here's the rub

So, I picked up a copy of House and Philosophy: Everybody Lies.  I'm working on a paper on representations of CNCP in House, M.D., particularly that experiences by House himself.  The show really goes into CNCP, digging in to causes, side effects, overall influences on life.  But would we say that it accurately portrays the life of a chronic pain sufferer (ah, I switched back)?  I really need to read some of the transcripts or re-watch some episodes, but I've honestly been pretty pleased with the picture overall.  Except for the whole empathy thing.

Anyway, the first essay in House and Philosophy focuses on Socrates' "the unexamined life is not worth living."  Basically, Jacoby, the author, argues that House is or at least may be living the good life because he simultaneously lives a life devoted to logic and puzzle solving while, whether as his purpose or not, helps people.  God is said to be unimportant, particularly as House is an atheist.  Well, it was a short paper and pretty darned dumbed down, to be honest.  Hurrah for definitions of nihilism and subjectivity. 

The trouble is, (here's the rub) so far, it seems that House's chronic pain is only tangentially mentioned, generally in a "pill-popping" line briefly giving his personality.  It isn't just this book, but pretty much every article I've read on House, M.D. thus far.  I would argue that chronic pain is essentially linked to the lives, philosophies, personalities, etc. of everyone possessed by it.  I don't see how "the good life" can be equated with "a meaningful life" in this context.  And I think his pain is more than significant when considering the line "I find it more comforting to believe that this [life] isn't simply a test"(qtd. 7).  If House believes only in the present life, what misery must he feel in the reality of it being so marred by pain?

Oh, and what's with this line on page 14: "For [House], it's more about solving the puzzle.  Why?  Because that satisfies him?  And it takes away his pain?".  It takes away his pain?  What?  Where did that idea come from?  I find writing poetry mentally stimulating, but I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that it takes away my pain.  This book was published in 2009, which means that the essays were most likely written before House goes off Vicodin.  Let's consider that maybe Vicodin both allows for this alleged existing "good life" and the removal of (some) pain. 

Not to mention (well, actually, to mention) the pretentiousness of Jacoby's closing lines, "How miserable can [House] be saving lives, sleeping around, and doing drugs?  Pass Aristotle the Vicodin" (15).  At what point are people going to start distinguishing between recreational opiate use and medical opiate use?  Taking Vicodin isn't fun if you're in chronic pain; generally, after taking multiple pills of high dosages, you will still be in extreme pain.  It is merely lessened to some degree, hopefully leaving you functional.  This constant "pill popping" phraseology is at least made clear in intent with the "doing drugs" line.  There really seems to exist this general opinion that House is a drug addict versus opiate dependent. 

I'll really need to get into Jemma Theivendran's article on opiate use in House, M.D. later this week.  Short article, very insightful.  Not sure I agree with her methods though.

TTFN

Works Cited

Jacoby, Henry. "Selfish, Base Animals Crawling Across the Earth: House and the Meaning of Life." House and Philosophy: Everybody Lies. Ed. Henry Jacoby. Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture Series. Series Ed. William Irwin. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009. 5-16.