his wealthier contemporaries as quite appealing.
Pascal, a genius and polymath who died at just 39, critiqued Montaigne’s new moral style, claiming that this deliberate “nonchalance”, while providing some fleeting pleasure, does not generally lead to enduring happiness. Indeed, contentment is often elusive— a person at rest will long for activity, while an active person will long for rest. Similarly, when in solitude we become lonely, but when among others we often desire to be alone. Pascal understood man as a human paradox, that “man transcends man.” We long for both happiness and truth, and desire to be ruled by reason and justice, but these lofty goals are beyond our abilities. We are “both great and miserable,” and thus we must turn to the power that transcends us—God. Specifically, the transcendent God who reaches out to us by becoming man, through the Incarnation, revealing God to man, and also man to himself.
Enter Rousseau. He agreed with Pascal’s critique of bourgeois culture, recognizing the persistent discontent of Montaigne’s emulators, but rather than turning toward God, Rousseau preferred to turn to himself and to nature, seeking to find his authentic self. The authors note that, “For Pascal, we are unhappy because we are alienated from God. For Rousseau, we are unhappy because we are alienated from ourselves. For Pascal, nature is fallen but can be redeemed by God. For Rousseau, man is fallen but can be redeemed by nature.” Believing in man’s natural goodness and perfectibility, Rousseau attempted to transform himself by abandoning the institutions that had such a ruinous effect on human nature, but his experiments in both radical solitude and sociability failed to provide either goodness or contentment. Despite the miserable example that was Rousseau’s life, his thoughts proved to be very influential on the modern western view of the self, including the way that Americans came to view themselves and their quest for immanent contentment.
Tocqueville observed that every member of the giant American middle class was straining to achieve immanent contentment through their hard work and ingenuity. He admired the vitality, frankness, and compassion of Americans, but he also recognized looming dangers within their mindset of endless striving:
“But just as Pascal detects an existential moan underneath the tinkling laughter of the Montaignean bon vivant, Tocqueville discerns a restless unease beneath the cheerful busyness of the American democrat. Indeed, he sees that the more successful the enterprise of democracy becomes, the more unsettled its citizens will be by this Pascalian malaise. The paradox animating the second volume of Democracy in America is that ever-increasing equality and prosperity do not cure restlessness but entrench it: our unease is the product of our success. Tocqueville’s effort to “teach democracy to know itself” is an effort to teach democratic human beings the Pascalian lesson that the goods that are their treasure, the justice that is their pride, and the happiness that is their aim can never be enough for a human soul.”
Tocqueville also realized that the American rejection of formality and hierarchy was a double-edged sword. He saw that “a society that strips away veils, demolishes roles, and annihilates social distance leaves its citizens feeling exposed, helpless, and uneasy. For all of their rigidity, the formalities of aristocratic society taught one how to live. A world without them is a world in which we have both the opportunity and the necessity of making it up all for ourselves. Our hostility to forms [formality] leaves us intellectually, socially, and morally naked.”
The authors discuss how this lack of a place to belong and our endless striving leave us with a pervasive feeling of unease and restlessness. Our desires for what we believe will make us happy—soulmates, family, status, stuff— are often stymied by the real world. But even worse, when attained, they nonetheless fail to provide the satisfaction we seek. This is not a religious book, but a great case is made that when we ignore the transcendent and instead try to live our lives within the “immanent frame,” focusing only on human flourishing — our own and other’s — contentment remains elusive.
Overall, I found the history and analysis in this book fascinating and stimulating, and by its conclusion I was reminded of this quote by CS Lewis: “Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.”
December 28, 2021
Adorei a discussão em redor das perspectivas sobre o contentamento humano de quatro grandes — Montaigne, Pascal, Rousseau e Tocqueville — apresentada em "Why We Are Restless: On the Modern Quest for Contentment" (2021) por Benjamin Storey e Jenna Silbur Storey. Ainda que sejam apresentados como promotores originais das ideias apresentadas e não o sejam. Desde logo porque a proposta de Montaigne, o "contentamento imanente" estava já presente em Epicuro via Lucrécio. Assim como Pascal não oferece nada que as religiões não tenham oferecido antes. Depois Rousseau dá conta da ineficácia da proposta de Montaigne a nível individual, e Tocqueville da ineficácia a nível de uma nação (EUA). Mas tudo isto faz parte de um ciclo que se repete — experiência vs. transcendência — podendo nós continuar opondo Tocqueville a Espinosa ou Nietzsche, para no final perceber que estamos ainda junto à discussão original e dualista que opôs Platão a Aristóteles.
Mas, e ainda assim, não deixa de ser uma leitura ávida dado o facto de estar escrito em modo de novelização das ideias, sem ressalvas nem indefinições, que permitem um foco em profundidade num único conceito, o "contentamento imanente", e assim o reconhecimento da interdependência dos quatro filósofos franceses. Mas talvez me tenha tocado particularmente pelo modo como discute o "contentamento imanente" e o sentimento de "inquietude".
"We engage in politics, in hunting and gambling, in flirting and text-messaging and much else, in an unceasing effort to get outside ourselves—we “cannot sit still in a room.” For when we do, our minds inevitably turn to “the natural unhappiness of our weak and mortal condition, so miserable that nothing can console us when we think about it closely.” What is so unhappy about our human condition? “We want truth and find only incertitude in ourselves. We seek happiness and find only misery and death. We are incapable of not wanting truth and happiness, yet we are incapable of either truth or happiness.” Our consciousness of our own mortality and our awareness of our own ignorance make us unhappy; we cannot learn to die, or rest our well-made heads on the pillow of ignorance, as Montaigne hopes. No psychic equilibrium is possible for a being whose desires so radically outstrip his possibilities. Misery follows ineluctably from an honest estimate of the gap between what we want and what we are." -- Excerto com citações de Pascal e Montaigne
Refletir sobre nós, é como aproximarmo-nos de um abismo e sentir o buraco negro que nos puxa, corrói, e impede de agir. Por outro lado, apostar tudo no hoje, na mudança constante da ação quotidiana conduz-nos também ao seu próprio abismo, como podemos ver no exemplo final dado sobre os aspetos da educação que hoje as universidades privilegiam:
"Law school or a PhD? The young fixate on such questions. Trying to be prudent, they investigate them by deploying the modes of analysis they have been taught to use: looking up countless opportunities, tabulating pluses and minuses, making spreadsheets to keep track of it all. But the question of how to live cannot be answered by aggregating quantities. We must rather think about it by attending to the strange and contradictory qualities that make us human — that we are free, rational, and open to the divine but also frail, fallible, and subject to death. How can such a patchwork being pull itself together to make a meaningful life? If education, insistently focused on immanent goods, refuses to help us think through the questions of our nature that yawn beneath our practical alternatives, life’s significant choices will seem groundless.
Such a prospect often paralyzes young people, especially those with a bounty of options to consider. As an exceptionally gifted young man once remarked to us in class, what he dreaded most was “spending his chips”: investing all his carefully cultivated potential into any particular course of life, converting a hazy but infinitely promising might be into a definite and limited is. His classmates fell silent at his confession, for he had given voice to the perplexity of their own hearts. On the threshold of adult life, many of the young instinctively shrink back, seeking to remain as long as possible in the condition of stem cells, conveniently malleable, ever ready to employ their talents in whatever way might be called for."
Não existem respostas, a não ser procuremos gurus, ou que desistamos da ideia de obtenção de significado. Mas o interessante de tudo isto não está nas respostas, mas antes de tudo o mais, no reconhecimento de que todos sentimos estas mesmas pulsões que nos fazem atravessar continuamente do medo à esperança, da felicidade à depressão. É o que somos, seres dotados de agência capazes de transformar um planeta inteiro porque não conseguimos resignar-nos ou aceitar qualquer impossível. Porque acreditamos que o melhor está fora de nós, na relação com o mundo e os outros, ainda que o façamos apenas porque imbuídos da certeza que isso nos fará sentir melhores, contentes, porque nos acalma as pulsões e deixa viver, na medida do possível.
Por fim, ligando a filosofia à psicologia, nomeadamente esta discussão à discussão tida em "Nação de Dopamina" (2021), percebemos que os tiques, ou vícios comportamentais, que desenvolvemos no consumo da realidade — ler em excesso, jogar em excesso, horas sem fim nas redes sociais, etc. —, são escapes que criamos para fugir a toda esta inquietude.
Publicado no blog: https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
Mas, e ainda assim, não deixa de ser uma leitura ávida dado o facto de estar escrito em modo de novelização das ideias, sem ressalvas nem indefinições, que permitem um foco em profundidade num único conceito, o "contentamento imanente", e assim o reconhecimento da interdependência dos quatro filósofos franceses. Mas talvez me tenha tocado particularmente pelo modo como discute o "contentamento imanente" e o sentimento de "inquietude".
"We engage in politics, in hunting and gambling, in flirting and text-messaging and much else, in an unceasing effort to get outside ourselves—we “cannot sit still in a room.” For when we do, our minds inevitably turn to “the natural unhappiness of our weak and mortal condition, so miserable that nothing can console us when we think about it closely.” What is so unhappy about our human condition? “We want truth and find only incertitude in ourselves. We seek happiness and find only misery and death. We are incapable of not wanting truth and happiness, yet we are incapable of either truth or happiness.” Our consciousness of our own mortality and our awareness of our own ignorance make us unhappy; we cannot learn to die, or rest our well-made heads on the pillow of ignorance, as Montaigne hopes. No psychic equilibrium is possible for a being whose desires so radically outstrip his possibilities. Misery follows ineluctably from an honest estimate of the gap between what we want and what we are." -- Excerto com citações de Pascal e Montaigne
Refletir sobre nós, é como aproximarmo-nos de um abismo e sentir o buraco negro que nos puxa, corrói, e impede de agir. Por outro lado, apostar tudo no hoje, na mudança constante da ação quotidiana conduz-nos também ao seu próprio abismo, como podemos ver no exemplo final dado sobre os aspetos da educação que hoje as universidades privilegiam:
"Law school or a PhD? The young fixate on such questions. Trying to be prudent, they investigate them by deploying the modes of analysis they have been taught to use: looking up countless opportunities, tabulating pluses and minuses, making spreadsheets to keep track of it all. But the question of how to live cannot be answered by aggregating quantities. We must rather think about it by attending to the strange and contradictory qualities that make us human — that we are free, rational, and open to the divine but also frail, fallible, and subject to death. How can such a patchwork being pull itself together to make a meaningful life? If education, insistently focused on immanent goods, refuses to help us think through the questions of our nature that yawn beneath our practical alternatives, life’s significant choices will seem groundless.
Such a prospect often paralyzes young people, especially those with a bounty of options to consider. As an exceptionally gifted young man once remarked to us in class, what he dreaded most was “spending his chips”: investing all his carefully cultivated potential into any particular course of life, converting a hazy but infinitely promising might be into a definite and limited is. His classmates fell silent at his confession, for he had given voice to the perplexity of their own hearts. On the threshold of adult life, many of the young instinctively shrink back, seeking to remain as long as possible in the condition of stem cells, conveniently malleable, ever ready to employ their talents in whatever way might be called for."
Não existem respostas, a não ser procuremos gurus, ou que desistamos da ideia de obtenção de significado. Mas o interessante de tudo isto não está nas respostas, mas antes de tudo o mais, no reconhecimento de que todos sentimos estas mesmas pulsões que nos fazem atravessar continuamente do medo à esperança, da felicidade à depressão. É o que somos, seres dotados de agência capazes de transformar um planeta inteiro porque não conseguimos resignar-nos ou aceitar qualquer impossível. Porque acreditamos que o melhor está fora de nós, na relação com o mundo e os outros, ainda que o façamos apenas porque imbuídos da certeza que isso nos fará sentir melhores, contentes, porque nos acalma as pulsões e deixa viver, na medida do possível.
Por fim, ligando a filosofia à psicologia, nomeadamente esta discussão à discussão tida em "Nação de Dopamina" (2021), percebemos que os tiques, ou vícios comportamentais, que desenvolvemos no consumo da realidade — ler em excesso, jogar em excesso, horas sem fim nas redes sociais, etc. —, são escapes que criamos para fugir a toda esta inquietude.
Publicado no blog: https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
December 16, 2021
I was really looking forward to diving into this topic but the writing in this book is just insufferable. It’s that super annoying college professor style where they drop random references and obscure French terms to put you in your proper place as the dunce. This book made me physically angry because they tackled such a critical topic for modern life in such a poor way. This book could have really been something.
November 28, 2022
Enjoyable. A philosophical history of happiness (and where it is to be found) from Montaigne-Tocqueville. The pascal chapter was the strongest, while the Tocqueville chapter felt relevant to contemporary America. The concluding chapter didn’t seem to fit the book.
September 8, 2023
A roadmap as to why, beneath our “glittering society,” we find ourselves so existentially scattered and numb.
February 9, 2025
4.5 ⭐
Wow I really loved this. It's an exploration as to what makes us happy and what makes us discontent through the context of the French theorists of the Enlightenment. It's very interesting. It gives a very detailed view of the purpose of religion, the over emphasis of self and the detrimental effect of too much political discourse. I wasn't expecting this to be so thought provoking.
Wow I really loved this. It's an exploration as to what makes us happy and what makes us discontent through the context of the French theorists of the Enlightenment. It's very interesting. It gives a very detailed view of the purpose of religion, the over emphasis of self and the detrimental effect of too much political discourse. I wasn't expecting this to be so thought provoking.
December 31, 2022
I started this book thinking it would be along the lines of John Mark Comer and Bob Goff, and boy was I wrong!! This is the book of French philosophy DREAMS!! If you’ve never waded into the ocean of French philosophy before now, the Storey’s writing makes it clear in explaining the various ways of thinking and reasoning of four different philosophers of the time, with each compounding on the last. I won’t lie, this is a dense read, especially if you go straight into it after having read The Ruthless Elimination of Hurry *coughs* like myself. It’s kind of an explanation as to why modern American university systems, which traditionally were havens of philosophical refuge, have turned into anxiety-inducing machines. Explains how these French philosophies of the 16th-18th centuries led us to the restless moment of our modern society.
July 2, 2022
"Why We Are Restless" chronicles the West's journey into deeper and deeper angst, restlessness, and unhappiness. The framework is to focus on four highly-influential French philosophers who basically laid the groundwork for modernity:
Montaigne: In the 1500s, he advocated for a different kind of "ordinary" life, away from aristocracy and glory, and toward happiness and personal contentment. This is the core conviction of democracy.
Pacal: 100 years later and echoing Augustine, he noted the shortcomings of Montaigne's philosophy—that it ignores the biblical revelation of sin and depravity. The reason we are unhappy is actually that we are alienated from God.
Rousseau: He noted Pascal's points on depravity, answering with a secular vision of "salvation"—instead of being reunited with God, he said we need to reunite with "Nature." In our modern language, you could describe "Nature" as authenticity.
Tocqueville: In the 1800s, he journeyed to America and saw how all this emerging philosophy was faring where it was most concentrated—the American West. In America he noted that we have fully lost sight of the transcendent (standards, traditions, religion, God, virtue) and settled for the immanent (happiness, material possessions, upward mobility, choice).
The conclusion is that the journey has led nowhere: We will never be happy if we have our eyes on ourselves—on our personal contentment and little lives. Without tradition, virtue, and especially God, we are doomed to be forever restless.
Pretty great stuff! Reminds me of other syntheses of Charles Taylor—such as Carl Trueman and people.
Montaigne: In the 1500s, he advocated for a different kind of "ordinary" life, away from aristocracy and glory, and toward happiness and personal contentment. This is the core conviction of democracy.
Pacal: 100 years later and echoing Augustine, he noted the shortcomings of Montaigne's philosophy—that it ignores the biblical revelation of sin and depravity. The reason we are unhappy is actually that we are alienated from God.
Rousseau: He noted Pascal's points on depravity, answering with a secular vision of "salvation"—instead of being reunited with God, he said we need to reunite with "Nature." In our modern language, you could describe "Nature" as authenticity.
Tocqueville: In the 1800s, he journeyed to America and saw how all this emerging philosophy was faring where it was most concentrated—the American West. In America he noted that we have fully lost sight of the transcendent (standards, traditions, religion, God, virtue) and settled for the immanent (happiness, material possessions, upward mobility, choice).
The conclusion is that the journey has led nowhere: We will never be happy if we have our eyes on ourselves—on our personal contentment and little lives. Without tradition, virtue, and especially God, we are doomed to be forever restless.
Pretty great stuff! Reminds me of other syntheses of Charles Taylor—such as Carl Trueman and people.
November 17, 2022
"Why We Are Restless" is a book that delves into the history of Western philosophy (namely, 4 French philosophers in Montaigne, Pascal, Rousseau, and Tocqueville) to tell the story of why the Western society is the way that it is. The problem, identified by Benjamin & Jenna Silber Storey, is that we are no longer pursuing the transcendent meaning in our lives but are caught up with the restless, unceasing activities of everyday life.
The content of the book is to show how the Four French moralistes sought to seek answers in understanding human life and existence. They all tell different stories with Montaigne focusing on the what is here and now, Pascal on the transcendent meaning found in God, Rousseau focusing on the failures of institutions, and Tocqueville focusing on the political failures of restless people who have no meaning in their lives.
I think the conclusion of the authors is that human beings exist for meanings greater than mere creaturely existence. Human beings cannot just live in the here and the now, and such lifestyle will ultimately lead to discontentment with one's existence. Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living, and perhaps we may heed his words well by really thinking this question about meaning of life. When we do find that meaning, it is by that which we come to find true contentment and satisfaction. Perhaps the book will help one to examine one's current life and see to it that philosophizing beyond the mere necessities of everyday life is quite beneficial and relevant to our existence as human beings.
The content of the book is to show how the Four French moralistes sought to seek answers in understanding human life and existence. They all tell different stories with Montaigne focusing on the what is here and now, Pascal on the transcendent meaning found in God, Rousseau focusing on the failures of institutions, and Tocqueville focusing on the political failures of restless people who have no meaning in their lives.
I think the conclusion of the authors is that human beings exist for meanings greater than mere creaturely existence. Human beings cannot just live in the here and the now, and such lifestyle will ultimately lead to discontentment with one's existence. Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living, and perhaps we may heed his words well by really thinking this question about meaning of life. When we do find that meaning, it is by that which we come to find true contentment and satisfaction. Perhaps the book will help one to examine one's current life and see to it that philosophizing beyond the mere necessities of everyday life is quite beneficial and relevant to our existence as human beings.
December 3, 2021
Wouldn’t recommend this to everybody, but a helpful analysis of modern assumptions about the good life and their philosophical underpinnings that stem from guys like Montaigne and Rousseau. I especially appreciate the chapters that interact with the insights of Montaigne and Blaise Pascal. The authors present Montaigne’s pursuit of “immanent contentment,” a kind of live-in-the-moment nonchalance that is strikingly familiar and to be honest, is quite appealing to the flesh. Following in the footsteps of Paul, Pascal destroys Montaigne’s arguments and lofty opinions raised against the knowledge of God. In Augustinian fashion, Pascal shows how our “restlessness” is rooted fundamentally in our idolatrous preference for self. True contentment is found in conversion from self-seeking hedonism to a life besotted with God.
November 6, 2022
I adored this book and am thankful to David Rutledge for introducing me to the authors via his wonderful podcast, The Philosopher's Zone. Here's the episode at https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/....
This book focuses on four French enlightenment philosophers and draws beautiful social, political, and philosophical connections to our lives today. Indeed, each luscious chapter lays the groundwork for the next, and by the time we get to Tocqueville, we can see ourselves (as Americans, and moderns) in the framework which was built before us.
Some of my favorite sections are explored on the Twitter here https://twitter.com/search?q=mweinrau...
This book focuses on four French enlightenment philosophers and draws beautiful social, political, and philosophical connections to our lives today. Indeed, each luscious chapter lays the groundwork for the next, and by the time we get to Tocqueville, we can see ourselves (as Americans, and moderns) in the framework which was built before us.
Some of my favorite sections are explored on the Twitter here https://twitter.com/search?q=mweinrau...
June 15, 2022
Though it’s aimed at Americans, this book will be of interest to anyone who wants to dig into why we in the West have such a restless, anxious approach to modern life and the many choices with which it presents us.
Worth it for the chapter on Tocqueville alone. A challenging read for me, but feel glad to have stuck with it.
Worth it for the chapter on Tocqueville alone. A challenging read for me, but feel glad to have stuck with it.
July 23, 2023
Quite academic/historical
December 9, 2024
Though I usually prefer my philosophy well-aged and primary-sourced, I made an exception for Why We Are Restless, because its identification of a modern malaise in the quest for human flourishing struck me as particularly perspicacious. It is a sense to which I suspect all but the least imaginative and the most uncurious can relate, even if we do not all actively engage with the question or seek better answers and, unlike many philosophical ideas, it does seem it might be affected by temporal matters, properties unique to our current time and place. Related to momentous ideas about the meaning of life and the nature of morality, the idea of a kind of quest for contentment is perhaps more fantastic than any adventure in pursuit of a magic sword, but Storey and Storey’s exploration lacks the insight of their description of it.
Why We Are Restless walks the reader through the thoughts of four French philosophers on the idea of contentment, which I relate to the concept of human flourishing which I have referenced in previous posts: Montaigne, Pascal, Rousseau, and Tocqueville. There are four philosophers, but the authors’ argument and emphasis are on the thread introduced by Montaigne which runs throughout the sections focused on the others and on into the conclusion. Montaigne is credited with introducing an idea of “immanent contentment,” and he might be my least favorite philosopher I’ve yet read (yes, worse than the philosophers behind Resistance, Rebellion, and Death and Justice as Fairness: A Restatement).
Immanent contentment is at once precisely what it sounds like, and far larger and more pernicious a concept. Montaigne elevated the pursuit of immanent contentment to a moral objective and an ultimate state of being. For him, the ultimate purpose and objective of the human life well-lived, the source of human fulfillment and flourishing, is the pursuit of proximal temporal pleasure and satisfaction. This should not be confused with Epicureanism, which is the pursuit of pleasure as an absence of pain and fear, making it technically but not colloquially a form of hedonism. Where Epicurus emphasized the so-called pleasures of the mind, for their impact on the extratemporal being, Montaigne emphasized the pleasures of the body, which exist only in the present, hence the “immanent” descriptor. The ideal of immanent contentment is a kind of bumbling from one dopamine spike to the next, ideally with friends who share this worldview, which I would compare to bees flitting from flower to flower, except that would be insulting to the bees, who perform that task with a purpose.
It is clear the authors’ thesis revolves around Montaigne’s ideas of immanent contentment; they are far less accepting of Pascal, for instance. You may be familiar with Pascal from mathematics, where he developed the famous Pascal’s triangle, amongst other theorems and proofs, but he was also a devoted polymath who turned to religion and philosophy after finding hard sciences like mathematics “too easy.” His reliance on, and praise of, religion as a source of moral virtue, purposefulness in life, and meaning to promote human flourishing and fulfillment sets a high standard, supposing, in effect, that humans must constantly strive towards an unattainable divinity in order to find fulfillment. Storey and Storey, it is clear, consider this idea rather archaic.
These first two philosophers, Montaigne and Pascal, form the core perspectives which the authors explore and expand upon through the sections on Rousseau and Tocqueville. Of the latter two, Tocqueville’s section would have been the most insightful had I not already read Democracy in America. As in that original text, his chapter in Why We Are Restless offers the significant benefit of a unique, outsider perspective on enduring qualities and fundamental assumptions of the fabric of the American experience, in many cases as relevant today as they were in the early nineteenth century. Rousseau, frankly, seems to have little to offer to the text, serving more as a way for the authors to highlight a form of dissatisfaction with Montaigne’s immanent contentment that is not a flat-out rejection of the notion and that is not framed in religious terminology.
Perhaps it is the nature of books like this one to overstate their positions, but Storey and Storey exhibit a significant blind spot with regards to America’s religious history, and how this makes the US, past and present, distinct from the determinedly secular democratization of France. To reuse a phrase which I leveraged heavily in a previous post, the US has a freedom for religion, whereas France has more a freedom from religion. The character of the waves of immigration to the US reflects this, and the authors’ analysis is fundamentally incomplete without considering the lingering impact of religious communities on American ideas of human flourishing. Denominations such as the Quakers, the Puritans, and others (arguably, most segments of the Abrahamic faiths have some wisdom in this area) emphasized (and continue to emphasize) the intrinsic value of hard work, which is one of the many ways in which religious ideas of human flourishing are distinct from prioritization of immanent contentment. Where Storey and Storey see a society that is restless because it cannot achieve the state of immanent contentment which it has been raised to idealize, I see a society whose restlessness is born from the fact that our society, far from idealizing immanent contentment, consistently conveys that there should be something more. I would go so far as to argue that mainstream American society is closer to idealizing Epicureanism than it is to idealizing Montaigne’s immanent contentment.
Another blind spot is demographic specificity. The authors provide anecdotal and some statistical evidence to support this malaise of discontent in higher education and early career “white collar” workers in the US, but they make little to no effort to see if this can be observed in other segments of American society, or in modern societies beyond the US, despite making sweeping claims about the universality of the problem which they spend an entire book describing. Nor, in the end, do they offer any substantial solutions. There is a vague acknowledgement that it is, in fact, immanent contentment itself as an ideal that is a primary contributor to the identified restlessness, but the authors are patently uncomfortable with suggesting alternatives and pointing out the moral flaws in the ideal of immanent contentment.
In a book like this, it’s not necessarily reasonable to expect to find answers, but some examination of alternatives in the broader philosophical tradition would be beneficial. Instead, Why We Are Restless leaves the reader with the impression that our democratic structure is necessarily tied to idealizing immanent contentment ala Montaigne, and that the only alternative is Pascalian religious self-deprecation and futile striving which will inevitably trend toward autocracy and inequality. So much which could be considered with regards to the topic of modern restlessness is left unexamined that the value of the authors’ arguments is quite undermined. Their identification and verbalization of the problem of restlessness might be insightful, but their analysis and conclusions are lacking, and their alternatives all but absent. Precisely because of those shortcomings mixed with my agreement on the basic premise of restlessness, I found Why We Are Restless one of the most frustrating and irritating books I’ve read in a long time. Reading it will affirm your notions that there is more to life than a quest for immanent contentment and universal, unmitigated approbation, but it may well leave you feeling more restless than when you began.
September 28, 2023
This is one of the most captivating reads I have delve into over the past year. Tracing the influential thinking of four French writers (Henri Montaigne, Blaise Pascal, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Alexis de Tocqueville), Benjamin and Jenna Storey present a powerful expose on the origins of the modern self in Western Society - specifically as expressed in the USA.
The narrative is rich, evocative and pungent as it extrapolates the challenging viewpoints of thinkers like Pascal and Rousseau. The Storeys explain modernity's concept of the self by applying this historical lens that is steep in French philosophical reflection. Readers can observe how Montaigne's "imminent contentment" was subsequently challenged by Pascal's Christian rendition of man's fall before reemerging in Rousseau who epitomized the discontented conundrum of a life built on living in the moment without any consideration of eternity.
de Tocqueville's critique of American democratic society rounds out the analysis. And, while his writings may be dated to the 1830's they are still prescient for today. His cultural insights are covered in the last chapter where they are used as a summation point for offering some parting observations.
One of the most powerful insights I gleaned is the reality that the modern pursuit of happiness is essentially one that demands the removal of forms (i.e., social constructs that represent past authority structures such as religious or social standings), the unbridled pursuit of immediate pleasure as an end unto itself thereby rendering it inadequate in meeting the individual's soulish needs. The restlessness of the modern man is seen in the striving for an imminent hope in life's temporary pleasures that even our celebrated social mobility and materialism are proving to be non-fulfilling.
It must be noted that this is not a religious work and that the writers admirably maintain a high level of objectivity. That said, Bascal's notion of man's need for God does continue to reassert itself at critical points in the book when Montaigne's imminent contentment is found to be lacking as an overarching purpose for mankind. Therefore, I found this work very helpful to me personally as I seek to understand the modern mindset while avoiding the blinding pomposity that marks much of today's public discourse.
The narrative is rich, evocative and pungent as it extrapolates the challenging viewpoints of thinkers like Pascal and Rousseau. The Storeys explain modernity's concept of the self by applying this historical lens that is steep in French philosophical reflection. Readers can observe how Montaigne's "imminent contentment" was subsequently challenged by Pascal's Christian rendition of man's fall before reemerging in Rousseau who epitomized the discontented conundrum of a life built on living in the moment without any consideration of eternity.
de Tocqueville's critique of American democratic society rounds out the analysis. And, while his writings may be dated to the 1830's they are still prescient for today. His cultural insights are covered in the last chapter where they are used as a summation point for offering some parting observations.
One of the most powerful insights I gleaned is the reality that the modern pursuit of happiness is essentially one that demands the removal of forms (i.e., social constructs that represent past authority structures such as religious or social standings), the unbridled pursuit of immediate pleasure as an end unto itself thereby rendering it inadequate in meeting the individual's soulish needs. The restlessness of the modern man is seen in the striving for an imminent hope in life's temporary pleasures that even our celebrated social mobility and materialism are proving to be non-fulfilling.
It must be noted that this is not a religious work and that the writers admirably maintain a high level of objectivity. That said, Bascal's notion of man's need for God does continue to reassert itself at critical points in the book when Montaigne's imminent contentment is found to be lacking as an overarching purpose for mankind. Therefore, I found this work very helpful to me personally as I seek to understand the modern mindset while avoiding the blinding pomposity that marks much of today's public discourse.
October 21, 2021
A brief account of the convictions of four protean thinkers undergirded by their observations of their current culture. Storey and Storey do well to set up a resolve to both Montaigne and Pascal's philosophy with the inclusion of Rousseau's account, before zooming the lens out further with Tocqueville's observations of America's democracy and its enmeshment with capitalism. This book does not tell the reader the answer to the initial question posed in the title. Rather, if describes the lives and work of four philosophers and invite the reader to construct for themselves both the answers to our restless and wandering hearts, and the antidote.
January 22, 2022
It was a hard read. I feel like it was a book for academics, written by academics. Not accessible. Or maybe I'm just dumb
August 22, 2022
This book is by a husband-wife team of professors at a liberal arts college. The book presents a series of chapters focusing on four French philosophes/writers/intellectuals — Montaigne, Pascal, Rousseau, and De Tocqueville. The focus is on how these writers articulated the human quest for happiness and how to solve the general problem of how to live one’s life. How does one adjust to one’s immediate life? What does public life and politics have to do with happiness? What about revolution and reform? Does one find meaning in private life or public life as a citizen? …and how did these ideas play out in America of the first half of the 19th century, as depicted in “Democracy in America”? The takeaway is that people need to think these issues through for themselves if they are to have a chance at being happy - or less unhappy. (This is not really a shocking conclusion.). The strongest part of the book for me was the chance to refresh my appreciation of these authors. All of the books are wonderful and worth reading, even in parts. Out of the four authors, I received the largest impact from De Tocqueville, but all of the books are outstanding.
I have to admit I was not thrilled by the motivation for the book. At both ends, the story is framed in response to an interaction with a student who had done well in school but was facing the prospect of going either to law school or graduate school. The interaction displayed around this choice was the link with a more general restlessness plaguing our students. To make such a choice regarding graduate education and career, one would need to be able to think well as deeply about what one wanted to do with one’s life and one’s career, and all that went with the two. I guess that is how the story would go.
Reading Montaigne will help me decide about grad schools? There certainly were colleges in the US when De Tocqueville visited but grad school did not come until a bit later.
But more generally … the books are worth reading on their own! There is no need to tie them to any student advising functions! …and don’t hold it against your students to not really have a handle on how to plot their lives. Who does know how to do that? There is a small niche genre for this. The example that comes to mind is “Excellent Sheep” by William Deresiewicz.
In terms of trying to create a life and learn how to live well and have a chance at happiness, those issues go way beyond senior year choices at elite schools. I suspect that there are lots of potential readers for a book introducing these authors. I liked the subject matter and heard about this from an op-ed piece the authors did for the NYT. If they do more, it would be good for them to work through their motivation in more depth. I hope they do.
I have to admit I was not thrilled by the motivation for the book. At both ends, the story is framed in response to an interaction with a student who had done well in school but was facing the prospect of going either to law school or graduate school. The interaction displayed around this choice was the link with a more general restlessness plaguing our students. To make such a choice regarding graduate education and career, one would need to be able to think well as deeply about what one wanted to do with one’s life and one’s career, and all that went with the two. I guess that is how the story would go.
Reading Montaigne will help me decide about grad schools? There certainly were colleges in the US when De Tocqueville visited but grad school did not come until a bit later.
But more generally … the books are worth reading on their own! There is no need to tie them to any student advising functions! …and don’t hold it against your students to not really have a handle on how to plot their lives. Who does know how to do that? There is a small niche genre for this. The example that comes to mind is “Excellent Sheep” by William Deresiewicz.
In terms of trying to create a life and learn how to live well and have a chance at happiness, those issues go way beyond senior year choices at elite schools. I suspect that there are lots of potential readers for a book introducing these authors. I liked the subject matter and heard about this from an op-ed piece the authors did for the NYT. If they do more, it would be good for them to work through their motivation in more depth. I hope they do.
January 4, 2023
I am an avid reader of Tricycle magazine which publishes Buddhist teachings, practices, and critiques. While browsing their recommended reading list, I came across Benjamin and Jenna Storey’s Why We Are Restless. One of those titles that aim at the human condition, something that interests me. But I did not anticipate the contents of the book from the title. Little did I know it would be my introduction to Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592), Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), and Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859). Benjamin and Jenna Storey run the distinguished Tocqueville Forum at Furman University. Their expertise has a commanding presence throughout the book. This is a particularly difficult book to review because it does not fall into genres of self-help, pop psychology, therapy, or an airport-store-business-success book. It is a deeply researched book with dense liberal arts learning, copious notes, and immaculately structured sentences that stumped me for months. It is a book for serious contemplation. Pick up this book and you can have decades of learning stemming from the ideas presented here.
It begins with Michel de Montaigne. Amidst France’s sixteenth-century religious wars arose secular thinkers and writers known as the moralists. The moralists examined the modern notion of the ‘self’ and humanity’s problems and questioned the prevailing religious and social temperature in France. Montaigne’s vision to navigate what he calls the l’humaine condition is to learn to loyally enjoy said condition- to find immanent happiness. Instead of seeking a philosophic life that transcends day-to-day banalities, Montaigne invites us to nourish the self by simply living and embracing a balance between our restless inner lives by seeking contentment in our social spheres. But in the seventeenth century, Blaise Pascal disagrees with Montaigne. For him, immanent contentment is a temporary phase and humans are dissatisfied because they are removed from God. A tricky disposition to find ourselves in this modern world. Personally, I do not identify with a religious faith or practice and yet Pascal brought me close to questioning faith and the lack thereof.
"Modern human beings can follow their passions and pleasures, indulge idle or even voyeuristic curiosities, accumulate wealth, and achieve ambitions with less shame or need for an apology than their forebears. But doing so seems only to add to the mounting pile of evidence that the decisive obstacles to immanent contentment do not lie in the laws and moral norms modern peoples so relentlessly critique and overturn. The unhappiness that remains when such liberations have succeeded must have its source not in our laws but in ourselves."
I am still struggling with his viewpoint. If not God, then what? Here comes Rousseau who agrees with Pascal to an extent. According to him, we are unhappy because we are alienated from ourselves. And for Rousseau, the way forward is embracing solitude in nature. In his seminal work Émile, he attempts to elevate this bourgeois discontent through familial happiness, public service, and the vulnerability and uncertainty that comes through these. On the other hand, opting for radical solitude has its caveats too. Ultimately, we are back to where we began with or without immanent contentment. Finally, in Tocqueville’s observations from America, the drive for immanent enjoyment spearheaded by technological industriousness has been democratized. So, the initial Montaignean drive has become the tool of the social and political atmosphere in today’s world.
"Such is the democratic interpretation of Montaigne’s contentment made immanent, purged of the outré elements of the life of the aristocratic libertine. The conditions of happiness so understood show up in the numbers, from life expectancy to GDP growth, which is our national pride."
The Storeys leave us with a rich repository of thought processes from historical thinkers that aim at dissatisfaction, dissociation, and burnout of our modern selves. This book is a starting point for lifelong learning of centuries of philosophical inquiries. Even if immanent contentment sounds exciting, the pursuit of philosophical questions might help assuage our general malaise. A case for resisting philosophy in our lives is given in the book.
"We resist philosophy because we fear that it might cause us to miss out on life, that the happiness we could seize here and now might pass us by while we are transfixed by thinking."
Something to pause and think about as we rush toward the next fix.
It begins with Michel de Montaigne. Amidst France’s sixteenth-century religious wars arose secular thinkers and writers known as the moralists. The moralists examined the modern notion of the ‘self’ and humanity’s problems and questioned the prevailing religious and social temperature in France. Montaigne’s vision to navigate what he calls the l’humaine condition is to learn to loyally enjoy said condition- to find immanent happiness. Instead of seeking a philosophic life that transcends day-to-day banalities, Montaigne invites us to nourish the self by simply living and embracing a balance between our restless inner lives by seeking contentment in our social spheres. But in the seventeenth century, Blaise Pascal disagrees with Montaigne. For him, immanent contentment is a temporary phase and humans are dissatisfied because they are removed from God. A tricky disposition to find ourselves in this modern world. Personally, I do not identify with a religious faith or practice and yet Pascal brought me close to questioning faith and the lack thereof.
"Modern human beings can follow their passions and pleasures, indulge idle or even voyeuristic curiosities, accumulate wealth, and achieve ambitions with less shame or need for an apology than their forebears. But doing so seems only to add to the mounting pile of evidence that the decisive obstacles to immanent contentment do not lie in the laws and moral norms modern peoples so relentlessly critique and overturn. The unhappiness that remains when such liberations have succeeded must have its source not in our laws but in ourselves."
I am still struggling with his viewpoint. If not God, then what? Here comes Rousseau who agrees with Pascal to an extent. According to him, we are unhappy because we are alienated from ourselves. And for Rousseau, the way forward is embracing solitude in nature. In his seminal work Émile, he attempts to elevate this bourgeois discontent through familial happiness, public service, and the vulnerability and uncertainty that comes through these. On the other hand, opting for radical solitude has its caveats too. Ultimately, we are back to where we began with or without immanent contentment. Finally, in Tocqueville’s observations from America, the drive for immanent enjoyment spearheaded by technological industriousness has been democratized. So, the initial Montaignean drive has become the tool of the social and political atmosphere in today’s world.
"Such is the democratic interpretation of Montaigne’s contentment made immanent, purged of the outré elements of the life of the aristocratic libertine. The conditions of happiness so understood show up in the numbers, from life expectancy to GDP growth, which is our national pride."
The Storeys leave us with a rich repository of thought processes from historical thinkers that aim at dissatisfaction, dissociation, and burnout of our modern selves. This book is a starting point for lifelong learning of centuries of philosophical inquiries. Even if immanent contentment sounds exciting, the pursuit of philosophical questions might help assuage our general malaise. A case for resisting philosophy in our lives is given in the book.
"We resist philosophy because we fear that it might cause us to miss out on life, that the happiness we could seize here and now might pass us by while we are transfixed by thinking."
Something to pause and think about as we rush toward the next fix.
August 28, 2023
This book I oddly enough was introduced to in my Orthodox catechumen class. I am so glad I went home and bought it! I have been trying to trace the roots of our insanity and have explored the dialectics of madness from Hegel through Marx and the rest, also the existentialist path and the psychological path and affects of Luther and Protestantism, but I had not discovered Montaigne, except when Nietzsche mentions him and it's hard to understand someone through that lens.
Montaignian Democracy is basically what we have here in the States (united we are not). Montaigne removes the transcendent and tries to get people to become content in themselves and in their trivial pursuits. He doesn't think anyone should strive for great things because of the hassle and inconvenience.
Pascal comes along and says this is just masking over our unhappiness with distractions. Man is flawed but we can become great by pursuing great ideas.
Rousseau tries to make man content without ideals but he takes into account Pascals critique. He thus tries to blend the previous two. In this pursuit he comes up with roughly four different ways none of which succeed. In the Social Contract he tries to bring back the heroic ideal of the citizen who sacrifices himself to the community. This results in statism. In Emile he uses a special educational approach to train a man and a woman to find their contentment in the family but it goes awry when they lose their child and the wife gets pregnant with another man. Then there is the story of the Cleric who teaches a kind of paganism and making oneself god. The last attempt is radical isolation which is ironic since he was never really alone like Nietzsche was.
Tocqueville studies these men and comes to America and finds Montaignian democracy, where people are restless and constantly trying to pursue contentment by staying busy. The hidden downside of our society is we pursue good things to such an extreme they are no longer good and what started off as freedom ends in more control as we use the government to help us pursue our interests which are unlimited.
At the end the writer observes that people stay so busy they do not take the time to think or learn how to think which adds more anxiety as people have tons of options but nothing to guide them.
Montaignian Democracy is basically what we have here in the States (united we are not). Montaigne removes the transcendent and tries to get people to become content in themselves and in their trivial pursuits. He doesn't think anyone should strive for great things because of the hassle and inconvenience.
Pascal comes along and says this is just masking over our unhappiness with distractions. Man is flawed but we can become great by pursuing great ideas.
Rousseau tries to make man content without ideals but he takes into account Pascals critique. He thus tries to blend the previous two. In this pursuit he comes up with roughly four different ways none of which succeed. In the Social Contract he tries to bring back the heroic ideal of the citizen who sacrifices himself to the community. This results in statism. In Emile he uses a special educational approach to train a man and a woman to find their contentment in the family but it goes awry when they lose their child and the wife gets pregnant with another man. Then there is the story of the Cleric who teaches a kind of paganism and making oneself god. The last attempt is radical isolation which is ironic since he was never really alone like Nietzsche was.
Tocqueville studies these men and comes to America and finds Montaignian democracy, where people are restless and constantly trying to pursue contentment by staying busy. The hidden downside of our society is we pursue good things to such an extreme they are no longer good and what started off as freedom ends in more control as we use the government to help us pursue our interests which are unlimited.
At the end the writer observes that people stay so busy they do not take the time to think or learn how to think which adds more anxiety as people have tons of options but nothing to guide them.
March 14, 2024
This book was not what I was expecting. I was hoping that after discussing the philosophies and perhaps some modern day statistics/studies, the book would propose some options to help us feel… well, more rested and relaxed.
Instead, this book is an in depth analysis and discussion of 4 French philosophers from the XIX Century (Montaigne, Pascal, Rosseau, and Tocqueville) and their take on the purpose of human life. The writing was definitely very dense and academic, I felt like I was back in school.
On the positive side, the authors did a good job summarizing the arguments for each philosopher, and discussing how each of them responds to the other’s beliefs. And I certainly enjoyed the observations that Americans are so focused on material goods, as well as vacations and vocations, to consider immaterial sources of contentment. It was also interesting to consider that higher levels of wealth and security lead to more restlessness, and that higher levels of education has seemed to paralyze young people when the time comes to make decisions about their careers and life paths.
On the down side, this was a really hard and not very pleasant read. Didn’t like it was so descriptive and didn’t provide any suggestions or overall opinion on what we can do to be more relaxed in 2024. Alas, my year of rest and relaxation was not well-served by this one.
Instead, this book is an in depth analysis and discussion of 4 French philosophers from the XIX Century (Montaigne, Pascal, Rosseau, and Tocqueville) and their take on the purpose of human life. The writing was definitely very dense and academic, I felt like I was back in school.
On the positive side, the authors did a good job summarizing the arguments for each philosopher, and discussing how each of them responds to the other’s beliefs. And I certainly enjoyed the observations that Americans are so focused on material goods, as well as vacations and vocations, to consider immaterial sources of contentment. It was also interesting to consider that higher levels of wealth and security lead to more restlessness, and that higher levels of education has seemed to paralyze young people when the time comes to make decisions about their careers and life paths.
On the down side, this was a really hard and not very pleasant read. Didn’t like it was so descriptive and didn’t provide any suggestions or overall opinion on what we can do to be more relaxed in 2024. Alas, my year of rest and relaxation was not well-served by this one.
May 11, 2023
A philosophically relevant consideration of the underlying malaise in the West; Why? What’s the purpose? What is, ‘the pursuit of happiness’ anyway Mr Jefferson?
The authors argue that it lies in going to the natural extremes of only considering the tangible and pragmatic engineering and corporations that makes America so famous, focussing on immanent contentment today over a transcendent future orientation. A major source is discontentment lies in democracy itself, a shifting sand driven by the waves and tides of our times and ages, each of us a particle and grain free to choose and thus continually face the existential dread of choosing and committing. A liberal education (the Great Books especially) ought be to teach us first, how to choose and answer those questions, Why? To be liberal is to be free to choose. It begins by lifting our head up from immediately in front, pausing to stop chasing the wind, and listening to the wisdom from the past.
I'm reminded of Hannah Arendt's essay 'What is Authority?' that considers the Enlightenment's loss of, "the Roman trinity of religion, authority, and tradition." The price of freedom is choice, thus we must be educated in the art of choosing. Thus, Jesus of Nazareth chooses death of self. May we choose wisely.
The authors argue that it lies in going to the natural extremes of only considering the tangible and pragmatic engineering and corporations that makes America so famous, focussing on immanent contentment today over a transcendent future orientation. A major source is discontentment lies in democracy itself, a shifting sand driven by the waves and tides of our times and ages, each of us a particle and grain free to choose and thus continually face the existential dread of choosing and committing. A liberal education (the Great Books especially) ought be to teach us first, how to choose and answer those questions, Why? To be liberal is to be free to choose. It begins by lifting our head up from immediately in front, pausing to stop chasing the wind, and listening to the wisdom from the past.
I'm reminded of Hannah Arendt's essay 'What is Authority?' that considers the Enlightenment's loss of, "the Roman trinity of religion, authority, and tradition." The price of freedom is choice, thus we must be educated in the art of choosing. Thus, Jesus of Nazareth chooses death of self. May we choose wisely.
August 5, 2023
I loved this book for two reasons: (i) not trained in philosophy, my interest was piqued to go away and read of the four main French philosophers, discussed in this book, including Montaigne, Pascal, Rousseau and Detocquville (spelling?). The authors provided a fascinating slice of their works, aligning with their overal theme; and (ii) the last two chapters brought together their findings into an extremely coherent and powerful argument to explain why we, modern democatric human beings, feel so at-sea, restless and often selfish throughout our lives.
The two last chapters were nearly a stand-alone element of the book, and although the preceding chapters helped to provide the foundation for their final theses, I think the author's own thinking and argument played strongly into it: well done to them, as I think they extracted clarity around a particularly complicated and poorly understood topic: the origins of contentment. I am in middle age, yet their descriptions of university youths and what they think were identical to what I thought 30 years ago, and still feel today.
I look forward to more work from these philosophers and I hope to do further reading of the philosophers captured in this work.
The two last chapters were nearly a stand-alone element of the book, and although the preceding chapters helped to provide the foundation for their final theses, I think the author's own thinking and argument played strongly into it: well done to them, as I think they extracted clarity around a particularly complicated and poorly understood topic: the origins of contentment. I am in middle age, yet their descriptions of university youths and what they think were identical to what I thought 30 years ago, and still feel today.
I look forward to more work from these philosophers and I hope to do further reading of the philosophers captured in this work.
November 1, 2022
Thought Provoking About The Source Of Our Pervasive Unease
This is not an easy read. It is a book filled with wisdom that requires the reader to pause, reflect, and consider. It requires us to consider the wisdom of the path we have chosen, and to consider how we balance the desire for material comfort and success with the transcendent. To balance our personal efforts to make our individual lives better (more comfortable, more options, more personal power) with our efforts to connect with something greater than ourselves and in doing so, with our soul and our connections to our fellow humans.
Not easy, and worth it. Helps the reader understand why we are so divided as a country, and why we tolerate, even admire, vulgar violent acts that we now somehow frame as being honest. It helps the reader understand why we have converted our political debate into one in which one side wins and the other loses, as opposed to a debate about how all of us can win together.
This is not an easy read. It is a book filled with wisdom that requires the reader to pause, reflect, and consider. It requires us to consider the wisdom of the path we have chosen, and to consider how we balance the desire for material comfort and success with the transcendent. To balance our personal efforts to make our individual lives better (more comfortable, more options, more personal power) with our efforts to connect with something greater than ourselves and in doing so, with our soul and our connections to our fellow humans.
Not easy, and worth it. Helps the reader understand why we are so divided as a country, and why we tolerate, even admire, vulgar violent acts that we now somehow frame as being honest. It helps the reader understand why we have converted our political debate into one in which one side wins and the other loses, as opposed to a debate about how all of us can win together.
October 8, 2022
This book tackles such an important topic but in such a poor, inaccessible way. The writing is pedantic and filled with unnecessary big, fancy words. Authors fail to fully explain the main concept of their argument (immanent contentment) in a manner that’s digestible to regular audiences. I learned more by reading third-party reviews than by reading the book itself. That should say something. Then, in a short, hastily written last chapter, the authors talk about the “art of choosing,” and I’m like, why didn’t you make this book about that from the beginning?
Overall, I’m very disappointed. Our modern restlessness is a topic that everyone should be talking about but this book seems to have been written for high-brow academics.
Overall, I’m very disappointed. Our modern restlessness is a topic that everyone should be talking about but this book seems to have been written for high-brow academics.
July 4, 2023
The first point of call is - this book is beautifully written! (I guess waiting to 40 worked :P)
There is a richness in each page of history, philosophy, and interwoven connections between four French thinkers.
Montaigne - Life doing your own thing is cool.
Pascal - No, it's not.
Rousseau - No matter - we should protect it!
Tocqueville - Yeh...so... How's that going for us?
Ended with - Liberty is about choice yeh? When do we get taught how to choose?
*chef's kiss - Mwah.* Yes!
This was my interpretation. It's not eloquent, but that's why you read the book.
(Like seriously, annoyed I have borrowed out another library book I want to now buy.)
There is a richness in each page of history, philosophy, and interwoven connections between four French thinkers.
Montaigne - Life doing your own thing is cool.
Pascal - No, it's not.
Rousseau - No matter - we should protect it!
Tocqueville - Yeh...so... How's that going for us?
Ended with - Liberty is about choice yeh? When do we get taught how to choose?
*chef's kiss - Mwah.* Yes!
This was my interpretation. It's not eloquent, but that's why you read the book.
(Like seriously, annoyed I have borrowed out another library book I want to now buy.)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 15, 2022
Nice book; however it seems problematic to understand why the current Americans are restless by going back to Tocqueville; and from there back to Rousseau, Pascal, and Montaigne. This small group of French philosophers tried to articulate the emerging modernity and the possible pathways for the individual; but in no way provided definitive and comprehensive answers for why we feel restless today. In fact, it can be argued that modernity brought with itself issues like nihilism, meaningless, lack of identity, materialism, and so on; and these in turn manifest as restlessness sometime.
January 11, 2023
This book is excellent if you know what the authors are trying to do. Just as the title suggests, they are explaining the restlessness of our age. They are not providing a solution.
Running through Montaigne, Pascal, Rousseau, and then into tocqueville. They trace the contours of what has shaped American thinking, and ultimately, why those streams of philosophy have left us restless.
The authors paint a very generous picture of each of the thinkers, while not hiding their flaws. Definitely recommended for anyone who wants to understand western, and especially American, thought.
Running through Montaigne, Pascal, Rousseau, and then into tocqueville. They trace the contours of what has shaped American thinking, and ultimately, why those streams of philosophy have left us restless.
The authors paint a very generous picture of each of the thinkers, while not hiding their flaws. Definitely recommended for anyone who wants to understand western, and especially American, thought.
March 5, 2022
Notable Passages
* The presence of grace is perceptible only to eyes that wish to see it and are thereby prepared to pierce the veil of divine absence in which the world seems shrouded.
* ...some human souls give forth prodigious light as they make their mortal passage [into the bosom of God]
* All such ambitions - to perfect a home or a mind, to be sacred or to be first - take us away from ourselves.
* The presence of grace is perceptible only to eyes that wish to see it and are thereby prepared to pierce the veil of divine absence in which the world seems shrouded.
* ...some human souls give forth prodigious light as they make their mortal passage [into the bosom of God]
* All such ambitions - to perfect a home or a mind, to be sacred or to be first - take us away from ourselves.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews