Swadharma

The Dark Knight, Continued

In a previous post, Saketh argues that the Joker acts without a plan, simply doing without any attachment to the results. Clearly the Joker lacks any moral framework. An interesting question arose in the Comments section:

Can complete detachment exist when there is no moral framework?

To answer this question, we must first distinguish between two types of detachment in this example:

Detachment from the fruits of one’s actions.
Action without a plan, which is equivalent to detachment from purpose (if there exists a purpose, by definition there must exist a goal, and a goal is the most basic plan possible).

Detachment from the fruits of one’s actions is one part of the Hindu concept of detachment. As Krishna tells Arjuna:

You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty.(Bhagavad Gita, 2.47, emphasis added)

While this type of detachment typically receives the most attention, it is not enough:

Not by merely abstaining from work can one achieve freedom from reaction, nor by renunciation alone can one attain perfection. (Bhagavad Gita, 3.4, emphasis added)

In fact, Krishna explicitly warns Arjuna against detachment from fruitive action combined with detachment from purpose:

That action which is regulated, without attachment, like or dislike and done without desiring the result is said to be of goodness. But that work which is done in hot pursuit, identified with the material, or again is done with a lot of pressure; that is said to be in the mode of passion. But that work which is after attachment, is destructive, causes distress and has no regard for the consequences or is begun being mistaken about ones own capacity; that is said to be of ignorance. (Bhagavad Gita, 18.23-25, emphasis added)

In other words, detachment in Hinduism has two components: detachment from fruitive action guided by attachment to purpose. Of course, any attachment to purpose will not do. Purpose must be aligned with duty — that is, dharma:

But with all these activities must without doubt, performing them out of duty, the association with their results be given up; that, o son of Prithâ, is My last and best word on it. (Bhagavad Gita, 18.6, emphasis added)

Therefore, if we define detachment as detachment from fruitive action guided by attachment to duty, I argue that the answer to our original question is a resounding “no”.

So in what sense is the Joker attached?

Detachment from fruitive action. I do not think the Joker is detached from the fruits of his actions at all. Consider his quote “If you are good at something, never do it for free” — this is hardly what we would expect to hear from someone who performs actions without any hope of gain. Even the rhetorical climax that Saketh cites is an example of the Joker’s attachment to fruitive action — he gets pleasure out of showing others the futility of their plans.
Detachment from duty. While the Joker is not detached from purpose — he cannot possibly be attached to fruitive action and detached from purpose — purpose and duty are clearly not aligned since his action lacks morality.

But this is attachment to fruitive action guided by detachment from duty — the exact opposite of detachment in Hinduism. Therein lies the horror of the Joker’s character: he is truly the ultimate villain.

Saketh wrote:
Vikram — here is how I understand your argument. First, there are two types of detachment — detachment from the results of action, and detachment from purpose.

The first, detachment from action, is not the entire story — for Krishna urges Arjuna in the Gita not to be detached without purpose. Furthermore, purpose, which implies a goal, which in turn implies a plan, must be in alignment with dharma.

The Joker’s quote (“If you’re good at something…”) as well as the fact that one cannot be attached to fruitive action and simultaneously detached from purpose imply that, if we define detachment this way, the Joker is not completely detached.

That is my understanding of your interpretation, which establishes that the Joker is not detached.

I am confused about some terminology. Your interpretation contains three key words:
1. detachment
2. action
3. purpose
The definition of detachment we can both agree on — something like what Merriam-Webster says, “indifference to worldly concerns.” That is done.

The difference between action and purpose is more challenging. You start your argument by saying that action and purpose are in fact different.

To discuss action, which is easier to define than purpose — your statement makes me initially consider an action as a mind’s unbroken string of concentration. For example, going downstairs is an action. But an objection to this definition is that doing something else while going downstairs invalidates this definition, for the mind cannot concentrate on two things at once. To address this objection, I suggest that the mind can in fact concentrate on two things at once if the mind considers one a habit. In this case, going downstairs is a habit, and thinking is an action requiring an unbroken string of concentration. So let us say, for the sake of discussing the issue, that an action is a mind’s unbroken string of concentration or habit. Like detachment, action is now defined.

Purpose, on the other hand, is a harder word to define than “action,” especially since the way it is defined will either make or break what you are trying to say. For if purpose is itself an action that manages other actions, then by definition there can be no distinction between action and purpose, and hence no distinction between detachment from either.

So how are we to define purpose? I want to make sure I understand what you are saying, so I think it is best if you describe your definition.
Sunday, January 25, 2009 at 4:10pm | Permalink

The Dark Knight, Continued

One Comment

Post a Comment

Login

A Random Post

Recent Comments

Contributors

Archives

RSS Links