The Sickness Unto Academia

There was an interesting piece the other day in the New York Times titled "Kierkegaard on the Couch." The writer, himself a professional philosopher (or as Robert Pirsig named them, philosographers i.e., writers about philosophy and not philosophers themselves) argued that the despairing Dane initiated a distinction that we seem to have lost in the present age: the distinction between a psychological and a spiritual disorder. If we tell someone we are depressed, it is immediately suggested that we go to counseling and/or pick up some Prozac. But in Kierkegaard's world, someone who is in despair can actually be psychologically healthy, while the smiley faced optimist can be a classic case of real mental illness. In despair, if we approach the phenomenon properly, we come to know the true nature of the self. We may indeed simply be depressed (psychological disorder); but it is just as possible we are in despair (a spiritual malfunction).

How is all this relavant? Well, I have been having more than my share of despair these days. No doubt not having anything to do, having no structure for my days, has only exacerbated the situation. But is it only a depression that can be cured with the right career and/or other objective goods. Or is it an indication of something deeper?

At times I take the what I call "What Color is Your Parachute" approach, that is, try to come up with a career path that will utilize my capabilities and provide the sort of self-fufillment we are all after. But K's point would be that if we have a false view of the self, then fulfilling that self could do more harm than good. K's belief was that despair was a sign from our spiritual nature, a cry longing to be heard. It was one of Kierkegaard's claim that one stage of being in despair was not being conscious of being in despair. This he thought was the situation most find themselves in. We can be in despair because we have failed to achieve something (i.e., failed to be a successful academic). But it was K's belief that had we achieved that we would have been in despair as well, even worse off because the accomplishment could have prevented us from dealing with deeper spiritual issues.

This is why as tempting as it is, for me it is important not merely to jump into another task, another career. I have had a sense since leaving that there are things that really need to be dealt with and that weren't being dealt with in the daily sweep of my existence, and that if I did not deal with them now, it would soon be too late. This was the reason I left behind a reasonably fufilling and financially comfortable and secure position. This is about the only way I can make sense of my leaving. I think for me the problem with academia--the despair for lack of a better word, the emptiness--had nothing (or very little) to do with academia and much more to do with larger spiritual issues that were being neglected or not dealt with properly. Theoretically they not doubt could have been dealt with within the context of my career but for all practical purposes really required the separation I ended up making.

For Kierkegaard, to the extent that I think that finding the right career would resolve my current psychic disorder, then I am simply deluded. K would say that academia was not the cause of the psychological state I found myself in, and another career path or any other objective accomplishment will not rectify the situation. And I tend to agree with him here.

Here's the link for the piece. The comments are interesting as well,

http://happydays.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/kierkegaard-on-the-couch/?scp=1&sq=kierkegaard&st=cse