John Vespasian

The influence of the theory of the will developed by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) has not always been acknowledged by those who had imitated his ideas. More often than not, other thinkers have quietly adopted Schopenhauer’s insights without giving him credit. Max Stirner (1806-1856) belongs to the next generation and wrote “The Ego and Its Own” in 1845. It is a fact that Stirner published his work twenty-seven years after Schopenhauer had brought out “The world as will and representation,” but had he read Schopenhauer? In view of the small sales of Schopenhauer’s books, I would not assume that Stirner was familiar with Schopenhauer’s work and terminology. Stirner’s conception of the will is narrower and harsher than Schopenhauer’s. While Schopenhauer views the will as a single force responsible for all actions in the cosmos, Stirner focuses on the concept of “unique individual” or “unique ego.” In contrast to Schopenhauer, Stirner rejects the existence of a universal will. As a general principle, he contests that higher forces govern reality and calls for individuals to prioritize their own desires and interests; he regards those desires and interests as superior to society’s moral code. Just as Schopenhauer had done, Stirner employs the term “the will,” but he means something else. Stirner is referring to the assertion of individual desires and interests over and above the constraints imposed by society. Schopenhauer had described the will as an overwhelming, irrational force that rules the world. Stirner is defining the will in a completely different manner. Stirner’s “unique individual” is someone who remains loyal to his own convictions, placing them above ideologies, institutions, morality and religion. In contrast to the universality of Schopenhauer’s concept of the will, Stirner’s concept is individualistic. Stirner regards the will as the engine of self-realization and self-assertion, not as a force that pushes individuals to act against their own interests. When it comes to morality, Stirner’s ideas are very different from Schopenhauer’s. As a remedy for stress, anxiety, and frustration provoked by the will, Schopenhauer had spoken in favour of the Christian virtues of empathy and compassion. In contrast, Stirner took a negative view of altruism and duty, and called for individuals to prioritize their self-interest. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-theory-of-the-will-compared-to-other-philosophers/

There is substantial overlapping between the philosophies of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). The main reason for their similarities is that both men were dissatisfied with the Enlightenment ideas (from Kant and other thinkers) that dominated European universities. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were not the only ones to feel discontented, but they expressed their rebellion in similar ways and employed similar terminology (I am referring to the theory of the will). The works of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had dominated the philosophical scene for decades when Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche began to verbalize their discontent. While mainstream philosophers continued to endorse Kant’s and Hegel’s versions of idealism, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were growing sceptical towards “pure reason” and the “absolute spirit.” Schopenhauer had been initially a disciple of Kant, but had transformed Kant’s philosophy by incorporating the theory of the will. Schopenhauer had argued that “the Will” is the eternal and overwhelming force driving the cosmos. Nietzsche had rejected Kantian transcendentalism (such as the existence of categorical imperatives). Instead, he viewed the will to power as the key driver of human action. Nietzsche built his whole philosophy on the will to power, and how it can help human beings get the best out of life. In contrast to Kant’s and Hegel’s idealism (abstract ideals that are allegedly common to all persons), Schopenhauer cared much more for individual experience. The goal of his works is to help readers reduce suffering and increase happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/reasons-for-the-similarities-and-differences-between-schopenhauer-and-nietzsche/

Considering the rather miserable life of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), it is fair to ask why he grew apart from the ideas presented by Schopenhauer (1788-1860), instead of endorsing them and building them further. I must start by saying that the differences in personality and motivation between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche developed in a period of thirty years. You can observe those differences in the writing style of the young Nietzsche compared to the style in his last decades. Schopenhauer’s prose is systematic and accurate. His works embody the traditional style of European essayists. In contrast, Nietzsche adopted in his last decades a poetic, metaphorical, apocalyptic style. If Schopenhauer had aimed at presenting his philosophy, Nietzsche was trying to shock and irritate readers. Early in his career, Nietzsche was heavily influenced by the works of Schopenhauer. While Nietzsche was still a philology professor at the University of Basel (Switzerland), he admired Schopenhauer’s emphasis on the instinctual aspects in humans. Schopenhauer’s “theory of will” matched Nietzsche’s early exploration of human motivation in his “Birth of the tragedy,” published in 1872. Nietzsche loved Schopenhauer’s critique of Kant, Hegel, and mainstream philosophers. As Nietzsche evolved, he grew apart from Schopenhauer’s pessimism. Nietzsche was a prodigy of erudition about Ancient Greece. He loved the ambition, optimism, resourcefulness and boldness of Ancient Greek heroes such as Odysseus, Antigone, and Alexander the Great. Little by little, he let go of Schopenhauer’s pessimism since it didn’t match the Ancient Greek attitudes. While the works of Schopenhauer (e.g., “The world and will and representation”) revolve around how to reduce suffering, Nietzsche focused on how to get the best out of life. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/origins-of-the-similarities-and-differences-between-schopenhauer-and-nietzsche/

Schopenhauer’s understanding of perception is rooted in the subjective experience of each person. Schopenhauer does not view perception as a passive mirror. It’s not an automatic, objective reflection of an external reality, but an active engagement with the world through the filter of one’s desires. Schopenhauer introduced the theory of the will, especially as the “will to live.” Our desires and instincts shape how we perceive and represent the world. According to Schopenhauer, the will is a blind, irrational force that shapes our perception. In Schopenhauer’s philosophy, representation involves the individual mind’s construction of a subjective world based on sensory input. This representation is not an objective reflection of the external reality, but is tainted by the individual’s will. Schopenhauer argued that reason plays a secondary role to the will, which is the driver of human actions and perceptions. For Schopenhauer, conceptualization is tied to the will and to representation. Schopenhauer believed that our concepts are constructed by generalizing individual experiences guided by the will. Concepts are not detached and objective, but deeply intertwined with the subjective desires. Schopenhauer presented his whole philosophy in his work “The World as Will and Representation,” published in 1818. In this book, Schopenhauer stresses the subjective factors (theory of the will) in the mind and in the nature of perception. The will, according to Schopenhauer, is an irrational, blind, overwhelming force that propels life forward. It manifests in the ceaseless striving in animals and humans. His theory of perception is aligned with his theory of the will. The will manifest itself in various forms. Perception, in this context, becomes the medium through which the will is influencing our desires and concept building. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-philosophy-of-perception/

The theory of perception is one of the weakest aspects in the philosophy developed by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). It consolidates in one point all errors in Schopenhauer’s ideas. It’s so poorly reasoned that it may prevent us from appreciating the good parts of Schopenhauer’s philosophy. What is wrong with Schopenhauer’s theory of perception? I raise as main criticism its total disconnection from reality. To the discharge of Schopenhauer, I must point out that he started at a very low point, namely, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). When Schopenhauer was a university student, he enrolled in lessons by Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814), but never took those seriously. Fichte’s orations about the metaphysical ego of the German people left Schopenhauer unimpressed. He viewed them as pure inventions, not as philosophy. Unfortunately, Schopenhauer took Kant seriously, forgetting that Fichte had attended Kant’s lectures and expressed a total devotion to Kant’s ideas. In his book “Theory of Science” (1785), Fichte claimed to have rendered Kant more scientific, by placing the ego as basic reality (consciousness) and the non-ego (external world) as the field for human action. Schopenhauer rejected Fichte’s theory and returned to pure Kantian terminology. He reused the Kantian concept “things in themselves” with the same meaning. He also used the Kantian concepts “phenomenon” and “noumenon,” but with a different meaning. Kant had theorized that knowledge is shaped by the mind’s inherent capabilities or categories (such as cause and effect). The categories list compiled by Kant is quite short. He decided to overlook the fact that people are inventing new things all the time without being bothered by their limited categories. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-perception/

Seldom has the world seen such a deep, perennial animosity between philosophers as the one that existed between Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). While Hegel basically ignored Schopenhauer, the latter was delighted when he read in the news that Hegel had died. “If he had died earlier,” commented Schopenhauer, “the world would have been spared a whole bunch of nonsense.” Like in most of his sharp social commentary, Schopenhauer was proven right by history. Overwhelmingly right, I must say, because Hegel's ideals would be later invoked as the philosophical basis for all kinds of abuses. While Schopenhauer's philosophy revolved around securing happiness for the individual (by reducing suffering), Hegel was a harbinger of an absolute spirit that allegedly drives history. It did not take Schopenhauer long to rate Hegel's spirit as a scam that would be eventually used to justify all kinds of atrocities. Sadly, Schopenhauer was correct in his assessment of Hegel. How did Schopenhauer see so clearly though the nonsense predicated by Hegel? How can we learn to protect ourselves from similar scams? The study of the differences between Schopenhauer's ideas and Hegel's is important because it touches the cornerstones of civilization. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/comparison-of-schopenhauer-and-hegel/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) expressed his dislike of Hegel's philosophy at every opportunity. In fact, Schopenhauer devoted a good part of his key work “The world as will and representation” to opposing Hegelian ideas. Schopenhauer viewed Hegel (1770-1831) as an intellectual charlatan, and described Hegel's ideas as too complicated and devoid of substance. In addition, Schopenhauer argued that Hegel's dialectical method only serves to obfuscate truth. Schopenhauer's ideas found resonance among thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) who emphasised the theory of the will and its influence on human existence. Thanks to the work of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer's influence grew in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Amongst other German-speaking artists, Richard Wagner (1813-1883) was influenced by Schopenhauer's view of music as a direct expression of the will. Wagner's operas, such as “Tristan and Isolde,” revolve around Schopenhauer's themes. Hegel's ideas went on to exert influence on Karl Marx (1818-1883). In particular, Marx's dialectical materialism emerged as a driving force in philosophy and political thought. Its alleged effects on history are similar to those caused by the absolute spirit invented by Hegel. Marx viewed dialectical materialism as an unstoppable, overwhelming historical force. His followers adopted the most extreme pseudo-scientific arguments and claimed their forecast to be infallible. While Schopenhauer's followers became more individualist over time, Hegel's followers went in the opposite direction. It's not a surprise that these two philosophical families grew so far away from each other that they forgot their common origin. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/impact-of-the-comparison-between-schopenhauer-and-hegel/

It’s not correct to say that Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) embraced a form of metaphysical determinism. His philosophy rests on the assumption that the will (which I translate as “life force”) influences all events, but there is a substantial distance between influencing and determining. The difference between influence and determinism has large consequences. I am not pointing to a trivial linguistic variance. If you want to make good decisions and keep anxiety at bay, it is crucial that you understand the difference. In his major work “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer argued that the will is the fundamental force underlying reality. He described the will as irrational and blind. It’s ceaseless energy that propels all existence. According to Schopenhauer, the will manifests itself in all animal and human actions. It helps shape human desires, goals and decisions, although we experience those as free-chosen. In all cases, Schopenhauer argued, we are subject to the relentless influence of the will. Yet, we are neither helpless nor enslaved. Schopenhauer’s philosophical stance is that it’s hard to slow down or minimize the influence of the will. As individuals, we are convinced that we possess free will, but to a large extent, we are driven by the “life force” that propels the cosmos. I would not use the term “determinism” for describing how the will is influencing human life. We are driven to achieve the goals inherent in the will (pleasure, reproduction, etc.) but we are not blind brutes unable to figure things out. Although Schopenhauer employs the concept of “necessity” to underscore the nature of the will, he does not mean that one is unable to escape or minimize the influence of the life force. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-on-determinism/

You do not need to search long to find philosophers that rate Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) as the ultimate advocate of determinism. Nonetheless, they are wrong; their categorization of Schopenhauer as deterministic is superficial and overlooks a large number of key aspects in Schopenhauer’s philosophy. When analysing a philosopher, one must place his ideas at a certain point in the scale of determinism versus individuality. It is particularly easy to err if you don’t study philosophical ideas in detail. If you reduce Schopenhauer’s lifetime work to a caricature, you will tend to place him at the end of the scale. However, the reality is more nuanced and interesting. When we look into the details of Schopenhauer’s ideas, we must definitely rate him as an individualist, not as deterministic. Let me explain the logic by comparing Schopenhauer to the Ancient Roman Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who lived in the first century AD. Schopenhauer’s two key works “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) and “The world as will and representation” (1818) argue that the cosmos is dominated by the will. Schopenhauer regards the will as a blind life force. Similarly, Stoic philosophers like Epictetus believed that the cosmos is governed by a force called “logos.” This force is to blame for every good and bad occurrence in the world. The definition of the logos had been shaped by Cleanthes (331-232 BC), Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC), and Chrysippus (280-206 BC) of Cilicia, all of them predecessors of Epictetus. Schopenhauer’s definition of the will includes the adjective “irrational,” but strongly resembles the Stoic “logos.” It doesn’t change much that Zeno and Cleanthes had called their logos “rational.” In any case, the Stoic deterministic framework was stronger than Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/individuality-and-determinism-in-schopenhauer/

The reflections of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) are to be found in his work “The world as will and representation.” I consider equally interesting the observations contained in his “Aphorisms on the art of living,” published in 1851. In contrast to Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), Schopenhauer is not a philosopher of history. He didn’t develop an all-inclusive vision of history nor theorized about the end of times. He did not regard the course of history as one unequivocal path pointing into a single direction. There is no single destiny where humanity is headed. History is made by people’s choices every single day. The will (which I translate as “life force”) influences how a man or woman makes decisions; however, the will is not pushing people right or left. It is not exercising overwhelming power to the extent that each person can say “I could not help it.” Schopenhauer declines presenting history as an imposition of destiny. Conversely, he underlines the importance of how a human being behaves over time. Life is essentially temporary. Every success and possession is naturally limited. In his work “The world as will and representation”(1818), Schopenhauer wrote that “each experience of happiness should be regarded as contingent on the passage of time.” There is no guarantee that today’s happiness will be prolonged in the near future. As a result, a wise man will take measures to reduce the risk of total loss, and increase the chances of stable, repeated pleasure. Good health helps prevent pain. Schopenhauer formulated this principle in a beautiful manner: “It is the greatest of follies to sacrifice one’s health for any other type of pleasure.” I must point out that few individuals realize the long-term impact of today’s health dissipation. It requires knowledge and imagination to link today’s smoking and fast-food consumption to illness ensuing ten years down the road. Yet, the capacity to think in these terms will save you lots of unnecessary trouble. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-philosophy-of-time/