The stunning accuracy of the intuitions and insights gained by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) becomes apparent when we compare him with other philosophers. Many have attacked Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence but the attacks have only served to reinforce his positions.
You cannot dismiss Schopenhauer by saying that he was too pessimistic or nihilistic. Why not? Because, when you analyse the details, you will see that his observations match reality. For better or for worse, he was objective and precise.
Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence rest on his theory of the will, the life force that drives all living creatures. The will awakes endless desires in us, and if you do not know how to counteract it, you are likely to make dire mistakes.
His work “Parerga and Paripomena” (1851) gives valuable advice to minimize suffering and secure happiness. You cannot call pessimistic a philosopher who identifies risks and outlines effective countermeasures.
Self-reliance in Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence
Those who compare Schopenhauer with Franz Kafka (1883-1924) are profoundly mistaken. Kafka struggled all his life and the heroes in his works are overwhelmed by external forces, but those forces do not correspond to Schopenhauer’s theory of the will.
In his early years, Kafka suffered from a tense relationship with his authoritarian father, Hermann Kafka, but such tension has nothing to do with Schopenhauer’s theory of the will.
Kafka spent most of his professional life working as a legal counsel for an insurance company. His job made him regard modern society as hierarchical, bureaucratic and abusive; that’s the type of society that he depicted in his novel “The Trial,” published posthumously in 1937.
In “The Trial,” Josef K becomes the victim of a bewildering legal system; he is arrested, but the charges against him remain secret; he is prosecuted without having the chance to articulate a defence. The trial ends with his irregular execution.
The absurd world depicted by Kafka has nothing to do with Schopenhauer’s philosophy. Kafka’s heroes are passive victims of circumstances, but Schopenhauer warned against passivity.
Schopenhauer advised readers to reduce risks and enhance their self-sufficiency and self-reliance. He warned them against the dangers brought about by the will and advised them to take effective steps.
Purposefulness in Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence
You will also make a mistake if you regard Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) as a follower of Schopenhauer. Sartre was deeply nihilistic and failed to provide practical advice for improving one’s life. That’s not the case of Schopenhauer. He identified an array of problems and provided solid recommendations, as you can expect from a worthy philosopher.
Sartre’s key philosophical work is “Being and Nothingness” (1943). He acknowledges that each individual faces choices in creating his own essence, but refrains from providing advice.
We can observe the same pattern in Sartre’s novel “Nausea” (1938), which illustrates the void of existentialism. The hero of “Nausea” is Antoine Roquentin, who perceives life as absurd, meaninglessness, and empty.
Roquentin goes through an existential crisis, where nothing really happens. The novel tells a story that begins nowhere and leads nowhere. Roquentin meanders through his day, feeling anxious and fearful for no reason, unable to get anything done.
Schopenhauer depicted human life differently. He lamented the shortness of life because nobody can attain all ambitions or goals. He would have rated the indecisiveness of Roquentin as stupid and repulsive.
Time is too valuable to be wasted in endless hesitations. The key philosophical problem addressed by Schopenhauer is how to cope with failure, setbacks and disappointments. He gave us practical and purposeful solutions, while Sartre only talked about anxiety, fear, and disorientation.
Decisiveness in Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence
Neither should you couple Schopenhauer’s philosophy with Samuel Beckett (1906-1989), whose work explored the themes of existentialism and absurdity, especially in his famous play “Waiting for Godot” (1953).
The play’s protagonists, Vladimir and Estragon, are waiting for someone named Godot to arrive and solve their problems. In their conversations, Vladimir and Estragon speculate about how Godot will relieve their boredom and emptiness.
At the end of the play, nothing happens. Godot doesn’t show up and the audience cannot even be sure that Godot exists. The play is supposed to symbolize the absurdity of life, but it is just an endless repetition of the anxieties and fears felt by Vladimir and Estragon.
While Schopenhauer strived to raise the wisdom, happiness, and decisiveness of his readers, “Waiting for Godot” reveals itself as a waste of time. It contains no message and no philosophy, unless you want to call emptiness a message and disorientation a philosophy.
The real impact of Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence is to be found in Schopenhauer’s readers. People who have studied his work and implemented his advice are few and far between, but their effectiveness and happiness illustrate the insights gained from one of the brightest thinkers in history.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in everyday life, I recommend you my book titled “Rational living, rational working.”
Related articles
Critique of Schopenhauer’s ideas on freedom
Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence
Examples of Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence