You do not need to search long to find philosophers that rate Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) as the ultimate advocate of determinism. Nonetheless, they are wrong; their categorization of Schopenhauer as deterministic is superficial and overlooks a large number of key aspects in Schopenhauer’s philosophy.
When analysing a philosopher, one must place his ideas at a certain point in the scale of determinism versus individuality. It is particularly easy to err if you don’t study philosophical ideas in detail.
If you reduce Schopenhauer’s lifetime work to a caricature, you will tend to place him at the end of the scale. However, the reality is more nuanced and interesting. When we look into the details of Schopenhauer’s ideas, we must definitely rate him as an individualist, not as deterministic.
Let me explain the logic by comparing Schopenhauer to the Ancient Roman Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who lived in the first century AD.
Stoicism and Schopenhauer’s theory of the will
Schopenhauer’s two key works “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) and “The world as will and representation” (1818) argue that the cosmos is dominated by the will. Schopenhauer regards the will as a blind life force.
Similarly, Stoic philosophers like Epictetus believed that the cosmos is governed by a force called “logos.” This force is to blame for every good and bad occurrence in the world.
The definition of the logos had been shaped by Cleanthes (331-232 BC), Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC), and Chrysippus (280-206 BC) of Cilicia, all of them predecessors of Epictetus.
Schopenhauer’s definition of the will includes the adjective “irrational,” but strongly resembles the Stoic “logos.” It doesn’t change much that Zeno and Cleanthes had called their logos “rational.”
In any case, the Stoic deterministic framework was stronger than Schopenhauer’s theory of the will.
Individuality and happiness in Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer regarded as normal for individuals to protect themselves against the will and its abuses. Individuals can adopt countermeasures and lead a life relatively free of disruptions.
Epictetus employed a dichotomy that distinguished between things within and those outside our control. He advocated that we concentrate on things (thoughts, beliefs, actions) within our control, and accept the rest as inevitable (deterministic).
Schopenhauer emphasized the importance of understanding the influence of the will, so that we can adopt countermeasures such as artistic contemplation and keeping a margin of safety. I regard Schopenhauer’s advice as vastly more proactive than the writings of Epictetus.
Epictetus said that human happiness comes from accepting the deterministic nature of the cosmos and one’s limited control of external events. In contrast, Schopenhauer advised adopting Hindi, Buddhist and Christian ethics (empathy, compassion) to minimize suffering.
From this perspective, it is fair to categorize Schopenhauer as individualistic, not as deterministic.
To which extent is Schopenhauer deterministic?
Just as Ancient Stoics cultivated wisdom, courage, justice and self-discipline to cope better with setbacks, Schopenhauer provided detailed advice to readers for copying with life’s problems and disappointments.
Schopenhauer and Stoics call for resilience in response to adversity. They advise preparing for issues before they occur in order to prevent being wiped out financially, emotionally, and physically.
Schopenhauer’s theory of the will resembles the world-view that Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) had elaborated to justify his ethics. Spinoza believed that the universe, which he identified as God or nature, is made of an infinite, eternal substance, and that individuals are also manifestations of that substance.
Determinism in Schopenhauer and Spinoza
The theory of the will in Schopenhauer is less deterministic. It does not say that the will makes the individuals, only that its influence can be sensed by individuals; the will is blind, strong and relentless, but individuals retain the final say.
According to Spinoza, every event and entity is determined. He argued that everything that takes place is a necessary result of God or nature. He rejected the idea random events. His view of the world was completely deterministic.
In contrast, Schopenhauer gave extensive advice about how to optimize one’s chances in times of adversity. Schopenhauer’s own life offers us remarkable insights in risk management and risk minimization. He was truly convinced that individuals can escape the dire consequences of dealing with the will.
The role of individuality in Schopenhauer’s philosophy
Spinoza’s system left little room for human freedom. It does not help that he introduced the concept of “intellectual love of God,” that is, accepting the deterministic nature of the universe and aligning oneself with the predominant course of action.
Schopenhauer is far more individualistic than Spinoza. This is why I consider it wrong to call Schopenhauer deterministic. He never endorsed the passive defeatism of Epictetus, Spinoza, Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus.
Spinoza’s “Ethics” (1677) favours determinism and the role of necessity. He calls for individuals to live in harmony with a cosmos driven by a divine order in which individuals only play a subordinate role at best.
The difference with Schopenhauer is remarkable; the theory of the will cannot be equated with Spinoza’s timid pantheism. Instead of telling readers to give up and endure, Schopenhauer is encouraging them to make the best of their lives. Let’s point to the soundness of his advice, which is all but deterministic.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to improve your daily life, I recommend you my book “Sequentiality: The amazing power of finding the right sequence of steps.”
Related articles
Comparison of Schopenhauer and Hegel
Impact of the comparison between Schopenhauer and Hegel
Schopenhauer and the philosophy of time