I don't know why this was such a relief to read. In Cartwright's Schopenhauer biography, on the top of page 32, "Trying to secure a Hamburg prebend was an act of 'fatherly love' that put his son's well-being before everything else. He did so, Arthur thought, because his father viewed poverty as inseparable from scholarly life. Arthur, however, was oblivious to his father's specific attitude toward his son. He might have been receptive to the idea that his son possessed intellectual abilities far greater than those useful to a merchant, but his attitudes also implied that Arthur's abilities were not sufficient to earn him a good life."
The reason this resonates with me has to do with things I go over in
The Tyranny of Pubic Opinion.
A person brought up in Smalltown, USA finds himself from early youth surrounded by hostility to everything that is necessary for mental excellence.Evidently, it is not just an American phenomenon. One who pursues scholarly, intellectual, or artistic interests has to understand that these interests will not bring financial security. A scholar has more of a chance ending up in a prison or mental hospital than owning a house, cars, and travelling the world staying in hotels while dining at restaurants.
This is interesting, isn't it? I mean, isn't this a fascinating social reality? Consider the scholar Mumia Abu Jamal. I don't know if you have ever heard the man speak, but his intellect is powerful. He's been accused of killing a police officer. Then there is Leonard Peltier in prison for over 30 years, I think. He is accused of killing an FBI agent who was shooting at him. And one thinks, wow, can we even write about such things without being targeted as a radical?
In a behavioral health facility I mentioned that one reason someone might be hesitant to injest prescribed psychiatric medications could have something to do with the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is suspect, and psychiatry as a medical profession has far too much authority in our society. The representative laughed this off as "one of those conspiracy theories."
So, we are in a strange world where the truth is brushed off as conspiracy theory and we might hesitate to mention certain political prisoners so as not to draw attention to ourselves. Great. It's all about "being happy" and "working on yourself". Never mind the big picture, just stay calm and stay out of trouble.
I sympathize with Schopenhauer's situation. He had an inheritance in the bank that he was living off of to support his scholarly life. He did not want to see anarchy in the streets. He did not want riots. The world frightened him, for sure. Wars? I can't see him being turned into a soldier. Is it true that it is impossible to think while one is marching?
What if one can't be compartmentalized?
What does it mean to be an intellectual? It certainly does not imply one is destined to be able to earn a living. Maybe this is why Schopenhauer had such disdain for professors of philosophy in universities. There must be a great deal of deference to authority to acquire such a position.
Hermann Hesse relates this phenomenon when the Steppenwolf states, "We intellectuals, instead of rendering obedience to the Logos, the Word, are all dreaming of a speech without words that utters the inexpressible and gives form to the formless. The German intellectual has always rebelled against the word and against reason. None of us intellectuals is at home in reality. We are strange to it, we are hostile to it. The generals and captains of industry were quite right. There was nothing to be made of us intellectuals. We were an irresponsible lot for whom reality had no meaning."
Like Harry Haller in Hermann Hesse's "autobiographical fiction," Raskolnikov, in Dostoyevsky's Crime & Punishment, was such a wayward scholar.
It is one of the great ironies in literate societies throughout the ages that scholars are associated with monks or a generally impoverished existence. It's the only life for me. Still, there is such great insult to our collective psyche when the ambitious power-hungry authority worshippers, the industrialists, the business executives, the politicians, the military, the professional athletes, etc. are generally anti-intellectual cultures.
They respect the technology, the math, the languages, that help one "win" or "succeed" - acquire wealth ... but scholars can expect to live a very humble life.
This is fine by me, especially since "wealth" is relative.
I have boots, warm socks, a cot + blanket + pillows, long underwear, all the books I could want from the few writers who interest me, blank notebooks, pens, computer ...
If I were to become homeless, I would want to rent a small storage space to keep my few precious possessions. If I were to "lose everything", I would have to start over, but with humble demands. The worse fate would be to be incarcerated, but I would just have to reach deep within me and become some kind of scholar-monk-prisoner.
I think remaining out of confinement is my main priority, but it is paradoxically the times I spent in captivity which enable me to genuinely appreciate the things that are most important to me.
Even if all I end up doing with my time on earth is being a "Schopenhauer scholar", this is enough for me. I would like to reach a point where I have no hatred for the gorts, but pity them for making their life mission putting things into their purse rather than into their heads.
If we can be indifferent to the values of our society, we've got this meritocracy licked.
If someone wants to defy the artificial authority of the "professional class", meditating on Schopenhauer's philosophy may open up a realm of transcendental delight ...
To choose to be a scholar and a thinker, and to shun the life of the merchant, is a choice that has consequences, but we know what we're doing. Failing to thrive in a corporate capacity can be viewed as a successful resistance to values we find base, vulgar, and downright stupid.
Just reflect upon a cheering audience receiving $500 gifts from a talk show host ... the screaming with glee ... There is no need to hate the gorts. Indifference is actually more liberating.
By the way, has the term "intellectual" been politicized to simply imply a Marxist leftist ideologist? If only we could transcend the little compartments waiting anyone who dares to refuse to "keep our eyes on the ball", the parade, the new blockbuster, the big game, etc., ...
[PUKE]
The first couple sentences in that biography mention that Schopenhauer considered himself homeless his entire life. Maybe some of us are just homeless in the world. We are homesick for nothingness. We are tired. We just don't fall for any of the hype.
Maybe, like Schopenhauer, life just disgusts us. Maybe more creatures share this sentiment than we realize. Most likely, this sentiment is actually the kernel of a few religions.