The Schopenhauer Cure(115)
“How did that relieve you?” asked Philip.
“I looked at my life and felt that I had lived it right—no regrets from inside though, of course, I hated the outside events that took my wife from me. It helped me decide how I should live my remaining days: I should continue doing exactly what had always offered me satisfaction and meaning.”
“I didn’t know that about you and Nietzsche, Julius,” said Pam. “It makes me feel even closer to you because Zarathustra, melodramatic as it is, remains one of my absolutely favorite books. And I’ll tell you my favorite quote from it. It’s when Zarathustra says, ‘Was that life? Well, then, once again!’ I love people who embrace life and get turned off by those who shrink away from it—I’m thinking of Vijay in India. Next ad I run in a personal column maybe I’ll post that Nietzsche quote and the Schopenhauer tombstone quote side-by-side and ask respondents to choose between them. That would winnow out the nay-sayers.
“I have another thought I want to share.” Pam turned to face Philip. “I guess it’s obvious that after the last meeting I thought about you a lot. I’m teaching a course on biography, and in my reading last week I ran across an amazing passage in Erik Erikson’s biography of Martin Luther. It goes something like this: ‘Luther elevated his own neurosis to that of a universal patient-hood and then tried to solve for the world what he could not solve for himself.’ I believe that Schopenhauer, like Luther, seriously fell into this error and that you’ve followed his lead.”
“Perhaps,” responded Philip in a conciliatory fashion, “neurosis is a social construct, and we may need a different kind of therapy and a different kind of philosophy for different temperaments—one approach for those who are replenished by closeness to others and another approach for those who choose the life of the mind. Consider, for example, the large numbers who are drawn to Buddhist meditation retreats.”
“That remind me of something I’ve been meaning to say to you, Philip,” said Bonnie. “I think your view of Buddhism misses something. I’ve attended Buddhist retreats where the focus has been directed outwards—on loving kindness and connectivity—not on solitude. A good Buddhist can be active, in the world, even politically active—all in the service of loving others.”
“So it’s becoming clearer,” said Julius, “that your selectivity error involves human relationships. To give another example: you’ve cited the views about death or solitude of several philosophers but never speak of what these same philosophers—and I’m thinking of the Greek philosophers—have said about the joys of philia, of friendship. I remember one of my own supervisors quoting me a passage from Epicurus saying that friendship was the most important ingredient for a happy life and that eating without a close friend was living the life of a lion or a wolf. And Aristotle’s definition of a friend—one who promotes the better and the sounder in the other—comes close to my idea of the ideal therapist.”
“Philip,” Julius asked, “how is this all feeling today? Are we laying too much on you at once?”
“I’m tempted to defend myself by pointing out that not one of the great philosophers ever married, except Montaigne, who remained so disinterested in his family that he was unsure how many children he had. But, with only one remaining meeting, what’s the point? It’s hard to listen constructively when my entire course, everything I plan to do as a counselor, is under attack.”
“Speaking for myself, that’s not true. There’s a great deal you can contribute, much that you have contributed to the members here. Right?” Julius scanned the group.
After lots of strenuous head-nodding affirmation for Philip, Julius continued: “But, if you’re to be a counselor, you must enter the social world. I want to remind you that many, I would bet most, of those who will consult you in your practice will need help in their interpersonal relationships, and if you want to support yourself as a therapist, you must become an expert in these matters—there’s no other way. Just take a look around the group: everyone here entered because of conflicted relationships. Pam came in because of problems with the men in her life, Rebecca because of the way her looks influenced her relations with others, Tony because of a mutually destructive relationship with Lizzy and his frequent fights with other men, and so on for everyone.”
Julius hesitated, then decided to include all the members. “Gill entered because of marital conflict. Stuart because his wife was threatening to leave him, Bonnie because of loneliness and problems with her daughter and ex-husband. You see what I mean, relationships cannot be ignored. And, don’t forget, that’s the very reason I insisted you enter the group before offering you supervision.”
“Perhaps there’s no hope for me. My slate of relationships, past and present, is blank. Not with family, not with friends, not with lovers. I treasure my solitude, but the extent of it would, I think, be shocking to you.”
“A couple times after group,” said Tony, “I’ve asked if you wanted to have a bite together. You always refused, and I figured it was because you had other plans.”
“I haven’t had a meal with anyone for twelve years. Maybe an occasional rushed sandwich lunch, but not a real meal. You’re right, Julius, I guess Epicurus would say I live the life of a wolf. A few weeks ago after that meeting when I got so upset, one of the thoughts that circled in my mind was that the mansion of thought I had built for my life was unheated. The group is warm. This room is warm but my living places are arctic cold. And as for love, it’s absolutely alien to me.”