What do you think?
Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
Ecclesiastes 7:3-4
Ecclesiastes 7:3-4
posted by Esteban at 10:00 PM
11 Comments:
Ecclesiastes 7:6 says, "for as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of a fool: this also is vanity." In Luke 6:21 Jesus says, "blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh." I have to disagree with this scripture because this is one of my main qualms with Christianity.. that it discourages living life to the fullest in order to have a full afterlife. I agree with Paul that sorrow is a more powerful emotion than laughter is a reaction; however, I disagree that, "for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better." Is this not saying that if you simply act sorrowful your heart is more true? I disagree. "The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth." This seems like such an extreme statement. It doesn't account for any balance; it's black and white, one or the other.. and this simply isn't human. That isn't natural. People are meant to live and be in touch with all emotions, whether they be ones of sadness or ones of happiness. I agree that without sorrow for the world and for parts of being human I would not be as in touch with the world and with myself (and others), but without laughter I would have a same sense of withdrawal and distance from humanity. The strange part about these brusque sentences of Ecclesiastes is that in another part of the scripture, possibly the most well-known (because it is usually read at funerals) provides for a balance between sorrow and laughter, whereas the verse used in The House of Mirth does not.
Ecclesiastes 3
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
What does the worker gain from his toil? I have seen the burden God has laid on men. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God. I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him.
I agree more with this than the verse in your blog. “A time to love and a time to hate,” this, however, has always thrown me off because so much of Christianity’s teaching is against hate. I suppose it could just be figurative. I don’t know. This is a multifaceted question, Russ.
Edith Whartons book "The House of Mirth", never once used the scripture I quoted...although it is probably what she had in mind.
“one of my main qualms with Christianity.. that it discourages living life to the fullest in order to have a full afterlife.”
Does it? That is one interpretation, yes. But I think you miss the point of the juxtaposition between the house of mourning and the house of mirth. “The house of” …a lifestyle, people you are surrounded by, state-of-mind?...
Mourning and mirth. As you hinted at, the bible is not excluded from the use of multiple and figurative meanings. When I read the line “the house of mirth” from Ecclesiastes I read contentment, gratification, indulgence, blitheness, gaiety etc. This is completely different from later in Ecclesiastes (King James Version, if I may)
Ecclesiastes 3: 12
I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.
Ecclesiastes 3: 3
…for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
Don’t you think that through this cultivation of the heart we can do a better job of what is described in Ecc 3:12, and as you said “living life to the fullest”?
'"The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth," warns Ecclesiastes 7:4, and so does the novel by Edith Wharton that takes its title from this call to heed.' My mistake. It would probably help me understand what you're getting at if I had actually read the book.
"But I think you miss the point of the juxtaposition between the house of mourning and the house of mirth. “The house of” …a lifestyle, people you are surrounded by, state-of-mind?..." I understand that the house of mirth figuratively covers so much more than simply the act of laughter. I think the way you interpreted it is very accurate, but the way I reponded to it (in writing I mean) was just objective. I didn't really discuss the deeper meaning. I want to know more of what you think and how you interpreted the juxtaposition. I think I may be misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
"Don’t you think that through this cultivation of the heart we can do a better job of what is described in Ecc 3:12, and as you said “living life to the fullest”? " Yes, I do. I know it takes much more than sorrow alone to cultivate a heart, and much more than purely experience to cultivate character. It takes awareness and analysis.. and a lot of empathy and a thousand other things... this I believe to be one of the greatest parts about being human, and simultaneously one of life's greatest frustrations.. or more accurately, challenges. It does, like you said, help intensify the range in which we are in touch with emotions and the world. "I agree that without sorrow for the world and for parts of being human I would not be as in touch with the world and with myself (and others), but without laughter I would have a same sense of withdrawal and distance from humanity." I feel that I still hold true to that statement, except I mean laughter in a broader sense, the way you described 'mirth.' I think we agree for the most part.
"I agree that without sorrow for the world and for parts of being human I would not be as in touch with the world and with myself (and others), but without laughter I would have a same sense of withdrawal and distance from humanity."
I think that is a very valid and strong statment. Yet there something profound in what Paul says, "i feel that sorrow is unwelcome when there is a gathering of 'christians'. you should feel happy and joyful."
I think many times we side choose hapiness with empty reasoning. Im am by no means saying you, emele, have an empty reason. Balance is perhaps one of the most fundamental states which our bodies and minds desire to reach.
I would like to ask, why is it that "when i feel sorrowful, i also sense that is such a richer, deeper, more in touch with the world emotion. sorrow is more empathetic that laughter."
emele,
you said, "It doesn't account for any balance; it's black and white, one or the other.. and this simply isn't human."
Let's remember that the whole of Eccl. needs to be taken into account when we try to understand a verse or two. I would say (and after reading your other posts I assume you agree) that what we have in 7:3-4 is as human as it gets.
Hyperbole is a natural form of narrative. We use it all the time today. Yet, I assume that here the writer is not just using such strong language for shock value, he is genuinely pissed off at God. There is some sense that, for him, God is disinterested in the human project. The two are sperated and nothing can mend the void. See, 5:2. And if this is true, then man and his very ontology has been trivialized. This may be why all he can say to summarize the human condition is 'vanity.'
I think the author is writing this to tell God that he doesn't think that God is living up to his promises. Do a google search for Theodicy. It may shed some light on what's going on here. The OT is full of it, theodicy that is.
And, yes, Russell, that's a big word I've learned at Oxford.
I suppose I could’ve taken an entire book of the Bible into account when responding to my cousin’s blog, but I didn’t. I took that one verse and analyzed it from the way I first interpreted it. Thanks to you, sir, I decided to pay more attention to the whole. I don’t think Ecclesiastes conveys that human existence is insignificant, because I don’t think the writer believes that God is disinterested. I think he is simply confused. I also think this book contains a warning. Ecclesiastes says that people should enjoy themselves and the fruits of their labors, but when he considers life “returning to dust“, and not knowing where their spirits go. "As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things." 11:5.. “...the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." 12:13-14. I really think he’s just confused and is seeking truth and the purpose of life, and to be honest, this book confuses me because it is so multi-sided. And I know what theodicy is and definitely see how it is interwoven into this book. (Fantastic point to bring up!) This is a book in which the people attempted to find the meaning of their lives. They wondered why bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. Theodicy contends that what humans think is evil or suffering is a misapprehension because evil is simply the result of people not following God's will.. The writer did not know the purpose of his own life. He discovered that happiness achieved nothing, but he also realized that even a wise man would die just like a fool would (even though the writer reveres wisdom). He warned that everybody will die so everyone must respect God and should not delay. What Russell’s original verse, I believe, is saying is.. if you live as if there is no death, to where life is only good, then it will all be meaningless in the end. So basically, to appreciate the good we must always be conscious of the bad. Thank you again for pushing me to think a little deeper. I can see why Russell thinks so highly of you as a "truth seeker." :)
Upon second reading of my last comment I realize it is not conveyed nearly as well in words as it all works in my head. Oh well.. it was a decent attempt.
Emily,
I thought your words were well written. I agree with your assessment of Eccl. The author seems to, in some sense, have a Job complex.
Thanks for your thoughts. And please know that I didn't mean to sound belittling when I mentioned taking the whole of Eccl. in context. God knows I understand so little of the book that it was hypocritical of me to even mention context.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing.
No no! I didn't think it was belittling at all... like I told Russell, you just encouraged me to challenge myself more.. Something I appreciate so much. And yes.. upon further reading it is such a complicated book. I talked to my friend's father who is the pastor at their church and he told me that Eccl is sort of a mystery because there's no biblical mention of who the author really was, and that some believe it to be Solomon. (That name has always reminded me of Saruman... nerd to the nth power over here)
http://www.randalf.cz/images/sauron.jpg
That has nothing to do with anything. I just think it's funny.
Very funny pic. That's definately going on my blog. It'll drive my dad and brother crazy. Thank you so much for sharing that.
nice
Postar um comentário
<< Home