Literary critics state that Albert Camus (1913-1960) wrote his novel “The Stranger” under the influence of Schopenhauer (1788-1860), but they are completely wrong. Camus created a protagonist, named Meursault, who displays indifference and defeatism that do not exist in Schopenhauer’s work.
Worse still, Camus did not provide any useful advice to his readers. If anything, he promoted the idea that anxiety, despair, and aggressiveness are normal. Schopenhauer actually did his best to combat those and keep them at bay.
I find it more accurate to say that Schopenhauer was acutely aware of how difficult is to attain success and happiness. In his books, we can find exceptionally clever observations on how to steer away from high risks and protect one’s happiness.
Schopenhauer compared to Franz Kafka and Edvard Munch
The categorization of Schopenhauer as pessimistic is wrong but provides a cheap excuse for pointing fingers and avoiding the effort of studying his works. The truth is that his advice can contribute more to human flourishing than the inaccuracies of allegedly optimistic people.
It is equally unfair to link Schopenhauer to works by Franz Kafka such as “The Trial,” which presents human existence as absurd, and human right abuses as normal. Schopenhauer did acknowledge that success and happiness take lots of effort, but did not discourage people from pursuing their dreams.
According to Schopenhauer, individuals will strive all their lives to accomplish goals, and fail rather often, but categorized striving as normal and healthy.
People are driven to pursue one goal after another without ever attaining satiety, but the process itself can be motivating and exciting. Certainly, striving is better than passivity, despair and defeatism.
For instance, Schopenhauer’s objectivity and practicality do not have anything to do with the profound anxiety depicted by Edvard Munch (1863-1944) in his painting “The Scream.” It is a completely different world.
Munch is presenting us a distorted, tormented figure, who is screaming in despair. Schopenhauer is acknowledging that the will (“life force”) exerts a strong influence on human life, but he provides advice on how to minimize risks and increase your chances of happiness.
Schopenhauer compared to Salvador Dali
Since Schopenhauer is extremely realistic, his books give us solid advice. He makes sharp observations about failure, stress, and success, with the goal of helping readers make the best out of their lives.
It is erroneous to link Schopenhauer to surrealist artists such as Salvador Dali (1904-1989). Schopenhauer had no interest in exploring the subconscious and his favourite artworks embody harmony and symmetry, not disorder and chaos.
According to Schopenhauer, success and happiness are hard to achieve, but they remain possible. The will is motivating us to work steadily towards our goals. Human flourishing should be regarded as a normal expectation, not a miracle.
Schopenhauer compared to Thomas Malthus
Schopenhauer built his philosophy primarily upon his own observations, not second-had. He had very limited confidence in statistics and did not share the concerns of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) about the world running out of food.
Malthus wrote his “Essay on the Principle of Population” in 1798, laying the ground for fears about population growth in a situation of resource scarcity.
Malthus considered it inevitable that the population would outstrip the available resources and lead to societal collapse. In retrospective, we know that Malthus was wrong. The problem is that he had not understood that exponential value added by human ingenuity.
Schopenhauer did not view limited resources as an obstacle for human flourishing and happiness. He didn’t share Malthus’ fears of the population growing exponentially and food only increasing arithmetically. Schopenhauer gave more weight to human inventiveness that to Malthus mathematical defeatism.
Compared to Schopenhauer, Malthus is far more pessimistic and defeatist. Schopenhauer trusted that the will (“life force”) would eventually drive society further, even if there were some bumps on the road.
Schopenhauer compared to Oswald Spengler
Similarly, Schopenhauer’s sound objectivity kept him apart from millenarianism, that is, prophesying the end of the world. He would have disliked Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) and his book “The Decline of the West.”
While Schopenhauer was devoting his efforts to providing practical advice to readers, Spengler was painting a doom-and-gloom scenario. Instead of encouraging individuals to optimize their lives, Spengler just wanted to scare them into oblivion.
“The Decline of the West” arbitrarily asserts that Western civilization is arriving at the end of its life cycle and that it will soon be replaced by Asian dominance.
Schopenhauer never fell for conspiracy theories. His advice draws from Buddhist and Hindu wisdom, and combines those with the best Christian virtues (empathy and compassion). His objective is to help us flourish, reduce risks, and protect our downside.
If you are interested in applying rational philosophical ideas to problem solving, I recommend you my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”
Related articles
Critique of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of history
Schopenhauer’s pessimism: what it is and what it’s not
Exaggeration and reality in Schopenhauer’s pessimism
The myth of Schopenhauer’s pessimism