Despite their closeness in time, there are huge differences in intent and content between the ideas of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and those of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860).
Kant aimed at reconciling empiricism and rationalism, but with little success. The only result of his efforts is to decouple philosophy and science from ethics, leaving the area of values to religion, mysticism, and subjectivism.
Historians have baptised Kant’s philosophy “transcendental idealism” in order to hide its deep irrationality and immorality.
According to Kant, we derive our understanding of reality from sensory experience and intellectual concepts as much as from the structure of the human mind. The structures is present at birth and predetermined our perceptions and reasoning, said Kant.
On this basis, Kant made the distinction between “a priori knowledge” (derived from the structure of our mind) and “a posteriori knowledge” (derived from experience). In particular, he theorized that “a priori insights” come from predetermined categories such as cause and effect, shape, size, etc.
Schopenhauer and Kant on epistemology
Kant devoted his book “Critique of Pure Reason” (1781) to speculating about knowledge theory, predetermined categories, and the limitations of the human mind.
Seven years later, he wrote “Critique of Practical Reason,” a book that relinquishes ethics to subjectivism and religion. They are supposed to identify “categorical imperatives” valid to all individuals in all circumstances. However, the moral chaos of our era shows that Kant’s expectations have completely failed.
In contrast, Schopenhauer paid little attention to knowledge theory, considering Kant’s speculations of little practical value. Schopenhauer’s key concerns are human motivation, happiness and the minimisation of suffering.
While Kant got lost in abstractions, Schopenhauer focused on giving practical advice. His works “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient cause” (1808) and “The World as will and representation” answer questions about key elements in human motivation, making better decisions, and minimizing risks.
Schopenhauer and Kant on the nature of reality
According to Schopenhauer, the will (“life force”) drives all living creatures towards reproduction and pleasure, but ignores the consequences of oversized risks and mistaken decisions. It pushes people to action without assessment and reflection.
There are positive and negative consequences of the actions inspired by the will. It obviously helps populate the earth, fulfil short-term desires, and ensure survival. On the other hand, the will creates additional desires as soon as one has been fulfilled.
Schopenhauer regarded endless desires as stressful and hard to fulfil. Sooner or later, failure and disappointment ensue. It is simply impossible to satisfy all desires. Everybody experiences some measure of frustration and suffering.
Schopenhauer and Kant on happiness
For this reason, Schopenhauer devoted a great deal of effort to identifying strategies to reduce risks, minimize suffering and increase happiness. You’ll find Schopenhauer’s practical advice in his book “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851).
Schopenhauer’s recommendations include the adoption of a margin of safety, risk reduction, diversification, self-discipline, meditation and contemplation. His own lifestyle denoted a fair measure of asceticism and stress reduction, which he regarded as conductive to more enjoyment.
The philosophy of Schopenhauer aims at securing personal happiness here and now. He viewed Kant’s ethics as vague and impractical because they fail to improve your life in real terms.
Kant affirmed that moral principles are absolute and eternal, and that they apply to every person, regardless of his desires or circumstances. He called principles “categorical imperatives” because they are supposed to apply without any exception.
Categorical imperatives resemble Biblical commandments. For instance, they command “you shall not kill” and “you shall not steal,” but fail to provide guidance on matters such as what profession to choose, or how to select your friends.
While Kant got stuck in abstractions (whose content is self-evident), Schopenhauer went into detail. He acknowledged the difficulty of achieving pleasure, wealth, good health, harmony in social relations, etc. and asked himself the right questions.
Schopenhauer took notice of the suffering created by failure and disappointments, and figured out what to do. He studied in depth Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity, and drew a great deal of practical advice from them.
Schopenhauer and Kant on aesthetics
Similarly, Kant’s observations on aesthetics are pretty much worthless. He theorized about the difference between beautiful and sublime; beauty provides aesthetic pleasure, he argued, but not a sense of reverence. In contrast, the sublime generates a sense of reverence. Nonetheless, he ended up categorizing all aesthetic values as subjective.
Schopenhauer’s view on aesthetics is determinedly practical and linked to personal happiness. He recommended readers to engage in artistic contemplation because art offers us a respite from the stress of daily life. It can help recharge your energies and strengthen your resilience.
Kant’s speculation about the differences between perception (phenomena) and reality (noumena) were strongly contested by Schopenhauer. He viewed those distinctions as impractical and wasteful, because the will is exercising its influence across the board.
Instead of spending your energies trying to figure out if you are perceiving (phenomena) or reality (noumena), you will be better off following Schopenhauer’s advice on how to improve your life.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to problem solving here and now, I recommend you my book “Rationality is the way to happiness.”
Related articles
Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence
Impact of Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence
Examples of Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence
Schopenhauer and the unconscious