games silently and anonymously for the next three hours. Mostly, he won. When
he lost it was usually through carelessness, but his irritation was short–lived:
immediately he typed in «seeking a game,” and his eyes lit up with childish
delight as a brand–new game commenced.
25
Porcupin
es,
Genius,
and
the
Misanthr
opist`s
Guide
to
Human
Relations
hips
_________________________
Bythe time I was thirty I
was heartily sick and
tired of having to regard
as my equals creatures
who were not really so at
all. As long as a cat is
young it plays with paper
pellets because it
regards these as alive
and as something similar
to itself. It has been
the same for me with
human bipeds.
_________________________
The porcupine fable, one of the best–known passages in all of Schopenhauer`s
work, conveys his frosty view of human relationships.
One cold winter`s day a number of porcupines huddled together quite closely
in order, through their mutual warmth, to prevent themselves from being
frozen. But they soon felt the effects of their quills on one another, which
made them again move apart. Now, when the need for warmth once again
brought them together, the drawback of the quills was repeated so they were
tossed between two evils, until they discovered the proper distance from
which they could best tolerate one another. Thus the needs for society, which
springs from the emptiness and monotony of men`s lives, drives them together
but their many unpleasant and repulsive qualities once more drive them apart.
In other words, tolerate closeness only when necessary for survival and
avoid it whenever possible. Most contemporary psychotherapists would
unhesitatingly recommend therapy for such extreme socially avoidant stances. In
fact the bulk of psychotherapy practice is addressed to such problematic
interpersonal stances—not only social avoidance but maladaptive social behavior
in all its many colors and hues: autism, social avoidance, social phobia, schizoid
personality, antisocial personality, narcissistic personality, inability to love, self–aggrandizement, self–effacement.
Would Schopenhauer agree? Did he consider his feelings toward other
people as maladaptive? Hardly. His attitudes were so close to his core, so deeply
ingrained that he never viewed them as a liability. On the contrary, he considered
his misanthropy and his isolation a virtue. Note, for example the coda of his
porcupine parable: «Yet whoever has a great deal of internal warmth of his own
will prefer to keep away from society in order to avoid giving or receiving trouble
and annoyance.»
Schopenhauer believed that a man of internal strength or virtue will not
require supplies of any kind from others; such a man is sufficient unto himself.
This thesis, interlocked with his unwavering faith in his own genius, served as a
lifelong rationalization for the avoidance of closeness. Schopenhauer often stated
that his position in the «highest class of mankind» imposed the imperative not to
squander his gifts in idle social intercourse but instead to turn them to the service
of humanity. «My intellect,” he wrote, «belonged not to me but to the world.»
Many of Arthur`s writings about his supreme intelligence are so flamboyant
that one might consider him grandiose were it not for the fact that his assessment
of his intellectual prowess was accurate. Once Arthur applied himself to being a
scholar, his prodigious intellectual gifts became evident to all about him. The
tutors who prepared him for the university were astounded at his precocious
progress.
Goethe, the one man of the nineteenth century whom Arthur considered his
intellectual equal, eventually came to respect Arthur`s mind. Goethe had
pointedly ignored the young Arthur at Johanna`s salons when Arthur was
preparing for the university. Later, when Johanna asked him for a letter of support
for Arthur`s application to the university, Goethe remained masterfully
noncommittal in his note to an old friend, a professor of Greek: «Young
Schopenhauer seems to have changed his studies and occupations a few times.
How much he has achieved and in what discipline, you will readily judge for
yourself if, out of friendship for me, you will give him a moment of your time.»
Several years later, however, Goethe read Arthur`s doctoral dissertation and
was so impressed with the twenty–six–year–old, that during Arthur`s next stay at
Weimar, he regularly sent his servant to fetch him for long private discussions.
Goethe wanted someone to critique his much–labored work on the theory of
colors. Though Schopenhauer knew nothing of this particular subject, Goethe
reasoned that his rare innate intelligence would make him a worthy discussant. He
got rather more than he bargained for.
Schopenhauer, greatly honored at first, basked in Goethe`s affirmation and
wrote his Berlin professor: «Your friend, our great Goethe, is well, serene,
friendly: praised be his name for ever and ever.» After several weeks, however,
discord arose between them. Arthur opined that Goethe had made some
interesting observations on vision but had erred on several vital points and had
failed to produce a comprehensive theory of color. Dropping his own professional
writings, Arthur then applied himself to developing his own theory of colors,
differing in several crucial ways from Goethe, which he published in 1816.
Schopenhauer`s arrogance eventually corroded their friendship. In his journal
Goethe described the ending of his relationship with Arthur Schopenhauer: «We
discussed a good many things in agreement; eventually, however, a certain
separation proved unavoidable, as when two friends, having walked together so
far, shake hands, one wanting to go north and the other south, and very soon
losing sight of one another.»
Arthur was hurt and angry at being dismissed, but internalized Goethe`s
respect for his intelligence and continued for the rest of his life to honor Goethe`s
name and to cite his works.
Arthur had much to say about the difference between men of genius and
men of talent. In addition to his comment that men of talent could hit a target that
others could not reach, whereas men of genius could hit a target that others could
not see, Arthur pointed out that men of talent are called into being by the needs of
the age and are capable of satisfying these needs, but their works soon fade away
and disappear during the next generation. (Was he thinking of his mother`s
works?) «But the genius lights on his age like a comet into the paths of the
planets.... he cannot go hand in hand with the regular course of the culture: on the
contrary he casts his works far out onto the path in front.»
Thus, one aspect of the porcupine parable is that men of true worth,
particularly men of genius, do not require warmth from others. But there is
another, darker aspect to the porcupine parable: that our fellow creatures are
unpleasant and repulsive and, hence, to be avoided. This misanthropic stance is to
be found everywhere in Schopenhauer`s writings, which are studded with scorn
and sarcasm. Consider the beginning of this passage from his insightful essay «On
the Doctrine of the Indestructibility of Our True Nature by Death»: «If in daily
intercourse we are asked by one of the many who would like to know everything
but who will learn nothing, about continued existence after death, the most
suitable and above all the most correct answer would be: вЂAfter your death you