I hadn't heard of the term ikigai until this blogpost exc a day earlier, in Netflix's series on longevity (Blue zones"). According to its narrator, inhabitants of the five blue zones, live so long because they eat well, move a lot, have lots of friends and have a purpose in life - you see images of Okinawans taking care of their garden and helping eachother, Sardinian 90 year-olds taking their sheep to the mountains, Nicoyan centenarians riding horses - many of these people working for a living or for charity almost every day of their lives. Basically Marcus Aurelius' reason to stand up every day.
(Those blue zones of high longevity are: Okinawa in Japan, Icaria, a Greek island in the east of the Aegean, the highlands of Sardinia, Italy, Nicoya, a Costa Rican peninsula in the Pacific and a 7th day Adventists community around Loma Linda (San Bernadino CA)
Thanks for the nice and informative text. I have two doubts on which I would like to know your opinion:
1. Could it be possible that one's 𝘪𝘬𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘪 was the possibility of dedicating one's days to promoting eudaimonia, understood as the possibility of achieving pro-sociality, rationality, pleasure, the absence of pain, virtue, flourishing and peace of mind (as long as these things were not in competition)? I.e., is it fair to consider 𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 the idea of following different Antique approaches to find eudaimonia instead of considering it something in total accordance to our nature?
2. Regarding the meaning of life found in the idea of 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, do you think that the 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘴 is an ultimate guideline of how nature works or perhaps to generate the idea or desire of satisfying some 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘴 could there be other natural principles (such as basic chemical reactions involved in our homeostasis) that generate them and that make us experience them as imminent desires accompanied by the conscious or unconscious intention of satisfying them plus the idea that this works according to a 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘴 (even though it is not the case)?
Ana, I'm not an expert on ikigai, but since it represents one's fundamental motivations in life then yes, what you suggest is possible. How likely it is, I don't know. Regarding eclecticism, I'm in favor, so long as one is careful to pull different philosophical strands together in a way that makes sense and yields a coherent picture.
The telos is simply the ultimate goal, let's say a life of virtue (Stoics), or ataraxia (Epicureans and Pyrrhonists). The question is how you get there. For many Greco-Roman schools the answer was "live according to nature." Then you need some account of what that means. I've written a previous essay about this that may be helpful: https://figsinwinter.substack.com/p/what-does-it-mean-to-live-according
Thanks a lot. I could not finish reading the text (the access to it ends before explaining the three meanings that the phrase "living according to nature" does not have). I may be able to read it in full later.
My second question does not make any sense (now that I reread it) because once animal and human life exists as we know it, it does not matter for real and practical life to ask what is the ultimate basis of our avoidance of pain and search of well-being (or how these evolved), that in human beings is also accompanied by the idea of telos. That would correspond to another area of research.
Well, the ultimate basis for our avoidance of pain (as well as our search for pleasure) is evolution: natural selection has evolved pain and pleasure receptors to keep us away from dangerous things (cutting ourselves and bleeding to death), and to incentive us to do things that are good for us (having sex and therefore offspring).
That relates to the question that I later dismissed. Do you believe that nature (which comes from inorganic matter) works according to purposes in such a way as to develop organisms that function teleologically or that it rather works because that is how matter works and conscious organisms believe that this function is according to purposes?
Aren't these explanations similar to those which, in the Bible, say that we have two eyes to see more and one mouth to speak less? Didn't simply at some point in evolution, some organisms developed a cavity that over time was filled with some mixture of hydrogen (or anything else) that generated eyeballs, which, because they were chemicals, reacted with the outside world, until reaching the shape they currently have only by genetic inheritance and subtile and extended in time modification?
If nature works in an "evolutionary way" (focusing on genes more than on individuals or species) how did it reach that way of functioning? If genes need to reproduce to not disappear, how and why did they come to have that behavior?
Ana, as an evolutionary biologist I don't believe there is any purpose to the universe or to the evolutionary process. Whatever works in terms of survival and reproduction is whatever survives and reproduces. The only source of purpose I know of is human beings themselves, and even that ability to think ahead and reflect on what we do is the result of evolution by natural selection and other processes.
I have just a slight doubt about what "whatever works" means and its possible consequences, especially on ethical issues but also in relation to the fact that ecosystems are constantly changing, so what has worked even in a previous generation may not work in the next, which complicates the analysis of what works for each species, for example (or for all of them), even considering that what survives are the genes and not the species.
2. Regarding ethical issues, it is very frequently interpreted that whatever worked for survival and reproduction is better than the characteristics that didn't work, so those characteristics should be avoided or are inferior in terms of evolution. And the ones that did work and survived are superior and should be encouraged. And this is not the case, even though the ecosystems weren't as variable as they are. Principally because description shouldn't be prescription, but also because superiority happens to be something contingent, relative, and not absolute, and depending again on the always-changing ecosystems.
3. It is also interpreted that, as the animals that remain on Earth are those which "worked in terms of survival and reproduction", then survival and reproduction should be the final goal of existence. So the usual attitude towards this is that:
a. The goal is survival (for psychological or social reasons in our case, not for intrinsic features of nature, because animals do seek to avoid pain not to survive cause what survives is what worked, not what changed in order to work, because that doesn't happen -I think-).
b. What is not clearly or evidently detected as useful for survival is inferior and should be avoided.
c. What is detected as useful for survival is superior and should be encouraged.
d. What worked or didn't work did it in absolute terms, i.e., in every possible context are superior or inferior features of creatures so they should always be avoided or encouraged.
e. People who imitate or acquire characteristics that did work for survival in x context are superior absolutely (in all contexts).
f. As one of the features that promote survival is reproduction, then (following, among other things, a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent) the groups that artificially or naturally reproduce more are superior in terms of evolution (which is clearly false). It is also interpreted that individuals with more reproductive cells or more fertile are superior, but if this were the case, there wouldn't be any koalas in the world (or some other animal that has poor fertility but happens to survive for other reasons). So the superiority to survival is relative and doesn't depend on the quantity of eggs (even though you have more probability to survive if you produce more). But there are lots of possible counterexamples. And the quantity of eggs or of children is thoroughly considered as a superior feature of certain groups (suspiciously human).
All these conclusions happen in our everyday culture, I suppose, not in the Academy, but there are lots of concerns that should derive from them.
Especially now that our ecosystems seem to be collapsing, and we don't know exactly why, but most probably has to do with the proliferation of humans -and other animals or plants as well- which seem to be one of the groups of animals that worked the most in terms of survival and reproduction (because it crossed the entire planet, tried and adapted to every climate, geographical accident, and food, destroyed every possible predator, etc.)- and in a very few generations perhaps we will no longer have the stable ecosystems we need to maintain this state of affairs of being the "better" organisms or genes in terms of evolution).
I would love to know what you think (if you have time, obviously -and so sorry for the long message-) about this (which is surely discussed in the Academy, but I do not have access to it at this moment).
A lovely summary at the end of your piece Massimo which highlights the need for us to do the work of finding a coherent philosophy of life with practical steps to use in a daily & moment-to-moment way.: "The value of ikigai, I think, is that it reminds us that there are things that make us get up in the morning, that make our life valuable and purposeful. But that’s only half of the equation. The other half consists in a critical self-analysis to figure out whether some of the possible sources of ikigai ought to be rejected and others cultivated. In so doing we move from the descriptive to the prescriptive, from posing the question to begin to articulate possible answers."
"In modern times the term was popularized by Natsume Soseki in his novel Kokoro, published in 1912."
This claim, which looks like it's from Crossley-Baxter's article, is a bit puzzling, because Kokoro does not seem to contain the word "ikigai" as far as I can tell. His previous novel Kōjin (The Wayfarer) does use the word multiple times.
I think it's important to note that "ikigai" is a compound word, as Crossley-Baxter explains. It's certainly not one untranslatable chunk of thought that the Japanese are alone in the world in coming up with, and it seems to me to have amazing marketing catered toward people who want to think of Japan as being more exotic than it is (which include some Japanese people in Japan).
Satoru, thanks for the correction. Yes, I'm aware that there is a danger of incurring into what sometimes is referred to as "Orientalism." Hopefully I did not convey that impression in my essay.
Congratulations, Massimo, on your one-year anniversary. I will remember this day easily relative to my own of yesterday, where I survived my CVA that took me “down for the count” paralyzed. Nine years have passed, and most would think I sprained my ankle, at first glance--and I need to always be thankful for that. I am fortunate continuing on the road of recovery, but not to it. It will always be a journey. I will never be like before. (A bit like repairing you car after an accident.) What are the components of my “ikigai?” I need to go back before my stroke to to the time of working. I was raised by Greek and British immigrants who were poor and without formal education. All they had were their hands, common sense and their strong work ethic. I was put to work at age nine helping with the catering business and remained employed until September 7, 2014. I could easily relate to this “ikigai” because “working” always would be, and was my intention to be, even if I retired. I recall the day I chose my career course at 17 in the local library with the Barron’s guide in hand. It was either to become an astronomer or a filmmaker. I chose the latter thinking I could incorporate my love for astronomy through filmmaking (and astronomers were making $17K at the time 🙄). I matriculated at NYU’s Film School and landed a career at CBS News. This Venn diagram of overlapping circles perfectly targets what I achieved and who I became. HOWEVER, after my stroke, paid employment was extracted out of my life because of disability. The closest experience where I thought I would die was nine years ago yesterday. (Another was hitting a bus broadside, but that was instantaneous.) There was a two-fold part that would be involved to "Getting up in the morning.” One, is to simply to survive. When you are disabled, and you believe that getting up means your survival, you will get up (if you can). I recall your saying your practice of taking cold showers once a week (and I do this often, too--it’s the reminder I suppose 😊), but if you are in a situation where you must get up because it means your survival, you will. My second reason is there is living life. This is where I particularly believe in Stoicism. We have love, we have passion, we can contribute and ethically participate in the cosmopolis, and we don’t need to be paid for it. Stoicism doesn’t require it. But the “ikigai” seems it can particularly apply to western civilization. I don’t know much about the Japanese except they seem to have always had strong collective work ethic. Both before and after their westernizing. Marcus Aurelius likened a part of our pursuit of eudaimonia with work--just like the lower organisms working--as a part of Nature. It can be any work that gives back positively to the cosmopolis. I do so whether consulting academics with the media; sharing knowledge of astronomy to colleagues or social media; or in the memories of others of conversations over forty years ago. I would like our work to stem from our passion. Often that is not the case for so many. But when the case exists, our passion shows our enthusiasm, and that is attractive. Money can be left out of the equation, but we look for it where we can. As for the detriment of “ikigai," I don’t know enough to comment. But I can say before my accident I might have accepted such a “philosophy.” But I find Stocism much more suitable with my disability and that eudomonia can still be achieved as long as we are still compos mentis. 😊
Mike, thank you for sharing some of those details. Holy cow, sounds like you went through a hell of a lot!
I agree with much of what you say. I do have some issues with the concept of ikigai, as I have explained in the essay, but I also have a deep respect for Japanese culture, so I figured it would be good to discuss the idea in this forum.
I would argue that you should NEVER reject your ikigai, only work to change it. If you reject the thing that keeps you voluntarily alive, you are rejecting life itself, which includes hatred sometimes. I feel like the goal is to become aware of the ikigai concept so that you can use it to steer your choices deliberately, rather than judging/accepting/rejecting whatever your ikigai happens to be at a given moment. Life is not whack-a-mole where you smack down bad motivations, it's a maze of choices to navigate in your own unique manner.
Alaina, that’s one of the major differences with Stoicism, according to which we are very much supposed to judge what we do and try to do better. Hatred is not acceptable, for a Stoic, and if we sense it we need to work on it.
Massimo, one of the reasons I sub to your writing is to learn about Stoicism so thank you for showing me where my ignorance on the subject is located. Work on cultivating higher purposes as a Stoic by all means, but the notion of "rejecting" any form of ikagi (even the lowest forms, for usually, if present, they were genuinely needed for a time) is very sad to me and not a position I am eager to embrace.
Alaina, I am genuinely curious. Say that your ikagi includes hatred, xenophobia, racism, or misogyny. Why would you be sad in rejecting those impulses and trying to overcome them?
Yes, I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit today. I think what I'm hung up on is a notion I have that we don't get to choose our ikagi, it just IS what it is as a result of how we live (in my interpretation). In order to change our ikagi, we have to change how we live. In order to change how we live we must continue living, and thus we must reach a working agreement with our ikagi (a.k.a. our reason for living which exists as a result of our life, not the other way around). If we cannot do that--if we reject our pre-existing ikagi--the result is necessarily depression/self harm/or worse because we can't tolerate such cognitive dissonance as is created by rejecting the means by which we continue to exist. This is just turning the ikagi against the self. In order to change your ikagi, you have to accept that it is a natural product of the life from which it emerges (in my interpretation).
Alaina, it makes perfect sense. What the Stoics would say is that you change, gradually, through effort, your self precisely the way you indicated: by mindfully changing your behavior. His is also how cognitive behavioral therapy works: first comes the cognitive recognition of a given issue (e.g., hate, or anger); then we decide to change our behavior; finally, after a time, our own feelings change because they have been retrained. I hope this makes sense!
Interesting piece. Lived in Japan 3+ years, in an old traditional style farm house, late 80s- early 90s. Learned enough conversational Japanese-n hiragana/katakana to get by. Even with that extended look, Japanese society is a very tough one to get a grasp of as a “gaijin”...the meaning of many of their words do not ‘translate’ well.
it was interesting...tatami mats/shoji paper/fusuma doors/futons/ cricket garden, tea room, no heat, hot water other than the ofuro, or ac; our oldest son was born there, X-mass day. we lived more traditional style than 99% of the 'native folks' we met- they found it very "atypical". we have not been back, since '91-been there/did that. the thing we miss is the food-best we've ever had anywhere...n we've been around :)
Imo best to get away from the "cities"...tho Kyoto is a must. If time is limited, I'd rec the "japanese alps" west north west of nearby Tokyo-eg Takayama, hitting some more rural areas/stay in a traditional ryokan, n hit a traditional onsen (hot springs...)- basically anywhere where there are fewer foreign "tourists"..., take advantage of knowing a resident's experience/facility with the language, which opens up the "real Japan" to you...life's short/n the flight is long, so do it- soon :)
What always fascinates me is that like so many ‘terms’ or ‘popular concepts’ once you dive on and trace the roots and cultural contexts the meaning becomes ever more complex. As a psychologist the shorthand use of CBT as if it is the solution to our troubled states of mind is
a good example as is the ever more popular ‘mindfulness’ business. The roots of CBT are obviously rooted in stoicism and mindfulness in meditation- trying to convey the true depth and
value of these ideas without examining the roots and richness of both has often been a struggle.
Thank you for this as I increasingly hear the term Ikigai being banded about - again without too much reference or understanding of what it’s roots are and how it can, or cannot, be usefully related to our European philosophical and cultural context.
Really interesting post. I’d never heard of the anti-social Ikigai before. Looking at the 4 circles with that in mind it’s interesting to note that someone can love spreading hatred, be good at it and these days get paid for it. Only the 4th “What the world needs” circle stops it from being someone’s Ikigai but perhaps such a person needs wisdom to see that.
Simon, right, that's why it seems to me that the concept of ikigai is descriptive, as distinct from the prescriptive nature of the Greek concept of eudaimonia.
Wow Massimo! I just finished reading a book on ikigai. 🙂 I think my ikigai definitely involves lots of caring for my family, gardening and making maths models.
Nice post, Mssimo!
I hadn't heard of the term ikigai until this blogpost exc a day earlier, in Netflix's series on longevity (Blue zones"). According to its narrator, inhabitants of the five blue zones, live so long because they eat well, move a lot, have lots of friends and have a purpose in life - you see images of Okinawans taking care of their garden and helping eachother, Sardinian 90 year-olds taking their sheep to the mountains, Nicoyan centenarians riding horses - many of these people working for a living or for charity almost every day of their lives. Basically Marcus Aurelius' reason to stand up every day.
(Those blue zones of high longevity are: Okinawa in Japan, Icaria, a Greek island in the east of the Aegean, the highlands of Sardinia, Italy, Nicoya, a Costa Rican peninsula in the Pacific and a 7th day Adventists community around Loma Linda (San Bernadino CA)
Maurits, yup, those seem to be the ingredients: good food, exercise, relationships, and purpose. Simple, no? 😃
Thanks for the nice and informative text. I have two doubts on which I would like to know your opinion:
1. Could it be possible that one's 𝘪𝘬𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘪 was the possibility of dedicating one's days to promoting eudaimonia, understood as the possibility of achieving pro-sociality, rationality, pleasure, the absence of pain, virtue, flourishing and peace of mind (as long as these things were not in competition)? I.e., is it fair to consider 𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 the idea of following different Antique approaches to find eudaimonia instead of considering it something in total accordance to our nature?
2. Regarding the meaning of life found in the idea of 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, do you think that the 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘴 is an ultimate guideline of how nature works or perhaps to generate the idea or desire of satisfying some 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘴 could there be other natural principles (such as basic chemical reactions involved in our homeostasis) that generate them and that make us experience them as imminent desires accompanied by the conscious or unconscious intention of satisfying them plus the idea that this works according to a 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘴 (even though it is not the case)?
Hope my English is clear. :)
Ana, I'm not an expert on ikigai, but since it represents one's fundamental motivations in life then yes, what you suggest is possible. How likely it is, I don't know. Regarding eclecticism, I'm in favor, so long as one is careful to pull different philosophical strands together in a way that makes sense and yields a coherent picture.
The telos is simply the ultimate goal, let's say a life of virtue (Stoics), or ataraxia (Epicureans and Pyrrhonists). The question is how you get there. For many Greco-Roman schools the answer was "live according to nature." Then you need some account of what that means. I've written a previous essay about this that may be helpful: https://figsinwinter.substack.com/p/what-does-it-mean-to-live-according
Thanks a lot. I could not finish reading the text (the access to it ends before explaining the three meanings that the phrase "living according to nature" does not have). I may be able to read it in full later.
My second question does not make any sense (now that I reread it) because once animal and human life exists as we know it, it does not matter for real and practical life to ask what is the ultimate basis of our avoidance of pain and search of well-being (or how these evolved), that in human beings is also accompanied by the idea of telos. That would correspond to another area of research.
Well, the ultimate basis for our avoidance of pain (as well as our search for pleasure) is evolution: natural selection has evolved pain and pleasure receptors to keep us away from dangerous things (cutting ourselves and bleeding to death), and to incentive us to do things that are good for us (having sex and therefore offspring).
That relates to the question that I later dismissed. Do you believe that nature (which comes from inorganic matter) works according to purposes in such a way as to develop organisms that function teleologically or that it rather works because that is how matter works and conscious organisms believe that this function is according to purposes?
Aren't these explanations similar to those which, in the Bible, say that we have two eyes to see more and one mouth to speak less? Didn't simply at some point in evolution, some organisms developed a cavity that over time was filled with some mixture of hydrogen (or anything else) that generated eyeballs, which, because they were chemicals, reacted with the outside world, until reaching the shape they currently have only by genetic inheritance and subtile and extended in time modification?
If nature works in an "evolutionary way" (focusing on genes more than on individuals or species) how did it reach that way of functioning? If genes need to reproduce to not disappear, how and why did they come to have that behavior?
Ana, as an evolutionary biologist I don't believe there is any purpose to the universe or to the evolutionary process. Whatever works in terms of survival and reproduction is whatever survives and reproduces. The only source of purpose I know of is human beings themselves, and even that ability to think ahead and reflect on what we do is the result of evolution by natural selection and other processes.
Great. I understand. Thank you.
I have just a slight doubt about what "whatever works" means and its possible consequences, especially on ethical issues but also in relation to the fact that ecosystems are constantly changing, so what has worked even in a previous generation may not work in the next, which complicates the analysis of what works for each species, for example (or for all of them), even considering that what survives are the genes and not the species.
2. Regarding ethical issues, it is very frequently interpreted that whatever worked for survival and reproduction is better than the characteristics that didn't work, so those characteristics should be avoided or are inferior in terms of evolution. And the ones that did work and survived are superior and should be encouraged. And this is not the case, even though the ecosystems weren't as variable as they are. Principally because description shouldn't be prescription, but also because superiority happens to be something contingent, relative, and not absolute, and depending again on the always-changing ecosystems.
3. It is also interpreted that, as the animals that remain on Earth are those which "worked in terms of survival and reproduction", then survival and reproduction should be the final goal of existence. So the usual attitude towards this is that:
a. The goal is survival (for psychological or social reasons in our case, not for intrinsic features of nature, because animals do seek to avoid pain not to survive cause what survives is what worked, not what changed in order to work, because that doesn't happen -I think-).
b. What is not clearly or evidently detected as useful for survival is inferior and should be avoided.
c. What is detected as useful for survival is superior and should be encouraged.
d. What worked or didn't work did it in absolute terms, i.e., in every possible context are superior or inferior features of creatures so they should always be avoided or encouraged.
e. People who imitate or acquire characteristics that did work for survival in x context are superior absolutely (in all contexts).
f. As one of the features that promote survival is reproduction, then (following, among other things, a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent) the groups that artificially or naturally reproduce more are superior in terms of evolution (which is clearly false). It is also interpreted that individuals with more reproductive cells or more fertile are superior, but if this were the case, there wouldn't be any koalas in the world (or some other animal that has poor fertility but happens to survive for other reasons). So the superiority to survival is relative and doesn't depend on the quantity of eggs (even though you have more probability to survive if you produce more). But there are lots of possible counterexamples. And the quantity of eggs or of children is thoroughly considered as a superior feature of certain groups (suspiciously human).
All these conclusions happen in our everyday culture, I suppose, not in the Academy, but there are lots of concerns that should derive from them.
Especially now that our ecosystems seem to be collapsing, and we don't know exactly why, but most probably has to do with the proliferation of humans -and other animals or plants as well- which seem to be one of the groups of animals that worked the most in terms of survival and reproduction (because it crossed the entire planet, tried and adapted to every climate, geographical accident, and food, destroyed every possible predator, etc.)- and in a very few generations perhaps we will no longer have the stable ecosystems we need to maintain this state of affairs of being the "better" organisms or genes in terms of evolution).
I would love to know what you think (if you have time, obviously -and so sorry for the long message-) about this (which is surely discussed in the Academy, but I do not have access to it at this moment).
Thanks again for your time and interest.
A lovely summary at the end of your piece Massimo which highlights the need for us to do the work of finding a coherent philosophy of life with practical steps to use in a daily & moment-to-moment way.: "The value of ikigai, I think, is that it reminds us that there are things that make us get up in the morning, that make our life valuable and purposeful. But that’s only half of the equation. The other half consists in a critical self-analysis to figure out whether some of the possible sources of ikigai ought to be rejected and others cultivated. In so doing we move from the descriptive to the prescriptive, from posing the question to begin to articulate possible answers."
"In modern times the term was popularized by Natsume Soseki in his novel Kokoro, published in 1912."
This claim, which looks like it's from Crossley-Baxter's article, is a bit puzzling, because Kokoro does not seem to contain the word "ikigai" as far as I can tell. His previous novel Kōjin (The Wayfarer) does use the word multiple times.
I think it's important to note that "ikigai" is a compound word, as Crossley-Baxter explains. It's certainly not one untranslatable chunk of thought that the Japanese are alone in the world in coming up with, and it seems to me to have amazing marketing catered toward people who want to think of Japan as being more exotic than it is (which include some Japanese people in Japan).
Satoru, thanks for the correction. Yes, I'm aware that there is a danger of incurring into what sometimes is referred to as "Orientalism." Hopefully I did not convey that impression in my essay.
Congratulations, Massimo, on your one-year anniversary. I will remember this day easily relative to my own of yesterday, where I survived my CVA that took me “down for the count” paralyzed. Nine years have passed, and most would think I sprained my ankle, at first glance--and I need to always be thankful for that. I am fortunate continuing on the road of recovery, but not to it. It will always be a journey. I will never be like before. (A bit like repairing you car after an accident.) What are the components of my “ikigai?” I need to go back before my stroke to to the time of working. I was raised by Greek and British immigrants who were poor and without formal education. All they had were their hands, common sense and their strong work ethic. I was put to work at age nine helping with the catering business and remained employed until September 7, 2014. I could easily relate to this “ikigai” because “working” always would be, and was my intention to be, even if I retired. I recall the day I chose my career course at 17 in the local library with the Barron’s guide in hand. It was either to become an astronomer or a filmmaker. I chose the latter thinking I could incorporate my love for astronomy through filmmaking (and astronomers were making $17K at the time 🙄). I matriculated at NYU’s Film School and landed a career at CBS News. This Venn diagram of overlapping circles perfectly targets what I achieved and who I became. HOWEVER, after my stroke, paid employment was extracted out of my life because of disability. The closest experience where I thought I would die was nine years ago yesterday. (Another was hitting a bus broadside, but that was instantaneous.) There was a two-fold part that would be involved to "Getting up in the morning.” One, is to simply to survive. When you are disabled, and you believe that getting up means your survival, you will get up (if you can). I recall your saying your practice of taking cold showers once a week (and I do this often, too--it’s the reminder I suppose 😊), but if you are in a situation where you must get up because it means your survival, you will. My second reason is there is living life. This is where I particularly believe in Stoicism. We have love, we have passion, we can contribute and ethically participate in the cosmopolis, and we don’t need to be paid for it. Stoicism doesn’t require it. But the “ikigai” seems it can particularly apply to western civilization. I don’t know much about the Japanese except they seem to have always had strong collective work ethic. Both before and after their westernizing. Marcus Aurelius likened a part of our pursuit of eudaimonia with work--just like the lower organisms working--as a part of Nature. It can be any work that gives back positively to the cosmopolis. I do so whether consulting academics with the media; sharing knowledge of astronomy to colleagues or social media; or in the memories of others of conversations over forty years ago. I would like our work to stem from our passion. Often that is not the case for so many. But when the case exists, our passion shows our enthusiasm, and that is attractive. Money can be left out of the equation, but we look for it where we can. As for the detriment of “ikigai," I don’t know enough to comment. But I can say before my accident I might have accepted such a “philosophy.” But I find Stocism much more suitable with my disability and that eudomonia can still be achieved as long as we are still compos mentis. 😊
Mike, thank you for sharing some of those details. Holy cow, sounds like you went through a hell of a lot!
I agree with much of what you say. I do have some issues with the concept of ikigai, as I have explained in the essay, but I also have a deep respect for Japanese culture, so I figured it would be good to discuss the idea in this forum.
Great entry! Thanks
Excellent article. Most Asian women I've met on line, Japanese or Chinese, are super committed to working, mostly on Crypto currency. ???
For the love of diamond mittens! 🙂
😆
🧐
I would argue that you should NEVER reject your ikigai, only work to change it. If you reject the thing that keeps you voluntarily alive, you are rejecting life itself, which includes hatred sometimes. I feel like the goal is to become aware of the ikigai concept so that you can use it to steer your choices deliberately, rather than judging/accepting/rejecting whatever your ikigai happens to be at a given moment. Life is not whack-a-mole where you smack down bad motivations, it's a maze of choices to navigate in your own unique manner.
Alaina, that’s one of the major differences with Stoicism, according to which we are very much supposed to judge what we do and try to do better. Hatred is not acceptable, for a Stoic, and if we sense it we need to work on it.
Massimo, one of the reasons I sub to your writing is to learn about Stoicism so thank you for showing me where my ignorance on the subject is located. Work on cultivating higher purposes as a Stoic by all means, but the notion of "rejecting" any form of ikagi (even the lowest forms, for usually, if present, they were genuinely needed for a time) is very sad to me and not a position I am eager to embrace.
Alaina, I am genuinely curious. Say that your ikagi includes hatred, xenophobia, racism, or misogyny. Why would you be sad in rejecting those impulses and trying to overcome them?
Yes, I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit today. I think what I'm hung up on is a notion I have that we don't get to choose our ikagi, it just IS what it is as a result of how we live (in my interpretation). In order to change our ikagi, we have to change how we live. In order to change how we live we must continue living, and thus we must reach a working agreement with our ikagi (a.k.a. our reason for living which exists as a result of our life, not the other way around). If we cannot do that--if we reject our pre-existing ikagi--the result is necessarily depression/self harm/or worse because we can't tolerate such cognitive dissonance as is created by rejecting the means by which we continue to exist. This is just turning the ikagi against the self. In order to change your ikagi, you have to accept that it is a natural product of the life from which it emerges (in my interpretation).
I hope I explained that okay, it makes sense in my head but words are hard, lol
Alaina, it makes perfect sense. What the Stoics would say is that you change, gradually, through effort, your self precisely the way you indicated: by mindfully changing your behavior. His is also how cognitive behavioral therapy works: first comes the cognitive recognition of a given issue (e.g., hate, or anger); then we decide to change our behavior; finally, after a time, our own feelings change because they have been retrained. I hope this makes sense!
Interesting piece. Lived in Japan 3+ years, in an old traditional style farm house, late 80s- early 90s. Learned enough conversational Japanese-n hiragana/katakana to get by. Even with that extended look, Japanese society is a very tough one to get a grasp of as a “gaijin”...the meaning of many of their words do not ‘translate’ well.
My father married a Japanese woman & lived in Japan for decades. He always found it a highly complex & nuanced culture to live in.
Same impression I get from my cousin!
Very…
Wow, must have been a fascinating experience! I was in Japan only for a couple of weeks years ago, and I'm planning to go back, fate permitting.
it was interesting...tatami mats/shoji paper/fusuma doors/futons/ cricket garden, tea room, no heat, hot water other than the ofuro, or ac; our oldest son was born there, X-mass day. we lived more traditional style than 99% of the 'native folks' we met- they found it very "atypical". we have not been back, since '91-been there/did that. the thing we miss is the food-best we've ever had anywhere...n we've been around :)
I have a cousin who has been living in Tokyo for decades. Time to pay a visit…
Imo best to get away from the "cities"...tho Kyoto is a must. If time is limited, I'd rec the "japanese alps" west north west of nearby Tokyo-eg Takayama, hitting some more rural areas/stay in a traditional ryokan, n hit a traditional onsen (hot springs...)- basically anywhere where there are fewer foreign "tourists"..., take advantage of knowing a resident's experience/facility with the language, which opens up the "real Japan" to you...life's short/n the flight is long, so do it- soon :)
That’s the idea. Though I’ve been to Kyoto, and it’s definitely exceptional.
Imo, once is enough. …fir anywhere-too many places to see, in our limited time here.
What always fascinates me is that like so many ‘terms’ or ‘popular concepts’ once you dive on and trace the roots and cultural contexts the meaning becomes ever more complex. As a psychologist the shorthand use of CBT as if it is the solution to our troubled states of mind is
a good example as is the ever more popular ‘mindfulness’ business. The roots of CBT are obviously rooted in stoicism and mindfulness in meditation- trying to convey the true depth and
value of these ideas without examining the roots and richness of both has often been a struggle.
Thank you for this as I increasingly hear the term Ikigai being banded about - again without too much reference or understanding of what it’s roots are and how it can, or cannot, be usefully related to our European philosophical and cultural context.
Really interesting post. I’d never heard of the anti-social Ikigai before. Looking at the 4 circles with that in mind it’s interesting to note that someone can love spreading hatred, be good at it and these days get paid for it. Only the 4th “What the world needs” circle stops it from being someone’s Ikigai but perhaps such a person needs wisdom to see that.
Simon, right, that's why it seems to me that the concept of ikigai is descriptive, as distinct from the prescriptive nature of the Greek concept of eudaimonia.
Congratulations on the year in!
Why--to read Figs in Winter; what other motivation for getting up and getting on with it could possibly be needed?
Wow Massimo! I just finished reading a book on ikigai. 🙂 I think my ikigai definitely involves lots of caring for my family, gardening and making maths models.
Victoria, as they say, great minds... 😃
An important component of my Ikigai is music - to listen to it, to learn about it, to create it