Isolated, bound or sociable?
By Mark Vernon on Thursday, July 29 2010, 06:28 - Philosophers on friendship - Permalink
At one extreme, you've got the philosophers who argue that you can't know anything directly about another person's inner life, if that phrase even has meaning, but only infer what's going on in their mind by comparing it with the mind you can know directly, your own. It's an isolated, lonely existence.
Then, you've got the psychotherapists who argue that we're tied together in each others minds, be that through your family systems or, as in the groups such as one I go to, via transference or projection. It's not that you know like telepathy, but you know by shared feeling. It's a bound, relational existence.
Somewhere in between, you've the psychologists who, as in this new research, argue that sociability is essential to good mental and physical health, even dramatically affecting your mortality. The psychologists are not sure about the underlying metaphysics - are we in and out of each others heads, or merely better when bouncing along together. It's a sociable but instrumental existence.
Lonely, bound or just sociable. What's it to be?
(Image: A clip from the Charlie Chaplin silent film, 'The Bond')










Comments
It is hardly surprising that the archetypal philosopher, as the consummate introvert, thinks in terms like those of Joseph Conrad's memorable phrase "we live as we dream, alone".
But we are ultimately social creatures, bound together whether we like it or not. Even the philosopher, deep in the analysis of concepts, must first have connected to the grand social tapestry, or else they could not use language. They may be connected to the rest of humanity via books (like Nietzsche), but the role of the philosopher does not make much sense in the singular.
Best wishes!