Why Fish Don’t Exist
I found this book on a search about alternative ways of extracting meaning in life and the world in general. The catchy subtitle (“A Story of Loss, Love, and the Hidden Order in Life”) made me think, that this is the exact book I want to read. And how true that was. Below I’ve summarized what the book is about and what I’m taking away from it (spoilers ahead).
What is it about?
The book is set up as two “stories”; one embedded in the other. The underlying story is about Lulu Miller herself and her quest to figure out, how to keep on living when she broke up with her long-time boyfriend. When for her, everything seemed lost. Within this autobiographic quest, she embeds the life story of "David Jordan Starr”, the founding president of Stanford University and an “Ichthyologist” (someone who’s devoted to the study of fish - hence the name of the book). David Starr was a man, who encountered many horrible setbacks in life, yet kept on moving forward after each. Lulu takes the reader on an exploration journey, trying to understand how David was able to keep on moving. Ultimately trying to learn how to do so herself.
Initial findings and the final analysis
What’s most interesting, is that Lulu does not find the answer to her quest in Jordan’s life itself. In the final analysis, she opposes Jordan’s way but finds her own. Lulu finds the reason Jordan Starr was so unencumbered with life's setbacks, was that he was simply full of himself. He was arrogant to such a degree, that he believed what he was doing was the only right way. This fanatic belief in himself kept him going, even though life sent him many curveballs.
At that stage, Lulu doesn’t accept this answer for herself but she also doesn’t know what to do next. So she keeps on exploring and finds her answer in the developments of the study of fish after Jordan’s death. Namely the abandonment of the zoological category of “fish”. “Fish” as a scientific category, it turns out, doesn’t exist anymore. How David would react to this new development? In Lulu’s opinion, David would have accepted the fact (he was still a person of science), even though he devoted his life to the study of fish. David likely would have “given up fish”.
The concept up “giving up fish”
“Giving up fish” then becomes the prevalent concept of the last two chapters. It’s really a metaphor. I understand it as the notion of giving up some truth about the world, we believe in. And we're giving up the existing truth because it does not work for our life anymore. Most importantly, we’re giving up the truth by learning more and finding a new one! You’re giving up the truth that the zoological category of “fish” exists, by learning more and ultimately finding more accurate scientific categories. In the end, actually improving your understanding of the world.
Through the example of fish, Lulu asks us to re-think existing truths and categories in our lives that we need to “give up”. When life seems lost through the lens of existing truths, re-think the truths, don’t re-think your life. She’s done so herself. She gave up the belief she can only ever love a man, which was the trigger for her initial quest. She found out, her love is more complex; she found out she can also love women. And then she also found a woman to love.
What am I taking away & my comments
I like the notion of “re-thinking existing truths”, given the existing ones don’t support you anymore. But re-thinking is hard and challenging. It could mean giving up the very things that were useful to you in the past. I will personally try to think about whether I need to “give up fish”, re-thinking truths in my life more often now. Are whatever beliefs I’m holding actually keeping me from advancing? It’s a great question to ask, yet one that needs to find a balanced answer.
It’s about the truths YOU set upon the world, not anyone else set’s upon you. If you see truths that need re-thinking, it’s YOU that needs to do the re-thinking first, not others. Lulu re-thought her own beliefs of love and didn’t go out to have others re-think theirs. A change in your truths should merit a change in your own behavior. You shouldn’t ask others to change theirs as a first reflex.
Further, not every category that scientifically is wrong means that it is also useless at the same time. Tell a fisherman that “fish” don’t exist. He won’t care. How do you explain to small children how the animals are called that life in the ocean? The scientific answer is likely too complicated to understand for a 3-year-old. “Fish” is a useful category sometimes, just not for everyone and not in every situation.
I will now go and venture out to find my own fish to give up. I urge you to do the same.