Soulscape - Column

Realities of life and fairness are poles apart
Lewis Caroll's character Tweedledee made the bold statement, "If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't." It's a fabulous piece of logic.
The great thing about being a writer is the capacity to make philosophical observations about the world through a fictitious character. It means that any disagreement we might have with the idea itself is never attributed to the writer, but rather the nonexistent character.
Tweedledee's logic was Carroll's way of saying that life isn't fair, so get over it. I remember reading a quote that went something like, "If life was fair Elvis would be alive and all his impersonators would be dead." Life and fairness have nothing to do with each other.
I've heard myself saying this to my kids.
At one level I believe it to be true, but at another level I don't want it to be so. I often feel caught between sordid reality and vain hope, and perhaps I am, but how do we live there comfortably?
The Dutch mathematician Baruch Spinoza was excommunicated from the Jewish community because he rejected the idea of a personal god and the immortal soul. Christians weren't too happy with him either.
Spinoza, rather than trying to live between reality and the hope of fairness opted to ditch the latter.
Life is what it is and there's nothing we can do about it. If people are bigoted or lazy, then that's the way it is.
If politicians are self-serving bureaucrats, then that's what they are. Essentially, the world around us is not even slightly interested in our wants or needs. So it's useless to fight against it. Human emotions of fear and anger merely enslave us, removing our power to live well in all circumstances.
It seems that Spinoza's view of the world was also shared by some religious greats: Martin Luther King jnr and Mahatma Gandhi both took the approach of calm acceptance when evil broke out against them. In both cases they did not allow the events around them to control their emotions. By taking control of themselves rather than the events, they gained power and in doing so disempowered the events of life. Life is what it is, but we get to choose who we are going to be.
The difference between Spinoza, Gandhi and King is that the latter two changed the world while Spinoza changed nothing. His claim that controlling our emotions leads to empowerment was inspiring: But empowerment to what end?
So far as I can work out, it was self-service. For Ghandi and King it was the outworking of God's best for all humanity.
Life may not be fair or even just, but an empowered life embodies fairness and justice in spite of it because the notion of fairness and justice come from God in the first place. It's the knowledge of God that informs us who we are and who we can be in the midst of unfairness. Spinoza, on the other hand, doesn't.