John Vespasian

Historians attribute to Tacitus (and Cicero to a lesser extent) a style characterised by short, profound sentences that can be interpreted at different levels. Tacitus and Cicero were highly admired in the Renaissance, precisely for that reason. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) produced many quotable texts, but did not follow Tacitus’ and Cicero’s approach. Those must have spent hours polishing each sentence, trying to get their ideas across in a distinctly concise manner. For Montaigne, speed was more important than brilliance. He opted for producing a high output even if quality suffered a bit. He loved to read Tacitus and Cicero, but did not want to emulate them. In his eyes, the cost was just too high. Montaigne is the first writer who made a conscious choice for simplicity and directness. He made the choice at the beginning of writing his “Essays” and maintained the same course for two decades. Once he had made his choice, he did not deviate one millimetre. Nowadays, we are used to people choosing a simple, direct style. We get annoyed when writers get sidetracked or employ over-complicated words. Our mind disconnects from tiresome, phoney arguments and fluffy reasoning. The path to literary simplicity started in the Renaissance, in the “Essays” written by Montaigne. Let me underline that he was not only the first, but for a long time, the only one. Most of his peers, although brilliant in their own ways, inherited the ancient tendency to over-complicate, overdecorate, overextend, and over-strain. The Spanish Luis de Gongora (1561-1627) was extremely creative, but made the opposite choice in terms of style. Where Montaigne chose simplicity, Gongora became the archetype of over-complexity and verbosity. Gongora reminds me of ancient Greek poets, unable to put any thought in a straight sentence, unable to describe any event without attributing it to some Olympian god or goddess. Montaigne didn’t enjoy ancient Greek poets and found little wisdom in their verbosity. I am referring especially to Homer, who plays a minor role in Montaigne’s “Essays” if compared to Plutarch and Seneca. Like Montaigne, Gongora enjoyed an excellent education, in which the study of ancient literature shaped the curriculum. I find fascinating the reason for Gongora’s choice for an overly complicated style. At the beginning of his career, Gongora made an attempt at writing simple lyrics. People liked them although he could not expect to achieve great fame and recognition in this way. His was a purely quantitative assessment: there were not that many readers willing to pay for poetry. Thus, Gongora opted for seeking a patron, someone willing to support him as a poet. The search for a powerful sponsor prompted Gongora to move to Madrid, the Spanish capital. He eventually obtained the protection and support of the Duke of Lerma, a leading aristocrat. Montaigne followed the opposite path in his career. He was not expecting anyone to sponsor his literary ambitions, nor was he willing to adapt his style or interest to please any patron. He wrote primarily what he enjoyed, matters he found worthy of interest or that he wanted to research. His choice for simplicity and directness is coupled to his choice for self-reliance and effectiveness. Do things relatively well, but do them fast. Keep a reasonable level of quality, but do not get lost in cumbersome details. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/simplicity-in-michel-de-montaigne-and-the-renaissance/

Renaissance art is reputed for its proportion and harmony. It represents the human figure in an idealised manner, which also remains realistic. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) represents the Renaissance in literature, but he cared more for results than for proportion, harmony, and idealism. Montaigne did not even care to be entertaining or brilliant. I find some of his “Essays” chaotic in structure and unequal in style. Montaigne’s Latin quotations sometimes contain errors, and his retelling of anecdotes is not always accurate. Yet, in contrast to all his contemporaries, he was totally and completely focused on results, that is, on finding the truth and presenting it in a convincing manner. For Montaigne, there was just one priority: he wanted to clarify difficult ethical questions, the keys to happiness and personal effectiveness. I consider Montaigne the archetype of result orientation. He would take any subject, any ancient anecdote, any quotation or verse, and belabour it relentlessly in order to extract every drop of philosophical knowledge. Other Renaissance writers, like Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375) grew far more famous, but lacked the results orientation in the sense of philosophical wisdom. Boccaccio was a highly gifted entertainer, but what do you learn from reading his works? I have never gained any important insights from reading Boccaccio. His most celebrated work, “The Decameron,” can help you pass a couple of pleasant hours, but will it make you wiser and more effective? I very much doubt it. Boccaccio deployed massive efforts to study the legacy of ancient Greece and Rome. He spent his early years in Florence but then his father sent him to Naples to study law. The goal, in his father’s mind, was to enable Giovanni Boccaccio to become a merchant. In Naples, Boccaccio devoted more time to reading novels, history and poetry than studying law. He soon started to write stories (such as “Filostrato”) in early Renaissance taste, that is, knightly love and chivalry adventures. If he had only written those, Boccaccio would have been quickly forgotten. Montaigne never felt attracted to fiction stories that lack a philosophical message. Before writing his essays, he had translated a theological treatise from Latin into French, but his results orientation had always been there. He did not care to be entertained; he just wanted to find the truth. In 1345, Boccaccio returned to Florence with the goal of settling down permanently. However, three years later, the city was devastated by the Black Death. It was an illness that killed a large part of the population, especially in the city. Those that lived in the countryside survived for the most part. Boccaccio survived and cleverly used the Black Death as background for his next book, “The Decameron.” The writing took Boccaccio four years (1349-1353) due to the sheer size of the project. From the very beginning, he planned to write one-hundred short stories recounted by ten people who met coincidentally while escaping Florence and the Black Death. The tone of the stories varies (drama, comedy, satirical) as much as the topics (crime, humour, serendipity). I don’t contest the entertainment value of Boccaccio’s work, and I can only praise his dedication in carrying out such an ambitious project. “The Decameron” became highly popular, and the fact that Boccaccio earned relatively little as an author has more to do with the economics of books in the early Renaissance than with his own actions. Boccaccio was results oriented in the sense that he carried out a major literary project, but not in philosophical terms. The world would not have lost a great deal of wisdom if Boccaccio had never written “The Decameron.” It’s a book that I can read a dozen times for entertaining purposes, but that’s it. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/results-orientation-in-michel-de-montaigne-and-the-renaissance/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) loved classical authors, philosophers or not, and read their books in Latin. For Greek authors such as Aristotle, he resorted to Latin translations that were already available in the sixteenth century. The efforts displayed by Montaigne are remarkable. Keep in mind that he was not a professional scholar. He was doing all the research himself, and purchasing those books with his own money. After moving to live in a farmhouse, he had no access to any large library in a convent or a university. I find even more remarkable that Montaigne focused solely on a small area of classical philosophy, namely, ethics. He had only one goal, one primary concern. He wanted to find the key to happiness, and identify the best patterns of behaviour. Montaigne succeeded in identifying behaviour patterns that had proven their effectiveness in history. For that purpose, he read Plutarch, Seneca, Cicero, Tacitus, Aristotle, Julius Caesar, and other ancient authors with extreme care. I must nonetheless warn readers that Montaigne, despite his good intentions, sometimes drew the wrong conclusion. Some of his essays present detailed arguments for one idea, and then detailed arguments for the opposite idea, without reaching a clear conclusion. While I consider those essays as unfinished, Montaigne was never bothered by his own indecision. If he could reach a clear conclusion, great. If he could not, he stated that he had given extensive thought to the matter, and that several solutions were possible. Philosophy historians have placed those Montaigne’s essays in the category of extreme scepticism. They accuse Montaigne not only of failing to draw clear conclusions, but of stating that it was impossible to do so. Those essays say literally that there is no definite, universal solution to the concerned questions. Montaigne’s extreme scepticism is also called “Pyrrhonism” because it was popularized by Pyrrho of Elis (360-270 BC); all we know about Pyrrho comes through Sextus Empiricus, who wrote a philosophical compendium five centuries after Pyrrho’s death. Pyrrho was a contemporary of Aristotle and Alexander the Great. When Alexander carried out his military campaigns in the east, Pyrrho accompanied him. His travels to Mesopotamia and India exposed him to Persian and Indian philosophy. Montaigne was less familiar with those, but knew very well the doctrines of scepticism. He agreed with Pyrrho’s views that humans cannot attain total certainty because, when there are solid arguments in favour and against, one should refrain from passing judgement and thus protect one’s peace of mind. Pyrrho’s philosophy is wrong, but so is Montaigne’s in this area. When there are solid arguments in favour and against, the correct conclusion to that one should research further. Reality doesn’t allow for contradictions. When contradictory arguments seem equally solid, they need to be tested, probed, scrutinized, until all discrepancies are removed. Truth is either or, as Aristotle had said. Scepticism is a poor excuse for unfinished work. Montaigne should have asked additional questions until he had found the correct answers. Pyrrho was delusional in thinking that one could achieve peace of mind though scepticism. The contrary is true. Peace of mind comes from clarity and truth. It comes from the elimination of contradictions and discrepancies. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-classical-philosophy/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) regarded intellectual and cultural pursuits as potentially detrimental; he recommended to steer away from pursuits that generate unworkable desires and ambitions. Before investing oneself in those, one should figure out the consequences. Schopenhauer’s views on intellectual pursuits are innovative and surprising. Schopenhauer is contradicting the opinions of philosophers from previous centuries. Never before in history had a Western thinker held intellectual pursuits in such a low regard. Aristotle (384-322 BC) must have turned in his grave when learning about Schopenhauer’s views on intellectual pursuits. I share Aristotle’s profound appreciation for intellectual pursuits, and this is why I want to clarify here Schopenhauer’s views on this matter. For Aristotle, it was highly desirable to devote oneself to all sorts of intellectual inquiry. He regarded reason (defined as the ability to employ logic) as a uniquely human characteristic. It’s in your interest to exert your logical ability every single day. Aristotle didn’t perceive any danger in the exercise of logic, or in the pursuit of knowledge. In his “Nicomachean Ethics,” he rates those elements as essential for human flourishing, that is, essential for human happiness. Schopenhauer discarded Aristotle’s views on this matter. He found that Aristotle was overlooking the risk inherent in wrong or worthless knowledge. “The world as will and representation” (1818) and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) contain Schopenhauer’s warnings in this area: intellectual pursuits that raise one’s self-awareness and self-reliance are beneficial; on the other hand, those that increase dissatisfaction and frustration should be avoided. Schopenhauer disagreed with Aristotle’s unreserved love for intellectual pursuits. He rejected Aristotle’s blanket praise for research and learning. Aristotle was wrong, he argued, because intellectual pursuits are just tools for achieving an objective. If the objective is detrimental, so are the intellectual pursuits. For Schopenhauer, all living creatures are driven by the will (“life force”); the will pushes them to ensure their reproduction and survival, and to seek pleasure without considering the cost and risks involved. Happiness requires counteracting the will. Schopenhauer is giving recommendations in “Parerga and Paralipomena.” He is warning readers against the short-term thinking imposed by the will, and calling them to develop prudence and foresight. Aristotle had implicitly accepted that humans can choose to think or not to think. They can freely decide to exercise reason or not. Schopenhauer goes a step back because he assumes that humans are routinely choosing not to think. Unless people grow self-aware, argues Schopenhauer, they are going to be controlled by the will. Unless they adopt strong measures to counteract the will, they are going to focus on the short term and suffer the long-term consequences. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-views-on-intellectual-pursuits/

Did Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) provide a waterproof answer to the problem of evil? No, he didn’t. He got it right in part, but failed to answer the complete question. In his essay “Two fundamental problems in ethics” (1843), Schopenhauer rated evil and suffering as natural, that is, as the predictable outcome of the unimpeded will (“life force”). Only when human beings take action can they avert the negative influence of the will and counteract evil. Schopenhauer based his analysis of evil on his theory of the will. He built his logic on the assumption that the will (a wild, irrational, cosmic force) can take control of humans, and drive them to engage in exploitation, victimization, and abuse. However, there is a problem with Schopenhauer’s reasoning on the problem of evil. His logical chain is flawed because it is jumping from the will (a cosmic force) to humans; he blames a force of nature for evil, as though humans were puppets. Aristotle (384-322 BC) knew much better than that. He had grasped perfectly that morality applies only to humans because only humans are capable of reason. Natural events (for example, storms and floods) operate in a fully automatic manner. They cause damage and suffering, but it is pointless to call nature “evil” or “malevolent.” Thousands of years ago, humans used to attribute storms or floods to divine forces, but we know better today. Science can accurately explain how storms and floods occur. Nature works according to physical and biological laws, which must be taken as they are. They are neither “good” nor “evil” in themselves. In his “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle attributed evil to the human capability to make choices, that is, incorrect choices or correct choices. Ethics revolves around “right” versus “wrong” and the human ability to distinguish between them. Schopenhauer overlooked the crucial prerequisite identified by Aristotle. Reason is the prerequisite of ethics; in the absence of reason, it’s pointless to speak about “good” and “bad.” Only humans can choose between right and wrong because reason is a uniquely human characteristic. No other creature is capable of reason. Schopenhauer missed this prerequisite when he was linking the will (a cosmic force) with humans (rational beings). Despite the above-mentioned error, Schopenhauer arrived at conclusions similar to Aristotle’s. Schopenhauer viewed humans as flawed due to the negative influence of the will, but advised determined action to avert the will and pursue happiness. Aristotle considered that humans are born neither good nor bad, but also advised determined action to actualise the best of one’s potential. Even when it comes to defining the purpose of life, the error in logic did not stop Schopenhauer from reaching conclusions similar to Aristotle’s. Schopenhauer sees human life as filled with suffering due to the influence of the will, but encouraged his readers (especially in “Parerga and Paralipomena” in the edition of 1851) to adopt countermeasures, improve their lives, and pursue happiness. It is up to each person to counteract evil and build a better life. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/errors-in-schopenhauers-views-on-the-problem-of-evil/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) wrote extensively about the phenomenon of genius. His notes provide clues on how to increase one’s creativity and critical thinking. They give hands-on advice on increasing one’s self-awareness and self-reliance. Let us examine Schopenhauer’s recommendations and see if they can be applied here and now. I am going to be drawing the recommendations from Schopenhauer’s books, especially from “Parerga and Paralipomena” in its edition of 1851. Why do geniuses possess higher creativity? Schopenhauer argued that geniuses are more creative because of their ability to transcend their own interests, rise above them, and examine problems dispassionately. I regard Schopenhauer’s explanation as obviously wrong. It contradicts all human experience to affirm that people become more creative when they don’t care. Look at your life. You tend to think more sharply when you are interested in the outcome. It’s false to say that uninterested people are more creative. Schopenhauer should have linked his explanation to resilience, not to indifference. He should have argued that self-confident, self-reliant persons tend to be more creative because they can keep a cool head in times of trouble. Here is a major lesson: if you want to become more creative and get closer to genius level, keep a cool head. Stay calm and examine the facts. Get an accurate picture of the situation. This does not mean that you should be indifferent to the outcome. Schopenhauer observed that geniuses appear to be fearless, or at least, less fearful than the average person. In “Parerga and Paralipomena,” he noted that geniuses are willing to do what needs to be done. They are willing to go as far as necessary to get problems solved. Average people are rarely willing to risk upsetting their boss and will not tread beyond what’s known to be acceptable. They will limit themselves to doing as much as they can, even if that means leaving the problem at hand unsolved. Genius is the outcome of fearless dedication and creativity. It needs consistency, motivation and energy. It revolves around truth and truth only. It will not sway or sugar-coat its views to avoid controversy. A strong determination to get things done is an essential element in creativity and genius. Schopenhauer sustained that genius has no country and that it arises everywhere. I regard his statement as an exaggeration. The truth is that genius does not arise everywhere. Most cases of genius (such as Schopenhauer himself) result from massive encouragement from family and friends. From all children in eighteenth-century Prussia, only a few benefited from a one-year stay in England to learn English, or from a one-year stay in France to learn French. Schopenhauer benefited from both, and those certainly helped his intellectual development. When a person benefits from excellent education and family support, I find it rather cynical to say that genius can arise in any circumstances. At an early age, Mozart received intense music lessons from his father. I am talking about hundreds of hours in lessons and practice. Eventually, Mozart became a musical genius, but one cannot seriously say he would have flourished without lessons. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/lessons-from-schopenhauers-views-on-genius/

Epictetus, a philosopher from the 1st century AD, provides excellent guidance for the daily practice of the ideas of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). Schopenhauer was focused on the attainment of happiness, and Epictetus pursued tranquillity and virtue, but in practical terms, their ideas are very close. Epictetus emphasised the distinction between internal and external events. Internal events comprise our thoughts, desires, and actions. External events comprise other people’s actions and all aspects of life beyond our control. According to Epictetus, the keys tranquillity and virtue are accepting external events for what they are, and concentrating our efforts on internal events, that is, on our inner disposition. Schopenhauer did not agree with this distinction. His theory of the will (“life force”) predicates that the will pushes living creatures into a relentless quest for survival, reproduction and pleasure, without considering costs, risks and consequences. The will affects both external factors and internal factors. It is going to drive other people’s actions as much as it drives our own psychology and motivation. Epictetus’ distinction between external and internal events does not correlate with the sphere of influence of the will. According to Schopenhauer, the will is exerting continuous influence both internally and externally. Epictetus sustained that our judgements about events, rather than the events themselves, shape our emotions. He advised people to discard exaggerated beliefs and grow more rational. In contrast, Schopenhauer in his work “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) considered it natural that negative emotions ensue after tangible setbacks. His later book “The world as will and representation” (1818) confirmed his realistic views. Suffering is not purely psychological, stated Schopenhauer. It is a fact that people endure reversals and disappointments in life. Epictetus’ view of feelings as purely psychological events does not match everyday observations. Nonetheless, the recommendations given by Schopenhauer resemble very much those given by Epictetus. For instance, in the sayings inherited from Epictetus, we find the concept of “stoic reserve.” “Stoic reserve” is defined by Epictetus as a person’s ability to endure hardship in a calm, dignified manner, that is, without complaining. You will find a similar concept in Schopenhauer’s essays “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), but with a different terminology. Epictetus called for turning challenges into opportunities for personal growth but Schopenhauer acknowledged that this isn’t always possible. If someone is suffering from terminal illness, I would find it insulting to categorise his situation as a chance for personal growth. Leaving aside the aspects of personal growth, it is true that both Epictetus and Schopenhauer called for cultivating mental strength and resilience, risk avoidance, and stress reduction to the maximum extent. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life-in-daily-practice/

Despite his efforts to develop a coherent philosophy of art and beauty, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) missed essential elements. His aesthetics theory is incomplete because it defines beauty as harmony and symmetry, that is, he exclusively refers to aspects perceivable by the senses. Why is Schopenhauer’s art theory incomplete? Because it is leaving out major art forms. His arguments about harmony and symmetry are applicable to paintings, sculpture, architecture or decorative arts. I would also agree that harmony and symmetry apply in the area of musical composition and performance. However, there is no way to apply Schopenhauer’s argument to major art forms such as theatre and novels, or their modern derivatives, film, video and television. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer depicted art as a consolation to the human mind because art helps assuage pain and suffering during hard times. However, his arguments about harmony and symmetry fail to explain why some novels and theatre plays can help assuage suffering, but others cannot. Schopenhauer’s art philosophy is incomplete, but we can fill its gaps through the theories of Carl Jung (1875-1961), a Swiss psychiatrist famous for having first used art as a therapeutic method. In doing so, Jung gained important insights about the nature of aesthetics. Jung’s work stands in contrast to Schopenhauer’s scepticism for emotional explanations. Jung explored the unconscious of his patients in search of insights that would enable him to steer them towards recovery and personal growth. In his book “Psychology of the unconscious” (1912), Jung invented the labels “introvert” and “extrovert” to define human personalities. He also pointed out that people build their ideas through symbols and archetypes drawn from their culture. While Schopenhauer had focused his analysis on objective aspects (harmony, symmetry) in artworks, Jung observed that art includes symbols perceivable by the unconscious. Introverted and extroverted people can interpret symbols differently, but one cannot deny that those symbols exist in artworks. In his book “Psychology and alchemy” (1944), Jung takes a highly optimistic view of art as a therapy method. He expected patients to employ artistic symbols to solve their psychological problems. Thus, he encouraged patients to draw and paint. Through his clinical observations, Jung had identified major aspects in art theory, aspects that Schopenhauer had missed. In particular, I’m referring to the ability of artworks to convey ethical guidelines and a sense of purpose. Schopenhauer’s book “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) refers on many occasions to artworks, but fails to point out the ability of art to provide ethical guidance. Moral guidance may take place on a symbolic level, but it is present in artworks nevertheless. Successful television shows, films, comic books, theatre, novels and video-games draw vast audiences because they provide not only entertainment but also ethical guidance. Jung was right in sustaining that art enables individuals to grasp and express aspects that had so far remained unconscious or repressed. Schopenhauer had missed the fact that art enables people to grasp their own fear and desires, and gain motivation to improve their lives. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/criticism-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-art-and-beauty/

For what concerns intellectual and cultural pursuits, are the views of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) fully original or do they rely on prior philosophers? They are original because they are adding unique, innovative elements to the insights of prior thinkers. If we want to find philosophers that somewhat anticipate Schopenhauer in this respect, we need to go back twenty-two centuries. I am referring to Ancient Stoic philosophers such as Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC). Zeno held wisdom, reason and virtue in high regard, but not as an end in themselves. He regarded them as tools, as methods of achieving inner peace, meaning and happiness. Like Schopenhauer, Zeno rejected intellectual pursuits that play against inner peace, meaning and happiness. He strongly advised people to refrain from unworkable desires and goals. The choice of the right intellectual pursuits, argued Zeno, is essential for achieving happiness. Which pursuits are right and which are wrong? Zeno favoured intellectual pursuits that raise self-awareness and wisdom, especially in the ethics field, that is, in the field of decision-making. To the Ancient Stoic arguments, Schopenhauer added two entirely new insights, namely, the acknowledgement that the will (nature) is chaotic and that it’s irrational. Neither Zeno nor any other Ancient Stoic had made these remarks. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer underlined that nature (for which he employed the term “the will” or “life force”) is chaotic, unpredictable and wild. It pushes in a certain direction, but its influence creates a wide array of unexpected problems. Schopenhauer also underlined that nature is irrational due to its inability to weigh off risks, costs and consequences. Nature prompts people to secure their own survival and reproduction, and seek short-term pleasure, but remains oblivious to long-term effects. Chaos and irrationality undermine the Ancient Stoic views on intellectual pursuits. For instance, Seneca (4-65 AD) spoke highly of intellectual pursuits, expecting those to help people live more rationally and in alignment with nature. Seneca considered nature as harmonious and rational. When he wrote about the universe, he praised its orderliness. He was blind to the severe flaws in his arguments. In contrast, Schopenhauer perceived those flaws right away. He found it ludicrous to call nature harmonious, rational and orderly; the Ancient Stoics were employing nonsensical, poetic images that do not correspond to reality. The truth is that nature is wild, irrational and merciless, not harmonious, rational and orderly. That’s precisely why we need to rate intellectual pursuits carefully. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/origin-of-schopenhauers-views-on-intellectual-pursuits/

The relationship between art and morality plays a secondary role in the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). In this area, Schopenhauer failed to establish consistent principles and incurred contradictions. Nevertheless, it teaches us lessons that are worth examining. For Schopenhauer, artistic experiences (he was in particular referring to playing music and listening to music) help people escape their pressing problems. When enjoying music, theatre, literature or painting, individuals stop perceiving the world and focus their minds on something else. Although Schopenhauer didn’t employ the term “escapism,” his definition of art falls close to this psychological term. One shouldn’t forget that psychologists coined the term “escapism” in the mid-twentieth century, that is, about two hundred years after Schopenhauer’s death. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer theorised that artworks draw viewers into a state of abstraction, meditation or contemplation. Artistic experience can lead viewers to blur the borderline between themselves and an invented world. However, Schopenhauer overlooked several crucial points. I am afraid that he never figured out why some artworks convey a philosophical message and others not. He also failed to grasp the connection between artworks and the artist’s point of view, especially in the area of ethics. In his essay collection “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), Schopenhauer mentions numerous artworks but examines them only from the escapist perspective. His analysis never answers the crucial question: What is the meaning of art? Schopenhauer fails to identify the difference between high- and low-quality art, and shows little concern for what the artist is trying to say. Instead of addressing major questions, Schopenhauer comes up with an abstruse theory. He argues that artworks enable the viewers to connect with underlying truths, that is, with the will (“life force”), which he viewed as the force driving the world. Schopenhauer’s explanations are clearly contradictory. He is saying, on the one hand, that artworks help viewers disconnect from reality. On the other hand, he is also saying that artworks enable viewers to connect with an underlying reality. No wonder that philosophers find Schopenhauer’s theory of art hard to fathom. If he regards artworks as expressions of the will, does it not mean that they all convey similar messages? If artworks represent the will from the artist’s point of view, does it not mean that artists can misrepresent the will’s message? Although Schopenhauer’s books span a three-decade period, they never solve the contradiction outlined above. In fact, later Schopenhauer’s works only deepen the contradiction by adding spurious explanations. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-the-relationship-between-art-and-morality/