Seldom has the world seen such a deep, perennial animosity between philosophers as the one that existed between Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).
While Hegel basically ignored Schopenhauer, the latter was delighted when he read in the news that Hegel had died. “If he had died earlier,” commented Schopenhauer, “the world would have been speared a whole bunch of nonsense.”
Like in most of his sharp social commentary, Schopenhauer was proven right by history. Overwhelmingly right, I must say, because Hegel’s ideals would be later invoked as philosophical basis for all kind of abuses.
While Schopenhauer’s philosophy revolved around securing happiness for the individual (by reducing suffering), Hegel was a harbinger of an absolute spirit that allegedly drives history. It did not take Schopenhauer long to rate Hegel’s spirit as a scam that would be eventually used to justify all kind of atrocities.
Sadly, Schopenhauer was correct in his assessment of Hegel and the consequences of such a scam.
Similarities between Schopenhauer and Hegel
How did Schopenhauer see so clearly though the nonsense predicated by Hegel? How can we learn to protect ourselves from similar scams?
The study of the differences between Schopenhauer’s ideas and Hegel’s is important because it touches the cornerstones of civilization. Grasping those differences will enable you to say no without hesitation to new harbingers of absolutism.
I must first acknowledge that Schopenhauer and Hegel are sharing some common ground in the sense that they both reuse concepts developed by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in his key work “Critique of Pure Reason” published in 1781.
Hegel then added the “dialectical process” as a method of cognition and historical manifestation, rendering Kantian ideas unrecognisable.
Schopenhauer went in the opposite direction; he pointed out that the will is a fundamental force underlying reality and how it affects individual perception and happiness.
The crucial difference between Schopenhauer and Hegel
The crucial distinction between Schopenhauer’s and Hegel’s philosophies is that, while Hegel regarded reality as a dynamic flux leading to the culmination of the absolute spirit, the views of Schopenhauer revolve around the eternal, irrational will that drives the cosmos.
Note that Schopenhauer did not say that the will (which one might as well define as “life force”) is going to drive society in a fixed direction. He did not claim that the future is already set in stone by an absolute spirit.
It makes a world of difference whether you accept Hegel’s speculations. Even today, there is no shortage of propagandists of Hegel’s absolute spirit under various names. Beware of their message and its implications.
Hegel considered individuals as tiny parts in the unfolding of the absolute spirit in history, but not essential in themselves. The absolute spirit (or those who claim to represent it) may opt for disposing of some of those tiny parts.
Practical impact of Schopenhauer’s and Hegel’s ideas
I acknowledge that Hegel repeatedly spoke about the role of individuals in manifesting freedom in history, but can you play a role in freedom if you are a tiny part of the absolute spirit? I see that Hegel was trying to link the concepts of subordination and freedom, but his arguments do not make any sense to me.
In contrast, Schopenhauer (just as Kant had done) regarded each individual as an end in himself. You are a human being in search of happiness, not a tiny part of the absolute spirit; you’re a person with his own goals, not a tiny part of an absolute.
Schopenhauer did not deny that human life entails setbacks, failure and disappointments. You will not find anyone who has achieved everything he wants. Nor anyone who has never gone through challenging periods.
Instead of claiming that suffering is caused by the absolute spirit, Schopenhauer devoted his efforts to identifying methods for averting or minimizing suffering. I am speaking of practical methods, not empty rituals.
If you follow Schopenhauer’s advice, you might not become extraordinarily happy, but you will certainly avert lots of issues in life and reduce your stress.
Schopenhauer’s and Hegel’s views of history
Hegel regarded history as a progressive manifestation of the absolute spirit, in which most individuals remain tiny pieces. I doubt that Hegel realized the consequences of someone putting his ideas into practice and treating individuals as tiny pieces.
Schopenhauer sustained the opposite views. History isn’t led in any particular direction by an absolute spirit. He argued that the will (which I translate as “life force”) drives the world, but you can still take steps to minimize its impact to the extent that it affects you negatively.
To this end, Schopenhauer reused concepts from Buddhism (such as “nirvana”) and Hinduism as practical methods to keep suffering at bay.
Schopenhauer’s conception of history leaves plenty of room for individual action and self-determination. You are not a tiny part of an absolute spirit that pushes you around.
Schopenhauer’s and Hegel’s ethics
There is no reason to accept suffering passively. It is every person’s responsibility to take action to minimize suffering. He endorsed the Christian, Hindu and Buddhism virtues that lead to minimizing suffering, namely, empathy and compassion.
In contrast to Schopenhauer’s gentle practicality, I wonder if anyone can feel empathy and compassion after accepting the view of individuals as tiny pieces of an absolute spirit.
While Schopenhauer was extraordinarily accurate, polished, and concise as a writer, Hegel tended towards verbosity. Either he was trying to complicate things, or he was simply unable to write clearly.
Schopenhauer viewed Hegel’s dialectical method as useless and artificial. It neither explained anything nor led anywhere. I must support Schopenhauer’s criticism in this respect.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to problem solving in real life, I recommend you my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”
Related articles
Origins of the similarities and differences between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche
Schopenhauer and the philosophy of perception
Critique of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of perception