My wife and I just returned from the theater. We took in the play named "Daddy Long Legs". It was an adaptation of a book written in 1912. I would not have know that fact except for the need I felt to look it up because of my curiosity driven by all the messaging in the play. If the messaging had been a little less obvious in its attempts at hiding horrible ideas inside of a passable love story, perhaps I would remain blissfully ignorant about when the story was written. But alas.
The main character is a girl aging out of an orphanage who gets an anonymous benefactor who she names "Daddy Long Legs" because all she saw of him was his height. Because of an essay that she wrote that sparked an interest from her benefactor, her benefactor organized and paid for her full education at university. She writes him, he purposely does not write her to keep the anonymity as complete as possible. She assumes he is old. He is young and ends up falling in love with her from her letters and his in-person interactions with her. Yes, he wanted to keep it anonymous, but her incessant requests to meet and her captivating writing caused him to break his rule and go meet her as his young self, thereby perpetuating the alter ego of an aged benefactor. The usual hi-jinx ensues. No spoilers.
So what could possibly cause any concern from such a lovely love story? I was put on high alert when toward the very beginning of the play as the girl first was introduced to formal, higher education, she concluded immediately that there was no god, and she was so relieved at not being so unintelligent as to believe. As a believer, immediately I became disenchanted with her. Although, to be frank, her voice was a nasally, high pitched Snow-White child's voice that grated on my nerves upon first hearing it, so she started at a deficit anyway. But her blithe dismissal of a higher power clinched it.
Sadly, I am very accustomed to stomaching the derision that people have for a higher power, so I let that little barb in the script fall out and wither. But when she sang so joyfully -- and piercingly -- about all the wonders of the universe, my reaction was one of derision. She can dismiss a god, yet marvel at the wonders and beauties that even now many scientists are coming around to think would not exist without some kind of intelligence behind them.
Fine. Just because we perceive something as beautiful and awe-inspiring its source does not necessarily have be a deity, or so the argument goes. Fine. I let this one slide, too.
Then musically she began gushing and stabbing my ears with gratitude at her benefactor's generosity. How could she be so fortunate? How could a stranger show so much love for a fellow being? Oh, the gratitude she felt! Without once even hinting at considering the source of kindness and charity and love. She, as so many others of us, never think that such actions come from a spiritual -- or at least metaphysical -- place, and it behooves us to acknowledge and be grateful for it. And if came from no god, but from society, there is no consideration of where society got it!
Alright, so there is no self-awareness, no depth of thought, a complete lack of higher reasoning. It is just a play. Let it go.
The girl's voice rings out, causing me to check for blood. She sings about how she has discovered the secret of happiness! And here I will spoil the play to impart such incredible wisdom. Happiness is living in the now, with nary a thought to the future or the past; happiness is being with the person you love; happiness is doing whatever you want in life, whenever you want to do it. It is obvious that one feels happy doing those things. It is perhaps not as obvious that that is precisely how animals live.
As humans we were meant for more than evanescent happiness. As all other things in the universe, we were created with a telos -- a reason for being -- and we discover happiness and hopefully inflict happiness on others as we fulfill our telos. We have a higher consciousness than the animals, and we therefore should aspire to higher states than the happiness that acting like all the other animals in the world do. But this presumes that we are something different from animals, which follows that there must be something different from us. As we are higher than the animals, so too there is something higher than we. And since that is obviously just dumb, it follows that we should focus on the temporary happiness that various things afford. No thanks.
Writes the girl to her phantom philanthropist, "...I wonder what kind of Socialist I am." Also, it turns out that the boy she is in love with (the philanthropist's secret identity) is a Socialist too. How sweet. Socialists in love. After all the rest, my reaction was the very opposite of shocked. Now it all makes sense.