On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers contex

T. Context.
Is it possible for a philosopher to get married without screwing up his being-philosopher?
By now it has become nearly impossible for me to count the relationships Ive broken off in favor of my philosophic solitude. I dont want to recall as all of these acts of separation have been painful to both the ladies in question and myself. I may have a child or two running around that, in my philosophic arrogance, I have no knowledge of, and because of this arrogance, never will have. It has worked for me so far, but this time I feel I might be a fool to tread the same path. I am terribly apprehensive still, not at all keen on tying myself to another human by law and indefinitely - my instincts rebel.

Philosophic instinct - foremost, a yearning for solitude. The absolute need to have the opportunity to sink into Tartaric depths and to rise to Olympic heights on a whim, without notice, without consideration for anything less extreme - the philosopher is necessarily an extremist. On occasions though, he must perhaps at least acknowledge the possibility of adopting an attitude that might be called sensible.

I am past the idea of polygamy. If only because the ones who tend to win my affections arent the type to settle for merely a portion. If there is one thing that attracts me in a woman it is pride - perhaps my tendency to break hearts, my own and those of those who saw a future with me, is related to this preference for the proud - I prefer to know that a woman will find happiness after I leave her, and there is nothing so sure to pull a woman out of her misery as a proud heart. Whereas men often use their pride as fuel to navigate abysses and even make their camps in them, proud women are… wiser, I suppose. We would not exist as a species, probably, if they werent. We would still be primates.

Still and all. I am one of these people who find it nearly impossible to master their instincts. And ironically, I cant deny being proud of this, for some sordid reason.

Have there ever been any philosophers marriages which werent farcical, or lover-philosophers who werent Parsifal - must the philosophers social status remain marginal?

If it is really about marriage, then I guess Stuart Mill readily comes to mind. Also Emerson, twice actually.
Then, there have been some famous love stories: Abelard and Kierkegaard.
Actually, it would have the most obvious thing for Soren to marry Regina, but eventually he did not. Maybe he had thoughts like yours…

(Word to the wise: BGE 194. 268).

Maybe not, but I guess that’s what the good ones do.

[duplicate removed]

It’s possible but any normal girl in a normal marriage is going to want a good chunk of your time, in fact she’s going to feel entitled to it…and if you pull away to sink back into yourself to do real philosophical work (which would actually benefit your marriage) she’s just going to think you’re being selfish and aren’t taking the relationship “serious”. Some say Shakespeare was in an unhappy marriage…and this is the guy that wrote Romeo and Juliet…so what hope do us mortals have?

Could it also be you haven’t found an “honest” woman yet? Your “sensible” attitude could maybe be equated with Nietzsche’s “small marriage”?

However, I highly doubt there are many if any women that would read what Nietzsche wrote on marriage and not laugh…

Man: Will you marry me

Woman: Yes, omg, Yes

Man: Just to make sure, the arrow and longing for the Superman is in your will to marriage, right?

Woman: nigga, what?

Which is probably what lead Nietzsche to say:

Which makes me believe that ALL marriages where the partners don’t view their other as the source of eternity are shams, just contracts with the state, or made for the sake of tradition just to keep the species going.

Do women in general even take marriage as seriously as the philosopher then… Since most of them seem content with a cookie cutter relationship and marriage… Of course, women make a big show of how much they want to be married but do they really care about what it means to be married in a higher sense? Perhaps they do, on an instinctual level, better than man, but how often is marriage in this sense ever realized in real life outside of myth…

And if, as a philosopher, you’re not going to be married in a higher sense, all these little relationships merely serve as fun(or possibly hellish as the case may be) and educating diversions that take time away from your task (you might even love these women in a small sense)… And if you keep indulging in them again in again, you’ll never finish what you set out to do.

I was about to make that exact same point.

Males can often get into the whole philosopher thing. Females, not so much.

Philosopher-type people get into and are often obsessed with questioning, analyzing, and often preaching. If a woman happens to be comfortable with that behavior, the male philosopher and the female can get along. But in every case I have seen, the female doesn’t really care about the philosophy issue (somewhat forbidden in my house). She might agree with the preaching and think that everyone should listen (endearing her to the male) but down deep, none of that is what really matters to her personally.

I think it goes the other way too. If the female is obsessed with social justice issues but the male isn’t really that much concerned about it, they aren’t likely to become strongly bonded.

I know that both partners don’t have to have the exact same interests but there must be a mutual interest sufficient to keep them together. I know that because I am in that situation myself. They both must sense something deep about the other so as to at very least tolerate the others distractions. I my case, not actually being a real philosopher, I can keep my distraction merely as a hobby for late night or casual moments. I am not compelled with preaching the things that I discover to be profound truths - she wouldn’t care about them at all. And I find her distractions often entertaining to me even though I have no doubt that they have no other significance at all.

I think that everyone lives in a bubble of belief that is necessary for their well being. When 2 people can share enough of their bubble so as to merge their deepest concerns, the rest isn’t important.

Philosophical people seem to always want to question things that have no direct relevance to a relationship with a non-philosophical person. And 2 philosophical people are highly likely to disagree on many of the issues they believe to be deeply important. Both circumstances lead to maintaining distance and a weak bond, certainly not a marriage.

I think until the philosopher stops being obsessed with questioning, analyzing, or preaching there is very little chance of forming an actual marriage (a uniting of the souls) even if both are philosophical individuals.

I think that marriage is only easy to form when little else is important to them or they are partners against an overt and constant adversary in which case they can be extremely different, perhaps even opposite and yet still remain deeply bonded - the male and the female uniting to answer the challenge of life on planet Earth. When life is too easy and they have different interests, they have nothing to keep them together.

Seems the history of philosophy has proved this:

“What great philosopher up to now has been married? Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibtniz, Kant, Schopenhauer?? None of these got married.”

I wouldn’t try to advise you one way or the other, regarding marriage. I will only say, I have yet to meet a human being whose entire perception of the world wasn’t radically altered with the arrival of a child. Obviously, the world itself hasn’t changed. However, the world changes out of all recognition!

Nice to see you back.

Honestly man, I think you’re a goddamned fool not to go for it.

What was Neitzsche’s last work, the one that spoke most of his truth?

You can sum it up thusly: “I should have married that girl.”

The question, I think at this moment in time, is not so much whether you prefer whacky philosophicalness of being or the girl, which is a teenager question. The question is, will she be able to tolerate you even with this whackyness which, as Nietzsche also remarked, there isn’t really shit you can do about.

Marry the bitch, cross. Thank your lucky stars or whatever Gods that look after you if this girl is on the “yes” spectrum that she somehow tolerates your funky ass, and marry the bitch.

Get her in the bag before she realizes what she done.

The only way we have managed to further this cursed species is by enduring our collective perpetual succession of mistakes.

I refuse marriage and sex because I think they are the worst ideas in existence.

1 winner, 8 billion losers.

Sex always hurts the feelings of others. Seeing people naked even hurts the feelings of others.

This level of raw pain being caused is unacceptable to me.

[quote=“derleydoo”]
I wouldn’t try to advise you one way or the other, regarding marriage. I will only say, I have yet to meet a human being whose entire perception of the world wasn’t radically altered with the arrival of a child. Obviously, the world itself hasn’t changed. However, the world changes out of all recognition!

K: you are correct… the entrance of a child does change everything, everything…
and there is no going back…

Kropotkin

as for marriage itself…I have been married for over 24 years and I
consider myself a “philosopher”…the key for us, us, is the fact
that we don’t engage with or talk about philosophy in any, way, shape
or form… we engage with what I have called, “kitchen table stuff”
but we don’t talk about intellectual matters…

she watches her “real housewives” of whatever and I work on my
philosophical matters… different interest… and that helps make
us work…

Kropotkin

Just remember my boy, marriage wasn’t created to tie a man to a woman.

Modern men, and in this case I mean modern as in of the last 5000 years, have a very naive understanding of power.

The only reason women agree to marriage, is that they know law is the only thing that will give men the confidence to give their all. Women don’t need law to give their all.

Don’t never forget who the lucky one is and you should be fine.

And send a nigga an invitation. If I can afford it I will go so I can go laugh at you.

I think it’s funny that Peter is trying to defend his life story without regret.

I always tell people, “your soul is worth more than this teeny reproductive species”

Do people like Peter listen to me? No and hell no.

K: did you say something?

Kropotkin

Ok. I think it’s apparent that no matter what Peter posts at this point, he has zero moral fiber.

Take that as you will.