Schopenhauer, Camus, detachment, maturity and midlife crises

A very interesting piece here, and one I largely agree with.

Kieran Setiya talks about how studying ideas of Arthur Schopenhauer can avert midlife crises.

The Buddhist influences on Schopenhauer shine through in the ideas from "Will and Representation" that represent this piece. And while Buddhism and Stoicism have some parallels, and some overlap, this is an area of difference. (Not to mention that the metaphysics behind the the two — metaphysics and a focus on them that make Buddhism a religion — are also different.)

Stop focusing on goals, Schopenhauer says. When you realize the goal, the goal itself is completed, and the pursuit is gone.

This is not just some academic philosophical or religious exercise.

Classic heavy metal rock band Deep Purple knew that in the song "Knocking at Your Back Door" (think about the title in a ZZ Top way) in chasing women, when they said:



"It's not the kill, it's the thrill of the chase."

That said, I think Schopenhauer (and Prince Gautama) go wrong where they say that "wanting what you don't have is suffering."

Animals with less complexity of thought and less complexity of emotions can (and do) still have wants beyond the basics of food, or per Deep Purple and Darwinian sexual selection, beyond the basics or non-basics of sex. But, they arguably don't have a level of consciousness to "suffer," at least not to suffer emotional pain.

A cow, per the old cliché, might see that the grass IS greener on the other side of a fence it can never cross (and might be lusting for freedom of choice rather than greener grass as better food). That doesn't mean that it "suffers" from being stuck in its own pasture. (A Buddhist might disagree; a Jain might disagree even more. That's why I'm neither one, and it's why I say both are religions.)

Setiya tries to spin Schopenhauer and I think fails. Activities that do not aim for completion are not ones with goals, even as he tries to split telic and atelic activity. But he then tells us not to abandon worthwhile goals, undermining himself. Nope; the worthiness of the goal may partially condition the failure to attain it or the emptiness after doing so. It doesn't wipe it out, though. So, in addition to failed hair-splitting, Setiya is wrong there.

So, is there something better, but on a broadly similar idea, that the world of philosophy can offer us? And preferably without the baggage of Buddhist metaphysics?

Why, yes!

I think Camus is better here. Accepting these wants, accepting that we might not get them, accepting that maybe we won't detach from them, and accepting the absurdity of all that is better.

To put it another way, which moves from Camus to neo-Cynicism, we must not imagine Schopenhauer or Sisyphus happy; rather, we should imagine Sisyphus raging against the machine, per Camus' call for authenticity in revolt.

That then said, to riff on another theme of Camus, he picked the wrong person from Greek myth. Sisyphus wasn't a rebel; Prometheus was.

I riffed on that when I said we should say "Mu" to Camus on meaninglessness.