Despite his sound reasoning and accurate writing, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) didn’t succeed in making his ideas on freedom popular. In particular, his theory of the will wasn’t taken seriously by other philosophers and fell into oblivion at the beginning of the twentieth century.
According to Schopenhauer, civilized society should grant legal protection to life, liberty and property. However, laws do not have the power to remove biological limits on freedom. I’m referring to the limits imposed by the will (“life force”) and by the human lifespan.
In his work “The world as will and representation”(1818), Schopenhauer exposed at length the deep influence of the will on human freedom. The will prompts people towards pleasure, reproduction, wealth accumulation and success, generating one desire upon another.
The will drives people to seek more and more, without ever achieving fulfilment. Schopenhauer observed the pattern repeat itself a million times. Thus, he acknowledged the influence of the will as a fact of life to be taken into account.
Schopenhauer outlined his philosophy of freedom not only in his major works, but also in the brief essays contained in his “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). Those essays give precise strategies to minimize the negative influence of the will. They can help readers keep trouble at bay and maximize happiness.
Schopenhauer’s ideas on freedom compared to Karl Marx’s
Why did other philosophers fail to embrace Schopenhauer’s views on freedom? The major reason for their rejection is that Schopenhauer disagreed with any kind of absolutist thinking. I find in Schopenhauer a defender of individual freedom focused on maximizing happiness through personal responsibility.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) took the opposite path and regarded freedom as a purely socio-economic concept. He wrote essays on the material conditions of human existence, class struggle, historical materialism and communism, but overlooked the key role played by personal responsibility on happiness.
According to Marx, capitalism leads to the alienation of the individual from his work because employment leads to severe exploitation; freedom is limited, he argued, because employees are subjected to oppressive conditions.
Schopenhauer had not regarded a capitalistic society as evil and oppressive. In fact, he pointed out that industrial societies offer chances of success, wealth accumulation and mobility. In previous historical periods, those chances had been scarce.
Individualism in Schopenhauer’s ideas on freedom
The recommendations made by Schopenhauer encourage us to make the best out of our lives. Despite setbacks, errors, bad luck or occasional failure, we can achieve a lot through steady work. We can also counteract the dire effects of the will (“life force”) and maximize our happiness.
Marx’s vision of freedom is unrealistic because it assumes that people will automatically make good choices if they own the means of production. He assumes that one’s happiness will be greater if the means of production are collectively owned in a communist society.
In Marx’s communist utopia, individuals are unconstrained by the hierarchical structures of capitalism, but they’ll have to deal with a myriad of new additional constraints. In collectivist structures, individual freedom tends to diminish, not increase.
Schopenhauer’s definition of freedom corresponded to what we usually understand by individual freedom, that is, the range of choices opened to us. Freedom consists of our ability to put into practise the decisions we make.
In contrast, Marx argued that “formal freedom” is different from “real freedom.” He defined formal freedom as the liberty in capitalist societies. In those societies, individuals are legally free, but face economic constraints.
Marx defined “real freedom” as the absence of economic or social exploitation. Marx naively believed that communism is the key to increasing prosperity and secure free time to pursue one’s passions without having to worry about money.
History has proven Schopenhauer right and Marx wrong. In Schopenhauer’s works, we find sound recommendations about how to minimize risks and maximize one’s chances of success. The context and outcome of Schopenhauer’s advice is real. The validity of his advice has been tested and proven correct.
In contrast, Marx’s emphasis on overcoming the alienation of capitalism has delivered pitiful results. Instead if increasing prosperity and freedom, it has led to deep spiritual and material poverty.
Schopenhauer’s ideas on freedom compared to Sigmund Freud’s
Similarly, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) failed to understand the with and breath of Schopenhauer’s views on happiness. You will not find in Freud’s works any solid advice for reducing the unpleasant elements (stress, errors, setbacks) and increasing all the pleasant ones (relationships, success) in life.
Freud’s view of freedom is connected to his psychoanalytic theory. He invented the concepts of the id, ego, and superego, to explain how the human mind works. Those concepts supply a lengthy elaboration of Schopenhauer’s theory of the will, but fail to contribute to better decision-making.
According to Freud, the id represents primal instincts; those correspond to Schopenhauer’s concept of the will (“life force”) and seek immediate gratification irrespective of the cost.
Freud’s superego concept matches Schopenhauer’s societal values and ethics; and the ego mediates between the id and the superego, trying to find a workable balance.
Schopenhauer had already acknowledged that life delivers a considerable number of failures and disappointments. He had then provided solid advice to keep them at bay.
In contrast, the thousands of pages written by Freud are attributing excessive powers to the id and the superego. They present the ego as weak or powerless, and prone to all sorts of psychiatric conditions.
Marx had exaggerated the socio-economic constraints that exist in capitalism, and Freud had exaggerated the emotional, psychological aspects of social life; their critique of a balanced concept of freedom (like Schopenhauer’s) must be regarded as a failure.
If you are interested in applying rational philosophical ideas to solving problems in everyday life, I recommend you my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”
Related articles
Schopenhauer and the idea of justice
Analysis of Schopenhauer’s idea of justice
Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence