Schopenhauer

[AwayAloneAlast]

Hey y'all,

Seeing as how this is primarily a literature forum, and his (massive) influence is mostly upon literature, how many of you are fans of Schopenhauer?

He's certainly a dark philosopher, and, in the realm of philosophy, well below the realm of those commonly studied, but Schopenhauer is by far my favourite. If you like Kafka, Borges, Mann, Joyce, Eugene O'Neill, Nietzsche, etc. etc... then you gotta read some Schopenhauer :D

[NikolaiI]

I've read more Nietzsche than I have Schopenhaur, but I like Schopenahaur.

[AwayAloneAlast]

I've read more Nietzsche than I have Schopenhaur, but I like Schopenahaur.

I love Nietzsche as well, but I find Schopenhauer infinitely superior. Nietzsche just couldn't take the profound nihilism and downright pessimism of his predecessor, and sought an escape from it. He wrote some really valuable stuff, but, ultimately, led himself quite astray into a world far bleaker than that portrayed by S.

[Remarkable]

Schopenhauer is a very interesting character.I cannot say I like him because liking someone means also agreeing with one's theories,but I certainly find the man fascinating.I do accept some of his theories and hold them for true and right,but Schopenhauer is too pesimist and gloomy for my tastes.I am more into Joyce,since you said that they are close,because in the end,he is closer to the people and reveals messages Schopenhauer wouldn't even accept.Joyces work is characterised by a sense of political and religious manifestation,while Schopenhauer is an irreparable individualist.

[Etienne]

"I cannot say I like him because liking someone means also agreeing with one's theories"

Absolutely not...

I am reading Kant at the moment in order to read Schopenhauer after.

[capek]

Wow, it seems so strange to me to put the rating of philosophers on the same level as, say, the rating of flavors of ice cream. ie if it tastes good to me it must have some significant internal worth.

And to equate Nietzsche, arguably the most influential modern thinker, with Schopenhauer, who holds little more than a footnote in the history of philosophy. And to say that Schopenhauer is "infinitely superior". I mean, yikes! That's like comparing Bach with, I don't know, say The Cure. Sure, The Cure has it's fans and it's interesting qualities, but the comparison is absurd, unless you're only talking about your own personal tastes and nothing more.

Schopy is one of the most extreme examples of a philosopher confusing his own experience with that of universal man. And everything he did was built on that misapprehension. Interesting as an oddity, but certainly not that influential. And compared to the influence someone like Nietzsche has had on Western society, a non-entity.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Schopy is one of the most extreme examples of a philosopher confusing his own experience with that of universal man. And everything he did was built on that misapprehension. Interesting as an oddity, but certainly not that influential. And compared to the influence someone like Nietzsche has had on Western society, a non-entity.

This is simply incorrect, every sentence. No offense, but Schopenhauer is a philosophical giant, influencing many 20th century philosophers as well as changing the course of western thought from rigid idealist nonsense to analytic, demonstrable, aphoristic philosophy. Among those influenced are Camus, Russell, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Popper and Heidegger, to name very few.

Schopenhauer is definitely one of my favorites.

[capek]

This is simply incorrect, every sentence. No offense, but Schopenhauer is a philosophical giant, influencing many 20th century philosophers as well as changing the course of western thought from rigid idealist nonsense to analytic, demonstrable, aphoristic philosophy. Among those influenced are Camus, Russell, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Popper and Heidegger, to name very few.

Schopenhauer is definitely one of my favorites.

Overstated maybe, ya, I'll give you that, but incorrect? Please. Maybe I didn't make it clear that I was comparing N and S's influence on Western society and the Western mind. Pretty much he was in the 'right place at the right time' to capture the feeling that was coming to the forefront that 19th century progress was somehow not going to lead to the 'millennium'. And he was a clear writer who didn't use very much technical jargon, so the average German, after WWII when Schopy really came into his own, could more easily read him than other philosophers of the time. But when you compare somebody whose whole philosophical structure was built for the sole purpose of justifying their own pessimistic attitude (Schopenhauer), to someone whose insights into the human condition and level of self-knowledge, and his conveyance of those two qualities, is probably unmatched in the history of the West, well ya, I stand by my assertion wrt these two thinkers.

I mean, the hinge of Schopenhauer's philosophy is the "ethical assertion that will is evil and must be 'denied'". Talk about a dead end philosophy. But of course, it wasn't meant to go anywhere, it was only designed to justify his own subjective experience. A subjective experience, if you know anything about his life, which led him, for the last 27 years of his life, to have the exact same daily routine! Contrast that with Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch, possibly the most practically valuable response to the postmodern condition, and well, for me it's clear where these two philosophers stand in comparison to each other.

And really, though I expressed it quite poorly, that was my only intention with that post, not to summarily dismiss Schopenhauer, because I enjoy him a great deal as well.

[Dori]

I just received Schopenhauer's Essays and Aphorisms. I read a hefty amount from his aphorisms last night and into the morning, and I must say I was immensely interested.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Pretty much he was in the 'right place at the right time' to capture the feeling that was coming to the forefront that 19th century progress was somehow not going to lead to the 'millennium'.

He made a willful and conscious effort to break from dogmatic, Hegelian philosophy, as well as pioneered the aphoristic writing style that Nietzsche habitually used himself.


And he was a clear writer who didn't use very much technical jargon, so the average German, after WWII when Schopy really came into his own, could more easily read him than other philosophers of the time. But when you compare somebody whose whole philosophical structure was built for the sole purpose of justifying their own pessimistic attitude (Schopenhauer) etc etc etc

Schopenhauer was clearly a force to be reckoned with during his own lifetime. You do know that he died around 1860 right? Schopenhauer was in fact highly influenced by Hindu philosophy, which had only recently been translated into German for him to read. His "pessimistic" attitude is older than Christianity.


I mean, the hinge of Schopenhauer's philosophy is the "ethical assertion that will is evil and must be 'denied'". Talk about a dead end philosophy. But of course, it wasn't meant to go anywhere, it was only designed to justify his own subjective experience. A subjective experience, if you know anything about his life, which led him, for the last 27 years of his life, to have the exact same daily routine! Contrast that with Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch, possibly the most practically valuable response to the postmodern condition, and well, for me it's clear where these two philosophers stand in comparison to each other.

Clearly you are projecting your dislike of Schopenhauer's life and choices onto his philosophy. Nevertheless, his "dead end philosophy" sharply changed the entire course of western thought.

[crisaor]

Hey y'all, Seeing as how this is primarily a literature forum, and his (massive) influence is mostly upon literature, how many of you are fans of Schopenhauer?
He's certainly a dark philosopher, and, in the realm of philosophy, well below the realm of those commonly studied, but Schopenhauer is by far my favourite. If you like Kafka, Borges, Mann, Joyce, Eugene O'Neill, Nietzsche, etc. etc... then you gotta read some Schopenhauer :D
Yeah, I really like him too. But it's his 'normal' essays (ie. those that deal with regular things such as death, love, music, etc.) rather than his purely philosophical ones that I dig the most. I came upon him thanks to Borges, BTW.

Parerga and Paralipomena are a cool work for those that want to give him a try.

[capek]

Clearly you are projecting your dislike of Schopenhauer's life and choices onto his philosophy. Nevertheless, his "dead end philosophy" sharply changed the entire course of western thought.

No, I'm just drawing an obvious conclusion as to the practical worth of his philosophy.

Anyways, you're overstating, and I'm understating the value of the man's philosophy. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. At the end of the day, who cares.

[Cafe Rob]

Anyways, you're overstating, and I'm understating the value of the man's philosophy. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. At the end of the day, who cares.
I would say by your comments that you have not read Schopenhauer's main work; "The World as Will and Representation" which I believe he'd completed by age 27. Also another book "On the Basis of Morality." It would seem to me that you've prematurely formed an opinion based on some details you've read somewhere.

One point though is Schopenhauers conception of the life force as universal 'Will.' I think I'm right in saying that this is no longer a tenable theory in philosophy.

[capek]

I would say by your comments that you have not read Schopenhauer's main work; "The World as Will and Representation" which I believe he'd completed by age 27. Also another book "On the Basis of Morality." It would seem to me that you've prematurely formed an opinion based on some details you've read somewhere.

One point though is Schopenhauers conception of the life force as universal 'Will.' I think I'm right in saying that this is no longer a tenable theory in philosophy.

Wrong. I've read The World, and Essays. I would recommend the introduction to Essays to anyone who wasn't familiar with his life situation.

[Argyroneta]

I have read some of his essays and I must say I liked them. However, I do not think he is as good as Nietzsche. Schopenhauer was a strange character who was absolutely convinced in his beliefs, to the point of absurdity.

I love the idea in "World as Will" and think that it holds weight today. Howver, Nietzsche is the boy wonder, who was clearly inspired by Schopenhauer, took his work further.

[Cafe Rob]

The question though is whether there is a blind metaphysical will as Schopenhauer explains it? A universal force that sits behind creation of which we all participate in. It's a theory that can never really be confirmed but I admit it does seem plausible. I guess it's a way of explaining something that cannot quite be explained.

[AwayAloneAlast]

Nietzsche is a giant, I won't deny that. I also won't deny that he has been more influential on philosophy than Schopenhauer... you will rarely see Schopenhauer taught, but Nietzsche is ubiquitous.

S's influence tends to be outside the realm of philosophy. He is too pessimistic, too un-analytic, too, in my opinion, right, to be taught or dealt with much in philosophy. He influenced Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, but not many others.

However, when one looks at his influence on psychology and on literature... that's when it becomes apparent that he is a force to be reckoned with. Freud owed a TON to Schopenhauer, though he tried to distance himself from it and denied having read S-- an unlikely premise given S's prominence during Freud's youth! If you look at Schopenhauer's system, you can find all the good parts of Freud's, and none of the bad stuff!

Jung was also very much indebted to Schopenhauer; unlike Freud, he acknowledged it and mentioned Schopenhauer frequently in his writings with highest praise.