Oh dear—this is so sad. Oliver Sacks, who was treated for a melanoma of the eye nine years ago, has just discovered that the cancer has metastasized to his liver, and there is no cure. He’s written a short piece in the New York Times op-ed section, “My own life,” which is incredibly poignant and moving.
We all must face this some day, and my own hope is that I die quickly, preferably in my sleep. Sacks is now saying The Long Goodbye, and I’ll miss him. Do have a look at his piece.
This was my favorite comment and it was highlighted by the moderators but it appears at the bottom of the picks:
====Begin====
May a dissenting voice speak here?
Why do I feel diminished by Sacks’s reflection piece? Maybe it’s the false modesty in his claim that “I have been given much and I have given something in return.” “Something” in return? This reflection piece is a pean to his own extraordinary productivity and achievements.
What is the best thing about his past nine years? Productivity. What are his hopes for the future? Why, more productivity. The erudite Sacks invokes David Hume but notes he’s published five books and completed an autobiography in the years by which he outlived Hume. We’re not saying goodbye to the man but to his curriculum vitae.
As a master of self knowledge, he proclaims himself to be “of vehement disposition, with violent enthusiasms, and extreme immoderation in all my passions.” And what has this brought him? “I have loved and been loved; I have been given much . . . I have read and traveled and thought and written. I have had an intercourse with the world . . .”
This does not inspire me; instead, it saddens me. It is depressing because it highlights my own lack of human connections and significant accomplishments, in my old age, evidently the benchmark for assessing upper middle class success in America. How can those of us who have suffered from isolation and disappointment take any comfort or guidance from these words?
It shows that even at the end some of us are still writing for the admissions committees at Stanford, Harvard and Yale.
====End====
Well, do remember that Sacks always described himself as a loner, and perhaps (I may be wrong here) a person with a touch of Asperger’s. I don’t know if he really had that many friends and loved ones in his life, so what is left for him to reflect on is what he did, which is what he loved to do. I think that that comment, in light of what Sacks has said about his personality over the years, is on the uncharitable side. And besides, did Sacks say that everyone has to be proud of the same things? I, for one, won’t think a bit of any professional accomplishments at the end of my life, but rather of the friends and loved ones I’ve had, and the places I’ve been lucky enough to see.
Sacks has face blindness.
Yes, he can’t distinguish (or of course remember them). This makes it really hard to connect.
Also with Schizotypal Personality Disorder, like I believe I have, making friends and having lovers is well nigh very difficult. You are lucky if you have more than one or two friends like that.
And the noms….
Oh, yes. 🙂
Nicholas, as someone who’s battled chronic depression I know how you feel.
But with this essay, I don’t think we should expect Sacks to be trying to provide “comfort or guidance” to readers. He’s essentially writing his own obituary; in these circumstances surely he’s allowed to concentrate solely on himself and his life, to look back and summarize however he wants.
I don’t care: Reading (and once briefly meeting) Oliver Sacks has made my life richer. For example, in Seeing Voices he introduced me to the beauty of Sign Language, so that when I became friends with some Deaf people I was ready for the adventure of trying to learn it.
His curruculum vitae was not just for some admissions committee, but to enhance all our understanding of the extraordinary relation between our inner worlds and the outer one.
He was here for a Book Week, and because of Seeing Voices a group of Deaf people were in the audience and he spoke with a NZSL interpreter. At one point, he said “Um…”, the interpreter signed {Um} (palms up, waggle fingers) and the audience laughed, and he said “Oh, you signed my ‘Ums'”. (I don’t like to think about how to interpret that.)
I met him at a publisher’s party afterward, and though he is indeed shy, he didn’t seem fazed by the large crowd, but spoke quietly to a few at a time. He told us frankly that he’d been addicted to methamphetamine before this was public knowledge. He was quite charming.
Really that was your favourite?
Because I thought the person who wrote that was a real jerk.
Sacks is awesome, I love his books and strongly recommend them.
He is just trying to be honest, I think.
“On the contrary, I feel intensely alive, and I want and hope in the time that remains to deepen my friendships, to say farewell to those I love, to write more, to travel if I have the strength, to achieve new levels of understanding and insight.”
Seems like the right attitude to me!
What else could one ask for?
Sounds like exactly the right attitude to me!
What more could you ask for?
apologies for the double-post.
“It shows that even at the end some of us are still writing for the admissions committees at Stanford, Harvard and Yale.”
One should not judge what makes another’s life worthwhile to them.
That is an entirely personal thing. A chacun son gout.
I truly hope that you will find more meaning your own life in the future.
I know nothing of your life or situation; but I do know that the brain is mostly chemistry and modern chemistry can often help. I know many people whose lives were turned around, not by finding God; but by finding modern science — chemistry — the right meds for their brains.
“Why do I feel diminished by Sacks’s reflection piece?”
And why exactly do I feel so “diminished” by A. Daveys comment on Sacks piece in The NY Times? I suppose it’s perhaps, that in contrast to Sacks, Davey’s comments starkly remind me of that “other side” of our human nature – the petty nastiness and jealous spitefulness that is also prevalent in our species. Isn’t facing death with a feeling that one hasn’t completely wasted one’s life, that one has actually achieved some of one’s goals, has gained (and extended to some degree) human knowledge, has loved much and enjoyed the beauty of the world… something that we should ALL hope to achieve? Something that we all CAN achieve to some degree? Shouldn’t we be happy for Sacks that this is what he feels?
Or is what Sacks says nothing but an arrogant statement of “upper middle class” American ambition as Davey puts it? Is it really necessary instead to wallow in the angst of the unfairness of our human existence – that others may have greater talents than us- or just better luck? Somehow, I cannot myself feel belittled by seeing individuals of Sacks stature and achievement… I actually find them inspiring. I’m happy for them. I see in them the hopes of betterment of all humankind and of all human life.
+ a large number
Sub
I liked what Sacks wrote, and it made me sad.
I don’t like the comment highlighted in No 1 above. I think it’s just plain nasty. Why is it some people always have to place a negative interpretation on what others say instead of trying to be understanding?
As Tom Lehrer said,
“It is a sobering thought, for example, that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for two years.”
Speaking of musicians who accomplished incredible things when they were young, by the time Schubert was Mozart’s age at death, he’d been dead for four years.
That’s right, Schubert died at 31. Listen to the G-flat major Impromptu with that in mind.
His final symphony, quartet and trio are each monumental, as though he didn’t know where to end them, or was perhaps afraid to.
Jim,
“His final symphony, quartet and trio are each monumental, as though he didn’t know where to end them, or was perhaps afraid to”
Agreed.
And the Great C Major Symphony D. 944 is my all time favorite orchestral work.
Mine too, both as an audience member and as an amateur orchestral musician (clarinet). I have heard it said by a professional musician that it is called ‘Great’ since the players upon turning a page of their part often say ‘great scott, there’s more?’.
Here is the second movement of the Piano Trio in E flat, Op 100 in a remarkable visualisation.
(This was a favourtie work of NZ biologist Charles Fleming. When he died, I made a radio programme about him, cross-fading part of the last movement with cicadas, one of his fields of expertise.)
That should be “part of the last movement“
Thanks for the link Shuggy.
A reminder of life on this beautiful planet.
How lovely! Shuggy, I think you’ve finally provide the entrance point to classical music that I’ve been on the lookout for, for ages. Thank you! This is just lovely. The visual, paired with the audio, truly seems to enhance it and help hold my limited attention.
Wow, Shuggy. What a cool animation of the Schubert!! I’ve heard the piece many times but never seen a visual accompaniment like this. Thanks for posting:-)
Brilliant! Thanks for sharing such a remarkable visual translation.
“I think you’ve finally provide the entrance point to classical music that I’ve been on the lookout for, for ages.”
Thank you. For me, that was Disney’s “Fantasia” when I was 13, especially the first section, Bach’s Toccata in D minor. I have (of course?) outgrown Disney’s sentimental visualisations and Stokowski’s syrupy arrangements.
Yes, that was spellbinding!
That is amazing.
It reminds me of a dutch song: “I’m tired of the competition with the Beatles and the neighbours!” (Acda en De Munnik – Beatles en de buren). Some people compare their own life to well known or even famous people and are disappointed that they haven’t achieved the same status. The guy who sets the bar that high will always be disappointed. It will never be enough. Meanwhile, he loses sight of the fact that he does mean a lot to his few friends.
Even so, if life hasn’t worked out, Vanilla Sky teaches us that every passing minute is another chance to turn it all around. And Tom Cruise and Penolope Cruz will see each other in another life when they’re both cats.
I’m with you, Dutchie. I’ve lost count of how many biographies I’ve read, of monarchs, politicians, artists, composers, performers, ballplayers, etc etc, but the only time I’ve felt even a touch of envy was when I read Life On Air by David Attenborough.
It is said that once, as he was contemplating a statue of Alexander III of Macedon, that Julius Caesar wept with remorse that while he had yet to accomplish anything of note, by the same age Alexander had conquered most of the known world.
As I am getting older, I think about how it would be to find myself at the end of it all. I know it’s coming. Sacks’ statement eloquently says what I am groping for. The key thing that everyone can identify with, I think, is a sense of gratitude at having been alive – “a sentient being, a thinking animal, on this beautiful planet”.
Rick,
“The key thing that everyone can identify with, I think, is a sense of gratitude at having been alive”
———
I have always felt that this is a thoroughly confused idea.
Apart from our subjective (and almost certainly biased) positive evaluations of our lives, I believe it would have been better NEVER to have come into existence in the first place.
Even if you think the pleasures of having a beer, having a family, eating a delicious ice cream, writing a brilliant paper, etc, outweigh *all* the bads (including–feeling hungry or thirsty on occasion, various bodily discomfort that we tend to ignore, etc), just remember that:
(1) If you had never existed, the absence of these bads would have been a good,
and
(2) You only think all these things about your life are good because you’re comparing yourself to other people–but other people’s lives are just as dominantly bad as yours, so your judgment is systematically biased.
The proper response to this negativity is this: “Why not kill yourself, then?”
Don’t bother to answer; I deplore this relentness negativity in a post that is supposed to be celebrating a human being who made many of our lives richer, and that is a good
The news about Sachs and his article, is in the Australian papers as well, as he is a much loved world figure. A polymath who likes people, and whose writings make medicine matters a joy to read.
Well said. I second that.
Agreed.
Good grief (Nicholas), figure out how to have a life!
Nothing is better than something? That is an incoherent proposition, especially when applied to consciousness. What could it even mean in that case?
I do not see how (1) or (2) are necessarily true, and even if true they are essentially a deepity. Most joys are experienced similarly by people, as are most sorrows. I think that serves as pretty decent data that considerations about lifes’ worth is not all biased or subjective, just tuned to our biology.
Here, have some Dawkins, and maybe a glass of good wine.
Mark,
As much as I applaud Dawkins’ efforts to address the superstitious heritage most of the world still labors under, I find his inquiry into the existential problem we face hopelessly one-dimensional and inadequate in the extreme.
My condolences.
Well Nicholas, one is reminded of Dylan Thomas’s verses on the regrets that different sorts of individuals face at their death, and that particular verse:
“Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”
I cannot imagine a greater horror than to realise, at deaths door, that one has wasted one’s entire life in joyless negativity when lifes joys were there on offer much of the time…
Howiekornstein,
“I cannot imagine a greater horror than to realise, at deaths door, that one has wasted one’s entire life in joyless negativity when lifes joys were there on offer much of the time…”
——–
I recommend the book “Better Never To Have Been” by philosopher David Benatar:
“This book argues for a number of related, highly provocative views:
(i) coming into existence is always a serious harm;
(ii) procreation is always wrong;
(iii) it is wrong not to abort foetuses at the earlier stages of gestation; and
(iv) it would be better if, as a result of there being no new people, humanity became extinct.
Although these conclusions are antagonistic to common and deeply held intuitions, the book argues that these intuitions are unreliable and thus cannot be used to refute it’s grim-sounding conclusions.
Link:
http://m.oxfordscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296422.001.0001/acprof-9780199296422
And here is a 15 minute radio interview with the author:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VpACAyWxleE
Well Nicholas, if only as a Darwinian I find Benatar’s views totally ludicrous, given that his conclusions are totally contrary to how and why we ever came into existence, what are the imperatives for that existence, and what constitutes our fundamental human makeup to support and achieve these imperatives. The imperatives – to survive and to reproduce. The nature of what supports those imperative are the sensory and emotive payoffs that we get in achieving our Darwinian destiny – the pleasures, the love, and emotive sense of well being that ensue. The great pleasures of consciousness, the gathering of knowledge, and behaving in altruistic ways, and our social behaviours…. these encompass many of these “joys of existence” although in reality these pleasures only exist to improve our survival value. But these things constitute the nature of WHAT we are, and what must define “the good life”. If only for the reason for these Darwinian imperatives Benatar’s views are completely incoherent. I also find his views philosophically nonsensical, but that is another matter, and perhaps one of lesser importance.
I could see coming to Benatar’s conclusion if he were born into slavery or the most abject sort of third-world poverty. But from a first-worlder, who is better off than about 85% of humanity and who has had a better opportunity to take control of his own life than almost everyone else who has ever lived, this sort of pessimism is repugnant to me. It is an insult to everyone who by the bad luck of the draw was denied the chance at contentment that he sneezes at so cavalierly.
I think Benatar must be suffer from severe depression.
Howie,
“Well Nicholas, if only as a Darwinian I find Benatar’s views totally ludicrous, given that his conclusions are totally contrary to how and why we ever came into existence, what are the imperatives for that existence, and what constitutes our fundamental human makeup to support and achieve these imperatives”
—–
The discussion for most people has more or less become centered on issues of the balance of good/bad in life, subjective feelings about whether one would prefer never to have been born, and questions about why someone who takes Benatar’s argument seriously wouldn’t just commit suicide. So before saying anything else, I do want to point out that all of this is completely TANGENTIAL to his argument.
His main argument is really quite short–it is a chapter of the book (and more or less fully captured in his 2007 article, “Why it is Better Never to Have Come into Existence.” And the argument rests entirely on the claim that absence of suffering is always good whereas absence of pleasure is only bad for an existent being, so if we compare the relative merits and demerits of existing and never having come into existence, the latter is overall superior. (You really need to read the article/book for the full, diagrammed version, but the point is this: if you had never existed, the absence of your suffering would be a good, while the absence of your happiness would be neutral. If you compare the two scenarios, absence of pain in non-existence trumps presence of pain, while presence of pleasure in existence can’t trump the neutrality of non-existence, since had you not existed there would be nothing lost.)
That, at any rate, is his MAIN argument. He *explicitly* argues against people who think the question can be resolved by comparing goods in life to its bads, on the grounds that this is the wrong comparison to make. And he discusses the overall balance of good/bad in a later chapter only in order to tangentially reinforce his main point. And as I said the other day even if you think the pleasures of having a beer, having a family, eating a delicious ice cream, writing a brilliant paper, etc, outweigh *all* the bads (including–feeling hungry or thirsty on occasion, various bodily discomfort that we tend to ignore, etc), he’ll reply that (1) if you had never existed, the absence of these bads would have been a good, and (2) you only think all these things about your life are good because you’re comparing yourself to other people–but other people’s lives are just as dominantly bad as yours, so your judgment is systematically biased.
And suicide is a much further point. Benatar does not take it that his thesis commits him to unequivocally endorsing it. First, death is an evil (and thus on the list of bad things existing exposes you to). Second, your suicide may cause harm to others. And third, suicide as a consideration only comes up if you have already come into existence, and is thus beside the point.
So the strength of Benatar’s argument really doesn’t rest *at all* in the claim that life typically contains more bad than good (though even this point is, I think, somewhat misrepresented in the discussion). It rests on the question of whether, apart from our subjective (and almost certainly biased) positive evaluations of our lives, it would have been better never to have come into existence in the first place.
I honestly don’t see how one can even begin any philosophical discussion on Benatar’s propositions when it’s impossible to even get past first base in response to the basic counterargument of the “Darwinian imperative” (I note with interest that you yourself have totally ducked responding to this issue Nicholas).
I will however, just for the sake of argument, touch on one fallacy that arises from Benatar’s propositions. It seems his argument is based on some “calculus of pleasure and pain”. His conclusion is that, in general, the summation of pain exceeds the summation of pleasure in life (or more exactly “zero pain” is greater than the sum of pleasure minus the sum of pain). First let’s examine the calculus. And I don’t see the argument that the weighing system is subjective matters at all – after all the individual is doing this calculus for himself/herself. Then I would point out that Darwinian imperatives “load the dice” – the pleasures that ensue from Darwinian success have been magnified by evolutionary forces. And pain often leads to positive steps to avoid or alleviate further pain. So it is actually hard to find oneself on the wrong side of the balance sheet. Now I do not contend that ALL lives produce a positive pleasure summation, but you must admit that some proportion must do so. Where is the cut line? – let us take an extreme and say it is as low as 5% of the population – say healthy, talented, well loved multimillionaires in the Western Democracies. Now the calculus says they are the ones who should live and reproduce. But for less affluent, and less endowed individuals sterility should apply. What an appalling sort of ethic is this? But Benatar doesn’t argue that those unfortunates need to automatically adopt a path of killing themselves, they just need to remain sterile. Of course this situation is now even more depressing than that which existed before they realized what total losers they really are. And THIS is “the good life”? Some philosophy!
One remaining point … it is preposterous to claim that standards of goods and evils can even be applied t all to non-existent persons… and even more so when you claim these goods and evils are subjective to the person himself. It is total incoherence.
Only a capital P Philosopher would waste anyone’s time talking about the goodness, badness, happiness, and suffering of a non-existent being.
Yes indeed Diane … one should be quite careful which P-hilosophical shirt to put on in the morning. The wrong one can put a person into a real funk……
Howie,
Re: your message yesterday at 1:26 pm.
I have a brief answer and a longer answer.
Brief answer:
It is well known that the aim and purpose of every species is to become extinct, and almost all have succeeded already; there are just a few of us left. This is a matter of faulty genes that keep replicating. But don’t worry it will all come right in the end. Or to put it another way, biology cannot define morality. If life is good, that is judgement, not a fact.
Longer answer:
I have come to the realization that Benatar’s asymmetry, though strong as a simply logical argument of determining this procreative decision, is still somewhat bolstered (in his own book) by empirical evidence. By this I mean the following:
The asymmetry itself simply states that having no-child-x means that there is missing misery where there could have been misery and that is a good thing. However, the other side of the equation does not lead to a good thing, only a neutral one. That is to say, that missing pleasure is not a bad thing, simply neutral.
That being said, there is still the case of the people who think the pleasurable experiences outweigh the positive experiences and therefore, for some people, coming into existence, on total, provides for a net positive. Most people do not put a premium on the harms of life. For Benatar, any harm, no matter how trivial was not worth having if the alternative was the ideal scenario of no-harm (and neutral benefits). For most people, since this is simply not compelling enough evidence, they need more. This is where the empirical evidence must come in beyond the logical asymmetrical argument thus far presented.
Benatar does this in his book. He explains how people have a Pollyanna bias which prevents them from seeing all the harm that actually takes place. He explains how we adapt to non-ideal circumstances and thus justify living in worse conditions than our objective ideal, for the sake of practical need to keep living and survive. He explains how we use comparisons to the less fortunate to simply make our pain seem relatively less painful to others, even though pain does not work like that. Rather, the threshold of what becomes painful (say for those in hunting-gathering socieities to modern societies and all the gradations therein), simply get more refined, but not less painful as a whole. Anyways, the debate becomes mired in empirical reasons why the goods of life really can never outweigh the bad, or vice versa.
For the sake of argument, I feel these empirical arguments are pretty sound and thus are good bolsters for Benatar’s initial asymmetry and empirical evidence. Here they are:
1) It is not good to bring onto a new person an unknown amount of suffering if the alternative is not suffering.
2) Any “x-reason” to live in the world has no categorical imperative or obligation to be carried out by any individual. Humans do not have to be born in order for happiness or flourishiung to be carried out. Rather, humans are born and flourishing is more desired than not flourishing. However, flourishing does not occur in a vacuum, much harm comes with life (in unknown and varying degrees), and thus should not be overlooked. Further, no one needs to go through the challenges of life. No one a priori needs to experience “life lessons” for the sake of learning life lessons.
3) People are born into non-ideal worlds. Most people rather not work, or work at the jobs they are at, or work at all. Most people don’t want to free ride off others either, or live a solitary or primitive life completely without civilization. However, these are the choices given once born. Yes, we can “make the best of it”, but this does not mean we would choose to have this situation in the first place. It simply means that we have to adjust to something that is beyond our control. Work is just one example of this non-ideal situation we are born into and must cope with.
4) One cannot consent to being born before they are born. This is obvious but it is significant. Once born, the threshold for wanting to stay alive due to inbuilt fears and attachments is much higher to cross in order to exit life than it might otherwise be if we were somehow able to rationally review the events of a life before it would. There can never be a scenario where one can view the events of one’s life before it can happen, or even get a rough understanding from other lives in similar life circumstances. It is questionable to make someone go through life if that someone can never have the chance to be consulted in the first place. Asking for someone’s evaluation of life after they are born is a bit misguided as people’s natural fear of death and attachments to certain goods would possibly make the decision-maker’s decision skewed. Again, there is a difference between if someone would have wanted to be born before birth if given a full understanding of what life entailed, and asking someone after birth who is ensnared in all the fears and attachments.
“The asymmetry itself simply states that having no-child-x means that there is missing misery where there could have been misery and that is a good thing. However, the other side of the equation does not lead to a good thing, only a neutral one. That is to say, that missing pleasure is not a bad thing, simply neutral.”
Nice job of loading the dice.
“It is well known that the aim and purpose of every species is to become extinct, and almost all have succeeded already; there are just a few of us left.”
There is no “aim” whatsoever at a species level. Indeed there is no aim at all in evolution itself, as we use the term “aim” – i.e. no teleological direction. There is evolved STRATEGY at an individual level which at its base is always to survive and to have reproductive success. Therefore at a species level we observe a collective effort to CONTINUE to exist, and certainly not to go extinct. Extinction at a species level is a failure to compete successfully within a niche, and if we want to get anthropomorphic about it, every extinct species “went down fighting.” The reason that “there are just a few of us left” at any point in time is a failure to compete successfully (or on rare occasions a natural disaster) which is a totally different thing. You are obsessed with justifying a “will to extinction” at all levels Nicholas.
“Or to put it another way, biology cannot define morality. If life is good, that is judgement, not a fact.”
Totally wrong. There is no objective good. And biology is EXACTLY what defines morality at its most fundamental level. What we define as moral is derived from the innate strategies that exist in our species as advanced social animals. The basics of “good” is established by Evolutionary Game Theory, not philosophy. Yes – philosophy builds on, and refines the implications of our innate strategies for our developing and complex social interactions – but it cannot stand outside of the imperatives of those innate strategies.
As for your philosophical arguments, I believe I have already successfully countered all these points – and we are getting far too wordy by WEIT guidelines in my opinion.
One final comment – we, as individuals, choose our philosophy and our philosophers. These in turn can often affect our outlook – sometimes in negative directions. Or perhaps our outlook on life can occasionally make us choose our philosophers. This is something we need to avoid if we really are truth seekers.
I must respond. There may be some legitimacy to depression for some.
“I believe it would have been better NEVER to have come into existence in the first place.”
If life is so bad for you, then this makes sense. My sense of gratitude comes from the fact that my life has been reasonably good. I just don’t need it to be fabulous and awesome to make it worth while. Your mileage may differ.
Your lamentations almost sound like a plea. Unfortunately, I fear there is little anyone can do to help. Either you appreciate life, or you don’t.
Nicholas – there’s a time to be ruthlessly analytical, and this is not it. “…a sense of gratitude at having been alive” is much more an emotion than an analysis or “judgement.” For me at least, it has very little to do with comparing myself to other people, though that may may be a small factor, and if I am biased, I could not care any less. Rickflick was only wrong in that apparently not everyone can identify with this. I feel sorry for those who can’t.
This is very familiar. But on the other hand there’s the following problem:
A condemnation of life by the living remains in the end a mere symptom of a certain kind of life: the question whether it is justified or unjustified is not even raised thereby. One would require a position outside of life, and yet have to know it as well as one, as many, as all who have lived it, in order to be permitted even to touch the problem of the value of life: reasons enough to comprehend that this problem is for us an unapproachable problem.”
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols.
I think thinking that things are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is the primary problem Things just are.
” . . . other people’s lives are just as dominantly bad as yours, so your judgment is systematically biased.”
A few years ago I saw a newspaper photo (I have to wonder why a photographer would be present to record the moment) of two parents holding their infant son, anguished at the prospect of having to have his two cancerous eyes removed in order to save his life.
I just can’t see how my life is as dominantly bad as that poor child’s, or that his is as good as mine.
Yes.
sub
I am not familiar with the man but I see nothing but good and reflective in what he says. How many upon knowing they are dying sit down and put it into thoughts and put it out there. I’d say it takes some guts to do.
I am old enough to have seen some friends get terminal cancer and how they handle that is their own business, not ours. Just ask yourself honestly and say it. To become a critic of someone else…that’s damn bold and foolish.
Sacks is an excellent writer. Please read some of his books. Start with The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.
I did read that book, at least as much as I could take. Sorry, I came away with a bad impression of the man who wrote that. The behaviour came across as unprofessional in my opinion. In fact, apart from the first story or two, the whole book seemed like a cheesy attempt to capitalize on the previous success of Awakenings.
I thought it was a beautiful piece, and I agree with rickflick about the eloquence of happiness to have been “a sentient being, a thinking animal, on this beautiful planet.” Oliver Sacks gave us some very interesting glimpses of ourselves as the thinking animals we are. And I’ll agree with his passion. I am reminded of a fun little book he wrote, that might not be so well known– Oaxaca Journal. He was interested in ferns and described a botanical trip with a fern group, just a delight to read.
O, if any there be at all for us evolved beings in particular, we ones who actually know aforehand that we WILL lose out of absolutely all and everything dear to us, — the silver lining: nearly knowing of … … when … … The End.
One of my favorite Mr Don Schlitz – lyrics comes within this lovely ballad, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XAxsS3IwXY, sweetly sung by Mr Kenny Rogers and — after also its so, so – wise “know when to walk away / know when to run” —
— “… … and the best you can hope for is to die in your sleep” — could not be truer.
Blue
If you’ll keep it at simple 5 card stud, I’m game.
All I can say is that my heart sank when I read the headline of this news today.
Mine, too.
That leaves me a lot of food for thought. I’m grateful for his perspective on life, now that he’s down to the wire. I’ve always admired his work and enjoyed his books, and it’ll be sad to see him go. He’d be so excited, I’m sure, about the new directions and leaps and bounds being made in neuroscience. He’d be quite excited for his patients too, for that’s the kind of man he is.
Re-reading his ‘living self obituary’, I see no negativity but deep acceptance. He himself said so, that he didn’t feel indifference but detachment.
I’ve given up counting, but in this message from him, I find at least:
7 places where he mentions GRATITUDE;
8 places where he mentions DEPTH of LIVING;
7 places where he mentions LOVE;
and several places where he mentions CLARITY, FOCUS and PERSPECTIVE.
He also speaks with URGENCY, HUMILITY, and GENEROUSITY.
Can’t do much better than that.
… and HONESTY is woven through the entire piece.
He shared his naked and vulnerable self with us.
I think we all want to die fast in our sleep.My father who had heart problems died that way at 49.Now that i’m older then that i think he was somewhat better off.
My best wishes and love go out to Oliver Sacks who has been one of my favorite authors and persons for many years even though I haven’t had the honor of knowing him personally. If any one of the negative bloggers had read any of his books, I think they may have had more positive thoughts about Oliver’s life, and their own. The man obviously loved and cared about people. He is an unbelievably fine writer. I have read most of his books since “Awakenings”, and have three in process now, one of which is “Musicophilia”. I highly recommend all of his books to you. When his autobiography and the other books he’s writing become available, I will read them. May the last of his life be full of activities meaningful to Oliver Sacks. May he enjoy to the fullest the time he has left and be free of pain.
Fascinating man. I’ve read much of his writing and will be sad to see him go.
I’m so sorry for him and his loved ones. I’m sure he’ll hear from many that they are “praying for him.” And he’ll probably handle it with more grace than I ever could.
I like how Daniel Dennett deals with the “I’ll pray for you” trope in his mini-essay “Thank Goodness”.
Is he the one that came up with, “and I’ll think for you?”
For a flashing moment while reading this entry, right or wrong, I thought Oliver Sacks had died and then briefly thought he was fine only to discover in the same amount of time that it’s all so sad.
I still have his book with the neat glow in the dark dust jacket, An Anthropologist on Mars; one of my favorites. He’s also, I think, the first living person that was described to me as a being a “smarty” by someone I know to be an amazing intellect in his own right. That really stuck with me.
I’m sorry he has cancer and I hope he countinues to do what he wants to do for as long as he can.
Mike
I have read only a few of Oliver Sacks’ books, but did enjoy them very much. I intend to seek out more and read them.
As for commenter 1, he seems to have a bad case of Eeyore-ism on one of Eeyore’s (of Winnie the Pooh fame) bad days.
His aspersions regarding Dr Sacks are uncharitable and unnecessary.
I confess I have not read him! but his book Seeing voices : a journey into the world of the deaf, is considered very important, describing the idea of ‘deaf ethnicity’.
I am not sure that if/when I know I am dying I will reflect on friends & or places I have been… I have a terrible memory for my own life, yet a much better one for ‘stuff’! I hope I will retain a sense of humour about it! 🙂
Does Eeyore ever have good days? I wonder where the name Eeyore comes from? Don’t worry about me…
Think ‘Hee-haw’ with an English accent.
Hee-haw, for realz? Guess it kind of makes sense;-)
So sorry to hear this! I have always loved his books — an excellent writer and an inquisitive mind.
I give my highest rating: The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. I have loved all his other books; but this one is still a favorite.
* * * *
I have a personal story about Dr. Sacks. I once wrote him an email. In one of his books (can’t remember which one) he wrote about the ability some people have to visualize and manipulate objects in 3-D in their minds. He noted that he could not do this at all.
I wrote him (email) to tell him that I could do this effortlessly. I also told him of a particular incident that showed how visually my brain operates.
I shit you-all not: I once had a friend who lived in an apartment (it was not a dark and stormy night). I went to a gathering at his place once. I was later invited to a second gathering. The first time, I had gone into the building with the host.
The second time, on arrival, I was confronted with a bank of security intercom buttons — with no names, only numbers. I had no idea what his apartment number was (and I’m not one of those people that just pushes all the buttons). I puzzled for a few minutes and then I decided to try something new.
I recalled in my mind the view of the outside of his apartment door; and I read the number off of that remembered vision. No kidding. I was astonished. It made me pay more attention to how my brain was actually working. And I found that I was super-visual.
At university I had known that I couldn’t remember anything from lectures unless I took notes. I never looked at them again (usually); but I needed to write them. I suddenly knew why: I was remembering the information from seeing my own writing.
Anyway, a long way ’round to saying that I received a hand-written, personal letter from Dr. Sacks, thanking me for writing (and for my praise of his books) and thanking me for relating my stories.
I still treasure that letter: I have been very moved by his books. He is very sympathetic to his subjects and clearly cares for them very much.
Very interesting!
I can’t tell you how many times I have tried to explain that to people and have them reply, “huh, nope, don’t know what you mean.” Your the 1st person I’ve heard that from other than myself.
I am also very good with identifying people visually, and interestingly by sound, but can’t remember names for shit. But, I can catch a glimpse of someone one time, or hear their voice for a moment, and identify them long after, even years. I’ll identify an actor, “hey, that’s that actor that played so an so in that movie 20 years ago,” and no one believes. Until they get on the internet and verify it.
I’d always done notes like you, pretty much, but I’m bad with names and faces. Funny thing: Show me a patient, and I might not recall whether I’d ever see nor spoken with him, before, but show me his xray, with or without showing me him, and I’ll recite his entire medical history.
That seems like a very helpful skill for a medical doctor!
🙂
darrelle — it sounds to me as if our brains work in very similar ways. All the things you describe I find in myself as well.
Like you, I see someone from behind, I can almost always know them by the slightest movements. I have the exact experience with actors in films as well. Funny.
I’m absolutely horrible at taking in verbal information (though excellent with sounds (voices like you) music, etc., which is flipping weird).
My son often asks about a word and rattles off the spelling verbally. I tell him (if it’s longer than 5 letters): “write it down and show me.”
It’s horribly painful work trying to recall verbal things (lectures, etc.). But, weirdly enough, I can almost always recall what was said (not exactly; but all the gist of it) in personal conversations. Must be the emotional content that does it.
Remembering names? Terrible. I’ve made a game of it my entire adult life. Every single time I see someone I know, I recite their name to myself in my head (except for close friends and family).
I used to lead many group outings. I always arrived first (I made sure of that). As each person arrived, I would ask their name (and then, in my head, go through all the others who were already there.) As long as they arrived one or tow at a time, I could usually do it. I memorized them, by sheer repetition.
darrelle — Are you good with languages? I’ve always found them easy. Making the sounds in particular. It’s that sound/voice/music thing I think.
It sure sounds like our minds work in similar ways. I was laughing reading your two replies here because they sound so familiar.
I couldn’t really say if I am good with languages. I’d like to think so, but not much data to go on. I learned German well enough in less than two years to fool Germans, but I was immersed in the culture, and it was a long time ago.
When I was a teen I played Alto Sax for a while. Loved it, very much regret giving it up. Though I did learn to read music fairly well, I much preferred learning something new by listening to it. If I heard something, anything, another instrument or even vocal, I could play it fairly accurately straight away. Of course, to know a piece as well as possible it was necessary to reach a thorough understanding of the written music as well as listening to it.
You have what is commonly called “a photographic memory” and technically “an eidetic memory”. It is more commonly seen in fiction than real life. (“It occurs in a small number of children and generally is not found in adults.” Wikipedia, quoting Britannica, which seems odd.) I wonder if Oliver Sacks has written anything about it, other than his letter to you.
Yes! His book is The Mind’s Eye about vision. It’s excellent.
As has been noted above, Sacks has face-blindness and can’t recognize faces. Must be a truly terrible handicap. He discusses this in the book.
I’ve wondered about eidetic memory (in myself) but it’s not nearly as reliable as eidetic memories are generally described (from what I’ve read). Mine is quite good, very visual; but I’m not one of those people who can quickly flip through a phonebook and then recite it. (I wish I could … er I think I wish I could anyway.)
I have partial faceblindness, but only found out within the last year or so – partly by reading The Mind’s Eye. Like many handicaps, it’s not “terrible” if you don’t know you have it and/or have never known anything else. It’s a relief to know it’s a definable condition with a name, even if I can never get it right – prosopagnosia.
A few years ago one of the prime time news shows (like 60 minutes) had a segment on people with fabulous memories. They had 8 or 10 in the studio for an interview. One question that struck me was – Do you find perfect memory a help or hindrance? They all said it was very helpful. They managed to ignore bad memories and used there talent to make their lives easier. I was filled with envy.
This is a very cool video of Dr. Sacks and his working space. Please have a view.
He is a wonderful man (IMO).
Maybe you’ll enjoy this ‘utterly fascinating talk’…. Sacks at TED Talks, on Hallucinations:
http://www.ted.com/talks/oliver_sacks_what_hallucination_reveals_about_our_minds
So interesting, and such a likeable personality…
If it’s any consolation, my father went down this same road and had a very peaceful death. He was coherent and alert until the last 24 hours.
It is funny that Sacks claims, though, that he was unlucky that his ocular melanoma metastasized. I know cancers are all different, but my father was told that the majority of ocular melanoma patients are dead within 6 months of diagnosis.
Yeah, there are a lot of variables, including how much of the cancer is excised the first time.
Thankfully, there are new advances being made in research to detect these cancer cells during surgery:
http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/08/Nanoparticles-Highlight-Tumor-Borders-During.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nyu-langone-medical-center-utilizing-new-technology-to-detect-lingering-cancer-cells-during-breast-surgery-300015702.html
Also, don’t miss his memoir of childhood: Uncle Tungsten.
In that we learn how he got his ocular cancer. The family had samples of many elements including radioactive ones. Oliver like to hold the radium to his eye to see the scintillations.
And he tells without emotion how his mother, an obstetrician, used to bring home aborted foeti when he was about 10-12 and make him dissect them. That does not sound healthy to me.
What was his reaction?
I could see it being valuable if done the right way by the right people.
(Though I’d think the act of bringing home the fetuses in the first place should be illegal.)
Dead bodies actually look more plastic and fake than baby dolls — especially in the usual laboratory preservative. That helps. The corpse becomes just a corpse, not a human being who once was.
I thought something like that might be the case, and it sounded like a potentially interesting opportunity, except for the bit about his mother “making him” do the dissections.
As far as the legality–well, I’d think there’d be someone somewhere who’d file a lawsuit if they knew their fetus was treated this way (despite that fact that it was aborted in the first place!). Or someone might be worried about some of their genetic information being made available to others.
Not back then. In fact, probably not until the last 20 years or so. You might want to look up the history of “HeLa cells” for a bit of perspective. And, keep in mind how different the world was, and people’s interactions in it, before the internet. Without that interaction, they didn’t know they could ask, much less sue.
Oh, yes, I know all about Henrietta Lacks.
And you’re quite right, I was not paying attention to what era Sacks was talking about. An era I can remember myself.
Free pdf download of Hume’s autobio:
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic880131.files/My.Own.Life.by.David.Hume.pdf
“I feel a sudden clear focus and perspective. There is no time for anything inessential. I must focus on myself, my work and my friends. I shall no longer look at “NewsHour” every night. I shall no longer pay any attention to politics or arguments about global warming.”
He forgot about what Edward Abbey said in similar circumstances: “I guess I don’t need to worry about flossing anymore!”
Dr. Sacks’ closing lines:
close blockquote fail, apologies.
By the way, they had a nice piece on Sacks on the CBS morning news………….
I’m reminded of a video of Hitch being interviewed on the street, I gather in DC, where he more or less reflects to the effect that it is all a matter of getting used to the idea that we are shot out of our mothers’ uteruses, heading toward a barn door full of rusty nails and hooks sticking out of it; that no one gets out of this; that we should strive to live our lives in a productive and interesting and enjoyable and ironic way.
Sacks fails to note that there is a very good reason he outlived David Hume by 15 years – medical science, to which he has made important contributions. Some future Oliver Sacks will outlive him by another 15 years for the same reason – perhaps thanks to him.
“Gratitude” for having lived seems like a hangover of belief in Someone to be grateful to, but perhaps the belief is (among other things) a programmed response to the emotion, which might be better described as “directed happiness” looking for Something to be directed at.
Sometimes, gratitude is just gratitude. I suspect it’s a normal human emotion that was sadly usurped by religions in order to help create the fantasy of the supernatural source.
Well, not wanting to say “Thank God” or “There but for the grace of God”, but often needing to express the emotion, I struggle for a secular alternative. “Providence” sounds abstract but actually means “what God has provided”.
I go with “thankfully”, because I am full of thanks. It doesn’t go anywhere or to anyone. It just is.
That is sad – I remember reading in his book “The Mind’s Eye” his very frank and touching account of when his retinal melanoma first materialised. He will leave a marvellous legacy in his work and writings.
I keep running into Sacks’ work … I now feel motivated to read more!
This is not mine, but it is very good, so I have to share.
====Begin====
I hereby declare that life was forced upon me without my approval as I was unable to consciously agree to the terms of existence at the time of my conception. Having reached mental maturity and now being capable of understanding what human life entails, I can confirm with complete certainty that had I possessed this knowledge at the time of my creation I would never under any circumstance had consented to be born.
It is therefore my indisputable right to end my own life in a dignified and painless manner and any attempt to deny the peaceful acquisition of the substances necessary to perform this act can only be viewed as the most grievous violation of my personal freedom.
====End====