The views of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) on the role of reason differ from those of prior philosophers. On the one hand, Schopenhauer is more realistic. He does hold reason in high regard, but acknowledges the strong influence of impulses in human decisions. On the other hand, Schopenhauer observes that it takes substantial effort to use reason assiduously.
The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-271 BC) had in part anticipated Schopenhauer’s views on the role of reason. He favoured the search of pleasure as the key to happiness, but he acknowledged that the thoughtless search for pleasure can lead to pain.
Schopenhauer conveyed this warning in “Two fundamental problems in ethics,” a book he published in 1843. He regarded the avoidance of suffering as the first step to happiness; reason plays an crucial role in this process because it’s the only means to assess risks and costs.
Schopenhauer’s views on the role of reason compared to Epicurus’
Epicurus had distinguished between kinetic pleasure (which is the result of satisfying desires) and tranquillity, which he had defined as the absence of pain. Like Schopenhauer, he viewed tranquillity as a top priority.
Peace of mind requires the use of reason, but according to Schopenhauer, one must grow self-aware before using reason consistently; for Schopenhauer, self-awareness is a prerequisite to exercising the power of reason.
In his book “The world and will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer theorized that the will (“life force”) prompts all living entities to secure their survival and reproduction, and to seek pleasure without thinking of risks, costs or consequences.
Reason can help you adopt countermeasures against the will but you must first grow aware of the will. Schopenhauer gives “self-awareness” a specific meaning. He refers to awareness of the will, its influence, and its dire consequences.
Peace of mind in Schopenhauer and Epicurus
Epicurus had advised his disciples to seek “ataraxia,” which means tranquillity, peace of mind, the absence of fear, anxiety, and stress. The pursuit of “ataraxia” requires reason because an individual needs to figure out which pleasures can lead to pain down the road.
In his essay collection “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), Schopenhauer supplies detailed advice to counteract the will in order to improve one’s life. His recommendations rely on one’s reason for implementation.
Schopenhauer’s recommendations include self-reliance and self-discipline, prudence and foresight. He also recommends a form of contemplation (“artistic contemplation”) that requires reason to exercise because it entails the perception of harmony and beauty.
Epicurus called for prudent hedonism as a key to happiness. His advice matches Schopenhauer’s call for self-awareness and prudence coupled to self-reliance. Epicurus told his disciples to think about long-term consequences before taking action, but I rate Schopenhauer’s advice about reason as far more practical.
Schopenhauer’s views on the role of reason compared to Thomas Aquinas’
Schopenhauer was very familiar with the works of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). He had studied them at the University of Göttingen. In his “Summa Theologiae,” Aquinas praises reason as the quintessential human tool for making good choices and living a good life.
Aquinas regarded the role of reason as crucial for grasping the natural order. Without reason, humans cannot comprehend the natural laws governing the world. He considered the world as God’s creation and reason as the essential method to figure out how it works.
Schopenhauer shares Aquinas’ call for prudence, foresight, and moderation. It is far from self-evident to tell which desires are beneficial and what one ought to do. Yet, Schopenhauer is more realistic than Aquinas about the human tendency to short-term decisions without thinking of the consequences.
Aquinas considered a sin to pretend to know what we don’t, but Schopenhauer considered it normal. In the absence of self-awareness, people act with tremendous determination towards their self-destruction.
Irrationality is the default position because the use of reason requires sustained effort. Schopenhauer’s essay “On the will in nature” (1832) acknowledges the predominance of the will in persons that decline to make such effort.
Aquinas had stated that the study of truth requires a sizeable effort, and that few individuals are exerting themselves in this direction. Schopenhauer had taken this insight and expanded it to the maximum. Schopenhauer regarded the use of reason far more difficult because of the prerequisite of self-awareness.
Schopenhauer’s views on the role of reason compared to Rousseau’s
Nonetheless, Schopenhauer did not share the views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) on social barriers to employing reason. In “The social contract,” an essay written by Rousseau when he was already fifty, he blamed societal structures for all problems, and praised reason as the tool for creating harmony.
Schopenhauer cared little for Rousseau’s historical logic and argumentation. He regarded the will as eternal and relentless. It is not the result of social structures, as Rousseau had theorized. Self-awareness requires individual effort, said Schopenhauer. It is not a collective undertaking.
Rousseau’s call for following the “general will” in societal, ethical, and economic issues made no sense to Schopenhauer. I agree with Schopenhauer that there is no guarantee that general consensus is any more reasonable than individual decisions.
Reason requires sustained effort which cannot be eliminated by consolidating the opinions of large numbers of people. Each person is responsible of becoming self-aware. Schopenhauer is giving advice in “Parerga and Paralipomena” for using reason, but the effort remains individual and volitional, not automatic.
Schopenhauer disagreed with Rousseau’s belief that man is naturally good but society corrupts him. Instead, Schopenhauer observed that man is naturally foolish unless he pushes himself to use reason on a continuous basis.
Schopenhauer’s views on the role of reason compared to Spinoza’s
Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) had favoured the use of reason as the best way to make good choices. His work “Ethics” was published shortly after his death, calling for using reason in all situations to figure out natural laws and natural morality.
Schopenhauer disagreed with Spinoza’s expectation of law, order, and morality occurring naturally. He pointed out that the opposite is true. The cosmos is driven by the will, which left to its own devices, proves wild, irrational and chaotic. Reason is an exception in nature, noted Schopenhauer, no the rule.
For Spinoza, reason belongs to a necessary and predictable natural order. His book “Ethics” describes good choices as the result of a quasi-mathematical method. Unfortunately, he was wrong in expecting humans to use reason by default in ethical considerations. Any newspaper proves that Spinoza was wrong and Schopenhauer fairly close to the truth.
Schopenhauer partially agreed with Spinoza’s statement that a wise man is led by reason, and fools by passion. He regarded it as more accurate to say that men live by passion unless they make the effort to become self-aware and use their reason.
Schopenhauer’s views on the role of reason compared to Socrates’
What about Socrates (469-399 BC)? Did Schopenhauer see the role of reason as Socrates had done? Yes, to a large extent. Schopenhauer agreed with Socrates’ statement that wisdom is the result of acknowledging one’s ignorance, asking questions, and probing the answers.
However, Schopenhauer rejected Socrates’ explanations for lack of wisdom. While Socrates had blamed lack of wisdom on evil, conformity and laziness, Schopenhauer viewed ignorance as normal, as the default situation.
The Socratic method involves questions to prompt people to abandon their contradictions and false beliefs. Schopenhauer is noting however that questions constitute a waste of time in the absence of self-awareness. Individuals controlled by the will, said Schopenhauer, are going to ignore questions altogether.
Socrates had argued that an unexamined life (a thoughtless life) is not worth living, but he was wrong. Schopenhauer was right in sustaining that an unexamined life is sub-optimal, but normal. The consistent use of reason brings vast benefits, but it is rare because it requires sustained effort.
If you are interested in applying rational philosophy today for addressing all sort of situations, I recommend you my book “Thriving in difficult times.”
Related articles
Schopenhauer and the role of reason
Schopenhauer’s philosophy summary