She's The Answer To All Your Problems

No she's not. None of them are.

Somewhere I saw Russell Brand in an interview. He said something like "In this post Christian world we look for our savior in romantic love." I think there's something to that. I've known a lot of people who think that in the first rush of love they've found the answer to all their problems... in another person. They have found "the one."

Russell Brand will be disappointed. Anybody who thinks this way will be disappointed.

Now I'm not saying that "the one" doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that "the one" is built, not found, and "the one" is a companion, not a savior.

In a world of 7 billion people I'm positive that at least 1,000,000 of them are "perfect" for you. Any one of them will do. What happens is you find one, you build a life together, and now that person is The One. You can't replace your mutual history with somebody else, especially if you meet as young adults. It's precious beyond all money.

You go through a process of deep conversion, and so does the other person, until life is unimaginable without them. As Stoics we imagine it anyway, we imagine losing this person, and this prepares us for when it happens, but there is a deep sense of permanence built over time that cannot be denied.

Even then she (or he, depending on your preference) isn't the answer to all your problems, but she is a great source of comfort, stability and joy. There is a reason why only half of us get divorced. In these times of sexual openness half of us stay married anyway. Why is that? Because marriage, for a large number of people, is a good thing. We'd call it a preferred indifferent.

So how is such a relationship built? That is a vast topic, but for starters you work on you. You develop your character, your discipline, your mercy. Help yourself first and then you can help other people, but "helping" doesn't mean "get rich." Helping yourself means developing your virtue, at least for a Stoic. That's what Aurelius was doing in his Meditations. That's what Epictetus was doing with his teaching. Epictetus especially; he achieved mastery and then he helped the people around him. He's been dead for a couple thousand years and I've never paid him a dime, but he helps me every day.

So she isn't the answer. You are.

Listen to the lyrics of this very lovely song and see if you agree with them:

I don't. It's still a nice song, though.

EDIT:

I found this quote in an interview with Hozier, who I have to say is an extremely eloquent young man. I look forward to listening to more of his work:

"Take Me to Church" is essentially about sex, but it's a tongue-in-cheek attack at organizations that would … well, it's about sex and it's about humanity, and obviously sex and humanity are incredibly tied. Sexuality, and sexual orientation — regardless of orientation — is just natural. An act of sex is one of the most human things. But an organization like the church, say, through its doctrine, would undermine humanity by successfully teaching shame about sexual orientation — that it is sinful, or that it offends God. The song is about asserting yourself and reclaiming your humanity through an act of love. Turning your back on the theoretical thing, something that's not tangible, and choosing to worship or love something that is tangible and real — something that can be experienced.

"But it's not an attack on faith. Coming from Ireland, obviously, there's a bit of a cultural hangover from the influence of the church. You've got a lot of people walking around with a heavy weight in their hearts and a disappointment, and that shit carries from generation to generation. So the song is just about that — it's an assertion of self, reclaiming humanity back for something that is the most natural and worthwhile. Electing, in this case a female, to choose a love who is worth loving."

So he views the replacement of a holy savior with his girlfriend as a "tongue-in-cheek" attack on organizations. He's not literally worshipping her. For him this song is far more about the Church than it is about a lover. That bit about worshiping or loving "something that is tangible and real" is problematic for me, but I don't think I gave the man enough credit.

So there you go!

* * *

Public domain image courtesy of the completely absorbing Public Domain Review