Skip to main content

Que sera, sera


The full lyrics here.  Comment below.

When I was just a little girl
I asked my mother, "What will I be?
Will I be pretty?
Will I be rich?"
Here's what she said to me
"Que será, será
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
Que será, será
What will be, will be"
When I grew up and fell in love
I asked my sweetheart, "What lies ahead?
Will we have rainbows
Day after day?"
Here's what my sweetheart said
"Que será, será
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
Que será, será
What will be, will be"
Now I have children of my own
They ask their mother, "What will I be?
Will I be handsome?
Will I be rich?"
I tell them tenderly
"Que será, será
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
Que será, será
What will be, will be"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a bad account of one aspect of ancient Stoicism.  What you cannot control (which is just about everything) is not your concern, except to accept it as Fate. Further, this fatalism was combined with a sense that logic proves that the future is determined.  There will either be a sea battle tomorrow or there will not.  One of the two possibilities is now the truth. Thus, it is not even in the admiral's power, if there will be a sea battle tomorrow, to decide that there will not be.
But what is remarkable about the Doris Day song is the middle stretch. 
I understand a mother handing down this Stoic idea to a child. It is a bittersweet lesson but one children must learn one way or another that "the world is largely indifferent to your wishes, kid." And that is what is happening both in the beginning and in the end. 
But if a young woman asks her sweetheart what lies ahead, whether (in effect) his devotion will prove everlasting, he is not well advised to reply "que sera, sera." 
Pro tip for young men: don't try that.     
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
9 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
17 comments
Read more