Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) had no problem to accept that he was an eccentric. In fact, he considered it a privilege to be categorized as an eccentric. He considered it a confirmation of the originality of his ideas.
Schopenhauer’s key contribution to philosophy is the theory of the will, that is, the belief that the will (“life force”) exerts a strong influence on all living creatures. The will drives them at the same time towards survival, reproduction and pleasure, but without any consideration of cost and long-term consequences.
By creating the theory of the will, Schopenhauer set himself apart from other philosophers, especially from Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).
Kant and Hegel had placed philosophy on an idealistic path by focusing on epistemology and proposing vague abstractions for defining morality.
Realism in Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life
Schopenhauer rebelled against those vague abstractions that have no connection to reality; he simply pointed out that Kant’s “categorical imperative” and Hegel’s “absolute spirit” generate confusion and fail to supply practical guidance for deciding on everyday matters.
With the theory of the will, Schopenhauer placed happiness once again in the centre of philosophy; reflections on theory of knowledge (“epistemology”), history and society are important but should lead to practical recommendations. Otherwise, what is the point of philosophy?
In this respect, Schopenhauer went much further than prior moralists such as Seneca (4-65 AD), which had called for self-discipline, equanimity and prudence.
In his “Letters to Lucilium,” Seneca argued that the practise of virtue (reason) leads to tranquillity (happiness), but his idea of happiness was purely psychological.
Seneca failed to connect the practice of virtue with social or material success, good health and other factors of an enjoyable existence. Since he considered all those factors as random, he defined happiness as purely psychological.
Schopenhauer’s concept of happiness compared to Seneca’s
Schopenhauer knew Seneca’s arguments well, but could not agree with them. Why? Because Seneca was obviously wrong. It is nonsensical to define happiness as purely psychological or mental. Without a fair measure of tangible enjoyment, there is no way to sustain any delusion of purely emotional happiness.
Seneca had called for practising wisdom, self-improvement, courage, justice and harmony, but at the same time, he advised people to passively accept what cannot be changed, but gave a loose definition of “what cannot be changed.”
Schopenhauer rebelled against Seneca’s passive acceptance of “what cannot be changed.” Passivity and resignation are not the keys to happiness. There is no wisdom in giving up all your dreams because they conflict with “what cannot be changed.”
In contrast to Seneca’s verbosity about virtue with passivity in practice, Schopenhauer came up with hands-on measures for improving one’s happiness. I am talking about tangible results, not passive resignation.
Schopenhauer’s rejection of self-delusion
Schopenhauer identified the influence of the will as the key obstacle to happiness. People create their own misery because they make poor decisions; they are driven by the will to pursue short-term pleasure without thinking of the long-term outcome.
For Seneca, external circumstances are part of “what cannot be changed.” For Schopenhauer, external circumstances can be changed for the better if one adopts the right strategy. He gave for instance the advice to reduce risks, maintain good margins of safety, and increase one’s self-discipline and self-reliance.
While Seneca had been contented with self-delusion (which he had defined as happiness), Schopenhauer was seeking a real improvement in one’s circumstances; he acknowledged that not every obstacle can be surmounted, but so what?
Even when it is unworkable to attain perfect happiness, why not attempt to improve your situation? Instead of self-delusion (as recommended by Seneca), why not look for opportunities you can seize (as recommended by Schopenhauer)?
Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life compared to Marcus Aurelius’
Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life was not only better than Seneca’s, but also better than the ideas put forward by Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD).
Marcus Aurelius, a Roman Emperor, had written down his ideas for personal use. After his death, his notes became public and were published under the title “Meditations.”
His notes resemble Seneca’s “Letters to Lucilium” because they call for “accepting the natural order.” There is no practical difference between Aurelius conception of the “natural order” and Seneca’s definition of “what cannot be changed.”
Both definitions are too wide and passive. Both Seneca and Marcus Aurelius are willing to accept other people’s decisions as part of the natural order that “cannot be changed.”
Such passivity is foreign to Schopenhauer. He only advised acceptance of overwhelming setbacks. In those cases, he gave recommendations of self-discipline and contemplation similar to the ones given by Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity.
Schopenhauer goes further in his recommendations because he is also calling for artistic contemplation. He viewed artistic contemplation (such as music) as a measure for lowering stress and increasing one’s happiness.
Instead of passive acceptance, Schopenhauer is providing us a comprehensive set of tools for improving one’s happiness. He used his theory of the will as an explanation for poor decisions, and as a tool for making better decisions and keeping disasters at bay.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to solving problems here and now, I recommend you my book “Rational living, rational working.”