Philosophising à la de Botton: Hamideh Bahreini, Reza Bahrami, Kaveh Behbahani and Iman Fani

Ordinary people have always been distant from philosophy and deprived of its beauties, and no one thought of expressing philosophical concepts in simple language. One of those who has made many efforts in this field is Alain de Botton. The Swiss philosopher and writer whose books have greatly aided this process and who has always sought an answer to the most important questions of human life. From the series “According to the School of Alain de Botton,” three books have so far been published by Kargadan Publishing: “Seven Emotional Skills for Living Well,” “What Is Culture For?” and “Taming Capitalism.”

The weekly Book City session on Tuesday, June 20, 2023, was dedicated to analyzing and examining philosophizing in the style of de Botton, which was held with the presence of Hamideh Bahreini and Reza Bahrami at the Book City Cultural Center located on Shahid Beheshti Street, Shahid Ahmad Qasir (Bucharest) Street, at the corner of the third alley. Iman Fani and Kaveh Behbahani also sent their speeches as audio files for this session.

.

---

.

Full video of this session + speakers Kaveh Behbahani and Iman Fani Watch on YouTube | Watch on Aparat

.

Full audio of this session + speakers Kaveh Behbahani and Iman Fani Listen on Anchor | Spotify | Castbox

.

---

.

De Botton, Child of Modernity

Report by Ghazaleh Sadr-Monouchehri on the session “Philosophizing in the Style of de Botton”

So far, three titles—“Seven Emotional Skills for Living Well,” “What Is Culture For?” and “Taming Capitalism”—from “The School of Life” series have been published by Kargadan Publishing. On this occasion, the weekly Book City session on Tuesday, June 20, was dedicated to analyzing and examining philosophizing in the style of de Botton. This session was held with the presence of Hamideh Bahreini and Reza Bahrami, and the remote participation of Iman Fani (Australia) and Kaveh Behbahani (Shiraz).

Cultivating Emotional Intelligence with the Help of Culture

Ali-Asghar Mohammadkhani

Unlike Western and Eastern philosophers who usually express philosophical issues in a very difficult and complex manner, Alain de Botton, the writer, philosopher, and founder of “The School of Life” in London, strives to express philosophical concepts in his works in a very simple language. He mostly analyzes and explains philosophy in everyday life. For this reason, the titles of “The School of Life” books are also, in a way, related to human issues in everyday life.

To express his views and philosophy, Alain de Botton sometimes uses the format of stories, sometimes humor, and even essays. He is also known as a good philosophical essayist. Also, traces of psychology can be seen in his works. His main goal is to make philosophy practical, and he pursues this through the simple expression of philosophical issues. De Botton wrote his first book at the age of 24, titled “Essays in Love,” and published it in 1993. This book quickly made the bestseller list and sold about two million copies. In Iran, various publishers and translators have undertaken the task of translating his works, and many of his books have been translated into Persian, such as “The Course of Love,” “Art as Therapy,” “The Consolations of Philosophy,” and “Status Anxiety.”

De Botton himself describes the aim of the "School of Life" series as follows: "The aim of the School of Life series is to cultivate emotional intelligence through culture. We believe that a range of our most serious problems result from a lack of self-knowledge, empathy, and connection. Our activities take place in ten centers around the world, including London, Amsterdam, Seoul, and Melbourne. Holding classes, offering therapeutic services, and producing a series of products in the field of psychology are among our other activities. The School of Life publishing house publishes works on the most important issues of contemporary cultural and emotional life. The basis for publishing titles is to provide entertainment, education, consolation, and transformation in the lives of readers."

Some people call Alain de Botton's works yellow philosophy and believe that his works are not very strong in the field of philosophy. Something like those literary or psychology works that are very far from the academic level and are called yellow. But can de Botton's works really be placed in the category of yellow works in the field of philosophy? Is it because philosophical concepts were initially expressed in a different way that we have also assumed these are not philosophical and that a text must necessarily be complex to be considered a serious work?

De Botton's Pause in Our Lives

Hamideh Bahreini

Speaking about de Botton is both easy and difficult. One of the reasons for its difficulty is our half-acquaintance with him. In my opinion, de Botton's philosophy cannot be called yellow philosophy. The essence of philosophy is precisely these philosophical pauses of his on concepts. But there is a cultural presupposition that reinforces the notion of these works being yellow. That is, in our culture, we are accustomed to considering something deep only if it is abstruse, complex, or mysterious, and this is an obstacle to accepting de Botton among philosophers.

If we do not recognize de Botton's format and genre, we might expect him to speak like the commentators of idealism or analytical philosophers in order to accept him in the world of philosophy. Of course, I will explain that de Botton can be placed among metaphysical philosophers, but if we take the question of philosophy's function to the field of the history of philosophy, then we observe that at the beginning of the history of philosophy, philosophy is the body of knowledge, and one cannot do anything but philosophize. In the Renaissance period, this flavor of philosophy still exists, and Newton's language is considered philosophical language, and here too our question is answered. Furthermore, the founding of science is also with philosophy, and if there is no philosophy, the foundations of the sciences will also collapse. But in modern centuries, philosophy is no longer in the humanities, nor in mathematics, art, or the empirical sciences. Here a more serious question arises: What do philosophers do? Do they untie knots or tie them?

Philosopher: Obstacle-maker or Knot-untier?

It seems de Botton has taken this question seriously and, with an attachment to the philosophers of the first and middle ages, especially Socrates, Epicurus, Michel de Montaigne, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Seneca, places the hand of this wisdom in the hand of modern man and mediates between our reason and emotion. He places the hand of past wisdom in the hand of modern man, because he is a child of modernity and knows it well and is its critic, but neither sullenly nor with a condescending gaze.

Most of the time, people in philosophy look down upon those interested in philosophy and metaphysics, and if we ask them what philosophy is good for, they look at us with contempt, as if to say, "Isn't it obvious?!" This is why, if we were on a storm-tossed ship and a doctor, engineer, musician, or someone skilled in organization were beside us, their presence would be calming and valuable, but we would prefer not to approach the sullen, contemptuous philosopher and might even fear him. In this context, de Botton is that philosopher who has taken the question of philosophy's function seriously and wants to share the wisdom he has grasped with the human being caught up in haste and restlessness, who has a life full of knots, even if he denies the need for that pause. Therefore, in my opinion, de Botton's pause in our lives and his effort to assist us amidst this turmoil is highly commendable.

The Circle of Philosophy and De Botton in the Form of a Friend

De Botton considers philosophy as it is employed by Socrates, Epicurus, and Seneca, and tries to tell us too that pleasure differs from what hedonists say about it. He seeks a friend, an examined life, and wisdom in life, and these create pleasure for him. Moreover, he can also enter the circle of philosophers like Socrates and the Sophists, because he unveils concepts that seem familiar to us, but he reminds us that we do not understand them correctly.

If we recognize Alain de Botton's format and genre, he opens up his own space. If we remove those cultural barriers that prefer people to speak obscurely and not be friendly, Alain de Botton appears in the guise of a friend. Based on what I have said, I can open the circle of philosophy to someone like de Botton, who describes his work as interdisciplinary and himself as indebted to and interested in Socratic philosophers.

A group believes that philosophy is metaphysics and closes the circle, not letting others in. But if we take philosophy to mean that it "neither sows seeds nor reaps a harvest," Alain de Botton plows the soil of our minds. I recommend reading the book "Seven Emotional Skills for Living Well" slowly. De Botton's books require pause, just as philosophy fundamentally requires pause and must be read slowly and dialogued with. These books are full of points that, due to their extreme simplicity and obviousness, we do not pay attention to, and I think one of the tasks of philosophy is to reopen these obvious things for us.

They say de Botton repeats himself a lot. I don't think this is a bad thing. De Botton knows that modern humans want to achieve everything with speed and lack patience, but some things must be repeated to sink in for us. Also, some call these writings motivational. I accept this. But we must admit that we all, under certain circumstances, need to hear a motivational word. At the same time, in this book, I saw places where de Botton maintained his boundary with obscurantism and slipping into simple motivational talk, and near these boundaries, he gives a timely reminder.

From Generosity in Love to the Reasons for Lying

In addition to being interested in the titles of this book, "Seven Emotional Skills for Living Well," I was curious about what Alain de Botton wanted to say about politeness and truthfulness. I thought to myself that perhaps love or decision-making might be somewhat problematic for us, but so much has been said about self-love that it has become trite and there is nothing left to say. But de Botton analyzes these subjects in such a layered way that it is worth the time. He is a child of modernity and knows the modern human, seeing them completely as human. Therefore, without reproach and completely empathetically, he sits beside us to tell us what happens to us in love. For example, in "On Love," he asks us to strengthen our moral imagination regarding love. When we become involved in emotion, we should be mindful that our beloved is not the sum of all goodness and, like us, has weaknesses. Apart from this, love fundamentally means being generous and giving. He believes that our adult self has not grown much. Therefore, we must pay attention that when a person in a romantic relationship exhibits inappropriate behavior, we should be mindful that they too are grappling with problems that, if we trace them, lead back to their childhood, where they wanted to be caressed.

Bahreini went on to speak about de Botton's intelligent references, for example, to the importance of the non-material aspect of charity or generosity, the back of the mind of a polite person and a blunt person, ways to strengthen the inner voice, the reasons for lying, emotional health in childhood, the necessity of bringing together foresight, risk-taking, and gut instinct in the decision-making process, and accepting oneself in the book "Seven Emotional Skills for Living Well."

Philosophy Does Not Sit on Olympus

Reza Bahrami

Orhan Pamuk, long before receiving the Nobel Prize, said in an interview that although his books now have considerable print runs, he would like to write for even more people. It is a value to be able to convey our words, however deep and weighty, to the ears of more people and have a greater impact on their lives. In my view, this does not mean becoming superficial. Bringing philosophy to the people, or bringing the people into philosophy, has been its core idea since the beginning of philosophy and the formation of philosophical schools. De Botton brings philosophy, and consequently the act of thinking, down from its Olympian position and into human life—that is, to the very place it belongs. A significant part of de Botton's work is to declare, explain, and draw on philosophers, artists, and their works to show that philosophy fundamentally does not have an Olympian position and is not beyond the mythical Mount Qaf.

A possible misunderstanding about de Botton and his work is that he wants to decode philosophy, or those wise sayings and complex meanings of life written in the difficult language of philosophers or expressed in an enigmatic manner, and, like Prometheus who stole fire from the gods and brought it to humanity, deliver philosophy into the hands of ordinary people in daily life. I don't think so. In my opinion, de Botton's most important effort is to show that thinking, independent judgment, and having independent, individual failures and successes are not robes tailored only for the stature of a select few; ordinary people can and should learn the process of learning, the process of failing, and the reason for and importance of compassion for themselves and the world, and ultimately, perhaps with a slight probability, they might even grasp the meaning of success and its process. This, I think, is praiseworthy for all people and should happen for all of them.

Believe me, we are equal!

One of de Botton's main ideas in his works is that today, given the tools and advances in science and health, we are living in the best era for humanity: the most comfortable and peaceful era. But he immediately critiques this and adds that we are, in fact, in the worst human condition, because staying free from anxiety and remaining calm in this situation is practically becoming impossible. He shows that society, with all its communication tools such as newspapers, the internet, and social networks, tells people they deserve the best lives and that there are no obstacles on their path to success and happiness. He says society no longer has that class-based, lord-and-serf structure, everyone enjoys equal opportunities, and justice has been established. Society, in various ways, inculcates in us that we are in an equal situation and now everyone can choose what to become and what position to hold in society—in a word, to achieve their dreams. The result is that if we do not succeed, the reason is solely and exclusively ourselves! In reality, by promoting an important subject and an excellent concept like justice and stretching it in practice, society inflicts anxiety upon people. The proposition that we are all equal creates a situation in which everyone becomes responsible for events that are not even within their control.

In previous societies, there were certain things, and people were dealt with more honestly than today. There was not the comfort and ease of today, but matters like fate and fortune simplified life, whereas now these are absent. There is no longer anything in the puzzle of our lives onto which we can shift the blame, and this is difficult. In the Middle Ages, a poor person or someone of lower social status was called unfortunate, meaning they had not benefited from fortune, whereas today such a person is called a "loser," as if they failed in an equal competition. This creates many problems. As Durkheim's studies show, in societies where excessive value is placed on individuality, suicide rates increase; that is, enduring such anxiety is difficult for a person.

Accident, luck, and inequality

It must be understood that a large part of what happens in the world is beyond our control. This is the very slogan repeated in many addiction-recovery NGOs, and it is with this humble perspective that they have managed to save many lives: “God, grant me the strength to change what I can and to accept what I cannot change.” Despite our great advances, we need to consider something other than the human as our hero. Because an equal playing field leads us to the view that if someone has reached such a position or achieved such great successes, they deserve it and it is solely the result of their own effort and merit; and conversely, we must say that those who are in a low position or unsuccessful for any reason deserve their fate, and anyone who has suffered a failure and could not get past it at a suitable pace and return to their previous state is a loser; that is, they did not deserve to win.

De Botton tries to show us that chance plays a decisive role in people’s success or failure. Accepting and understanding this issue is another one of the intellectual projects he pursues. He wants to tell people that you are not supposed to be ideal in everything. He even redefines the meaning of being ordinary and strips it of the borrowed humiliation and shame imposed on this position, so that people can achieve personal satisfaction with themselves, with their mistakes and even their failures, and possibly their successes.

Tragedy as a Salve

Another important project that De Botton pursues is empathy. After identifying the problem of general dissatisfaction and understanding the reason for this existential anxiety and the consequent depression and unpleasantness gripping contemporary humans, he seeks out suggested paths. De Botton never, like self-help gurus and writers of positive-thinking and success books, seeks to prescribe a single formula for all the problems and sorrows of all people. He does exactly the opposite, and with tools from the treasure trove of ages of human knowledge and culture, deliberately confronts the audience with the harsh, dark, difficult, cruel, and sad side of life. It is unfair to assume that everything in life is provided for us and we just need the nerve and the knack to use it, or that life is an entirely fair race and competition, and our surroundings are full of beautiful landscapes and worldly blessings and every good and energizing thing from which we must simply draw energy and ideas and certainly win the race. De Botton uses tragedy as a salve to treat this unseen wound. The point is that one can lose, yet live a meaningful and valuable life, be influential, and even enjoy it. De Botton’s point is that if we extract the source of pleasure from among society’s expectations and its advertising slogans, we might be able to reach what our hearts truly desire.

What Should Be Done with Fake Success?

He says somewhere: “Not achieving your dreams and desires is upsetting enough, but what is more upsetting is when you achieve your dream, touch it, taste it, and then realize that this was not what you really wanted.” Failure can be justified, it can even be valued, and sometimes one can grieve over it, but what can be done with fake success? In his book “What is Culture For?”, De Botton uses various manifestations of culture to remind us of an important subject. Before saying how one can have a blissful life, he tells us what the meaning of bliss has been in different eras and how bliss has manifested at the peaks of culture and art in each period. He then reconciles us with failure, shame, and sorrow. He reminds us of our human condition and tells us how to place our darknesses, disappointments, mistakes, and failures within this human condition and restore the dignified place of failure and shame to our human character. In this way, he tries to restore self-esteem, a meaningful life, and a little happiness to our ordinary but valuable lives.

These topics are roughly the main lines of the book. If we wanted to provide a manifesto for The School of Life, I think this book could be both its most concise and, in a way, its most complete manifesto.

So That You Do Not Go Cruel and Mad in This Trap of Affliction

Iman Fani

Over the past few years, during which I have translated nearly three hundred video essays from Alain de Botton’s “The School of Life,” I have encountered a variety of reactions that can broadly be divided into two categories: a large group found these materials very illuminating, but a smaller, yet significant, group also found the content fresh and interesting, though their objection was that this material is of no use for Iran, and that its social and philosophical content, in particular, is too chic, pacifist, and conciliatory, and that given our circumstances, we cannot fully connect with it.

Philosophy for Our Betters

Broadly speaking, there are two views on studying and following philosophy and philosophical material. One view holds that philosophy is a sport or pastime for transcendent souls. In fact, it is for those who have free time and are lighthearted. It is something like golf, or chess, or horseback riding, and suits someone like Edward FitzGerald, who could sit in a garden and translate poems from an unknown Eastern language without worrying about income or livelihood. There are many reasons why we might, at least subconsciously, look at philosophy in this way and from this perspective.

Think for a moment about the images that the subject of philosophy conjures up in your mind. Off the top of my head, two or three come to me: one is Jacques-Louis David’s famous painting of the execution (trial) of Socrates, in which Socrates holds the cup of hemlock as if he were Napoleon taking the crown from the Pope’s hands to place on his own head; another scene is of Nietzsche, snatching the whip from the coachman’s hand and, weeping, holding the horse’s head, saying: “I understand you”; another scene is of Diogenes. Alexander stands over him and says, “Ask something of me,” and Diogenes replies: “Please step aside. You are blocking the sun.”

In all these scenes, we are dealing with a philosopher who is certain of having reached a conclusion, knows what he is doing, and whose existence and presence is a silent masterpiece. Perhaps it is these very mentalities and associations that create the view for us that philosophy is for our betters and for another world and other circumstances. But at the same time, another image can also be brought to mind. When Alain de Botton speaks of philosophy, he has this one more in mind: the image of Zeno. The swarthy Cypriot merchant whose ship was wrecked off the coast of Athens and who, without any acquaintances, friends, money, or companions, wandered lost in the Agora (the marketplace of Athens), and according to the story, subsequently came across a book about Socrates, became interested in philosophy from there, and ultimately became a teacher and perhaps the founder of Stoic philosophy.

Here we are dealing with a different emotional-cognitive world. Zeno is not a curious person who sat down at his leisure and wanted to discover the truths of the universe. We are dealing with someone whose plans have come to naught and whose ships have sunk, and in a sense, his secure world, his cognitive world, has been destroyed, and now he wants to know what happened and what is to be done. This is an entirely different approach to philosophy.

Philosophy, in this view, is a second attempt to understand a world that, in the first attempt, sorely wounded the knower. Philosophy is a plan B. In the first attempt, we were told something, given a map, had a means of transport, and were sailing this ocean of life when suddenly something happened, and then philosophy, like a voice in the marketplace, drew us in at our deepest level because we had no plan. If we could have brought the ship to shore, we would have told the workers to unload the cargo, haggled over the tip, taken our purple fabrics to the warehouse, paid the storage fee, and finally delivered them to the aristocratic class to wear as a mark of distinction. And in that case, we would never have heard the names of Zeno and Stoic philosophy. But since the sea is always turbulent and full of ships, there is always someone who opens their eyes to see their ships at the bottom of the ocean and needs a stratagem so as not to become cruel and mad in this snare of affliction until the very last moment. This is the second definition of philosophy: a skill and stratagem for not becoming cruel and mad in this snare of affliction until the very last moment, or a second attempt to understand a world that, in the first attempt, sorely wounded the knower.

The Secret of Its Renewed Popularity

Why has this philosophy, of which Alain de Botton is one of its proponents, become popular again in the twentieth century? One reason is that in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, philosophers were generally philosophers of conquest, triumph, and intervention. When Marx says, “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it,” this is not merely his own view and perspective. The philosophers of capitalism, and even the psychologists and sociologists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, held the same view and wanted to devise a new scheme. In contrast, the most important concern of classical philosophy, and among classical ideas, of Stoic philosophy, is the problem of “control.” To what extent can nature, the world, and complexity be controlled and conquered? Whether a calm sea is the result of human policy, astuteness, and prudence, or could be a stroke of good luck. For this reason, many of the subjects that Alain de Botton is interested in within philosophy, social issues, and psychology involve the analysis of phenomena that we have so far only criticized.

When de Botton praises anonymity or quiet, uncelebrated lives and not becoming famous, it seems like a return to a philosophical perspective older than the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In fact, Alain de Botton’s philosophy is a praise of classicism and a critique of romanticism and strong interventionism. The idea that as soon as we see something, we immediately say it belongs to the past and is wrong, and we must change it.

If the sea were still calm and the state of civilization were favorable, perhaps we would never have turned to the melancholic image of that young Cypriot, bewildered and dumbfounded in the Agora. The reason that Stoic philosophy, or ideas like essentialism or minimalism, have gained so many adherents now is the zeitgeist and the current conditions of the world, but Alain de Botton’s ideas have another aspect as well, and that is attention to the past, childhood traumas, and their repetition in the present, which is perhaps the aspect of Alain de Botton that most people know and the reason they follow him.

Philosophy-based psychotherapy is not based on the Eureka moment!

In this regard, there is a divide among people in society. One group is truly unaware of their own history and how it affects, plays a role in, and is repeated in their present. I think for them, these books and these areas of Alain de Botton’s work can be very illuminating. Another group has an obsessive preoccupation with the issue of their parents, patterns, and schemas, and they worship and deepen the wounds of their childhood, searching day and night in their behavior for the patterns of their childhood and parents. Obsessive thinking is not good in any area; in this area too, given the narrative that ensnares people within it, it may not be very illuminating.

Interestingly, in psychology, those therapeutic schools that have proven scientific effects, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (RET), or Existential therapy, all have roots in philosophy, especially Stoic philosophy. That is, I wish someone who pursues psychology would give more weight and credence to its philosophical aspect and not remain solely in classical psychoanalysis and the story of childhood wounds. In the midst of this, there is a subtle point: when a person finds the root of their crises and problems in something outside themselves, a kind of feeling of peace of mind, delegation of authority, or abdication of responsibility comes over them, which is comforting and perhaps draws a person toward it. Whereas Stoic philosophy and philosophy-based psychotherapies require practice. Without practice, without reflection on bad events and the occasional turbulences of the ocean, Stoic philosophy does not work. This philosophy is not of the nature of mere cognition; it requires cognition and work. Therefore, in this world that becomes more unpredictable every day and conditions become harder in many respects, or at least change, pursuing this branch of philosophy with its humble and non-heroic approach is, in my opinion, a necessity. Knowingly or unknowingly, this is the reason for Alain de Botton’s popularity.

The de Bottonian Promise and Covenant of Philosophy

It seems to me that the harder conditions become and the more complex the outlook for human civilization grows, the greater the need for this second approach to philosophy. But if philosophy is merely the pastime of lofty souls who have free time and a cheerful heart, then in this calamity-ridden world philosophy will actually fade into obscurity, whereas practical philosophy and philosophy as a skill will emerge and even overtake academic and classical psychology. Because it is more accessible, has proven itself over centuries, and is in tune with the spirit of the age. I do not want to claim that this philosophy will become unrivaled; on the contrary, schools of anger and cries demanding change from all sides will grow simultaneously. But if one is somewhat aware of the complexity of the situation, one cannot be very confident or expect that current generations will experience better conditions in the coming decades. The present crises do not promise a calm, blue ocean for civilization. Therefore, we must wish for, and arrive at, the insight that we cannot change everything in the external world and must find within ourselves the courage and strength to confront it. This is the promise and covenant of philosophy, in the direction of which I believe Alain de Botton has taken steps.

Philosopher Without an Aura

Kaveh Behbahani

The nature of de Botton's philosophizing has made him popular and his works widely read. In this space, I will speak of the conditions under which de Botton philosophizes and how he moved from a correct diagnosis to broad public favor. To do this, I will review three images from three thinkers of the modern world, who are not in chronological historical order.

First Image: Max Weber and Science as a Vocation

Max Weber, the important contemporary German sociologist, has two very significant essays titled "Politics as a Vocation" and "Science as a Vocation." In the latter, he presents an image of the modern world that is crucial for understanding the conditions of de Botton's philosophizing. The English translation of the book's title renders the German "Berufung" as "vocation," which leads us to conclude that in Persian "پیشه" (pisheh) is a more precise equivalent. Because this German word implies more than just a job or profession. The word also has a spiritual dimension or a kind of spiritual mission; that is, a sort of inner calling that steers the individual toward that vocation.

In this essay, Max Weber argues that in the modern world, "instrumental reason" prevails, and there is no longer any sign of that grand plan that religion had in mind for people, where everyone moved within a single, overall scheme toward a general end, and the world was a struggle between two fronts: the Merciful and the Devil. In today's secularized world, when that grand plan is dead and instrumental, capitalist reason rules and thinking is supposed to be scientific, human values have become "polytheistic." In such conditions, to describe what has happened to beliefs in the modern world, Max Weber uses the term "polytheism," which carries religious and theological connotations. This means that there is no longer a unified narrative for giving meaning to life or finding an end for life, and we are faced with a multitude of ends from which the human/subject must choose. Consequently, some philosophers call this the "death of the end." It is as if we are abandoned in a world where monotheism has ended and we now face many gods. Weber says this is precisely what has happened in the sphere of values.

In this article, comparing German students with American students in the first decade of the twentieth century, he concludes that the German student genuinely learns more than the American student, because the university exerts greater pressure on the German student and compels him to learn more, and also because the German student’s conception of the professor is entirely different from that of the American student. The German student imagines that the professor will provide him with a complete worldview, turn his intellectual sphere upside down, and make him into a different person. In his eyes, the professor is a sage and a wise man who occupies a higher station and steers the student toward his own way of seeing the world. For this reason, the German student attaches far greater value to his education and also learns more. The American student, by contrast, sees the professor as a service job and thinks that in exchange for the money he pays the university, the professors ought to sell him their knowledge. Weber explains that this attitude also has its benefits. The American student becomes an anti-authoritarian student and is individually freer than the German student. This is the very development that I wish to call the disenchantment of professions, and in particular of the concept of the professor and the philosopher.

Image Two: The Communist Manifesto

The second image is from The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. In this manifesto, Marx and Engels make brilliant predictions. They say: “The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.” They thus describe the value-laden connotations and the sacred halo of these professions as having been torn apart. This is the very polytheism that Max Weber presented with the example of the American professor versus the German professor. Alain de Botton, too, has recognized that we live in a polytheistic world, and that the philosopher, the psychologist, and the like have been stripped of their halo.

Image Three: The Poet Who Lost His Halo

The third image emerges from one of the poems of Charles Baudelaire, the French poet renowned as the poet of the city. In his poems, he represents the new relations that the modern city has brought about in the modern capital. In a poem titled “Loss of a Halo” from the brilliant collection Paris Spleen, usually translated as Le Spleen de Paris, he depicts a conversation between a poet who has lost his halo and a common man, who have run into each other in a disreputable place in the narrow, dark alleys of the Haussmannization era and its transformed relations. The common man, astonished to meet the halo-less poet in that disreputable place, expresses his surprise, whereupon the poet explains that while crossing the boulevard his halo slipped from his head and fell into the mud. The common man advises the poet to place an advertisement and recover his halo, but the poet expresses satisfaction with his current state and says, I have no patience for dignity and decorum, and “I even get a real kick out of the thought that some bogus poet might pick it up and impudently put it on his head. What a pleasure it is to make a person happy! Even more so, to make happy a person who will make me laugh.” Here, too, in the modern metropolis, the professions that were once thought to carry a spiritual mission have been stripped of their halo.

In all three of these images, a halo has been lost. Max Weber, Marx, and before them Baudelaire all spoke of this very thing. Alain de Botton is well aware that he philosophizes in an era in which philosophy and the humanities have been disenchanted. He wishes, in this age, to bring philosophy to the intellectual sphere of a wider audience. This concern, however, is not unique to the modern world. Socrates would stand in the Athenian agora and speak with the youth of Athens, and Voltaire, in the Age of Enlightenment, was a master of popularizing philosophy. But de Botton seeks to make philosophy popular in an age when no one any longer accords the philosopher a sacred halo or a distinct rank, and the narcissism of the discipline no longer holds any sway, and I, the philosopher, am no higher than that entomologist, or athlete, or French teacher, or archaeologist.

De Botton’s Era

He lives and philosophises in an era when he knows the opportunity cost of learning is high. We live in a world where leisure is one of the most lucrative industries, and the entertainments available for it are incomparable to those of yesterday's world. De Botton knows that the market for becoming a philosopher is now slack, and the love of knowledge is far rarer. Because people can love other things instead of knowledge: the opportunity cost of learning has risen greatly.

De Botton wants to bring the apex of Maslow's pyramid into market relations. Alain de Botton wants, like Freud (as de Botton himself says) and Jacques Lacan (something I add to de Botton's statement), to make money from the top of the pyramid. Today, philosophy competes with many other things. The sacred halo around it has been torn, and in this age we must realise that we need to charge people for the useful services of our philosophising. This is de Botton's view of the matter. That is why he has no problem with advertising and branding. He focuses on content.

In accordance with what Francis Bacon says—that is, obey nature in order to command it—Alain de Botton recognises the logic of the current situation and tries to submit to it so that he can transcend it. One of the all-out opponents of commodification was Karl Marx. But if you want to disseminate his views, you have no choice but to commodify part of that very idea in the form of a pamphlet, class, lecture, or any other shape or form. In de Botton's assessment, at this juncture we have no other way. If philosophy is good and we want more minds to engage in philosophical dialogue, and for philosophical dialogue not to be solely in the hands of a few elites but for everyone to participate in this conversation—the more diverse the perspectives of the participants in these dialogues, the more beneficial it is for humanity—then it must become a commodity and be sold in the market. So people's taste must change such that they desire that commodity. In other words, we must witness the presence of entrepreneurship in philosophy. An entrepreneur in the sense of someone who offers a new product, creates a taste for it in the consumer, and establishes it.

De Botton is not vulgar!

Strangely, some Iranian thinkers accuse de Botton of being lowbrow, while we are not advanced in the humanities, and if we were to read only Proust's masterpiece In Search of Lost Time in the original language, half our lives would be spent. Yet we are dealing with a philosopher for whom this language is already realised, and who can, with effort, read these literary masterpieces of the world. By calling de Botton superficial and vulgar, our thinker is, in a way, engaging in a forward retreat.

A path to philosophy

Introducing specialised books to the general audience of philosophy (that is, someone who has not practised or read philosophy in a specialised way) is a joke that I do not know whether philosophy professors are aware of or not. In any case, there is no truth behind this phenomenon, and the audience will not connect with it. It is not fair to recommend a voluminous and difficult book like Copleston's or Routledge's history of philosophy to someone seeking insights for their work, life, or creativity. De Botton sees this gap in "The School of Life" and tries to fill it. When the general and interested audience reads any of the entries in de Botton's works, they reach a sweet understanding and perception in the shortest time and can read these books from beginning to end and apply them. We are faced with a philosopher who has a clear goal and, by understanding the logic of the situation, tries to transcend that logic and certainly attempts to grapple with this existing logic, the current state, and the established current order.

.

---

.