In his essay “Why You Will Marry the Wrong Person,” (NYT,
5/28/16) Alain de Botton, famous for the heady remedies of How Proust Can Change Your Life remarks, “The good news is that it
doesn’t matter if we find we have married the wrong person. We mustn’t abandon
him or her, on the founding Romantic idea upon which the Western understanding
of marriage has been based the last 250 years: that a perfect being exists who can meet all our needs and satisfy our
every yearning.” In place of romanticism de Botton interposes another way
of looking at the world standing in sharp
contrast to the kind of idealizations which cast a shadow on literally every
endeavor in human existence. If it's agreed that that which has yet
to be always trumps that which exists due to the Pandora’s Box called possibility
then de Botton’s argument makes even more sense. What he's saying is that it’s almost
impossible not to marry for the wrong reasons, amongst them loneliness, the
need “to make a nice feeling permanent,” or the subliminal attraction of
“familiarity.” His remedy lies in the adoption of a philosophical attitude (de Botton is also the author
of The Consolations of Philosophy) which he expresses thusly, “We should learn to a accommodate ourselves to ‘wrongness’ striving always to
adopt a more forgiving, humorous and kindly perspective on its multiple
examples in ourselves and in our partners.”
De Botton calls his approach “tragic” and even refers to “pessimism,” but it's not an admission of failure. The dictionary definition of stoicism is “The
endurance of pain or hardship without a display of feelings and without
complaint.” Isn’t de Botton really calling for a stoic attitude towards
existence?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.