Posterity showed vast disagreements with the philosophy of history put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). His individualist view of society came to be rejected by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in the first place.
Schopenhauer had argued that the will (“life force”) exerts a large influence on individual and society choices, but not to the extent of obliterating personal liberty; the will can drive you in a certain direction (pleasure, reproduction, etc.) but you decide whether to give in or go a different way.
According to Schopenhauer, history is the result of a million individual decisions, which are neither coordinated nor aligned in any meaningful way. Each man and woman is chasing goals that he considers advantageous, rarely caring about long-term consequences.
Schopenhauer’s philosophy of history compared to Nietzsche’s
Friedrich Nietzsche embraced a philosophy of history that departs significantly from Schopenhauer’s individualism. For Nietzsche, history doesn’t follow a linear evolution, nor does it correspond to any Judaic-Christian sense of destiny.
According to Nietzsche, the force that drives history and the world at large is the “will to power.” Schopenhauer’s definition of the will had been more attentive to individual choices; that’s not the case in Nietzsche’s philosophy.
Nietzsche viewed the “will to power” as a dynamic, creative force that prompts individuals to overcoming their hesitations, and seek to achieve greatness. Nietzsche argued that the “will to power” provides a continual push for individual and societal advancement.
Nonetheless, Nietzsche’s philosophy of history took a weird turn as of 1883, when he wrote the first part of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” He comes up with the idea of eternal recurrence, implying that the universe and all events are eternally recurring in an infinite loop.
Schopenhauer passed away more than two decades before the publication of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” He would have rated Nietzsche’s idea of eternal recurrence as total nonsense. It is a speculation devoid of any evidence or logic.
In “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” Nietzsche introduced the idea that we should live our life as if it were to recur infinitely. This doesn’t make any sense. I can only attribute Nietzsche’s lack of logic to his poor health.
Schopenhauer’s philosophy of history compared to Spengler’s
Schopenhauer’s view of history was more measured, logical and structured; he acknowledged the influence of the will as an eternal life force, but at the same time, he respected individual freedom.
In the next generation, Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) came up with an unhinged variation of Schopenhauer’s ideas; the key idea in Spengler’s writings is that Western civilization is going through terminal decline.
He outlined his philosophy in his work “The Decline of the West,” published in 1926. Like Schopenhauer, Spengler didn’t agree with the idea of linear historical progress. However, he then jumped to the conclusion that civilizations have a distinct life cycle, and that Western culture is on its way to extinction.
In contrast to Schopenhauer’s individualism, Spengler was of the opinion that civilizations are organic, living entities. In his view, each civilization must go through the stages of birth, growth, maturity, and decline.
Cultural decline and Schopenhauer’s philosophy of history
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche had focused on eternal themes, applicable to all eras of history. In contrast, Spengler proposed a specific calendar (cyclical view) for the rise and fall of each culture.
Spengler had created the concept of “cultural morphology” in order to argue that civilizations must undergo phases similar to those of biological organisms. Each civilization has a unique artistic expression (which he called “prime symbol”) that goes through distinct phases, ending in decline and replacement by another culture.
Schopenhauer would have been horrified to read Spengler’s speculations. No doubt, he would have rejected them sternly, calling them delusional. Spengler’s historical “arguments” are made of wishful thinking. They lack logic and soundness.
Eastern influence and Schopenhauer’s philosophy of history
In contrast to Schopenhauer’s reverence for the will (which I translate as “life force”), Spengler contended that the West is in a protracted decay, and would soon fall under dominance of Eastern cultures.
Schopenhauer was well acquainted with Eastern philosophy (Buddhism, Hinduism) but never placed them above the West. He found the Eastern idea of “nirvana” appealing as a method for reducing suffering and increasing happiness, but would not have endorsed the idea of Eastern dominance.
In contrast to Schopenhauer’s rejection of determinism, the ideas put forward by Spengler focus on broad patterns shaping the destiny of an entire culture. Spengler’s cyclical philosophy does not match the facts of history and constitutes an aberrant deviation of Schopenhauer’s intuitions.
Unfortunately, deterministic ideas about history come forth in every century. Philosophers that speak for determinism are often pursuing ulterior motives; they argue that history follows a secret pattern that only they can discern.
Cycles and Schopenhauer’s philosophy of history
The Italian historian Govanni Battista Vico (1668-1744) had published his work “New Science” in 1725, proposing a quasi -cyclical understanding of history.
Vico introduced the concept of cyclical patterns in history, where societies develop, grow, and fall. He identified a three- phase process in civilizations. He called those phases or “ages” the divine age, the nation age, and the age of individuals.
Of course, Vico gave dozens of references to ancient Greece and ancient Rome, trying to prove the existence of those three phases. Since his proofs are weak, he complemented them with references to the divine will (“providence”) that drives events in a particular direction.
For obvious reasons, Schopenhauer didn’t pay any attention to Vico’s delusions. It is surprising that Nietzsche and Spengler took over Vico’s nonsense and produced variations.
Instead of coming up with speculations and delusions, they should have paid more attention to Schopenhauer’s work. Few philosophers in history have maintained such a careful balance between external factors (“the will” or “life force”) and liberty for individuals and society.
If you are interested in applying rational philosophy to real problem solving in everyday life, I recommend you my book “Thriving in difficult times.”
Related articles
Individuality and determinism in Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer and the philosophy of time
Schopenhauer and the philosophy of history
Schopenhauer’s pessimism: what it is and what it’s not