In his works, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) pointed out that love relationships often fail because people will initially idealize their beloved, and experience a disappointment when they realize that their expectations do not match reality.
Schopenhauer presented those views in “The world as will and representation” (1818) and in “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). He warned readers against seeking short-term pleasure without assessing the cost and risks involved.
According to Schopenhauer, the whole cosmos is driven by the will (“life force”), which prompts living creatures to secure their survival and reproduction, and seek short-term pleasure.
In his warning against delusion, Schopenhauer describes all problems accurately, but fails to provide solutions; he warns us against blind love, but fails to outline workable alternatives.
The search for better answers must start with the definition of love. Schopenhauer describes love as “intense attraction” in a rather simplistic way. In doing so, he overlooks five hundred years of literary and psychological exploration.
Schopenhauer’s views on love compared to Petrarch’s
Schopenhauer lacks a nuanced view of love relationships. He could have grasped those nuances by reading the works of Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374) or Petrarch, the first poet who explored the complexities of love.
In contrast to Schopenhauer’s oversimplification, Petrarch idealized romantic relationships. His poems reflect the period between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, a period when knights, aristocratic ladies and troubadours still played a major role.
While Schopenhauer regarded all idealized love as delusion, Petrarch wrote sonnets about Laura, a mysterious woman that appears unattainable to him. Instead of referring to the will and instinctual forces, Petrarch wrote about beauty, gentle hearts, and eternal affection between kindred souls.
Schopenhauer was wrong in depriving love of idealism and spiritual connections. That’s way Schopenhauer warns against unbridled passion and bad decisions in love relationships.
Schopenhauer’s pessimism in love relationships
Conversely, Petrarch regards love as a source of inspiration. He thanks God for the the experience of being in love because love elevates the soul, awakens creativity, and enhances virtue.
Petrarch taught us a crucial lesson in the area of love: that there is no reason to suffer a nervous breakdown when passion is unrequited. That’s a lesson that Schopenhauer never learned.
Schopenhauer’s pessimism about relationships resulted from his unrequited love for Caroline Richter. I’m sure that if he had read Petrarch, he would have viewed his disappointment in a different light.
When Petrarch describes love as an “endless mystery,” he is referring to the refined, cultivated sentiments between kindred souls. Those intellectual and spiritual dimensions elevate love far above mere physical attraction.
If Schopenhauer had applied his complete theory of the will to love and relationships, he would have recommended to pay more attention to intellectual and spiritual aspects. In addition to warning against short-term blindness, he would have called for prudence, foresight, and risk reduction.
Schopenhauer’s views on love compared to Shakespeare’s
Strangely enough, Schopenhauer was very familiar with the works of William Shakespeare (1564-1616), but still failed to understand the tapestry of romantic emotions in Shakespeare’s plays.
Instead of Schopenhauer’s reductionist views, Shakespeare’s plays present rich nuances and subtlety. His play “Romeo and Juliet” (1598) compares the heroine with soft sunlight, offering a merry-go-round of emotions.
While Schopenhauer overlooked the intellectual or spiritual aspects in relationships, Shakespeare’s comedy “A midsummer night’s dream” (1597) portrays love as complex and capricious. The play acknowledges that love looks not only with the eyes, but also with the mind.
Schopenhauer’s poor understanding of love idealization has a detrimental effect in his vision of relationships. He just could not fathom, for instance, Shakespeare’s portrayal of steadfast, enduring love that withstands the trials of time, circumstances, and even death.
Schopenhauer had learned English at an early age and could have learned key lessons from Jane Austen (1775-1817). In her novels, she provides a nuanced, complex view of love within constraints similar to those encountered by Schopenhauer his own life.
Schopenhauer’s views on love compared to Jane Austen’s
In contrast to Schopenhauer’s pessimism, Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” (a novel published in 1813) offers an optimistic and subtle view of love relationships. Austen’s novels portray the obstacles faced by individuals in search of love and show us how those obstacles can be overcome.
For those in search of successful love relationships, I would advise reading Austen’s “Sense and Sensibility” (1811) and see the delicate balance between desires, social constraints, realism and idealism.
Schopenhauer failed to overcome those constraints and did little to improve himself in this area. Instead of lamenting one’s back luck, it’s better to learn from the masters. Do not blame idealism or its absence, but seek to strike the right balance.
If you are interested in applying rational philosophy day in and day out for solving problems, I recommend you my books “On becoming unbreakable” and “Thriving in difficult times.”