The Unrestricted Potentiality of Death in Ivan Ilyich
What makes a life lived good? Derek Parfit’s paper ‘What makes someone’s life go best?’ considers the restricted desire-fulfillment theory plausible on the grounds that the only desires which are relevant are the desires about one’s own life (Parfit, 2012). In this paper I will argue Parfit’s concession that the success theorist should think that the more unrestricted events we can never know about are essential to our composite conclusion as to whether Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilyich lived a good life or not.
I will first articulate Parfit’s case for thinking events we never know about might have the potential to be good for us, then move to examine Ivan’s frustrations in life, with a particular focus on his moment of death. I will conclude with some examples of why Ivan’s life, and the potentiality of his son’s life, supported by Parfit’s case, was eventually a good one.
Parfit considers desire-fulfillment as a distinguishing theory of what it takes for one’s life to go well (Parfit, 2012). He first considers the unrestricted desire-fulfillment theory, which holds that all of one’s desires are relevant to our welfare. He concludes this is implausible. He rejects the unrestricted with an example of a stranger on a train. We meet a stranger, who is seriously ill, and we desire for them to be cured. Much later, and long after we’ve forgotten about the stranger, they do indeed recover. The unrestricted theory holds that upon the cure, our life got better, but we never know this outcome to be the case. Therefore, he argues, the unrestricted theory does not hold (Lord, 2022).
The restricted desire-fulfillment theory, and the one more directly applicable to Ivan Ilyich’s life, holds that the only relevant desires are those which are only about our own lives. So, because our desire about the stranger isn’t directly about us, it doesn’t apply, even though it is unclear which desires are about our own lives. However, he does suggest that we should think about events we never know about and if they can be good or bad for us (Lord, 2022). He uses the example of our desire for our children to thrive ultimately being about our lives, even if we never know that such a desire was ever satisfied, especially after death.
It’s Parfit’s latitude to think of the potentiality of such unrestricted desire fulfillment, especially in the lives of others after our death, which frees desire fulfillment of its individual restriction and motivates our use of Tolstoy’s story.
Ivan Ilyich’s life is one of frustrated desire and unfulfilled bourgeois aspiration. He is consistently disappointed at his supposed societal achievements, and receives little empathy throughout life from his wife, children, professional colleagues, and even medical advisors. He moves through life doing what he feels he ought, periodically climbing an upwardly mobile social ladder, but ultimately leading a life that ‘was most simple and ordinary and most terrible’ (Tolstoy, 1886). He doesn’t seek out any kind of truth about the world, and while he aspires towards hedonistic experiences, especially those brought about by playing cards, never truly attains the kind of pleasures he thinks they should deliver (Kaufman, 2009).
These aspirational behaviors lead to the circumstances and consequences of his death. His fall from an actual ladder while hanging a bourgeois set of new curtains sets off a cascade of events which cause him to become further alienated from his family, to give up work, and to seek relief in the actions of servants. His wife only increases his misery, his friends are little comfort, and his children are absent. At the point of death, he confronts the big questions, and it’s not a relationship he is equipped to manage, but it’s not too late. His slowly decaying body contrasts with his slowly awakening consciousness. He finally realizes it’s not what’s next that’s important, it’s what’s first (Kaufman, 2009).
And only at death does he understand that genuine, authentic desire is fulfilled by freeing the restriction of what he wants, what he thinks is good for him, and to desire the best for others. His death frees him of a life of frustration, welcomes the good into his last remaining moments, and motivates the potentiality of his son to lead a life better than his. But it’s an unrestricted view he’ll never know.
Parfit asks ‘suppose instead that we claim that the value of a whole may not be a mere sum of the value of its parts. We might then claim that what is best for people is a composite.’ (Parfit, 2012). The composite of the restricted and unrestricted views comes together at the fulcrum of Ivan Ilyich’s death, where he pities his son and sends him away. One of his first truly selfless acts. Ilyich opens the door for his son to lead a better life than his, but in doing so he also redeems himself and finally does something good. In the moments before death, he questions if there will be any meaning to his life that is not destroyed by death. And if there is meaning then it must align with that which is indestructible within us. It follows that the greatest manifestation of this are acts of love and compassion (Kaufman, 2009). He becomes the reborn, redeemed phénix his family was so proud of during his childhood, and over which he fondly reminisces.
In conclusion, if we hold that the composite potentiality of the unrestricted view benefits both Ilyich and the future life of his son, both have opportunity to maximize what’s good. And when we maximize such positive outcomes, we do what’s best. Ilyich only arrives at the good moments before death, but in doing so empowers his son to lead a life much better than his own. What joy.
Latest Articles
