The reasons why philosophy books trace the inception of existentialism to Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) are rather weak. Nonetheless, they have attained the status of mainstream opinion and deserve a robust refutation.
I am going to address systematically the arguments given in philosophy books and refute them one by one. My objective is to bring new light to a question that has been wrongly declared settled.
First of all, Schopenhauer himself never declared himself to be an existentialist, not anything close to that term. You won’t find such a concept in his works.
Neither “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason”(1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818), or “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) contain any statements in favour of existentialist philosophy.
Schopenhauer against meaninglessness
Second, Schopenhauer came up with a clear philosophy to explain how the world works. His ground-braking theory of the will (“life force”) as a cosmical engine does explain events in the past and in the present.
In contrast to existentialists, Schopenhauer rejected ideas of randomness and lack of meaning. He acknowledged the major role played by the will in human decisions, but supplied advice to help his readers make the best of their lives.
Third, even when confronted with setbacks, Schopenhauer never characterized human life as absurd. He never fell into the nihilism of existentialists such as Albert Camus (1913-1960) or Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980).
Although philosophy books label Schopenhauer a precursor of existential anxiety, the truth is that you will not find trace of existential despair in Schopenhauer’s works.
Indeed, he was realistic in stating that many goals cannot be achieved because life is too short or resources insufficient. Yet, his goal was not preach nihilism, but to help his readers focus their energies in areas that can generate more happiness.
Schopenhauer favoured rational action
Fourth, Schopenhauer favoured rational, consistent action in his works and in his own life. He took note of the challenges or difficulties created by the will, but came up with measures for overcoming those obstacles.
Camus and Sartre are somehow individualistic in the sense that they acknowledged that each person is responsible for his own life, but failed to provide practical advice. They lacked an integrated philosophical framework to help people make good choices.
You won’t find in Camus and Sartre a compilation of solid, practical rational advice like in Schopenhauer’s “Parerga and Paralipomena,” in particularly in his “Aphorisms on the art of living.”
The fact that Schopenhauer had anchored his philosophy on the rational tradition of the Enlightenment places him outside the frame of existentialism; the flawless logic of his arguments cannot be found in twentieth-century existentialist authors.
Schopenhauer against impractical debates
Fifth, Schopenhauer primarily focused on happiness, not on freedom. He took freedom for granted, save for the constraints imposed by the will. If you take his main work “The world as will and representation,” you will not find long expositions on human freedom, which he took as a fact.
In contrast, Jean-Paul Sartre in his major work “Being and Nothingness,” elaborates extensively on the meaning of human freedom. It escapes me who really needs to read a thick tome to figure out that individuals are free. Schopenhauer was right in taking freedom for granted in the modern world.
Sartre employed the term “radical freedom” to underline all the burdens arising from the need to choose. He found it harsh that individuals must constantly make choices that, very often, have long-term consequences, but never offered alternatives.
If you do not make your own decisions, is it better to have someone else do them in your place? Is it better to have your present and future welfare depend on other people’s choices?
I do not think so and it escapes me why Sartre devoted time and energy to paint the drawbacks of “radical freedom.” I find Schopenhauer’s approach more productive and I prefer to read solid advice that I can put into practice.
Schopenhauer against lack of purpose
Sixth, Schopenhauer focused on results, not on terminology. He would have been perplexed to read Sartre’s disquisitions on whether “existence precedes essence.” For Schopenhauer, such a question does not relate to the core purpose of philosophy.
Sartre found it worthy to explain in great detail why essence does not precede existence, but Schopenhauer would have not paid much attention. He found it obvious that individuals need to make correct decisions if they want to improve their life. It’s hard to justify spending time wondering if your decisions are shaping your essence, or the other way round.
Schopenhauer’s theory of the will is drawn from observation of current events and historical analysis. It formulates a clear vision of human nature (and of the cosmos in general). It does not match Sartre’s arguments that individuals are born without predetermined purposes.
Schopenhauer against wrong assumptions
Seventh, Schopenhauer had understood that making optimal choices requires effort and dedication. His doctoral dissertation from 1808 is titled “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” and mentions ignorance or errors as a reason for many events.
According to Schopenhauer, bad choices happen by default. If you allow the will to control your life, you will devote your time and energy to pursuing short-time goals, fleeing pleasures and low-end rewards.
It takes concentrated efforts to counteract the will, assess all relevant risks and costs, and make good choices. Sartre used the term “bad faith” to describe people who choose to conform to societal expectations instead of thinking for themselves, but I fail to see his logic.
There is no “bad faith” in pursuing short-time goals, fleeing pleasures and low-end rewards. Schopenhauer was right when he considered those normal or average. Sartre was demanding people to be rational for no good reason. He hadn’t grasped the effort involved in logical, consistent thinking.
Thus, I view as inaccurate to call Schopenhauer a precursor of existentialism. He did address subjects that are important to existentialists such as Sartre and Camus, but arrived a different conclusions.
If you are interested in applying rational, consistent ideas to problem solving, I recommend you my book “Sequentiality: The amazing power of finding the right sequence of steps.”
Related articles
Opposition to Schopenhauer’s theory of knowledge
Analysis of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of happiness
The key difference between Schopenhauer and existentialism