Excerpts
Thom Jones and Schopenhauer
I Have Some FUNNY Ideas!
About fifteen years ago, or something like that, I read The Pugilist at Rest by Thom Jones. I liked it very much. I also thought it was funny how he chews over the same stuff in most of the stories. More than once, some character of his talks about Schopenhauer. I had read some Schopenhauer in college, but after reading The Pugilist at Rest, I decided to read some more. I liked him very much, more than any other philosopher at that time in my life. (I read very little philosophy, so that is not saying much.) So, today, when I fell over a pile of books that are laying on the floor in my office, I fell over Schopenhauer. And I found something really funny. Now, I am posting this excerpt, but this is not to say he didn’t say lots of cool stuff, too. Anyway, here it is:
Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long; a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, “man”. One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.
My two cents? I disagree. But hey, he’s a famous philosopher! Also, one of my kids, when he was a baby, only would fall asleep if, while holding him, you walked up and down the stairs. Man, that was SOOO my husband’s job. He has great thighs now. But, yeah, well, I guess I would answer Shopy’s question with “walk up and down the stairs twenty times”. (Gene Morgan had a blog post that made me think of all this, too.)
Tags: schopenhauer, Thom Jones
great article. Thom Jones wrote some good shit. Hey Baby! I always liked the Jorgensen character – the cobalt blue eyes seeing through all the bullshit of life but stepping up during the big firefight.
great article. Thom Jones wrote some good shit. Hey Baby! I always liked the Jorgensen character – the cobalt blue eyes seeing through all the bullshit of life but stepping up during the big firefight.
ha, and one of my kids would only fall asleep if i walked her around the house, sometimes down the stairs. my thighs are still flabby and sad though.
ha, and one of my kids would only fall asleep if i walked her around the house, sometimes down the stairs. my thighs are still flabby and sad though.
What happened to him? Did I lose track, or has Mr. Jones not been publishing much? I think I remember one book after Pugilist. I’m sure there is something I should know and don’t. I loved that book, though. Epilepsy. Mmm. Re: Schopenhauer- I remember liking him. But I don’t remember why. His “on women” bit I read today is retarded.
I was the worst at “sleep training”. We just did all sorts of dumb stuff in pain and desperation for years and years. Up and down the stairs, fast rocking, same song over and over, on your tit in your bed all night long, and so on. Lord, it was rough. Now? WAAH! They are so big. I have to grab them and make them hug me.
you probably liked him because besides the stupid shit, as all philosophers are wont to do, he said some cool shit, like this:
“if that veil of maya is lifted from the eyes of a man to such an extent that he no longer makes the egoistical distinction between himself and the person of others, but takes as much interest in the sufferings of other individuals as in his own, and thus is not only benevolent and charitable in the highest degree, but even ready to sacrifice his own individuality whenever several others can be saved thereby, then it follows automatically that such a man, recognizing in all beings his own true and innermost self, must also regard the endless sufferings of all that lives as his own, and thus take upon himself the pain of the whole world.”
and then said funny shit like this:
“it appears just as foolish to embalm corpses as it would be carefully to preserve our excreta.”
you probably liked him because besides the stupid shit, as all philosophers are wont to do, he said some cool shit, like this:
“if that veil of maya is lifted from the eyes of a man to such an extent that he no longer makes the egoistical distinction between himself and the person of others, but takes as much interest in the sufferings of other individuals as in his own, and thus is not only benevolent and charitable in the highest degree, but even ready to sacrifice his own individuality whenever several others can be saved thereby, then it follows automatically that such a man, recognizing in all beings his own true and innermost self, must also regard the endless sufferings of all that lives as his own, and thus take upon himself the pain of the whole world.”
and then said funny shit like this:
“it appears just as foolish to embalm corpses as it would be carefully to preserve our excreta.”
Yes! Yes! He said good stuff. And, um, it was “Christian”, in that we all suffer, we all are equal under the sun, and that recognizing that is what can change us from bad to good.
Well, you know how I feel about corpses from my “daily undertaker” piece. I am with Patrick McNally, but pro changes in the process.
I did really love Shopenhauer. But this “on women” part is not doing it for me. I forgive him. Judge a man not by his weaknesses, but by his strengths. That said, I like to be silly here of course, and here is some more women hating crap:
“Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex.”
hahaha! Someone HATED women. One of my favorite women hating things is from Edmund White, writng about meeting Foucault, and how Susan Sontag was in a room with them and he said “What is SHE doing here?” He literally couldn’t stand a woman in the same room as him. I think that was in Granta.
Shopy (I thought it was Schopenhauer, btw…) also had some FUNNY sideburns.
Fucking Foucault, that mother fucker.
I was building a novel, a novel about building, a building novel, and my first paragraph always ended with my protagonist committing matricide in an ashram. Language can only say itself, that’s Wittgenstein, who was also nuts.
I want to read Thom Jones now! Reading about him tonight, I found out that he has epilepsy, which got me to wondering about fugue states and “the will”. If the window to the world behind the representation of the world shuts down, do we cease to exist, or does existence shift into an atemporal, asyncretic mode, unrecognizable as existence, but being nonetheless, just all fucked up?
A bad concussion can leave this same feeling, that the world is not directed by the force of will, but that somehow you are made up of the same substance as everything outside of your body.
Shopy (I thought it was Schopenhauer, btw…) also had some FUNNY sideburns.
Fucking Foucault, that mother fucker.
I was building a novel, a novel about building, a building novel, and my first paragraph always ended with my protagonist committing matricide in an ashram. Language can only say itself, that’s Wittgenstein, who was also nuts.
I want to read Thom Jones now! Reading about him tonight, I found out that he has epilepsy, which got me to wondering about fugue states and “the will”. If the window to the world behind the representation of the world shuts down, do we cease to exist, or does existence shift into an atemporal, asyncretic mode, unrecognizable as existence, but being nonetheless, just all fucked up?
A bad concussion can leave this same feeling, that the world is not directed by the force of will, but that somehow you are made up of the same substance as everything outside of your body.
Jonesy wrote at least one more collection called “Cold Snap”. Meh. Not bad, maybe one or two good stories that resonated. I haven’t seen him since.
Jonesy wrote at least one more collection called “Cold Snap”. Meh. Not bad, maybe one or two good stories that resonated. I haven’t seen him since.
His epilepsy figured very much into his world view and sort of bleeds all over some of the stories. I think he got it from being a boxer. I’m 90 percent certain on that, even if it was fifteen years ago or whatever when I was digging into his work.
Yes, Cold Snap. I bought that, read it. Gosh, long ago, though, right?
His epilepsy figured very much into his world view and sort of bleeds all over some of the stories. I think he got it from being a boxer. I’m 90 percent certain on that, even if it was fifteen years ago or whatever when I was digging into his work.
Yes, Cold Snap. I bought that, read it. Gosh, long ago, though, right?
i am finding it difficult to come to a judgment on this quote. i don’t know.
at first glance the quote appears to be misogynistic. i mean it is obvious this guy is suffering from some chauvinistic asshole syndrome. the last part of the quote is what i’m having difficulties with.
he is saying women are superior to men. that is not a misogynistic statement at all.
i also find his choice of words interesting. he starts out using ‘women’ but that last sentence he uses ‘girl’.
i don’t know. this is a confusing quote.
children are funny. i had a great mental picture of pr’s husband clinging to a tiny bbaby while striding up and down a flight of stairs. my son would only fall asleep if i drove him around for a protracted period of time. gas was cheap back then. thank god.
i am finding it difficult to come to a judgment on this quote. i don’t know.
at first glance the quote appears to be misogynistic. i mean it is obvious this guy is suffering from some chauvinistic asshole syndrome. the last part of the quote is what i’m having difficulties with.
he is saying women are superior to men. that is not a misogynistic statement at all.
i also find his choice of words interesting. he starts out using ‘women’ but that last sentence he uses ‘girl’.
i don’t know. this is a confusing quote.
children are funny. i had a great mental picture of pr’s husband clinging to a tiny bbaby while striding up and down a flight of stairs. my son would only fall asleep if i drove him around for a protracted period of time. gas was cheap back then. thank god.
I think he is saying women are more suited for child raising than men, so in that sense superior, but I think the underlying thing he is saying is that that’s all they are suited for.
These are interesting on women quotes. Are they collected somewhere? Shopenhauer seems like a rational fellow.
I think he is saying women are more suited for child raising than men, so in that sense superior, but I think the underlying thing he is saying is that that’s all they are suited for.
These are interesting on women quotes. Are they collected somewhere? Shopenhauer seems like a rational fellow.
My son? Back then? Is this a different Jereme? I am confused. Are you not my Jereme? Anyway. I have to put this out there again:
“Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex.”
He hated to even LOOK at women. Think about that.
My son? Back then? Is this a different Jereme? I am confused. Are you not my Jereme? Anyway. I have to put this out there again:
“Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex.”
He hated to even LOOK at women. Think about that.
This quote is even less straight-forward to me than the other one. Is hating to look at women worse than hating women? Isn’t he in a sense not hating women, but hating the inherent objectification of women by men by saying this? Maybe people don’t make a distinction? I don’t see it so much as he hates looking at women, he hates the cloudiness of his intellect that happens as a result of looking at women.
I like what he is saying here, it’s actually really fascinating. That a woman’s sexually is dependent on a male’s sexual drive to consider it so, but absent that drive, a woman is unaesthetic. I don’t know that I agree with it but it’s interesting at least ‘think about it.’ I certainly don’t jump to an obvious conclusion of ‘HE HATES TO LOOK AT WOMEN!’ because I am trying to ‘think about it.’ Although you’re probably smarter than I am.
I kind of want to see the context this quote is sitting in. Are these quotes collected somewhere?
This quote is even less straight-forward to me than the other one. Is hating to look at women worse than hating women? Isn’t he in a sense not hating women, but hating the inherent objectification of women by men by saying this? Maybe people don’t make a distinction? I don’t see it so much as he hates looking at women, he hates the cloudiness of his intellect that happens as a result of looking at women.
I like what he is saying here, it’s actually really fascinating. That a woman’s sexually is dependent on a male’s sexual drive to consider it so, but absent that drive, a woman is unaesthetic. I don’t know that I agree with it but it’s interesting at least ‘think about it.’ I certainly don’t jump to an obvious conclusion of ‘HE HATES TO LOOK AT WOMEN!’ because I am trying to ‘think about it.’ Although you’re probably smarter than I am.
I kind of want to see the context this quote is sitting in. Are these quotes collected somewhere?
I tried to fix my spelling mistakes. Thanks for pointing it out.
I found it. It’s here
I found it. It’s here
Thom Jones is one of my favorite writers, and have been meaning to read Schopenhauer for years for that very reason. And (I hang my head) have not! Maybe this will give me a push in that direction.
All three of his story collections are tremendous. Saw him read from his last one, “Sonny Liston Is a Friend of Mine” at the Hungry Mind bookstore in St. Paul when I was an undergrad. Very funny — he read an odd story about a guy trying to breed some, like, “super mice.”
As far as his absence from the scene these days, my understanding is that his health problems may be a part of it (this is only hearsay, so take it with a grain of salt).
Any case, I wish him all best for the selfish reason that I would really very much like to have another collection from him.
Thom Jones is one of my favorite writers, and have been meaning to read Schopenhauer for years for that very reason. And (I hang my head) have not! Maybe this will give me a push in that direction.
All three of his story collections are tremendous. Saw him read from his last one, “Sonny Liston Is a Friend of Mine” at the Hungry Mind bookstore in St. Paul when I was an undergrad. Very funny — he read an odd story about a guy trying to breed some, like, “super mice.”
As far as his absence from the scene these days, my understanding is that his health problems may be a part of it (this is only hearsay, so take it with a grain of salt).
Any case, I wish him all best for the selfish reason that I would really very much like to have another collection from him.
pr yes it’s the same jereme.
i have an 11 year old son. i don’t normally talk about him. i don’t want him part of this petty world of word and ego.
i love him very much.
pr yes it’s the same jereme.
i have an 11 year old son. i don’t normally talk about him. i don’t want him part of this petty world of word and ego.
i love him very much.
Mark- nice comment. I lost track of him. Maybe I will get this Sonny Liston book, so thanks. You should check out Schopenhauer if you are Thom Jones fan. I put silly quotes here, but like Keith pointed out, he writes some truly great stuff.
I will indeed check out the Schopenhauer. Am woefully ignorant about many of the major philosophers, so 2009 is my year to get a bit of a toe-hold. Am reading NIetzsche’s “On the Geneology of Morals” right now and imagine it to be similar to whatever awaits in the Schopenhauer — viz., incredible cross-cutting genius mixed with madness and humor, the latter two in varying — and tough-to-gauge — ratios of “I intended this to be funny/crazy-sounding” and “I’m a pure-D fucking lunatic.”
Reading OTGOM it’s pretty apparent why Thomas Bernhard’s narrator’s are Nieztsche fans, and the crazy cited above makes the link to Schopenhauer pretty clear, too. Here’s a quote from Bernhard I’ve always loved:
“”People keep a dog and are ruled by this dog, and even Schopenhauer was ruled in the end not by his head, but by his dog. Fundamentally it was not Schopenhauer’s head that determined his thought, but Schopenhauer’s dog. I don’t have to be demented to assert that Schopenhauer had a dog on his shoulders and not a head.””
I will indeed check out the Schopenhauer. Am woefully ignorant about many of the major philosophers, so 2009 is my year to get a bit of a toe-hold. Am reading NIetzsche’s “On the Geneology of Morals” right now and imagine it to be similar to whatever awaits in the Schopenhauer — viz., incredible cross-cutting genius mixed with madness and humor, the latter two in varying — and tough-to-gauge — ratios of “I intended this to be funny/crazy-sounding” and “I’m a pure-D fucking lunatic.”
Reading OTGOM it’s pretty apparent why Thomas Bernhard’s narrator’s are Nieztsche fans, and the crazy cited above makes the link to Schopenhauer pretty clear, too. Here’s a quote from Bernhard I’ve always loved:
“”People keep a dog and are ruled by this dog, and even Schopenhauer was ruled in the end not by his head, but by his dog. Fundamentally it was not Schopenhauer’s head that determined his thought, but Schopenhauer’s dog. I don’t have to be demented to assert that Schopenhauer had a dog on his shoulders and not a head.””
I keep meaning to read more Bernhard. That quote is fantastic. There was this interview with him where he is beyond funny. And, well, dismissive. I’m glad I wasn’t interviewing him. At one point he said, “do you mind if I keep reading the paper?” Or something like that. My husband and I read the interview out loud to each other, cracking up. He’s a genuis.
My friend recently entitled a painting, ‘What the Dents In Your Head Can Tell Us.”
I liked it more when it was Shopenhauer, pr.
My friend recently entitled a painting, ‘What the Dents In Your Head Can Tell Us.”
I liked it more when it was Shopenhauer, pr.
mark, it might be helpful, when reading schopenhaur and nietzsche, to keep in mind that nietz is in large part a reaction/response to schop’s pessimism (life is suffering) and nihilism as salvation. nietz takes schop’s will (as the metaphysical ground) and attempts to transmute it through the individual. if you want to talk more about it, shoot me an email. both have had an impact on me. they’re good stuff.
mark, it might be helpful, when reading schopenhaur and nietzsche, to keep in mind that nietz is in large part a reaction/response to schop’s pessimism (life is suffering) and nihilism as salvation. nietz takes schop’s will (as the metaphysical ground) and attempts to transmute it through the individual. if you want to talk more about it, shoot me an email. both have had an impact on me. they’re good stuff.
Is there a way to become a content writer for the site?
Is there a way to become a content writer for the site?