“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
|Born||22 February 1788
|Died||21 September 1860 (aged 72)
|Era||19th century philosophy|
|School||Post-Kantian philosophy, idealism|
|Main interests||Metaphysics, aesthetics, ethics, phenomenology, morality, psychology|
|Notable ideas||Will, Fourfold root of reason, pessimism|
Arthur Schopenhauer (22 February 1788 – 21 September 1860) was a German philosopher best known for his book, The World as Will and Representation; in it, he claimed that our world is driven by a continually dissatisfied will, continually seeking satisfaction. Influenced by Eastern thought, he maintained that the “truth was recognized by the sages of India”; consequently, his solutions to suffering were similar to those of Vedantic and Buddhist thinkers; his faith in “transcendental ideality” led him to accept atheism and learn from Christian philosophy.
At age 25, he published his doctoral dissertation, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which examined the four distinct aspects of experience in the phenomenal world; consequently, he has been influential in the history of phenomenology. He has influenced a long list of thinkers, including Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Wagner, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Otto Rank, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Leo Tolstoy, Thomas Mann, and Jorge Luis Borges.
Arthur Schopenhauer was born in the city of Danzig (Gdańsk), at Św. Ducha 47, the son of Johanna Schopenhauer (née Trosiener) and Heinrich Floris Schopenhauer, both descendants of wealthy German Patrician families. When the Kingdom of Prussia annexed the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth city of Danzig in 1793, Schopenhauer’s family moved to Hamburg. In 1805, Schopenhauer’s father may have committed suicide. Shortly thereafter, Schopenhauer’s mother Johanna moved to Weimar, then the centre of German literature, to pursue her writing career. After one year, Schopenhauer left the family business in Hamburg to join her.
He became a student at the University of Göttingen in 1809. There he studied metaphysics and psychology under Gottlob Ernst Schulze, the author of Aenesidemus, who advised him to concentrate on Plato and Immanuel Kant. In Berlin, from 1811 to 1812, he had attended lectures by the prominent post-Kantian philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte and the theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher.
In 1814, Schopenhauer began his seminal work The World as Will and Representation (Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung). He finished it in 1818 and published it the following year. In Dresden in 1819, Schopenhauer fathered, with a servant, an illegitimate daughter who was born and died the same year. In 1820, Schopenhauer became a lecturer at the University of Berlin. He scheduled his lectures to coincide with those of the famous philosopher G. W. F. Hegel, whom Schopenhauer described as a “clumsy charlatan.” However, only five students turned up to Schopenhauer’s lectures, and he dropped out of academia. A late essay, On University Philosophy, expressed his resentment towards the work conducted in academies.
While in Berlin, Schopenhauer was named as a defendant in a lawsuit initiated by a woman named Caroline Marquet. She asked for damages, alleging that Schopenhauer had pushed her. According to Schopenhauer’s court testimony, she deliberately annoyed him by raising her voice while standing right outside his door. Marquet alleged that the philosopher had assaulted and battered her after she refused to leave his doorway. Her companion testified that she saw Marquet prostrate outside his apartment. Because Marquet won the lawsuit, Schopenhauer made payments to her for the next twenty years. When she died, he wrote on a copy of her death certificate, Obit anus, abit onus (“The old woman dies, the burden is lifted”).
In 1821, he fell in love with nineteen-year old opera singer, Caroline Richter (called Medon), and had a relationship with her for several years. He discarded marriage plans, however, writing, “Marrying means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties,” and “Marrying means to grasp blindfolded into a sack hoping to find an eel amongst an assembly of snakes.” When he was forty-three years old, seventeen-year old Flora Weiss recorded rejecting him in her diary.
Schopenhauer had a notably strained relationship with his mother Johanna Schopenhauer. After his father’s death, Arthur Schopenhauer endured two long years of drudgery as a merchant, in honor of his dead father. Afterward, his mother retired to Weimar, and Arthur Schopenhauer dedicated himself wholly to studies in the gymnasium of Gotha. After he left it in disgust after seeing one of the masters lampooned, he went to live with his mother. But by that time she had already opened her famous salon, and Arthur was not compatible with the vain, ceremonious ways of the salon. He was also disgusted by the ease with which Johanna Schopenhauer had forgotten his father’s memory. Therefore, he gave university life a shot. There, he wrote his first book, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. His mother informed him that the book was incomprehensible and it was unlikely that anyone would ever buy a copy. In a fit of temper Arthur Schopenhauer told her that his work would be read long after the rubbish she wrote would have been totally forgotten.
In 1831, a cholera epidemic broke out in Berlin and Schopenhauer left the city. Schopenhauer settled permanently in Frankfurt in 1833, where he remained for the next twenty-seven years, living alone except for a succession of pet poodles named Atman and Butz. The numerous notes that he made during these years, amongst others on aging, were published posthumously under the title Senilia.
Schopenhauer had a robust constitution, but in 1860 his health began to deteriorate. He died of heart failure on 21 September 1860, while sitting on his couch with his cat at home. He was 72.
Philosophy of the “Will”
A key focus of Schopenhauer was his investigation of individual motivation. Before Schopenhauer, Hegel had popularized the concept of Zeitgeist, the idea that society consisted of a collective consciousness which moved in a distinct direction, dictating the actions of its members. Schopenhauer, a reader of both Kant and Hegel, criticized their logical optimism and the belief that individual morality could be determined by society and reason. Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated by only their own basic desires, or Wille zum Leben (“Will to Live”), which directed all of mankind.
For Schopenhauer, human desire was futile, illogical, directionless, and, by extension, so was all human action in the world. He wrote “Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants”. In this sense, he adhered to the Fichtean principle of idealism: “the world is for a subject”. This idealism so presented, immediately commits it to an ethical attitude, unlike the purely epistemological concerns of Descartes and Berkeley. To Schopenhauer, the Will is a metaphysical existence which controls not only the actions of individual, intelligent agents, but ultimately all observable phenomena. He is credited with one of the most famous opening lines of philosophy: “The world is my representation”. Will, for Schopenhauer, is what Kant called the “thing-in-itself.” Nietzsche was greatly influenced by this idea of Will, while developing it in a different direction.
Art and aesthetics
For Schopenhauer, human desiring, “willing,” and craving cause suffering or pain. A temporary way to escape this pain is through aesthetic contemplation (a method comparable to Zapffe‘s “Sublimation“). Aesthetic contemplation allows one to escape this pain—albeit temporarily—because it stops one perceiving the world as mere presentation. Instead, one no longer perceives the world as an object of perception (therefore as subject to the Principle of Sufficient Grounds; time, space and causality) from which one is separated; rather one becomes one with that perception:”one can thus no longer separate the perceiver from the perception” (The World as Will and Representation, section 34). From this immersion with the world one no longer views oneself as an individual who suffers in the world due to one’s individual will but, rather, becomes a “subject of cognition” to a perception that is “Pure, will-less, timeless” (section 34) where the essence, “ideas,” of the world are shown. Art is the practical consequence of this brief aesthetic contemplation as it attempts to depict one’s immersion with the world, thus tries to depict the essence/pure ideas of the world. Music, for Schopenhauer, was the purest form of art because it was the one that depicted the will itself without it appearing as subject to the Principle of Sufficient Grounds, therefore as an individual object. According to Daniel Albright, “Schopenhauer thought that music was the only art that did not merely copy ideas, but actually embodied the will itself.”
Schopenhauer’s moral theory proposed that of three primary moral incentives, compassion, malice and egoism, compassion is the major motivator to moral expression. Malice and egoism are corrupt alternatives.[clarification needed]
According to Schopenhauer, whenever we make a choice, “we assume as necessary that that decision was preceded by something from which it ensued, and which we call the ground or reason, or more accurately the motive, of the resultant action.”  Choices are not made freely. Our actions are necessary and determined because “every human being, even every animal, after the motive has appeared, must carry out the action which alone is in accordance with his inborn and immutable character.”  A definite action inevitably results when a particular motive influences a person’s given, unchangeable character. The State, Schopenhauer claimed, punishes criminals in order to prevent future crimes. It does so by placing “beside every possible motive for committing a wrong a more powerful motive for leaving it undone, in the inescapable punishment. Accordingly, the criminal code is as complete a register as possible of counter-motives to all criminal actions that can possibly be imagined….” 
…the law and its fulfillment, namely punishment, are directed essentially to the future, not to the past. This distinguishes punishment from revenge, for revenge is motivated by what has happened, and hence by the past as such. All retaliation for wrong by inflicting a pain without any object for the future is revenge, and can have no other purpose than consolation for the suffering one has endured by the sight of the suffering one has caused in another. Such a thing is wickedness and cruelty, and cannot be ethically justified. …the object of punishment…is deterrence from crime…. Object and purpose for the future distinguish punishment from revenge, and punishment has this object only when it is inflicted in fulfillment of a law. Only in this way does it proclaim itself to be inevitable and infallible for every future case; and thus it obtains for the law the power to deter….
Should capital punishment be legal? “For safeguarding the lives of citizens,” he asserted, “capital punishment is therefore absolutely necessary.” “The murderer,” wrote Schopenhauer, “who is condemned to death according to the law must, it is true, be now used as a mere means, and with complete right. For public security, which is the principal object of the State, is disturbed by him; indeed it is abolished if the law remains unfulfilled. The murderer, his life, his person, must be the means of fulfilling the law, and thus of re-establishing public security.” Schopenhauer disagreed with those who would abolish capital punishment. “Those who would like to abolish it should be given the answer: ‘First remove murder from the world, and then capital punishment ought to follow.’ “
People, according to Schopenhauer, cannot be improved. They can only be influenced by strong motives that overpower criminal motives. Schopenhauer declared that “real moral reform is not at all possible, but only determent from the deed….”
He claimed that this doctrine was not original with him. Previously, it appeared in the writings of Plato, Seneca, Hobbes, Pufendorf, and Anselm Feuerbach. Schopenhauer declared that their teaching was corrupted by subsequent errors and therefore was in need of clarification.
Schopenhauer was perhaps even more influential in his treatment of man’s psychology than he was in the realm of philosophy.
Philosophers have not traditionally been impressed by the tribulations of sex, but Schopenhauer addressed it and related concepts forthrightly:
…one ought rather to be surprised that a thing [sex] which plays throughout so important a part in human life has hitherto practically been disregarded by philosophers altogether, and lies before us as raw and untreated material.
He gave a name to a force within man which he felt had invariably precedence over reason: the Will to Live or Will to Life (Wille zum Leben), defined as an inherent drive within human beings, and indeed all creatures, to stay alive and to reproduce.
Schopenhauer refused to conceive of love as either trifling or accidental, but rather understood it to be an immensely powerful force lying unseen within man’s psyche and dramatically shaping the world:
The ultimate aim of all love affairs … is more important than all other aims in man’s life; and therefore it is quite worthy of the profound seriousness with which everyone pursues it.
What is decided by it is nothing less than the composition of the next generation …
Political and social thought
Schopenhauer’s politics were, for the most part, an echo of his system of ethics (the latter being expressed in Die beiden Grundprobleme der Ethik, available in English as two separate books, On the Basis of Morality and On the Freedom of the Will). Ethics also occupies about one quarter of his central work, The World as Will and Representation.
In occasional political comments in his Parerga and Paralipomena and Manuscript Remains, Schopenhauer described himself as a proponent of limited government. What was essential, he thought, was that the state should “leave each man free to work out his own salvation“, and so long as government was thus limited, he would “prefer to be ruled by a lion than one of [his] fellow rats” — i.e., by a monarch, rather than a democrat. Schopenhauer shared the view of Thomas Hobbes on the necessity of the state, and of state action, to check the destructive tendencies innate to our species. He also defended the independence of the legislative, judicial and executive branches of power, and a monarch as an impartial element able to practice justice (in a practical and everyday sense, not a cosmological one). He declared monarchy as “that which is natural to man” for “intelligence has always under a monarchical government a much better chance against its irreconcilable and ever-present foe, stupidity” and disparaged republicanism as “unnatural as it is unfavourable to the higher intellectual life and the arts and sciences.”
Schopenhauer, by his own admission, did not give much thought to politics, and several times he writes proudly of how little attention he had paid “to political affairs of [his] day”. In a life that spanned several revolutions in French and German government, and a few continent-shaking wars, he did indeed maintain his aloof position of “minding not the times but the eternities”. He wrote many disparaging remarks about Germany and the Germans. A typical example is, “For a German it is even good to have somewhat lengthy words in his mouth, for he thinks slowly, and they give him time to reflect.”
Schopenhauer attributed civilizational primacy to the northern “white races” due to their sensitivity and creativity (except for the ancient Egyptians and Hindus whom he saw as equal):
The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races; and even with many dark peoples, the ruling caste or race is fairer in colour than the rest and has, therefore, evidently immigrated, for example, the Brahmans, the Incas, and the rulers of the South Sea Islands. All this is due to the fact that necessity is the mother of invention because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want and misery, which in their many forms were brought about by the climate. This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature and out of it all came their high civilization.
Despite this, he was adamantly against differing treatment of races, was fervently anti-slavery, and supported the abolitionist movement in the United States. He describes the treatment of “[our] innocent black brothers whom force and injustice have delivered into [the slave-master’s] devilish clutches” as “belonging to the blackest pages of mankind’s criminal record”.
Schopenhauer additionally maintained a marked metaphysical and political anti-Judaism. Schopenhauer argued that Christianity constituted a revolt against the materialistic basis of Judaism, exhibiting an Indian-influenced ethics reflecting the Aryan–Vedic theme of spiritual “self-conquest.” This he saw as opposed to what he held to be the ignorant drive toward earthly utopianism and superficiality of a worldly Jewish spirit:
While all other religions endeavor to explain to the people by symbols the metaphysical significance of life, the religion of the Jews is entirely immanent and furnishes nothing but a mere war-cry in the struggle with other nations.
Views on women
In Schopenhauer’s 1851 essay “Of Women” (“Über die Weiber”, full text), he expressed his opposition to what he called “Teutonico-Christian stupidity” on female affairs. He claimed that “woman is by nature meant to obey”, and opposed Schiller’s poem in honor of women, “Würde der Frauen” (“Dignity of Women”). The essay does give two compliments, however: that “women are decidedly more sober in their judgment than [men] are” and are more sympathetic to the suffering of others.
Schopenhauer’s controversial writings have influenced many, from Friedrich Nietzsche to nineteenth-century feminists. Schopenhauer’s biological analysis of the difference between the sexes, and their separate roles in the struggle for survival and reproduction, anticipates some of the claims that were later ventured by sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists.
After the elderly Schopenhauer sat for a sculpture portrait by Elisabet Ney, he told Richard Wagner’s friend Malwida von Meysenbug, “I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man.”
Heredity and eugenics
Schopenhauer believed that personality and intellect were inherited. He quotes Horace’s saying, “From the brave and good are the brave descended” (Odes, iv, 4, 29) and Shakespeare’s line from Cymbeline, “Cowards father cowards, and base things sire base” (IV, 2) to reinforce his hereditarian argument. Mechanistically, Schopenhauer believed that a person inherits his level of intellect through his mother, and personal character through one’s father. This belief in heritability of traits informed Schopenhauer’s view of love – placing it at the highest level of importance. For Schopenhauer the “final aim of all love intrigues, be they comic or tragic, is really of more importance than all other ends in human life. What it all turns upon is nothing less than the composition of the next generation…. It is not the weal or woe of any one individual, but that of the human race to come, which is here at stake.” This view of the importance for the species of whom we choose to love was reflected in his views on eugenics or good breeding. Here Schopenhauer wrote:
With our knowledge of the complete unalterability both of character and of mental faculties, we are led to the view that a real and thorough improvement of the human race might be reached not so much from outside as from within, not so much by theory and instruction as rather by the path of generation. Plato had something of the kind in mind when, in the fifth book of his Republic, he explained his plan for increasing and improving his warrior caste. If we could castrate all scoundrels and stick all stupid geese in a convent, and give men of noble character a whole harem, and procure men, and indeed thorough men, for all girls of intellect and understanding, then a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles.
In another context, Schopenhauer reiterated his antidemocratic-eugenic thesis: “If you want Utopian plans, I would say: the only solution to the problem is the despotism of the wise and noble members of a genuine aristocracy, a genuine nobility, achieved by mating the most magnanimous men with the cleverest and most gifted women. This proposal constitutes my Utopia and my Platonic Republic”. Analysts (e.g., Keith Ansell-Pearson) have suggested that Schopenhauer’s advocacy of anti-egalitarianism and eugenics influenced the neo-aristocratic philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, who initially considered Schopenhauer his mentor.
As a consequence of his monistic philosophy, Schopenhauer was very concerned about the welfare of animals. For him, all individual animals, including humans, are essentially the same, being phenomenal manifestations of the one underlying Will. The word “will” designated, for him, force, power, impulse, energy, and desire; it is the closest word we have that can signify both the real essence of all external things and also our own direct, inner experience. Since everything is basically Will, then humans and animals are fundamentally the same and can recognize themselves in each other. For this reason, he claimed that a good person would have sympathy for animals, who are our fellow sufferers.
Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to living creatures cannot be a good man.
Nothing leads more definitely to a recognition of the identity of the essential nature in animal and human phenomena than a study of zoology and anatomy.
The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.
In 1841, he praised the establishment, in London, of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and also the Animals’ Friends Society in Philadelphia. Schopenhauer even went so far as to protest against the use of the pronoun “it” in reference to animals because it led to the treatment of them as though they were inanimate things. To reinforce his points, Schopenhauer referred to anecdotal reports of the look in the eyes of a monkey who had been shot and also the grief of a baby elephant whose mother had been killed by a hunter.
Views on homosexuality and pederasty
Schopenhauer was also one of the first philosophers since the days of Greek philosophy to address the subject of male homosexuality. In the third, expanded edition of The World as Will and Representation (1856), Schopenhauer added an appendix to his chapter on the “Metaphysics of Sexual Love”. He also wrote that homosexuality did have the benefit of preventing ill-begotten children. Concerning this, he stated, “… the vice we are considering appears to work directly against the aims and ends of nature, and that in a matter that is all important and of the greatest concern to her, it must in fact serve these very aims, although only indirectly, as a means for preventing greater evils.” Shrewdly anticipating the interpretive distortion, on the part of the popular mind, of his attempted scientific explanation of pederasty as personal advocacy (when he had otherwise described the act, in terms of spiritual ethics, as an “objectionable aberration”), Schopenhauer sarcastically concludes the appendix with the statement that “by expounding these paradoxical ideas, I wanted to grant to the professors of philosophy a small favour, for they are very disconcerted by the ever-increasing publicization of my philosophy which they so carefully concealed. I have done so by giving them the opportunity of slandering me by saying that I defend and commend pederasty.”
Intellectual interests and affinities
Schopenhauer read the Latin translation of the Upanishads which had been translated by French writer Anquetil du Perron from the Persian translation of Prince Dara Shikoh entitled Sirre-Akbar (“The Great Secret”). He was so impressed by their philosophy that he called them “the production of the highest human wisdom,” and considered them to contain superhuman conceptions. The Upanishads was a great source of inspiration to Schopenhauer, and writing about them he said:
It is the most satisfying and elevating reading (with the exception of the original text) which is possible in the world; it has been the solace of my life and will be the solace of my death.
It is well known that the book Oupnekhat (Upanishad) always lay open on his table, and he invariably studied it before sleeping at night. He called the opening up of Sanskrit literature “the greatest gift of our century”, and predicted that the philosophy and knowledge of the Upanishads would become the cherished faith of the West.
Schopenhauer was first introduced to the 1802 Latin Upanishad translation through Friedrich Majer. They met during the winter of 1813-1814 in Weimar at the home of Schopenhauer’s mother according to the biographer Sanfranski. Majer was a follower of Herder, and an early Indologist. Schopenhauer did not begin a serious study of the Indic texts, however, until the summer of 1814. Sansfranski maintains that between 1815 and 1817, Schopenhauer had another important cross-pollination with Indian Thought in Dresden. This was through his neighbor of two years, Karl Christian Friedrich Krause. Krause was then a minor and rather unorthodox philosopher who attempted to mix his own ideas with that of ancient Indian wisdom. Krause had also mastered Sanskrit, unlike Schopenhauer, and the two developed a professional relationship. It was from Krause that Schopenhauer learned meditation and received the closest thing to expert advice concerning Indian thought.
Schopenhauer noted a correspondence between his doctrines and the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism. Similarities centered on the principles that life involves suffering, that suffering is caused by desire (tanha), and that the extinction of desire leads to liberation. Thus three of the four “truths of the Buddha” correspond to Schopenhauer’s doctrine of the will. In Buddhism, however, while greed and lust are always unskillful, desire is ethically variable – it can be skillful, unskillful, or neutral.
For Schopenhauer, Will had ontological primacy over the intellect; in other words, desire is understood to be prior to thought. Schopenhauer felt this was similar to notions of purushartha or goals of life in Vedanta Hinduism.
In Schopenhauer’s philosophy, denial of the will is attained by either:
- personal experience of an extremely great suffering that leads to loss of the will to live; or
- knowledge of the essential nature of life in the world through observation of the suffering of other people.
However, Buddhist nirvana is not equivalent to the condition that Schopenhauer described as denial of the will. Nirvana is not the extinguishing of the person as some Western scholars have thought, but only the “extinguishing” (the literal meaning of nirvana) of the flames of greed, hatred, and delusion that assail a person’s character. Occult historian Joscelyn Godwin (1945- ) stated, “It was Buddhism that inspired the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, and, through him, attracted Richard Wagner. This Orientalism reflected the struggle of the German Romantics, in the words of Leon Poliakov, to free themselves from Judeo-Christian fetters”. In contradistinction to Godwin’s claim that Buddhism inspired Schopenhauer, the philosopher himself made the following statement in his discussion of religions:
If I wished to take the results of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I should have to concede to Buddhism pre-eminence over the others. In any case, it must be a pleasure to me to see my doctrine in such close agreement with a religion that the majority of men on earth hold as their own, for this numbers far more followers than any other. And this agreement must be yet the more pleasing to me, inasmuch as in my philosophizing I have certainly not been under its influence [emphasis added]. For up till 1818, when my work appeared, there was to be found in Europe only a very few accounts of Buddhism.
Buddhist philosopher Nishitani Keiji, however, sought to distance Buddhism from Schopenhauer. While Schopenhauer’s philosophy may sound rather mystical in such a summary, his methodology was resolutely empirical, rather than speculative or transcendental:
Philosophy … is a science, and as such has no articles of faith; accordingly, in it nothing can be assumed as existing except what is either positively given empirically, or demonstrated through indubitable conclusions.
This actual world of what is knowable, in which we are and which is in us, remains both the material and the limit of our consideration.
The argument that Buddhism affected Schopenhauer’s philosophy more than any other Dharmic faith loses more credence when viewed in light of the fact that Schopenhauer did not begin a serious study of Buddhism until after the publication of The World as Will and Representation in 1818. Scholars have started to revise earlier views about Schopenhauer’s discovery of Buddhism. Proof of early interest and influence appears in Schopenhauer’s 1815/16 notes (transcribed and translated by Urs App) about Buddhism. They are included in a recent case study that traces Schopenhauer’s interest in Buddhism and documents its influence.
Schopenhauer said he was influenced by the Upanishads, Immanuel Kant and Plato. References to Eastern philosophy and religion appear frequently in Schopenhauer’s writing. As noted above, he appreciated the teachings of the Buddha and even called himself a “Buddhist”. He said that his philosophy could not have been conceived before these teachings were available.
Concerning the Upanishads and Vedas, he writes in The World as Will and Representation:
If the reader has also received the benefit of the Vedas, the access to which by means of the Upanishads is in my eyes the greatest privilege which this still young century (1818) may claim before all previous centuries, if then the reader, I say, has received his initiation in primeval Indian wisdom, and received it with an open heart, he will be prepared in the very best way for hearing what I have to tell him. It will not sound to him strange, as to many others, much less disagreeable; for I might, if it did not sound conceited, contend that every one of the detached statements which constitute the Upanishads, may be deduced as a necessary result from the fundamental thoughts which I have to enunciate, though those deductions themselves are by no means to be found there.
He summarised the influence of the Upanishads thus: “It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death!”
Criticism of Kant
Schopenhauer accepted Kant’s double-aspect of the universe — the phenomenal (world of experience) and the noumenal (the true world, independent of experience). Some commentators suggest that Schopenhauer claimed that the noumenon, or thing-in-itself, was the basis for Schopenhauer’s concept of the will. Other commentators suggest that Schopenhauer considered will to be only a subset of the “thing-in-itself” class, namely that which we can most directly experience.
Schopenhauer’s identification of the Kantian noumenon (i.e., the actually existing entity) with what he termed “will” deserves some explanation. The noumenon was what Kant called the Ding an Sich, the “Thing in Itself”, the reality that is the foundation of our sensory and mental representations of an external world. In Kantian terms, those sensory and mental representations are mere phenomena. Schopenhauer departed from Kant in his description of the relationship between the phenomenon and the noumenon. According to Kant, things-in-themselves ground the phenomenal representations in our minds; Schopenhauer, on the other hand, believed phenomena and noumena to be two different sides of the same coin. Noumena do not cause phenomena, but rather phenomena are simply the way by which our minds perceive the noumena, according to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. This is explained more fully in Schopenhauer’s doctoral thesis, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
Schopenhauer’s second major departure from Kant’s epistemology concerns the body. Kant’s philosophy was formulated as a response to the radical philosophical skepticism of David Hume, who claimed that causality could not be observed empirically. Schopenhauer begins by arguing that Kant’s demarcation between external objects, knowable only as phenomena, and the Thing in Itself of noumenon, contains a significant omission. There is, in fact, one physical object we know more intimately than we know any object of sense perception: our own body.
We know our human bodies have boundaries and occupy space, the same way other objects known only through our named senses do. Though we seldom think of our body as a physical object, we know even before reflection that it shares some of an object’s properties. We understand that a watermelon cannot successfully occupy the same space as an oncoming truck; we know that if we tried to repeat the experiment with our own body, we would obtain similar results – we know this even if we do not understand the physics involved.
We know that our consciousness inhabits a physical body, similar to other physical objects only known as phenomena. Yet our consciousness is not commensurate with our body. Most of us possess the power of voluntary motion. We usually are not aware of the breathing of our lungs or the beating of our heart unless somehow our attention is called to them. Our ability to control either is limited. Our kidneys command our attention on their schedule rather than one we choose. Few of us have any idea what our liver is doing right now, though this organ is as needful as lungs, heart, or kidneys. The conscious mind is the servant, not the master, of these and other organs; these organs have an agenda which the conscious mind did not choose, and over which it has limited power.
When Schopenhauer identifies the noumenon with the desires, needs, and impulses in us that we name “will,” what he is saying is that we participate in the reality of an otherwise unachievable world outside the mind through will. We cannot prove that our mental picture of an outside world corresponds with a reality by reasoning; through will, we know – without thinking – that the world can stimulate us. We suffer fear, or desire: these states arise involuntarily; they arise prior to reflection; they arise even when the conscious mind would prefer to hold them at bay. The rational mind is, for Schopenhauer, a leaf borne along in a stream of pre-reflective and largely unconscious emotion. That stream is will, and through will, if not through logic, we can participate in the underlying reality beyond mere phenomena. It is for this reason that Schopenhauer identifies the noumenon with what we call our will.
In his criticism of Kant, Schopenhauer claimed that sensation and understanding are separate and distinct abilities. Yet, for Kant, an object is known through each of them. Kant wrote: “… [T]here are two stems of human knowledge … namely, sensibility and understanding, objects being given by the former [sensibility] and thought by the latter [understanding].” Schopenhauer disagreed. He asserted that mere sense impressions, not objects, are given by sensibility. According to Schopenhauer, objects are intuitively perceived by understanding and are discursively thought by reason (Kant had claimed that (1) the understanding thinks objects through concepts and that (2) reason seeks the unconditioned or ultimate answer to “why?”). Schopenhauer said that Kant’s mistake regarding perception resulted in all of the obscurity and difficult confusion that is exhibited in the Transcendental Analytic section of his critique.
…Kant used the word [Idea] wrongly as well as illegitimately, although Plato had already taken possession of it, and used it most appropriately.
Instead Schopenhauer relied upon the Neoplatonist interpretation of the biographer Diogenes Laërtius from Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. In reference to Plato’s Ideas, Schopenhauer quotes Laërtius verbatim in an explanatory footnote.
Diogenes Laërtius (III, 12) Plato ideas in natura velut exemplaria dixit subsistere; cetera his esse similia, ad istarum similitudinem consistencia. (Plato teaches that the Ideas exist in nature, so to speak, as patterns or prototypes, and that the remainder of things only resemble them, and exist as their copies.)
Criticism of Hegel
Schopenhauer expressed his dislike for the philosophy of his contemporary Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel many times in his published works. The following quotations are typical:
If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.
Further, if I were to say that this summus philosophus […] scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal before him, so that whoever could read his most eulogized work, the so-called Phenomenology of the Mind, without feeling as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less right.
At first Fichte and Schelling shine as the heroes of this epoch; to be followed by the man who is quite unworthy even of them, and greatly their inferior in point of talent — I mean the stupid and clumsy charlatan Hegel.
In his Foreword to the first edition of his work Die beiden Grundprobleme der Ethik, Schopenhauer suggested that he had shown Hegel to have fallen prey to the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Schopenhauer suggested that Hegel’s works were filled with “castles of abstraction,” and that Hegel used deliberately impressive but ultimately vacuous verbiage. He also thought that his glorification of church and state were designed for personal advantage and had little to do with the search for philosophical truth. For instance, the Right Hegelians interpreted Hegel as viewing the Prussian state of his day as perfect and the goal of all history up until then.
Schopenhauer has had a massive influence upon later thinkers, though more so in the arts (especially literature and music) and psychology than in philosophy. His popularity peaked in the early twentieth century, especially during the Modernist era, and waned somewhat thereafter. Nevertheless, a number of recent publications have reinterpreted and modernised the study of Schopenhauer. His theory is also being explored by some modern philosophers as a precursor to evolutionary theory and modern evolutionary psychology.
Richard Wagner, writing in his autobiography, remembered his first impression that Schopenhauer left on him (when he read World as will and representation):
Schopenhauer’s book was never completely out of my mind, and by the following summer I had studied it from cover to cover four times. It had a radical influence on my whole life.
Wagner also commented that “serious mood, which was trying to find ecstatic expression” created by Schopenhauer inspired the conception of Tristan und Isolde. See also Influence of Schopenhauer on Tristan und Isolde.
Friedrich Nietzsche owed the awakening of his philosophical interest to reading The World as Will and Representation and admitted that he was one of the few philosophers that he respected, dedicating to him his essay Schopenhauer als Erzieher one of his Untimely Meditations.
Jorge Luis Borges remarked that the reason he had never attempted to write a systematic account of his world view, despite his penchant for philosophy and metaphysics in particular, was because Schopenhauer had already written it for him.
As a teenager, Ludwig Wittgenstein was strongly influenced by Schopenhauer’s epistemological idealism. However, after his study of the philosophy of mathematics, he abandoned epistemological idealism for Gottlob Frege‘s conceptual realism.
- On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Über die vierfache Wurzel des Satzes vom zureichenden Grunde), 1813
- On Vision and Colors (Über das Sehn und die Farben), 1816 ISBN 978-0-85496-988-3
- The World as Will and Representation (alternatively translated in English as The World as Will and Idea; original German is Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung), 1818/1819, vol 2 1844
- On the Will in Nature (Über den Willen in der Natur), 1836 ISBN 978-0-85496-999-9
- On the Freedom of the Will (Über die Freiheit des menschlichen Willens), 1839 ISBN 978-0-631-14552-3
- On the Basis of Morality (Über die Grundlage der Moral), 1840
- Parerga und Paralipomena, 1851; English Translation by E. F. J. Payne, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1974, 2 Volumes:
- Essays and Aphorisms, being excerpts from Volume 2 of Parerga und Paralipomena, selected and translated by R J Hollingdale, with Introduction by R J Hollingdale, Penguin Classics, 1970, Paperback 1973: ISBN 978-0-14-044227-4 (9780140442274)
- Arthur Schopenhauer, Manuscript Remains, Volume II, Berg Publishers Ltd., ISBN 978-0-85496-539-7
- Works by Arthur Schopenhauer at Project Gutenberg
- Illustrated version of the “Art of Being Right” and links to logic and sophisms used by the stratagems.
- The Art Of Controversy (Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten). (bilingual) [The Art of Being Right]
- Studies in Pessimism – audiobook from LibriVox.
- The World as Will and Idea at Internet Archive:
- On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason and On the will in nature.Two essays:
- Internet Archive. Translated by Mrs. Karl Hillebrand (1903).
- Cornell University Library Historical Monographs Collection. Reprinted by Cornell University Library Digital Collections
- Facsimile edition of Schopenhauer’s manuscripts in SchopenhauerSource
- Essays of Schopenhauer
- Antinatalism, a position advocated by Schopenhauer that one would be better off not having been born
- God in Buddhism
- Massacre of the Innocents (Guido Reni)
- Mortal coil
- Sir William Jones
- To be, or not to be
- Wooden iron
- ^ “John Gray: Forget everything you know — Profiles, People”. London: The Independent. 2002-09-03. Archived from the original on 9 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-12.
- ^ Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1, trans. E. Payne, (New York: Dover Publishing Inc., 1969), 3.
- ^ Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1, trans. E. Payne, (New York: Dover Publishing Inc., 1969), 4.
- ^ David A. Leeming, Kathryn Madden, Stanton Marlan, ed. (2009). Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, Volume 2. Springer. p. 824. ISBN 9780387718019. “A more accurate statement might be that for a German – rather than a French or British writer of that time – Schopenhauer was an honest and open atheist.”
- ^ Raymond B. Marcin (2006). In Search of Schopenhauer’s Cat: Arthur Schopenhauer’s Quantum-Mystical Theory of Justice. CUA Press. p. 122. ISBN 9780813214306. “It is easy to find many of the underpinnings of Schopenhauer’s doctrine of the denial of the will to live in the Theologia Germanica, but only if one is willing to gainsay the anonymous author’s theism and Schopenhauer’s atheism.”
- ^ Dale Jacquette, ed. (2007). Schopenhauer, Philosophy and the Arts. Cambridge University Press. p. 22. ISBN 9780521044066. “For Kant, the mathematical sublime, as seen for example in the starry heavens, suggests to imagination the infinite, which in turn leads by subtle turns of contemplation to the concept of God. Schopenhauer’s atheism will have none of this, and he rightly observes that despite adopting Kant’s distinction between the dynamical and mathematical sublime, his theory of the sublime, making reference to the struggles and sufferings of struggles and sufferings of Will, is unlike Kant’s.”
- ^ B. R. Hergenhahn (2008). An Introduction to the History of Psychology. Cengage Learning. p. 216. ISBN 9780495506218. “Although Schopenhauer was an atheist, he re-alized that his philosophy of denial had been part of several great religions; for example, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism.”
- ^ Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 2, trans. E. Payne, (New York: Dover Publishing Inc., 1966), 639. “the Veda says; Finditur nodus cordis, dissolvuntur omnes dubitationes, ejusque opera evanescunt. In agreement with this view, the fifteenth sermon of Meister Eckhart will be found well worth reading.”
- ^ Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 2, trans. E. Payne, (New York: Dover Publishing Inc., 1966), 635. “Even the conclusion of Seneca’s last letter is in keeping with this… which certainly seems to indicate an influence of Christianity.”
- ^ The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 2, Ch. 48 (Dover page 616), “The ascetic tendency is certainly unmistakable in genuine and original Christianity, as it was developed in the writings of the Church Fathers from the kernel of the New Testament“
- ^ Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1, trans. E. Payne, (New York: Dover Publishing Inc., 1969), table of contents.
- ^ Addressed in: Cate, Curtis. Friedrich Nietzsche. Chapter 7.
- ^ Albert Einstein in Mein Glaubensbekenntnis (August 1932): “I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer’s words: ‘Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants,[Der Mensch kann wohl tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will]’ accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.” Schopenhauer’s clearer, actual words were: “You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing.” [Du kannst tun was du willst: aber du kannst in jedem gegebenen Augenblick deines Lebens nur ein Bestimmtes wollen und schlechterdings nichts anderes als dieses eine.] On the Freedom of the Will, Ch. II.
- ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur; Günter Zöller, Eric F. J. Payne (1999). Chronology. Cambridge University Press. pp. xxx. ISBN 978-0-521-57766-3. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
- ^ Safranski (1990) page 12. “There was in the father’s life some dark and vague source of fear which later made him hurl himself to his death from the attic of his house in Hamburg.”
- ^ “A Schopenhauer Timeline”. Reocities.com. Retrieved 2010-03-12.
- ^ “Arthur Schopenhauer”. Kirjasto.sci.fi. Archived from the original on 6 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-12.
- ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur. Author’s preface to “On The Fourfold Root of the Principle of sufficient reason. Page 1. On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
- ^ Addressed in: Russell, Bertrand (1945).
- ^ Rudiger Safranski, Rüdiger Safranski, Ewald Osers (1991-09-01). Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy. pp. 271–2. ISBN 978-0-674-79276-0.
- ^ Safranski (1990), Chapter 19
- ^ Magee, Bryan (1997). The Philosophy of Schopenhauer. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-19-823723-5.
- ^ “The Leuven Philosophy Newsletter”. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. pp. 42–43. “But an examination of his life reveals a yearning for marriage frustrated by a train of rejections.” In the year 1831, Schopenhauer fell in love with a girl named Flora Weiss. At a boat party in Germany he made his advance by offering her a bunch of grapes. Flora’s diary records this event as follows: “I didn’t want the grapes because old Schopenhauer had touched them, so I let them slide, quite gently into the water.” Apparently, she was underwhelmed.”
- ^ “Schopenhauer:”. Courseweb.stthomas.edu. Retrieved 2010-03-12.
- ^ “Full text of “Selected Essays Of Schopenhauer””. Archive.org. Retrieved 2010-03-12.
- ^ Schopenhauer: his life and philosophy.H Zimmern – 1932 – G. Allen & Unwin ltd
- ^ “The reality is what Schopenhauer calls the Will, the Will to Live.” Letter to Richard C. Lyon, 1 August 1949, George Santayana, The Letters of George Santayana, Scribner’s, New York, 1955
- ^ But like Fichte, he rejects the Kantian claim that the thing-in-itself as an unknowable substratum of experience. Schopenhauer’s argument is that the thing in-itself in Kant is an incoherent sense of object: it is the opposite to objects, and yet it is said to be an object-in-itself: “the phantom of a dream”.
- ^ Daniel Albright, Modernism and Music, 2004, page 39, footnote 34
- ^ On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, § 43.
- ^ On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, § 49.
- ^ a b c Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. I, § 62.
- ^ Paul Rée, in his The Origin of Moral Sensation, reflected Schopenhauer’s concerns when he wrote: “The feeling of justice thus arises out of two errors, namely, because the punishments inflicted by authorities and educators appear as acts of retribution, and because people believe in the freedom of the will.”
- ^ a b c The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. XLVII.
- ^ The World as Will and Representation, Vol. I, § 62.
- ^ “…he who attempts to punish in accordance with reason does not retaliate on account of the past wrong (for he could not undo something which has been done) but for the sake of the future, so that neither the wrongdoer himself, nor others who see him being punished, will do wrong again.” Plato, “Protagoras“, 324 B. Plato wrote that punishment should “be an example to other men not to offend.” Plato, “Laws“, Book IX, 863.
- ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur. Supplements to the Fourth Book of “The World as Will and Representation, Page 338 The World as Will and Representation/Supplements to the Fourth Book
- ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur. Supplements to the Fourth Book of “The World as Will and Representation. Page 340 The World as Will and Representation/Supplements to the Fourth Book
- ^ “Nearly a century before Freud… in Schopenhauer there is, for the first time, an explicit philosophy of the unconscious and of the body.” Safranski pg. 345.
- ^ The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 2, Ch. 47
- ^ s:Government (Schopenhauer)
- ^ The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 2, Ch. 12
- ^ Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume II, Section 92
- ^ Parerga and Paralipomena, “On Ethics,” Sec. 5
- ^ “Fragments for the history of philosophy”, Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I.
- ^ Feminism and the Limits of Equality PA Cain – Ga. L. Rev., 1989
- ^ Julian Young (23 June 2005). Schopenhauer. Psychology Press. p. 242. ISBN 978-0-415-33346-7. Retrieved 23 December 2011.
- ^ Safranski (1990), Chapter 24. Page 348.
- ^ Payne, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, p. 519
- ^ On the Suffering of the World, (1970), Page 35. Penguin Books-Great Ideas
- ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur (1969). E. F. J. Payne. ed. The World as Will and Representation. II. New York: Dover Publications. p. 527. ISBN 978-0-486-21762-8.
- ^ Essays and Aphorisms, trans. R.J. Hollingdale, Middlesex: London, 1970, p. 154
- ^ Nietzsche and modern German thought [PDF] from homelinux.org. K Ansell-Pearson – 1991 – Psychology Press
- ^ “Unlike the intellect, it [the Will] does not depend on the perfection of the organism, but is essentially the same in all animals as that which is known to us so intimately. Accordingly, the animal has all the emotions of humans, such as joy, grief, fear, anger, love, hatred, strong desire, envy, and so on. The great difference between human and animal rests solely on the intellect’s degrees of perfection.” On the Will in Nature, “Physiology and Pathology.”
- ^ On the basis of morality, § 19
- ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur (1994). Philosophical Writings. London: Continuum. p. 233. ISBN 978-0-8264-0729-0.
- ^ Ryder, Richard (2000). Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Oxford: Berg Publishers. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-85973-330-1.
- ^ “…in English all animals are of the neuter gender and so are represented by the pronoun ‘it,’ just as if they were inanimate things. The effect of this artifice is quite revolting, especially in the case of primates, such as dogs, monkeys, and the like….” On the basis of morality, § 19.
- ^ “I recall having read of an Englishman who, while hunting in India, had shot a monkey; he could not forget the look which the dying animal gave him, and since then had never again fired at monkeys.” On the basis of morality, § 19.
- ^ “[Sir William Harris] describes how he shot his first elephant, a female. The next morning he went to look for the dead animal; all the other elephants had fled from the neighborhood except a young one, who had spent the night with its dead mother. Forgetting all fear, he came toward the sportsmen with the clearest and liveliest evidence of inconsolable grief, and put his tiny trunk round them in order to appeal to them for help. Harris says he was then filled with real remorse for what he had done, and felt as if he had committed a murder.” On the basis of morality, § 19.
- ^ “His contempt for animals, who, as mere things for our use, are declared by him to be without rights,…in conjunction with Pantheism, is at the same time absurd and abominable.” The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 2, Chapter 50.
- ^ Spinoza, Ethics, Pt. IV, Prop. XXXVII, Note I.: “Still I do not deny that beasts feel: what I deny is, that we may not consult our own advantage and use them as we please, treating them in a way which best suits us; for their nature is not like ours….” This is the exact opposite of Schopenhauer’s doctrine. Also, ibid., Appendix, 26, “whatsoever there be in nature beside man, a regard for our advantage does not call on us to preserve, but to preserve or destroy according to its various capacities, and to adapt to our use as best we may.”
- ^ “Such are the matters which I engage to prove in Prop. xviii of this Part, whereby it is plain that the law against the slaughtering of animals is founded rather on vain superstition and womanish pity than on sound reason. The rational quest of what is useful to us further teaches us the necessity of associating ourselves with our fellow-men, but not with beasts, or things, whose nature is different from our own; we have the same rights in respect to them as they have in respect to us. Nay, as everyone’s right is defined by his virtue, or power, men have far greater rights over beasts than beasts have over men. Still I affirm that beasts feel. But I also affirm that we may consult our own advantage and use them as we please, treating them in the way which best suits us; for their nature is not like ours, and their emotions are naturally different from human emotions.” Ethics, Part 4, Prop. 37, Note 1.
- ^ Schopenhauer 1969, p. 566. He wrote that only those who were too old or too young to reproduce strong, healthy children would resort to pederasty (Schopenhauer considered pederasty to be in itself a vice).”The World as Will and Representation: Volume Two”. Dover
- ^ Schopenhauer 1969, p. 567
- ^ Clarke, John James (1997). Oriental enlightenment. Routledge. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-415-13376-0.
- ^ Dutt, Purohit Bhagavan. “Western Indologists: A Study in Motives”. Retrieved 2009-05-09.
- ^ Christopher McCoy, 3-4
- ^ Christopher McCoy, 54-56
- ^ Abelson, Peter (April 1993). Schopenhauer and Buddhism. Philosophy East and West Volume 43, Number 2, pp. 255-278. University of Hawaii Press. Retrieved on: 12 April 2008.
- ^ Janaway, Christopher, Self and World in Schopenhauer’s Philosophy, p. 28 f.
- ^ David Burton, “Buddhism, Knowledge and Liberation: A Philosophical Study.” Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004, page 22.
- ^ John J. Holder, Early Buddhist Discourses. Hackett Publishing Company, 2006, page xx.
- ^ Godwin, J: Arktos: The Polar Myth in Science, Symbolism, and Nazi Survival, page 38. Adventures Unlimited Press, 1996, ISBN 978-0-932813-35-0, ISBN 978-0-932813-35-0
- ^ Arktos, p. 38.
- ^ “Schopenhauer is often said to be the first, or indeed the only, modern Western philosopher of any note to attempt any integration of his work with Eastern ways of thinking. That he was the first is surely true, but the claim that he was influenced by Indian thought needs some qualification. There is a remarkable correspondence, at least in broad terms, between some of the central Schopenhauerian doctrines and Buddhism: notably in the views that empirical existence is suffering, that suffering originates in desires, and that salvation can be attained by the extinction of desires. These three ‘truths of the Buddha’ are mirrored closely in the essential structure of the doctrine of the will (On this, see Dorothea W. Dauer, Schopenhauer as Transmitter of Buddhist Ideas. Note also the discussion by Bryan Magee, The Philosophy of Schopenhauer, pp. 14-15, 316-21). Janaway, Christopher, Self and World in Schopenhauer’s Philosophy, p. 28 f.
- ^ The World as Will and Representation’’, Vol. 2, Ch. 17
- ^ Artistic detachment in Japan and the West: psychic distance in comparative aesthetics. S Odin – 2001 – Univ of Hawaii Press
- ^ Parerga & Paralipomena, vol. I, p. 106., trans. E.F.J. Payne.
- ^ World as Will and Representation, vol. I, p. 273, trans. E.F.J. Payne.
- ^ Christopher McCoy, 3
- ^ App, Urs Arthur Schopenhauer and China. Sino-Platonic Papers Nr. 200 (April 2010) (PDF, 8.7 Mb PDF, 164 p.; Schopenhauer’s early notes on Buddhism reproduced in Appendix). This study provides an overview of the actual discovery of Buddhism by Schopenhauer.
- ^ Abelsen, Peter (1993). “Schopenhauer and Buddhism.” Philosophy East & West, 44:2 p. 255. Retrieved on: 18 August 2007.
- ^ Schopenhauer and Buddhism. P Abelsen, H Amsterdam, A Schopenhauer – Philosophy East & West, 1993
- ^ The World as Will and Representation Preface to the first edition, p. xiii
- ^ Magee, Bryan (1977). The Philosophy of Schopenhauer. Oxford University Press. p. 265. ISBN 978-0-19-823723-5.
- ^ Bryan Magee, Misunderstanding Schopenhauer, Institute of Germanic and Romance Studies, University of London, 1990, ISBN 978-0-85457-148-2
- ^ Critique of Pure Reason, A 15
- ^ McCoy, Christopher Patrick. 2009. Thou Art That: Schopenhauer’s Philosophy and the Chandogya Upanishad. Master’s thesis, James Madison University: 10-13.
- ^ On the Basis of Morality, pp. 15–16.
- ^ On the Basis of Morality, p. 35.
- ^ a b “Philosophy: Pseudophilosophy”. Orientalia.org. Retrieved 2010-03-12.
- ^ “… the Hegelians who, in complete unsmiling seriousness, were airing the question of what the further content of world history could possibly be, now that in the Hegelian philosophy the world spirit had reached the goal, the knowledge of itself.” Safranski, p. 256.
- ^ In the book Straw Dogs, John Gray upheld Schopenhauer as one of the few philosophers who has dedicated himself to studying Eastern philosophy as well as Western philosophy. The book argues against free will, and states that humans have much more in common with animals than is commonly admitted in the West. Schopenhauer is praised for his attitude towards animals, and for having addressed the brutality of much of human life.
- ^ Kimball, Roger. Schopenhauer’s world. The New Criterion, 1985
- ^ My life.
- ^ Schopenhauer as Educator
- ^ Magee 1997, p. 413.
- ^ Malcolm, Norman. Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir. Oxford University Press, 1958, page 6
- ^ Magee, Bryan (1997). Confessions of a Philosopher., Ch. 16
- Albright, Daniel (2004) Modernism and Music: An Anthology of Sources. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-01267-4
- Hannan, Barbara, The Riddle of the World: A Reconsideration of Schopenhauer’s Philosophy (Oxford, OUP, 2009)
- Magee, Bryan, Confessions of a Philosopher, Random House, 1998, ISBN 978-0-375-50028-2. Chapters 20, 21
- Safranski, Rüdiger (1990) Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy. Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-79275-3; orig. German Schopenhauer und Die wilden Jahre der Philosophie, Carl Hanser Verlag (1987)
- The Living Thoughts of Schopenhauer, Thomas Mann editor, Longmans Green & Co., 1939
- Frederick Copleston, Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher of pessimism (Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1946)
- O.F.Damm, Arthur Schopenhauer – eine Biographie, (Reclam, 1912)
- Kuno Fischer, Arthur Schopenhauer (Heidelberg: Winter, 1893); revised as Schopenhauers Leben, Werke und Lehre (Heidelberg: Winter, 1898).
- Eduard Grisebach, Schopenhauer – Geschichte seines Lebens (Berlin: Hofmann, 1876).
- D.W. Hamlyn, Schopenhauer, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (1980, 1985)
- Heinrich Hasse, Schopenhauer. (Reinhardt, 1926)
- Arthur Hübscher, Arthur Schopenhauer – Ein Lebensbild (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1938).
- Thomas Mann, Schopenhauer (Bermann-Fischer, 1938)
- Rüdiger Safranski, Schopenhauer und die wilden Jahre der Philosophie – Eine Biographie, hard cover Carl Hanser Verlag, München 1987, ISBN 978-3-446-14490-3, pocket edition Fischer: ISBN 978-3-596-14299-6.
- Rüdiger Safranski, Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy, trans. Ewald Osers (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989)
- Walther Schneider, Schopenhauer – Eine Biographie (Vienna: Bermann-Fischer, 1937).
- William Wallace, Life of Arthur Schopenhauer (London: Scott, 1890; repr., St. Clair Shores, Mich.: Scholarly Press, 1970)
- App, Urs. Arthur Schopenhauer and China. Sino-Platonic Papers Nr. 200 (April 2010) (PDF, 8.7 Mb PDF, 164 p.). Contains extensive appendixes which include transcriptions and English translations of Schopenhauer’s early notes about Buddhism and Indian philosophy.
- Atwell, John. Schopenhauer on the Character of the World, The Metaphysics of Will.
- ——–, Schopenhauer, The Human Character.
- Cartwright, David, Schopenhauer: A Biography, Cambridge University Press, 2010, ISBN 978-0-521-82598-6
- Copleston, Frederick, Schopenhauer: Philosopher of Pessimism, 1946 (reprinted London: Search Press, 1975.)
- Gardiner, Patrick, 1963. Schopenhauer. Penguin Books
- ——–, Schopenhauer: A Very Short introduction.
- Janaway, Christopher, 2003. Self and World in Schopenhauer’s Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-825003-6
- Magee, Bryan, The Philosophy of Schopenhauer, Oxford University Press (1988, reprint 1997), ISBN 978-0-19-823722-8
- Mannion, Gerard, “Schopenhauer, Religion and Morality – The Humble Path to Ethics”, Ashgate Press, New Critical Thinking in Philosophy Series, 2003, 314pp
- Zimmern, Helen, Arthur Schopenhauer, his Life and Philosophy, London, Longman, and Co. – 1876
- Abelson, Peter (1993). “Schopenhauer and Buddhism”. Philosophy East and West 43 (2): 255–78. doi:10.2307/1399616. JSTOR 1399616.
- Jiménez, Camilo, 2006, “Tagebuch eines Ehrgeizigen: Arthur Schopenhauers Studienjahre in Berlin,” Avinus Magazin (in German).
- Mazard, Eisel, 2005, “Schopenhauer and the Empirical Critique of Idealism in the History of Ideas.” On Schopenhauer’s (debated) place in the history of European philosophy and his relation to his predecessors.
- Moges, Awet, 2006, “Schopenhauer’s Philosophy.” Galileian Library.
- Sangharakshita, 2004, “Schopenhauer and aesthetic appreciation.“
- Young, Christopher; Brook, Andrew (1994). “Schopenhauer and Freud”. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 75: 101–18. PMID 8005756.
- Oxenford’s “Iconoclasm in German Philosophy,” (See p. 388)
|Find more about Arthur Schopenhauer on Wikipedia’s sister projects:|
|Images and media from Commons|
|Quotations from Wikiquote|
|Source texts from Wikisource|
- Works by Arthur Schopenhauer at Project Gutenberg
- Works by Schopenhauer in audio format from LibriVox
- Arthur Schopenhauer entry by Robert Wicks in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Schopenhauersource: Reproductions of Schopenhauer’s manuscripts
- Kant’s philosophy as rectified by Schopenhauer
- Timeline of German Philosophers
- A Quick Introduction to Schopenhauer
- Arthur Schopenhauer at Find a Grave
- Ross, Kelley L., 1998, “Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860).” Two short essays, on Schopenhauer’s life and work, and on his dim view of academia.