Love Advice From Dead Philosophers
It’s surprisingly modern and much better than today’s advice
If you enjoy this article, please share it with a friend or consider becoming a paid subscriber. Wednesday’s article is always free (and sometimes late)! Sunday’s article is for paid subscribers only.
I found my love of philosophy later in life. Marcus Aurelius was my first crush. He taught me that it was not events that caused me pain but my response to them. And so, I learned to control my response to my misfortunes. If life ever throws your health a nasty curveball, or you need to leave a toxic relationship, read any of the Stoic philosophers.
Unfortunately, many never learn philosophy. I blame it on the school system that values rogue memorization over real meaning. But it’s never too late to leap into a heroic mind.
The following philosophers offer some very modern advice to find that courage.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860)
Schopenhauer might be an odd choice of love guru. To start, he was not a fan of marital bliss. He once wrote, ‘To marry means to do everything possible to become an object of disgust to each other.”
Not a romantic, that Schopenhauer.
Obviously, you won’t find many Schopenhauer quotes on Hallmark cards, but he did have some sage advice regarding romantic love. His take— ditch it. To Schopenhauer, we would choose radically different partners if we only let logic rule. Instead, we let our loins rule and end up tied to a partner that makes us miserable.
The solution is to enjoy romantic love for what it is — a fleeting illusion. To Schopenhauer, romantic love was only a chemical brew that caused incompatible people to get naked.
But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out Schopenhauer had some misogynistic views toward women. He denigrated women repeatedly and viewed them as the ultimate corrupters of men. He writes, ‘In their hearts, women think that it is men’s business to earn money and theirs to spend it.’
Ouch. Like I said, not a romantic.
Okay, although his love advice sounds cynical, he does offer an alternative— choose platonic love. We often choose our friends with wisdom but our lovers with wantonness.
And although Schopenhauer died alone with his best friend — his dog, he did so by choice. He refused to settle for anything less than the mature bonds of friendship.
“Mostly it is loss which teaches us about the worth of things.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer
Simone Weil (1909–1943)
If Simone Weil were dating today, she would be horrified by online dating. Weil gave more than a left or right swipe to her fellow humans. She once said, “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.”
But it’s hard to give your attention to one person when you have endless options filling your dating match queue. The paradox of choice has transformed us all into attention misers.
Weil felt the only way to give someone your undivided attention was to experience their suffering. As a child during wartime provisions, she refused to eat sugar if the soldiers on the front lines couldn’t eat it. And she quit her cushiony job as a teacher and worked incognito at a car factory to understand the daily lives of the working class.
While Jean-Paul Sartre was lamenting that “hell is other people,” Weil found a piece of heaven in everyone she met. That is what truly seeing people means.
And Weil never stopped seeing. Seeing people for both their beauty and their pain.
When we first fall in love with someone, their every statement (even the dumb ones) puts tiny stars in our eyes. But over time, familiarity breeds contempt, and we long for adventure and novelty. Some may even doubt if their relationship boredom means their partner is no longer “the one.”
But relationship boredom is not always a sign you have chosen the wrong person. It is a sign you are no longer choosing your partner.
Too often, in relationships, we walk by the flower shop without thinking of our lover. We take for granted that they paid the tax bill or unclogged the drain. Or we fail to notice the dark circles under their eyes from working late nights.
Eroticism dies because we stop using our imaginations. We stop seeing.
Except for those diagnosed with ADHD, people selfish with their attention are often selfish with their love. It’s why many narcissists claim to have ADHD. In fact, researchers today are wondering if ADHD diagnoses are getting confused with a narcissistic personality disorder.
At its most basic level, narcissists have an extreme form of selfishness that makes empathy impossible. You have to first pay attention to have empathy.
And then there are the multitaskers—the people with their heads buried in their phones while you are trying to have a conversation. They will say, “I am listening. I can multitask.” But can they? One study found that the more someone thinks they are good at multitasking, the worse they actually are. It’s the Dunning-Kruger effect of attention.
Weil understood that attention requires patience, and patience requires suffering. Even the word “patience” comes from the Latin patientia, the quality of suffering or enduring.
So Weil suffered. A lot. Most scholars today believe she eventually died of starvation. (Her ill health was also aggravated by tuberculosis.) Her biographer, Sir Richard Rees, said of her death, “…whatever explanation one may give of it will amount in the end to saying that she died of love.”
“The sea is not less beautiful in our eyes because we know that sometimes ships are wrecked by it.”
― Simone Weil
Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592)
I have a soft spot for Montaigne. He is hilarious, punchy, self-deprecating, brilliant, down-to-earth, and inventive. I probably wouldn’t have a job if it were not for Montaigne. (He popularized the essay.)
He is known as the French Senaca, but he started his life as an average nobleman working as a magistrate. Then, something happened to change his path.
Montaigne was riding in the woods one day when he was thrown from his horse. He landed with a blow to his head and his chest. He vomited repeatedly and passed out. His friends thought he was dead.
When he came to, he no longer feared death and called it “voluptuous,” as a languid sleep. His new attitude toward death also changed his attitude toward life. That’s when he began to write.
When we don’t fear the ending, we also never fear the beginning. Too many people go through life never pursuing love because of their fear of rejection. Or we let our past traumas influence whom we choose and repeat the same patterns. It takes bravery to love anew.
Montaigne offers a solution to choose the right partner — ” A good marriage would be between a blind wife and a deaf husband.” That might sound flippant, but Montaigne wasn’t implying that happy couples ignore each other. Instead, he believed happy couples should ignore each other’s small, annoying flaws. “Kings and philosophers shit, and so do ladies,” reminds Montaigne.
Modern research will back up Montaigne’s advice. Dr. John Gottman found that 69% of couple’s fights never get resolved. But happy couples take a different approach — they choose to let minor disagreements go.
But just because you let a disagreement go doesn’t mean you don’t care about your partner enough to point them in the right direction. We often hear the romantic advice that your lover should never try to change you. Montaigne wasn’t buying it.
Montaigne didn’t see criticism as cruelty. He saw polite criticism as the greatest gift we can give those we love because it offers them the benefit of change. Montaigne wrote that we will only bother to criticize those we truly care about “for it is a healthy love that will risk wounding or offending to prefer a benefit.” In other words, we share our truths with those we love if those truths will help them become a better person.
“He who fears will suffer, he already suffers from his fear.” — Michel de Montaigne
Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986)
Beauvoir’s love advice will speak to any woman who wants to retain her autonomy in a relationship. While today’s culture focuses on soul mates, Beauvoir believed that the death of love begins with the death of the self. In other words, no one will complete you. You have to be whole from the start to find love.
Some of her love advice is a bit cynical. She writes, “A man attaches himself to a woman — not to enjoy her, but to enjoy himself.” Ouch. That is harsh.
Egotism is not a product of gender. Everyone is guilty of sometimes falling in love with someone because of the way they make us feel. Romantic idealism turns us all into passion junkies.
Beauvoir’s solution sounds much like modern love advice today — never lose your hobbies or career aspirations for any love interest. An even better solution is to seek out shared passions. In a recent PEW Research study, 64% of couples said that having shared interests was the key to happiness. It was the most popular answer given to what makes a healthy and happy relationship.
So maybe you could start that philosophy book club together?
“That’s what I consider true generosity: You give your all, and yet you always feel as if it costs you nothing.” — Simone de Beauvoir
No one philosopher has all the answers to find healthy love. In fact, many of these philosophers adamantly disagreed with each other. (Simone Weil and Simone de Beauvoir hated each other.) But when we take pieces of their advice and cobble them together, it forms a picture that is just as significant today as it was then.
Socrates believed you should study philosophy in pairs. Another mind holds you accountable. Perhaps that is the secret to finding enduring love — never stop looking for your Socrates. I know I won’t.
Carlyn Beccia is an award-winning author and illustrator of 13 books. If you enjoyed this article, please share this publication with friends. Wednesday’s content is always free. Sunday’s content is available only for paid subscribers.
What a amazing story. You chose your subjects very well. BTW, one of my classes in divinity school was Christian Mysticism, and Simone Weil was one of the mystics we studied.
I don't say this lightly, but you really seem to be a polymath. I haven't met too many of those in 75 years on this planet.
You're very talented and wise.
Best,
Fred
I have read this a few times now and each time it has increased in pleasurability. Between the order of the participants, the selected quotes and lightness...
Glad you found the Dead Essayists Society.
Be safe.