The Schopenhauer Cure

he was to devote more attention to the arts, and particularly to

music, than any other philosopher.

And sex? He left no doubt about his belief that sexual

feelings played a crucial role in human behavior. Here, again, he

was an intrepid pioneer: no prior philosopher had the insight (or

the courage) to write about the seminal importance of sex to our

internal life.

And religion? Schopenhauer was the first major philosopher

to construct his thought upon an atheistic foundation. He explicitly

and vehemently denied the supernatural, arguing instead that we

live entirely in space and time and that all nonmaterial entities are

false and unnecessary constructs. Though many others, Hobbes,

Hume, even Kant, may have had agnostic leanings, none dared to

be explicit about their nonbelief. For one thing, they were

dependent for their livelihood upon the states and universities

employing them and, hence, forbidden to express any antireligious

sentiments. Arthur was never employed nor needed to be and was

free to write as he wished. For precisely the same reason, Spinoza,

a century and a half earlier, refused offers of exalted university

positions, remaining instead a grinder of lenses.

And the conclusions that Schopenhauer reached from his

inside knowledge of the body? That there is in us, and in all of

nature, a relentless, insatiable, primal life force which he

termedwill. «Every place we look in life,” he wrote, «we see

striving that represents the kernel and ‘in–itself` of everything.»

What is suffering? It is «hindrance to this striving by an obstacle

placed in the path between the will and its goal.» What is

happiness, well–being? It is «attainment of the goal.»

We want, we want, we want, we want. There are ten needs

waiting in the wings of the unconscious for every one that reaches

awareness. The will drives us relentlessly because, once a need is

satisfied, it is soon replaced by another need and another and

another throughout our life.

Schopenhauer sometimes invokes the myth of the wheel of

Ixion or the myth of Tantalus to describe the dilemma of human

existence. Ixion was a king who was disloyal to Zeus and punished

by being bound to a fiery wheel which revolved in perpetuity.

Tantalus, who dared to defy Zeus, was punished for his hubris by

being eternally tempted but never satisfied. Human life,

Schopenhauer thought, eternally revolves around an axle of need

followed by satiation. Are we contented by the satiation? Alas,

only briefly. Almost immediately boredom sets in, and once again

we are propelled into motion, this time to escape from the terrors

of boredom.

Work, worry, toil and trouble are certainly the lot of almost all

throughout their lives. But if all desires were fulfilled as soon

as they arose, how then would people occupy their lives and

spend their time? Suppose the human race were removed to

Utopia where everything grew automatically and pigeons flew

about ready–roasted; where everyone at once found his

sweetheart and had no difficulty in keeping her; then people

would die of boredom or hang themselves; or else they would

fight, throttle, and murder one another and so cause themselves

more suffering than is now laid upon them by nature.

And what is the most terrible thing about boredom? Why do

we rush to dispel it? Because it is a distraction–free state which

soon enough reveals underlying unpalatable truths about

existence—our insignificance, our meaningless existence, our

inexorable progression to deterioration and death.

Hence, what is human life other than an endless cycle of

wanting, satisfaction, boredom, and then wanting again? Is that

true for all life–forms? Worse for humans, says Schopenhauer,

because as intelligence increases, so does the intensity of suffering.

So is anyone ever happy? Can anyone ever be happy? Arthur

does not think so.

In the first place a man never is happy but spends his whole life

in striving after something which he thinks will make him so;

he seldom attains his goal and, when he does it is only to be

disappointed: he is mostly shipwrecked in the end, and comes

into harbor with masts and riggings gone. And then it is all one

whether he has been happy or miserable; for his life was never

anything more than a present moment, always vanishing; and

now it is over.

Life, consisting of an inevitable tragic downward slope, is

not only brutal but entirely capricious.

We are like lambs playing in the field, while the butcher eyes

them and selects first one then another; for in our good days we

do not know what calamity fate at this very moment has in

store for us, sickness, persecution, impoverishment, mutilation,

loss of sight, madness, and death.

Are Arthur Schopenhauer`s pessimistic conclusions about

the human condition so unbearable that he was plunged into

despair? Or was it the other way around? Was it his unhappiness

that caused him to conclude that human life was a sorry affair best

not to have arisen in the first place? Aware of this conundrum,

Arthur often reminded us (and himself) that emotion has the power

to obscure and falsify knowledge: that the whole world assumes a

smiling aspect when we have reason to rejoice, and a dark and

gloomy one when sorrow weighs upon us.

29

_________________________

I have not

written for the

crowd.... I hand

down my work to

the thinking

individuals who

in the course

of time will

appear as rare

exceptions.

They will feel

as I felt, or

as a

shipwrecked

sailor feels on

a desert island

for whom the

trace of a

former fellow

sufferer

affords more

consolation

than do all the

cockatoos and

apes in the

trees.

_________________________

«I`d like to continue where we left off,” said Julius, opening the

next meeting. Speaking stiffly, as though from a prepared text, he

rushed on, «Like most therapists I know, I`m pretty open about

myself to close friends. It`s not easy for me to come up with a

revelation as raw and pristine and right out there on the edge as

those some of you have shared recently. But there is an incident

I`ve revealed only once in my life—and that was years ago to a

very close friend.»

Pam, sitting next to Julius, interrupted. Putting her hand on

his arm, she said, «Whoa, whoa, Julius.You don`t need to do this.

You`ve been bullied into this by Philip, and now, after Tony

exposed his bullshit motives, even Philip has apologized for

requesting it. I, for one, don`t want you to put yourself through

this.»

Others agreed, pointing out that Julius shared his feelings all

the time in the group and that Philip`s I–thou contract was a setup.

Gill added, «Things are getting blurred here. All of us are

here for help. My life`s a mess—you saw that last week. But so far

as I know, Julius,you`re not having problems with intimacy. So

what`s the point?»

«The other week,” Rebecca said, in her clipped precise

speech, «you said I revealed myself in order to give Philip a gift.

That was partially correct—but not the whole truth: now I realize I

also wanted to shield him from Pam`s rage. However, that said, my

point is...whatis my point? My point is that confessing what I did