History provides excellent examples of the philosophy put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). I can point for instance to the life of Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) who had favoured living in accordance with nature.

Aurelius’ recipe for happiness is understanding the order of the universe and aligning our actions with it; however, when he talked about “the order of the universe,” he was assuming that the world is rational and that humans can grasp its laws.

In contrast, Schopenhauer theorized that the universe is not necessarily orderly. His theory of the will (“life force”) points to a blind, eternal force as a driver of all living creatures. Thus, he was expecting the will to exert an irrational influence on the decisions and actions of humans.

Despite his different conception of the universe, the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius constitutes a good practical example of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life. Every aspect of Aurelius’ life matches Schopenhauer’s ethics. I’m referring to the virtues of prudence, self-discipline, steadiness and clear-headiness.

Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life compared to Marcus Aurelius’

Marcus Aurelius expected the universe to be rational and, to a certain extent, comprehensible to our minds. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the inevitability of change, accepting that often we must face external events are beyond our control.

Schopenhauer placed great emphasis on self-reliance and on all elements that help humans build their self-confidence. The terminology used in Marcus Aurelius’ work “Meditations” does not exactly match Schopenhauer’s, but the meaning is similar.

Instead of referring to self-reliance and self-confidence, the writings of Marcus Aurelius mention the “inner citadel” that he is recommending to build inside our soul.

Aurelius is asking us to cultivate inner resilience, so that all external circumstances are deprived of harshness or bitterness. The concept of “inner citadel” refers to a spiritual shield. It is meant to prevent external events from disturbing our peace of mind.

Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life and the “inner citadel”

What are the best methods for building the “inner citadel”? Marcus Aurelius recommends practising self-awareness, self- discipline, and equanimity. To those methods, Schopenhauer is adding artistic contemplation, for instance through music and literature.

In his life and in his writings, Aurelius focused on the “here and now.” He repeatedly warned against dwelling on the past and worrying about the future. In order to make the best of each moment, one should engage fully with the present.

Schopenhauer made this formulation more precise. He did endorse enjoying the present moment, but keeping visibility of its costs and risks. He advised engaging fully with the present especially during artistic contemplation, but in everyday life, one should keep a sharp eye on cost and risks. Otherwise, there is a high risk of being overwhelmed by the will.

Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life and “amor fati”

While Marcus Aurelius favoured “amor fati” (love of fate), you will not find such a concept in Schopenhauer. The passive acceptance of fate was not good enough for Schopenhauer.

Schopenhauer advised adopting countermeasures to prevent the will from taking control of our lives. He considered “amor fati” as a formula for suicide, not as formula for happiness.

For this reason, I cannot regard Marcus Aurelius as a perfect example of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life. There are strong subjective elements in Aurelius writings, such as his statement that “little is needed for happiness because happiness depends on one’s way of thinking.”

Schopenhauer never gave such a subjective advice; he didn’t share the view that “everything is in the mind.” His collection of essays titled “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) is devoted to giving advice to improving one’s situation in real terms, not in terms of delusional thinking.

Schopenhauer acknowledged that some problems (terminal illness, for example) cannot be solved satisfactorily. He wasn’t telling terminally ill people that everything will be fine if they just “live in harmony with themselves.”

Aurelius had proven unable to supply solid advice for those situations. Schopenhauer does much better in this respect due to his knowledge of Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity.

Schopenhauer’s philosophy and the fear of death

The “nirvana” concept in Buddhism, argued Schopenhauer, provides us important clues for dealing with hopeless problems and irreversible damage. Those elements are particularly well presented in Schopenhauer’s main work “The world as will and representation” (1918).

What about the attitude for facing death? Marcus Aurelius had concluded that we should not fear death more than we fear living our lives in anguish. Schopenhauer shared this approach, but acknowledged the negative emotions associated to the limit of the human lifespan. It’s something to be accepted, he argued wisely, and there is no way to painted in a positive manner.

Schopenhauer didn’t endorse the short-term views appearing in Marcus Aurelius’ writings. He did not see the point of living each day thinking that today might be your last day.

Short-term thinking does not lead to optimal results, argued Schopenhauer. If human beings have a normal lifespan of at least eighty years, there is no point in making people anxious. I fail to see any advantages of constantly thinking “today might be my last day.” Paranoia only leads to irrationality and errors.

If you are interested in applying rational philosophy in real-life situations, I recommend you my book “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”