Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
Danzr
New Trial Member
Posts: 12
Joined: September 6th, 2017, 11:30 am

Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?

Post by Danzr »

Anyone got any opinions on Schopenhauer's ethics; the inconsistencies contained therein?
How can a person be both compassionate and a "will-denier"? Compassion requires willing/activity of will, yet Schopenhauer said the greatest good was to renounce the will? Seems the two-compassion and denial of the will- are mutually exclusive ideals.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?

Post by Spectrum »

Danzr wrote:Anyone got any opinions on Schopenhauer's ethics; the inconsistencies contained therein?
How can a person be both compassionate and a "will-denier"? Compassion requires willing/activity of will, yet Schopenhauer said the greatest good was to renounce the will? Seems the two-compassion and denial of the will- are mutually exclusive ideals.
I've read [seriously] Schopenhauer long ago.
To Schopenhauer, the Will is central to this thesis, so it is unlikely he would have agreed with denying the Will in general. Perhaps there is some context to it.

The Will is the core driver of life and it can trigger the good or the evil at different levels in the mind.
yet Schopenhauer said the greatest good was to renounce the will?
Do you have any reference from his original books or articles.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Danzr
New Trial Member
Posts: 12
Joined: September 6th, 2017, 11:30 am

Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?

Post by Danzr »

Spectrum wrote:
Danzr wrote:Anyone got any opinions on Schopenhauer's ethics; the inconsistencies contained therein?
How can a person be both compassionate and a "will-denier"? Compassion requires willing/activity of will, yet Schopenhauer said the greatest good was to renounce the will? Seems the two-compassion and denial of the will- are mutually exclusive ideals.
I've read [seriously] Schopenhauer long ago.
To Schopenhauer, the Will is central to this thesis, so it is unlikely he would have agreed with denying the Will in general. Perhaps there is some context to it.

The Will is the core driver of life and it can trigger the good or the evil at different levels in the mind.
yet Schopenhauer said the greatest good was to renounce the will?
Do you have any reference from his original books or articles.
For instance, In The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer states that “moral virtues [borne of compassion] are not really the ultimate end, but only a step towards salvation via denial of the will-to-live”; these virtues are a “means of advancing self-renunciation, and accordingly of denying the will-to-live” (Volume 2, 606)

So denying the will means not-willing at all. Yet compassion, and altruistic conduct, seems to need willing. Seems contradictory?
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?

Post by Spectrum »

I have the Payne [last page is 475] and Haldane copy but I cannot find your quote in page 606 of Haldane's.

Schopenhauer's Will is hierarchical, i.e.
  • 1. Will - the primordial blind force
    2. Individual Will to Live - preservation of the species.
    3. The various expression of the Will.
Denying the will-to-live [individual] do not meant denying the Will [universal].

Since Schopenhauer has described his philosophy of the Will in parallel to Buddhism and Hinduism, we can deliberate the point you quoted in terms of these philosophy.

The Will-to-live [driven by the core universal Will] is heavily tied to the instincts and various impulses that strive to enable to individual to survive.
Denying the will-to-live do not mean stop living [eating, sex, etc.] but rather the individual should not allow the will-to-live [instincts and various negative impulses] to dominate the individual life. This is similar to the concept of 'detachment' in Buddhism.

So denying the will-to-live do not mean not-willing at all.
The core Will is still pulsating and driving but does so without grasping and attachment by the ego or self. This is a sort of renunciation which is not exactly asceticism btw.

Personally I do not agree with Schopenhauer in the sense that the Universal Will is the ultimate. I am more inclined towards the 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' of Buddhism which Schopenhauer has problem understanding where he was haunted by possible solipsism.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Danzr
New Trial Member
Posts: 12
Joined: September 6th, 2017, 11:30 am

Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?

Post by Danzr »

Spectrum wrote:I have the Payne [last page is 475] and Haldane copy but I cannot find your quote in page 606 of Haldane's.

Schopenhauer's Will is hierarchical, i.e.
  • 1. Will - the primordial blind force
    2. Individual Will to Live - preservation of the species.
    3. The various expression of the Will.
Denying the will-to-live [individual] do not meant denying the Will [universal].

Since Schopenhauer has described his philosophy of the Will in parallel to Buddhism and Hinduism, we can deliberate the point you quoted in terms of these philosophy.

The Will-to-live [driven by the core universal Will] is heavily tied to the instincts and various impulses that strive to enable to individual to survive.
Denying the will-to-live do not mean stop living [eating, sex, etc.] but rather the individual should not allow the will-to-live [instincts and various negative impulses] to dominate the individual life. This is similar to the concept of 'detachment' in Buddhism.

So denying the will-to-live do not mean not-willing at all.
The core Will is still pulsating and driving but does so without grasping and attachment by the ego or self. This is a sort of renunciation which is not exactly asceticism btw.

Personally I do not agree with Schopenhauer in the sense that the Universal Will is the ultimate. I am more inclined towards the 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' of Buddhism which Schopenhauer has problem understanding where he was haunted by possible solipsism.
Thanks for the reply!

I only go by the Payne edition, do not have the Haldane version, sorry. I can't see my previous reply now but the quotes (I think) were "“compassion not really the ultimate end, but only a step towards [salvation via denial of the will-to-live]” ( Volume 2, p. 606), and that such virtues are a “means of advancing self-renunciation, and accordingly of denying the will-to-live” (Vol. 2, p. 606). I hope I had the correct citations in my previous reply.

Thank you for your astute observations. This is basically the kind of "solution" I found too. Making a distinction between "willing-to-live" and "willing".

However, problems still remain (at least prima facie). Schopenhauer uses “the will-to-live” and “the will” interchangeably: the will always strives at existence, whether in the human subject or in inorganic phenomena (see Volume 1. Payne edition, p. 275). So your (1.) i.e. "Will as primordial blind force" (or Will as thing-in-itself"), still entails a striving for existence; or incessant activity.

So compassion= willing-to-live (or at least some type of willing) and denial/resignation= not willing-to-live (but maybe some type of willing goes on)

Also, he specifically states the the ascetic subject (who is on the way towards salvation) is “careful not to let his will attach itself to anything, and tries to steel himself with the greatest indifference toward all things” (Volume 1, p. 407).

So if this ascetic is "indifferent toward all things" it seems like he is opposed to the compassionate person who helps others. It seems contradictory.

Also when you say "This is a sort of renunciation which is not exactly asceticism btw" what exactly do you mean?

Thanks again for your answer!
User avatar
Phenomexistentialist
New Trial Member
Posts: 17
Joined: May 12th, 2017, 6:26 am

Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?

Post by Phenomexistentialist »

I'm generally a pessimist about life but not in the specifically Schopenhaurian sense. :D
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?

Post by Spectrum »

You quoted the following;
  • “moral virtues [borne of compassion] are not really the ultimate end, but only a step towards salvation via denial of the will-to-live”; these virtues are a “means of advancing self-renunciation, and accordingly of denying the will-to-live” (Volume 2, 606)
The closest I find in page 606 is:
But in the second place, these moral virtues are a means of advancing self-renunciation, and according of denying the will-to-live. pg 606 Payne
Note the first statement of pg 606.
Now if we consider the will-to-live as a whole and objectively, we have to think of it, according to what have been said, as involved in a delusion.
As you can see from this quote, the will-to-live is portrayed as a delusion which need to be avoided. As I had mentioned this will-to-live engages the instincts and when combine with other elements [ego, etc.] lead to lust, gluttony, avarice, all sorts of evil and sufferings. This is why moral virtues [e.g. compassion, empathy, love, etc.] are necessary to advance self-renunciation, i.e. denying the will-to-live.

As I had mentioned the WILL drives the will-to-live which operate at different sub-levels.
For example the WILL drives hunger but the will-to-live deceive the self into glutony, or the WILL drive sex, but the will-to-live steer the self towards lust. Thus moral virtues [driven by the WILL are necessary] to deny this aspect of the will-to-live to ensure happiness and optimal survival.

In most Eastern philosophies, there are seemingly contradictions because those who do not understand conflate the different perspectives and context of the terms used.
For example note the famous Bruce Lee's Fighting without Fighting, or Action without Action.
What the above entails is allowing the underlying WILL to flow freely without interceptions by the selfish ego [will-to-live].
As the Gita would state, 'do not be attached the the fruits of actions while in action' i.e. act spontaneously and optimally without selfish thoughts.

I believe renunciation is often used in two senses, i.e.
1. Renounce all attachment to normal life and be an ascetic living in a mountain cave from civilization.
2. Renunciation of the will-to-live which involve interaction with life but with detachment, -
action without action, i.e. spontaneous actions that do not evolve selfish egoistic thoughts for purely personal interests, pride, etc.

I meant to say, renunciation do not solely meant 1 above but could be 2 depending on the context.

Btw, I read Schopenhauer long time ago, so I only have a general idea but because I am also very familiar with Eastern Philosophies that Schopenhauer is very agreeable with, I am able to recall his central theme. I probably would need a month to reread the two volumes.
Schopenhauer only has limited access to Buddhism and Hinduism in German during his time and location, thus his understanding of these Eastern Philosophies is also limited and ultimately he appear to be quite lost in them.

-- Updated Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:40 pm to add the following --
Phenomexistentialist wrote:I'm generally a pessimist about life but not in the specifically Schopenhaurian sense. :D
Schopenhauer mentioned 'pessimism' in various context.
In his real life, he enjoyed the company of women, travels, likes music, condemn suicide and seem to be hedonistic.

Schopenhauer may be repeating phrases like 'deny the will-to-live' but he did not mean give up living at all, but what he was driving at was the concept of enlightenment, 'Chop Wood Carry Water' i.e. live life in the NOW.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Danzr
New Trial Member
Posts: 12
Joined: September 6th, 2017, 11:30 am

Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?

Post by Danzr »

Spectrum wrote:You quoted the following;
  • “moral virtues [borne of compassion] are not really the ultimate end, but only a step towards salvation via denial of the will-to-live”; these virtues are a “means of advancing self-renunciation, and accordingly of denying the will-to-live” (Volume 2, 606)
The closest I find in page 606 is:
But in the second place, these moral virtues are a means of advancing self-renunciation, and according of denying the will-to-live. pg 606 Payne
Note the first statement of pg 606.
Now if we consider the will-to-live as a whole and objectively, we have to think of it, according to what have been said, as involved in a delusion.
As you can see from this quote, the will-to-live is portrayed as a delusion which need to be avoided. As I had mentioned this will-to-live engages the instincts and when combine with other elements [ego, etc.] lead to lust, gluttony, avarice, all sorts of evil and sufferings. This is why moral virtues [e.g. compassion, empathy, love, etc.] are necessary to advance self-renunciation, i.e. denying the will-to-live.

As I had mentioned the WILL drives the will-to-live which operate at different sub-levels.
For example the WILL drives hunger but the will-to-live deceive the self into glutony, or the WILL drive sex, but the will-to-live steer the self towards lust. Thus moral virtues [driven by the WILL are necessary] to deny this aspect of the will-to-live to ensure happiness and optimal survival.

In most Eastern philosophies, there are seemingly contradictions because those who do not understand conflate the different perspectives and context of the terms used.
For example note the famous Bruce Lee's Fighting without Fighting, or Action without Action.
What the above entails is allowing the underlying WILL to flow freely without interceptions by the selfish ego [will-to-live].
As the Gita would state, 'do not be attached the the fruits of actions while in action' i.e. act spontaneously and optimally without selfish thoughts.

I believe renunciation is often used in two senses, i.e.
1. Renounce all attachment to normal life and be an ascetic living in a mountain cave from civilization.
2. Renunciation of the will-to-live which involve interaction with life but with detachment, -
action without action, i.e. spontaneous actions that do not evolve selfish egoistic thoughts for purely personal interests, pride, etc.

I meant to say, renunciation do not solely meant 1 above but could be 2 depending on the context.

Btw, I read Schopenhauer long time ago, so I only have a general idea but because I am also very familiar with Eastern Philosophies that Schopenhauer is very agreeable with, I am able to recall his central theme. I probably would need a month to reread the two volumes.
Schopenhauer only has limited access to Buddhism and Hinduism in German during his time and location, thus his understanding of these Eastern Philosophies is also limited and ultimately he appear to be quite lost in them.

-- Updated Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:40 pm to add the following --
Phenomexistentialist wrote:I'm generally a pessimist about life but not in the specifically Schopenhaurian sense. :D
Schopenhauer mentioned 'pessimism' in various context.
In his real life, he enjoyed the company of women, travels, likes music, condemn suicide and seem to be hedonistic.




Thankyou again, great answer. I do understand what you mean. And I assume that to Schopenhauer respect you mean renunciation in the second sense.

In such a sense, one may be able to be "indifferent to all things" (in terms of ONE'S OWN EGO ONLY), yet one can still actively help others out of compassion since compassion is also an indifference to all things (in terms of ONE'S OWN EGO ONLY)?

This is why moral virtues [e.g. compassion, empathy, love, etc.] are necessary to advance self-renunciation, i.e. denying the will-to-live.

And essentially you are saying that the moral virtues are denial of the will-to-live, in some way? since they are non-egoistic? So in that way they do advance ultimate renunciation, but also are renunciation on a "smaller scale" (for lack of a better term)?

This contradiction - compassion requires activity, denial requires no activity- is only apparent, then. Both basically require denial of the will-to-live, NOT will?

Thanks again, and I am one of those persons who has not studied a great deal of Eastern thought, I want to more.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?

Post by Spectrum »

Danzr wrote:In such a sense, one may be able to be "indifferent to all things" (in terms of ONE'S OWN EGO ONLY), yet one can still actively help others out of compassion since compassion is also an indifference to all things (in terms of ONE'S OWN EGO ONLY)?
Yes, one has to be "indifferent to all things" re the ego, otherwise one will end up with pride and its related sufferings. Thus one cannot be compassionate and boast about it.
This is why moral virtues [e.g. compassion, empathy, love, etc.] are necessary to advance self-renunciation, i.e. denying the will-to-live.
And essentially you are saying that the moral virtues are denial of the will-to-live, in some way? since they are non-egoistic? So in that way they do advance ultimate renunciation, but also are renunciation on a "smaller scale" (for lack of a better term)?
Yes.
This contradiction - compassion requires activity, denial requires no activity- is only apparent, then. Both basically require denial of the will-to-live, NOT will?
Yes, both require denial of the will-to-live [not giving up living, btw], NOT the WILL. From what I know re Schopenhauer, nothing can stop the WILL. The will-to-live is at a different sub-level from the WILL and the will-to-live can be modulated [denial] to optimize the well-being of the individual.
Thanks again, and I am one of those persons who has not studied a great deal of Eastern thought, I want to more.
Getting more acquainted with Eastern philosophies will definitely widen you scope of philosophical thoughts and enhanced your understanding of Schopenhauer's thoughts. Western philosophies are well-organized and systematic but at times can be very rigid.

Schopenhauer's philosophies are very interesting [with many practical examples] and a must read, but ultimately I prefer Kant whom Schopenhauer critiqued heavily -1/4 of volume 1 is on Kant [he misunderstood Kant].
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021