Limits of Philosophy: Desire
Limits of Philosophy: Desire
It's pretty obvious that no sentient being gets to live much past teatime without the faculty of desire. So desire certainly can't be flat out bad then. But it can go bad pretty easily, especially in the absence of any checks and balances.
I know the Stoics and the Buddhist philosophers were among those big on this topic, but these days when a person runs into problems with desire (be it too much or too little) very few consult their local philosopher. Neither marriage counselling nor rehab clinics seem to be overstaffed by philosophers. Nor do you see much philosophy on offer for those pinned between conflicting appetites for, say, both food and erotic love, or between the desire to equip a family with goods and the desire to enjoy life with them.
Why this disconnect between human desire and philosophy? Especially now desire seems now to be at the very centre of contemporary Western culture? Even more especially now the collective imperatives of desire threaten to out-consume our ecological life-support system? And let's face it, that party is not going to be fun for anyone when the music inevitably stops and the lights go back on.
Well, we could blame the sufferers for this oversight, saying those in the grip of desire are too far below the benevolent reach of philosophy. I once asked my ethics tutor why, when we have agreed on what is right and ethical, we can't just behave that way? He said Aristotle described this as a 'weakness of will', and looked at me a little reproachfully. But this seems just as unsatisfactory as a doctor blaming a patient when a cure is not forthcoming (sadly something seen all too often with the poor and mentally ill). If a weakness is at fault, surely then the task of philosophy is to examine the causes and remedies of that weakness.
Alternatively we could blame the current local culture, saying it's too materialistic to allow even the flourishing of philosophy in general. That sounds more plausible actually. But such an insight by itself is not going salve a single neurone's worth of suffering.
But a lot of the work was already done. Let's not deny we have long philosophical traditions of both rights ethics and virtue ethics - offering important checks and balances upon desire. However, the esteem of both these approaches has really plummeted over recent decades (both amongst our leadership and our general populous). And that's only the upside - more often these tools have been distorted in the service of a widespread and normalised desire fetish. We hear now of the 'right not be offended' by the discomfort of any critical objections, or how 'greed is good' is now posited as a cardinal virtue. The public library bookshelves on the subject are filled with a depressing selection of self-help snake-oil: peddling the central message that an overwhelming desire for success is the key to life's bounty.
Alas philosophy, we may have done well to have dumped the dangerouis guru-format. But surely, sometime, we've dropped a very important philosophical ball. Discouraging, I admit. But I don't propose philosophy is now quite socially redundant. God help us if it ever comes to that. For us philosophical hold-outs two questions skulk in the corners like reluctant elephants:
1. How can philosophy get its hands dirty again with the lived reality of individual desire?
2. How can philosophy influence the trajectory of a culture seemingly caught in death spiral down a vortex of desire?
It's pretty obvious that no sentient being gets to live much past teatime without the faculty of desire. So desire certainly can't be flat out bad then. But it can go bad pretty easily, especially in the absence of any checks and balances.
I know the Stoics and the Buddhist philosophers were among those big on this topic, but these days when a person runs into problems with desire (be it too much or too little) very few consult their local philosopher. Neither marriage counselling nor rehab clinics seem to be overstaffed by philosophers. Nor do you see much philosophy on offer for those pinned between conflicting appetites for, say, both food and erotic love, or between the desire to equip a family with goods and the desire to enjoy life with them.
Why this disconnect between human desire and philosophy? Especially now desire seems now to be at the very centre of contemporary Western culture? Even more especially now the collective imperatives of desire threaten to out-consume our ecological life-support system? And let's face it, that party is not going to be fun for anyone when the music inevitably stops and the lights go back on.
Well, we could blame the sufferers for this oversight, saying those in the grip of desire are too far below the benevolent reach of philosophy. I once asked my ethics tutor why, when we have agreed on what is right and ethical, we can't just behave that way? He said Aristotle described this as a 'weakness of will', and looked at me a little reproachfully. But this seems just as unsatisfactory as a doctor blaming a patient when a cure is not forthcoming (sadly something seen all too often with the poor and mentally ill). If a weakness is at fault, surely then the task of philosophy is to examine the causes and remedies of that weakness.
Alternatively we could blame the current local culture, saying it's too materialistic to allow even the flourishing of philosophy in general. That sounds more plausible actually. But such an insight by itself is not going salve a single neurone's worth of suffering.
But a lot of the work was already done. Let's not deny we have long philosophical traditions of both rights ethics and virtue ethics - offering important checks and balances upon desire. However, the esteem of both these approaches has really plummeted over recent decades (both amongst our leadership and our general populous). And that's only the upside - more often these tools have been distorted in the service of a widespread and normalised desire fetish. We hear now of the 'right not be offended' by the discomfort of any critical objections, or how 'greed is good' is now posited as a cardinal virtue. The public library bookshelves on the subject are filled with a depressing selection of self-help snake-oil: peddling the central message that an overwhelming desire for success is the key to life's bounty.
Alas philosophy, we may have done well to have dumped the dangerouis guru-format. But surely, sometime, we've dropped a very important philosophical ball. Discouraging, I admit. But I don't propose philosophy is now quite socially redundant. God help us if it ever comes to that. For us philosophical hold-outs two questions skulk in the corners like reluctant elephants:
1. How can philosophy get its hands dirty again with the lived reality of individual desire?
2. How can philosophy influence the trajectory of a culture seemingly caught in death spiral down a vortex of desire?
Comments (44)
Good questions. I think the way to influence the trajectory of a culture is first to adopt a different trajectory and then to gain the respect of others so that they will listen to you, then to rally a few followers and finally to promote your alternative way of living more widely. I have never seldom seen it done any other way. But most people don't even get to the first stage.
That was 25 years ago. I interpeted this as a slight against my hypocrisy actually. I was pretty young and making some ineffectual ado on various university boards while failing to demonstrate much ethical capacity myself. I would have happier if he had spelt it out in terms of virtue ethics (as you have) and advised me of strategies to suceed in the momumental task of living well.
I still think Aristotle, read as an answer to Plato's view, has a lot to teach us in this debate as in many others. He cuts to the quick. We know something is wrong or bad for us. We do it anyhow. Why? Well, bad habits.
You give lip service to eastern philosophies, then ignore them. The Second Noble Truth of Buddhism is "Desire and ignorance lie at the root of suffering." Maybe you don't find the eastern approach to existence and value useful, but that doesn't mean your issue is being ignored.
Even if you want to limit yourself to western philosophy, you'll find lots of discussions on the forum on the idea of will as the root of human value and authenticity in opposition to "consumer" culture of inauthenticity. Type in "kardashian" and you can read TimeLine whipping some Kantian kick-ass. I remember a thread - Being or Having - a month or so ago.
The idea of will as the source of virtue is not one I buy, but I'm in a minority here.
I'm interested in what you mean by "get its hands dirty again" -- you reference the stoics, so I think you might have something like establishing a school. But I find it hard to imagine that such a thing would be possible now.
I'm tempted to say nothing.
If we are beasts more motivated by desire than reason, and reason be the standard of philosophy, then we should expect philosophy to be ineffectual in influencing people.
It seems to me that there are two possible paths. One in which philosophers abandon philosophy in pursuit of other paths -- but then philosophy would obviously not have much influence. Or one in which philosophers rethink the bounds of philosophy to include desire in philosophical thinking.
For myself I really do like Epicurean analysis of desire and the practical life he advocates. But I sort of think that in our world now such thinking is pretty much limited to the individual -- as in, only if an individual decides to look for other answers and change themselves is philosophy going to even to begin to make headway. Philosophy is relatively weak in comparison with other means of influencing people. It's only really effective in self-reflection; which can include other people, but still requires that commitment to self-criticism and examination.
I agree that desire is not innately bad—no more, for example, than the very presence of living selves; rather, its ethical value would be contingent on that which is desired. I also very much like the way you bring up “checks and balances”. To be clear, for me this addresses a checks and balances of power among different and interacting selves; with “power” demarcated as “the ability to accomplish”, which can be further defined for sentient beings as “holding the capacity and desire to manifest at some future time (even if this future is measure in nanoseconds) that end which is desired, else wanted, else intended in the present”. Hence the brilliance of any government that can self-maintain an honest checks and balances of all powers concerned.
A truism: we all want for that which we want to be obtained as we want it obtained (no magic genies in bottles playing tricks with our wishes, kind of thing)
I think philosophy then needs to first acknowledge this truism as real, maybe even figure out some way of logically evidencing it to so be, and next figure out ways of addressing it in terms of logically derivable oughts (what should be)—such that this basic desire-impetus is optimally satisfied for, at least, the vast majority of individuals given their/our perpetual interactions with other desire-endowed beings.
But then this gets in a bunch of things that modern academic culture is not comfortable with. As a primary example, to desire/intend is to seek an end and then chose one’s actions accordingly in manners governed by the obtainment of this pursued end. More simply, it is for one’s actions to be teleologically caused by the very end which one desires to obtain. Doesn’t matter if it concerns one’s getting from a present location A to an intended location B or, more abstractly, if it concerns how to best obtain a state of personal happiness given one’s interactions with multiple others who each pursue their own personal happiness … in often very different ways. I’m here thinking of a mass murder’s happiness in obtained supremacy over others (along with a few other types of such people); this as compared to an altruistic or empathetic person’s happiness in contextual harmony found within her/his family, community, and society; this as compared to an ego-loving person’s happiness in an unending stability of personal being (like the want for the immortality of one’s own selfhood or, maybe less dramatically, in wanting their context as they know it to never change one way or another thereby never needing to change as an ego; and so forth. All these different beings interacting with each other in pursuit of their own type of idealized personal happiness.
At any rate, issues of politics aside, there’s a teleological causation at work with desire, i.e. with intention to manifest/obtain—the intention containing the goal which causes actions and goads decisions toward the goal pursued. This, of itself, doesn’t bode well with modern philosophical paradigms of reality—for this form of causation is neither amicable to causal determinism (its not fully efficient causation) nor to causal indeterminism (there must first be a determinate impetus of desire as cause in addition to some determinate end (be it mentally or metaphysically determinate) in order for teleological causation to occur—as one example, the previously offered truism is neither chosen by us to be nor can it be in any way done away with for as long as we in any way intend anything … i.e., it is a metaphysically determinate aspect of our constituency in our choosing activities in manners governed by some intended end. And to further complicate matters, some of our desires/intentions are sub/unconscious … but in order for them to be efficacious desires they too would work in the same way as conscious desires.
That’s my take at least. We need to think outside of the box in terms of things such as causation if we’re to have any hope of (1) and (2) which you address.
Quoting T Clark
Actually, other than my Philo degree my other so-called-training has been in Mahayana Buddhism via Zen. What I like do about that approach is that they actually offer practical mental exercises that can help bring desire into some balance. What I don't like about Eastern philosophies is the destructive forms they manifest after getting re-interpreted (corrupted let's say) by the cultures they move through (East and West)
Quoting Moliere
I guess you can tell I was kind of disappointed my university didn't look like Epicurus' garden
Quoting Moliere
Actually I think of both desire and philosophy as being amongst a range of vital human faculties. Likely there was never a golden age, but there seems to be an great imbalance in the culture at the moment.
Quoting Moliere
Yeah I agree, it's very weak alone. Maybe a group effort from civilisation's full faculties will be required - art, science, religion ...
Quoting javra
I'm not sure if you mean this as a description of what does happen or what should happen. Reading on, I suspect the latter. IMO much suffering has been facilitated by the ease in which we separate events into 'means' and 'ends'. This is a false dichotomy it seems to me, that fails to insulate the ends from any dubious means undertaken: The quality of the means used seems to always infuse into that of the achieved ends. Those damned roosting chickens!
I then got a bit lost in your discussion on the role of causality. Can you simplify it for me Javra?
Much obliged all
(saddles up on one of the four availble horses - the pale one I think)
:D
It could be done in a different way, just not exactly the same way -- the role of 'school' is taken and integrated into an economy which doesn't exactly value people finding happiness just requires a few simple things.
I think you could build a collective around said principles, though. You'd just have to have day jobs.
Quoting Kym
I prefer to say "shit's fucked up and bullshit" to an imbalance in culture -- it just gets straight to the point.
But I'd like to think we're saying the same things.
Quoting Kym
I sort of like the notion of rethinking the bounds of philosophy. But it would seem like the sort of thing that philosophers would have to do.
Why is desire so often opposed to reason in philosophy?
Amen to that brother
Oh; no, I was aiming for the former: that truism to me depicts the way thing are, hence is descriptive and not prescriptive.
As one relatively inconsequential example: If I want to pick up an object and I find that I can do so as I wanted without any obstructions to my achieving this, no problems for me; I may even be joyous in so doing. However, if there’s something that obstructs my desire to have the object in my hand—like someone else that pushes my hand away from the object while I’m reaching for it—then there are problems for me: frustration, or irritation … some form of unpleasant affect. I argue that this is so not because the truism I offered should be the case but because the truism I offered is the case at all times.
This truism I offered might then be a bit more debatable at face value than I first thought.
Now, I’m of course not denying the reality of often competing desires one chooses between and of the differences between short- and long-term intentions and their priorities. But I do argue that any choice made between competing desires will be itself made with a goal—hence, a desire—in mind … a goal which we want to obtain (to which I still think the offered truism applies).
Quoting Kym
I agree with the underlined sentence in the quote. But I don’t see ends and means being a false dichotomy, at least not so far. The ends are out there in the future. The means are what we do now (else plan to do in the present) so as to get to that place or even in the future.
Saying that the ends justify the means can be very misleading, with this I'd again agree. But saying that the ends limit (and/or goad) what the means can and cannot be in order for the ends to be obtained, however, to me seems rationally valid.
Quoting Kym
To better do so, where is there disagreement with this:
Quoting javra
You just need to check again on my x-ray occasionally
Yeah, it's just a lack of various god-like powers that is hampering my effectiveness to make any kind of changes really.
More lip service. Reducing eastern philosophies to "practical mental exercises" while ignoring the fact that they represent a metaphysics in some ways in exact opposition to those represented in western approaches. Will versus awareness. Aggrandizement versus surrender of self. A case could be made that the problems of desire you describe are a result of too much will.
Seems to me that you and @Kym are using the word "desire" in two different ways. First, desire as "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." This is the type of desire the Buddhists are talking about, the kind I thought Kym was referring to in the original post; the kind that leads to consumerism, alienation, and environmental degradation. But you're also using to mean intentions, motivations, and goals. Completely different things. In a sense, opposites.
Ideally, I don't eat because I desire food. I eat because I'm hungry. My body has signaled to me it needs food. On the other hand, I often eat out of desire, not hunger. The desire has nothing to do with responding to my body's nutritional needs. It fulfills some other need tied up with longing and fantasy.
One of the reasons I'm fond of Epicurus is because of his tripartite division of desire -- what is natural and necessary, what is natural and unnecessary, and what is unnatural and unnecessary. Food would count in the first category, while eating luxurious foods like steak and caviar would count in the second.
The upshot, from my perspective, is that desire is given some kind of complexity to it -- it's not just this singular entity. It's still understood as that which motivates, but it can motivate in different ways and the way we are motivated is what causes either pleasure or pain, satisfaction or anxiety. Desire is neither good nor evil, unto itself; what matters is how happy we are. Desire is well defined, by this division, because desire can be a root of both happiness and unhappiness -- that double-edged nature of desire is preserved.
Wow, that's tough love right there. Yes, this has become a big problem since it's introduction to the West. The 'cultural corruption' I mentioned, but glossed over, has included a reduction of mindfulness practice to a means of improving youself and achieving you desires. The irony, the irony.
Actually, my interest goes a little deeper than that. I've got a weakness for metaphysics that a good Zen teacher might like to beat out me. Anyway if you are interested in my half-baked grasp of Buddhist metaphysics I'd invite you to join the discussion of the thread called 'Consciousness - What's the Problem'. Especially today's dialogues. I'm just a tryer though so keep your expections low.
Have you read any Schopenhauer? His whole philosophy is predicated on this idea of an overarching Will behind reality that we are manifestations of. We are always deprived- hence our constant need for goal-setting and boredom that sets in when we achieve a goal or don't have any goals in particular. His conclusions were that aesthetics can temporarily stop the will's desire in some sort of Platonic contemplation. Secondly, we can do things out of compassion which somehow takes us out of our own self-interest. Thirdly, we can live as an ascetic, not giving into desires up to the point of death perhaps.
I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but it does give you some interesting concepts to work with.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No I haven't. That's another big hole I need to bung up in this leaky boat. Any good/short/accessible intro text you'd recomment for beginners?
I honestly don’t yet understand why desire as you’ve defined it in quotes is not commensurate with intentions. Much less why they should be opposites. An example:
I’m holding on what I take to be logical grounds that even the most enlightened of Buddhists will hold “a strong feeling of wanting to have [obtained Nirvana] or wishing for [Nirvana] to happen. Now, I get that a lot of so called “enlightened” gurus will state that they have obtained Nirvana; logically, though, this at best can only be an equivocation of meanings—for they still suffer from the same bodily functions we all suffer from: hungers, full bladders, and, yes, old age and worldly death. Nirvana is a literal cessation of these karmic (i.e., action and consequence) ups and downs. So, unless these “enlightened ones” are bullshiters or worse—hell, it's been known to happen—they yet desire to actualize Nirvana and, with this desire as the cause to their behaviors and choices, thereby intend to actualize/obtain Nirvana as a long-term goal. Then, in so desiring/longing for Nirvana (which need not be first-person limited, e.g. I've heard some Buddhist declare they will strive to enlighten all sentience, lesser animals included), they then choose their other desires accordingly—e.g. not clinging to worldly possessions, etc. ... or so the story goes.
But I agree that there’s a lot that’s been probably lost in translation in statements about “desire”. Reminds me of how we sometimes translate an underlying concept into “harmony between anger and calm” as one entailment of the yin-yang symbol; yet “anger” to us doesn’t translate well, often signifying bad intentions toward others in English. Doesn’t do justice to here paraphrased sayings such as “when calm is on the outside and turbulence/animation/”anger” on the inside one is alive; when all turbulence/etc. is on the outside and the inside is perfectly calm, this is death”—i.e., for example, don’t become rage-full for this is a closer proximity to a death of being: turbulence being spewed from within to the outside; instead, be like the spinning top: calm on the outside, balanced, and hard to take down due to the turbulence/etc. within (… I gained this little nugget from some Aikido teachings). Here, again, I’m only addressing issues of translation.
Quoting T Clark
Here again I so far disagree. Hunger is a more rudimentary desire/longing/intention of our mind, whose intention it is to satisfy the physical requirement of our bodies (here using common speech and not getting into dual aspects of monistic substance, or like subjects). The proprioceptive pangs of an empty stomach are perceptions obtained via physiological senses—and so belong to what is perceived by mind. One way of verbalizing it is by saying it is a desire of our more primitive mind: from the mid and hind brain (although I’m typically not big on modeling mind in terms of primitive and non-primitive). The conscious us can then become one with this diffuse desire we sense as hunger—e.g. “I am hungry and intend/want/desire to eat something”—or else choose to shun this desire on account or prioritizing other desires—the person who fasts will do so for whatever aim/goal they have in mind.
When you say you sometimes “eat out of desire, not hunger” I so far interpret you to mean that the conscious you then eats out of a desire to satisfy something like a sweet tooth, rather than the desire to quench one’s hunger. Yet either way, there is a conscious you who engages in the satisfaction of desires, i.e., in the obtainment of the end which some aspect of mind intends.
To me, in a roundabout sort of way, this speaks to Hume’s “reason is the slave of desires”: we reason so as to satisfy our desires; we do not desire so as to satisfy our reasoning. If this is too much from out in the left field, then please never mind that I just brought this last part up.
I kind’a like 's categorization of desire, myself.
I am in no way a student of eastern philosophies or follower of their practices. All I know is I picked up "Tao te Ching" and was zapped by instant recognition. The world it described is the world where I live. I'm an intellectual. I address the world through my mind, so I use it primarily as an intellectual tool. I recognize that may not be it's most appropriate use. If I want half-baked metaphysics, there's plenty of it here.
You talk about how the west has "corrupted" Buddhism. Does me using the Tao Te Ching the way I do corrupt Taoism? Did the Taoist religionists corrupt Taoist philosophy? Did Martin Luther corrupt Catholicism? Does New Age claptrap corrupt everything it touches? Well, yes to that. Can you suggest alternative sources for westerners to get the insights eastern philosophies provide? I'm reading a paper now discussing whether the Tao is the same as Kant's noumenon. The difference, of course, is that Lao Tzu describes it in 80 short verses while Kant takes volumes and volumes and still can't get it right.
If what @Kym was talking about was any kind of motivation or intention, it kind of takes the point out of this discussion. The original discussion was talking about the kind of desire that leads to consumerism and ecological damage. I don't think that term applies to my hunger for a grilled cheese sandwich and salad for lunch. It probably does apply to the second sandwich and frappe. Here in Massachusetts, we call milkshakes "frappes." Of course, we also say "so don't I" to mean the same thing as "so do I."
Speak up Kym.
Quoting T Clark
No, I don't think this is an experiment doomed to failure. In fact I suspect the Greeks got a lot of their ideas via the silk road. So perhaps there's an artificial E-W division anyway. But there's many a pitfall to had. The one I mentioned is the one I've experienced first hand.
I wouldn't have the gall to try and guide anyone to sources insght. I have so very little myself. Just now I'm trying out subscribing to a philosophy forum! Good luck with your investigations though.
I'll let Kym or someone else who knows more about this than I do respond, but I think what you've written shows a complete misunderstanding of the basics of Buddhism. No, someone who is enlightened does not feel desire for Nirvana. Enlightenment is the lack of desire.
Quoting javra
No sense and going back and forth about what desire is and isn't. To me, calling all motivation and intention desire makes the word meaningless.
We all, most of us, try to guide each each other to sources of insight here. That's the whole point. One of them. We also like to hear ourselves talk. Read ourselves write.
You just made me revisit the dictionary for definitions of “desire”. The first one that comes up on Wiktionary is, “to want; to wish for earnestly”.
What can I say? If it needs saying, I’m not a Buddhist. Still, we so far disagree.
Quoting T Clark
Oh ... right. Desire was it?
Ok I was snoozing there, hoping you'd wake me gently when you'd all settled on the definition.
I haven't followed all the to's amd fro's, but what I meant was desire as any kind of want. Not bad in itself (essential really for living things) but when it gets elevated as a central cultral idol there's sure to be trouble afoot.
This is no help at all. Yes, I know. "Want" is a synonym for "desire." Never mind. When a discussion starts spinning it's wheels in definitions, which happens a lot on the forum, it's time to bail.
Quoting T Clark
Sorry dude.
There is this having and wanting to have more in spite of satisfaction -- a desire that grows in its demands as you attempt to satisfy it. In sense, an insatiable desire. The love of power is like this. There is also attachment to things which aren't necessarily harmful, but the attachment itself is harmful. Fine foods can be like this -- because we can just as easily satisfy our needs regardless of fine foods, but can become anxious if we require fine foods.
Yeah. If I wasn't just stuck in this era of history I'd be looking down the barrel like a dead donkey at some other kind of cultural excess. Could be power, art, religion etc. This one's a doozy though I reckon.
I think desire (except erotic) is based on a lack and what we desire has to be some combination of reason and pleasure which is perhaps a description of the will. Some hold that our desire is not ours but the desire of others, that what we ultimately want is recognition, and that want is structured by the desires of others.
I am not so sure Philosophy is sunk. If someone like Jordan Peterson, regardless of what you think of him, can sprout out of obscurity into a major cultural figure over a very short period, it suggests to me that people are interested if they can understand what is being said and if what is being said could make a difference in their lives.
I heartily agree.
But is it philosophy?
I guess that's where my hesitance comes in. It depends on how we understand philosophy. And as it is understood now, even if I don't like the outcome, I am tempted to say nothing. Though I think that notion of philosophy should be challenged -- who could do it but philosophers?
And yes, but is it really philosophy? It seems like they are grappling with ideas in the conversations I have listened to even though I disagree with them on points like Peterson's blanket criticism of Marxism or Harris's view on determinism.
There is something about popularizes of thinking like Harris and Peterson that just seems off. When I read or listen to them they seem to commit some very obvious mistakes in thinking, and they almost don't seem accidental. They seem like the sort of mistakes which are hard to pinpoint, especially if what they say appeals to someone.
I am tempted to call them sophists, rather than philosophers.
But the question to me is how do you distinguish sophists from philosophy, sans-institutional boundaries?
Or, as related to the OP -- to what extent does desire enter philosophy while still looking like philosophy?
There is something wrong with philosophy as practiced today, I'd say. And the criticisms are well worn on this board, without need of repeating. But how do you come from those criticisms and make something that is both unlike philosophy as practiced today, but still something that resembles philosophy, as opposed to some other practice? (like politics, social activism, psychology, sophistry, and so forth)
By guru pitfall do you mean where a single person is able to dicate to others when they are right or when they are wrong?
Or what?
Because I can see a place for such action, in a stepping-stone manner. Just not in an ultimate manner.
Alas the Guru effect.
Even at its best it's a very poor substitute for one's own faculties. It its worst it devolves into a 'psychological game' (e.g. R.D. Laing) where one participant exchanges autonomy for freedom from the discomforts of uncertainty and responsibility. The other exchanges genuine intimacy for the pleasure of power. Not long afterwards we're all drinking the Cool-Aid.
Kool Aid. To those of us who grew up drinking that crap (krap?) it matters. Then came Funny Face Drinks - Injun Orange, Chinese Cherry; after protests changed to Jolly Olly Orange and Choo Choo Cherry. Then, of course, came Jim Jones.
Yeah, that last bit. Gives you the willies! ("willees"?)
This is actually another point on meta-philosophy that "could have gone different". Philosophy today is largely organized along a Peripatetic model -- healthy minds involved in dialectical inquiry seeking after truth in order to grow into great leaders. Back in the day those healthy minds were largely the sons of nobles, and the purpose of said studies was to train them to be tomorrow's leaders. We no longer have nobility, but the whole general training to be tomorrow's leaders thing isn't too far off the mark -- especially at Ivy League institutions, it's virtually the same model.
But not all minds are healthy. Most of the time we are irrationally attached to this or that. We can get in our own way. To the point that we actually are already at a loss of autonomy and freedom. In such a case it may be the only option to treat someone differently than we do others -- like a doctor.
Now, determining when that is the case is not easy. But I don't see having someone in the role of a doctor of the mind as intrinsically wrong. I do understand how said relationship can go wrong; what you describe seems to be an extremely unhealthy relationship. (I'm looking at you, Lacan!)
But there are times when someone needs to be more than a tutor dialectically and reasonably helping a healthy mind to grow, but not quite a full-fledged doctor either -- but it would have to be, I think, motivated by concern for a friend with the end goal of helping them become autonomous.
Such a relationship is not one of equals. There is a power differential established by this medical model. I'd contend that there is a way of doing this that is not creepy and weird. More like a mentorship, or a midwife of the soul, than the pleasure of power over others.
Well - yes - that really isn't hypothetical. Pyrrho of Elis, the founder of scepticism, founded the school after meeting wise men in India and Persia (gymnosophists, magi), during his travels with the host of Alexander the Great. Onesikritos of Astypalaia, a cynical philosopher who studied under Diogenes, also had similar experiences.