• Agustino
    11.2k
    I have recently read Yalom's "The Schopenhauer Cure", and while I was greatly impressed by the beginning of the book, I found to my dismay that its ending was a senile, political conversion scene. It was pathetic, similarly to the ending of "God's not Dead" (the movie). The latter displays how a philosophy professor who is a die-hard atheist has a deathbed conversion to Christianity after he is hit by a car which crushes his lungs. Similarly, "The Schopenhauer Cure" shows how Philip, an ex-sexual addict who has been saved by Schopenhauer's philosophy, has a conversion away from his pessimism/misanthropy after spending months in a therapy group, in training to become a counselor himself. What disgusts me about both of these so called "works of art" is that they are untruthful to reality - they betray it in order to fulfill political motivations. One to show the supremacy of the Christian worldview, and the other to show the wrongness of Schopenhauer, and the rightness of life-affirming philosophers like Nietzsche. Both presume that there is a "right" way of being, and try to show how one who lives "wrongly" should/must be converted.

    What I find totally assumed, and never questioned through the book, is the idea that "everything is permitted"; everything is merely human, all too human, and as such excusable. Rebecca sleeping with a random man for money in Vegas, Pam using Tony as a sex toy, Gill being a drunkard, and not taking care of his wife, etc. At the opposite end, Schopenhauer is said to have been laughed at by his contemporaries, to have failed to enjoy the pleasures of life, to have failed to explore the beauty of human relationships, and to have failed to appreciate other "bipeds". In contrast to these "human, all too human" characters, someone like Philip, or Schopenhauer appear painted in a bad light - as if one must engage in the same problems/activities as others to fit the correct standard. Schopenhauer's ideal of the "strong" man that is undisturbed by the movement of external circumstances and remains detached from the crowd is degraded, and shown to ultimately be untenable - everything, in other words, is reduced to being "human, all too human" - even Philip, a character built entirely around the personality of Schopenhauer, is shown to be "human, all too human" in the end. Why?

    Because Yalom believes that it is psychologically healthy to be "human, all too human". That is what he identifies to be the standard of good; psychiatric/psychological treatment ought to lead one to this condition. But the fact that this is the average condition of mankind in this day and age is not sufficient reason to justify making it a standard of psychological health. There were periods in history when this wasn't the standard of the majority. How can modern man have the arrogance to say that his standard is now better than that of the many many other cultures that existed before? Why do we think that the democratisation of the world (both in politics and in social matters) is something good? Cultures have existed in the past which have believed the opposite. What gives us a right to condemn them as being wrong?

    It could be argued that the man who needs nothing from others - someone like Philip/Schopenhauer - is the one who is actually psychologically superior. As such, Philip's fall to the condition of "human, all too human" at the end, with his emotional outburst, is just that - a fall, a corruption of a superior individual by a degrading environment. It could be argued that Schopenhauer's misanthropy was justified if we are to judge by his standard - why should a man of his superior stature seek relationships with bipeds? He will look for others of his stature, and if he finds none, then nothing is lost, simply because there is nothing to be gained from the bipeds in the first instance.

    Ethically speaking - it seems to me to be a great injustice when the majority attempts to impose its standard upon individuals who are different. What do you think about any or all of this? And what do you think about the book? :)

    (I put this in Books and Papers, but I'm not sure it's the place where it belongs... if a moderator believes it's better to go in "The Lounge" or anywhere else, please don't hesitate to move it! Thanks, and apologies for not knowing better where to put it!)
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    I have been aware of this book for some time and haven't read it. I have very high standards when it comes to fiction, partly owing to the fact that my non-fiction list of books to read is so obscenely large. But judging from what you say here, it sounds like I am better off not reading it. I also haven't seen True Detective, for it too seems to be the same sort of popularizing of Schopenhauer that repudiates him in the end; in other words, shallow, gimmicky tripe that merely uses Schopenhauerian themes to invoke a gritty and rebellious atmosphere. I have no patience or time for fairy tale endings unless they are expected from the start.

    Schopenhauer is said to have been laughed at by his contemporaries, to have failed to enjoy the pleasures of life, to have failed to explore the beauty of human relationships, and to have failed to appreciate other "bipeds".Agustino

    I think this is false, as anyone who has read his biography ought to know. But statements like this infuriate me to no end. On the one hand, Schopenhauer is criticized by people like Yalom for being an apparently uncaring, detached, and bitter old man. On the other hand, Schopenhauer is often criticized by Nietzsche and others for being too decadent and worldly, a hypocrite who failed to live up to his own ascetic ideals. In other words, he can't win. He's damned for being too much like a sinner or not enough like a saint. No one ever seems capable of objecting to his arguments. The critics have found that the best way to dismiss his arguments, which they either do not understand or find unpalatable in some way, is by hurling these ad hominems.

    It could be argued that Schopenhauer's misanthropy was justified if we are to judge by his standard - why should a man of his superior stature seek relationships with bipeds?Agustino

    Well, the ironic thing here is that Schopenhauer was not a misanthrope, though he sympathized with the sentiment. He rather emphasized philanthropy, which stands to reason, given that he declares compassion as the basis of morals.
  • _db
    3.6k
    I also haven't seen True Detective, for it too seems to be the same sort of popularizing of Schopenhauer that repudiates him in the end; in other words, shallow, gimmicky tripe that merely uses Schopenhauerian themes to invoke a gritty and rebellious atmosphere. I have no patience or time for fairy tale endings unless they are expected from the start.Thorongil

    I actually had a different take on the show. Although it ends in a quasi-optimistic way with no real explanation why, I like to think that the director did this on purpose. The director said that he was influenced by major pessimistic works, such as Schopenhauer, Zapffe and Ligotti, and it seemed to me like it was a kind of an ironic twist at the end, a nod to Ligotti, who in one of his books I believe criticizes the redemption cliche. If you hadn't read Ligotti, it came across as just the typical ending. If you had read Ligotti, it was the ultimate irony.

    In my personal opinion, True Detective is a very good show that does an extremely good job, in comparison to other shows, in voicing the philosophy behind it. It's most definitely advertised as the "hip" and "gritty" show, but it nevertheless delivers on its message.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Well, I don't see the irony, then. And I get the feeling that he stumbled upon these authors as a way to market his show's originality, which bellies any genuine, real acquaintance with and understanding of them. This is shown in the fact that he lifted almost line by line certain passages from Ligotti and others. If he needs to paraphrase almost verbatim the words of these authors, and hence is incapable of using their arguments by, say, having internalized them from frequent exposure, then I fail to see how it amounts to anything more than a gimmick; something he uses once to establish a name for himself but then abandons. Are these themes present in the second season? So far as I know, they are not.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    Hey you might appreciate an essay I found recently Schopenhauer and Buddhism, Peter Abelson. It's out there. Made me appreciate S through new eyes.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.