For what concerns intellectual and cultural pursuits, are the views of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) fully original or do they rely on prior philosophers? They are original because they are adding unique, innovative elements to the insights of prior thinkers.
If we want to find philosophers that somewhat anticipate Schopenhauer in this respect, we need to go back twenty-two centuries. I am referring to Ancient Stoic philosophers such as Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC).
Zeno held wisdom, reason and virtue in high regard, but not as an end in themselves. He regarded them as tools, as methods of achieving inner peace, meaning and happiness.
Like Schopenhauer, Zeno rejected intellectual pursuits that play against inner peace, meaning and happiness. He strongly advised people to refrain from unworkable desires and goals.
Schopenhauer and detrimental intellectual pursuits
The choice of the right intellectual pursuits, argued Zeno, is essential for achieving happiness. Which pursuits are right and which are wrong? Zeno favoured intellectual pursuits that raise self-awareness and wisdom, especially in the ethics field, that is, in the field of decision-making.
To the Ancient Stoic arguments, Schopenhauer added two entirely new insights, namely, the acknowledgement that the will (nature) is chaotic and that it’s irrational. Neither Zeno nor any other Ancient Stoic had made these remarks.
In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer underlined that nature (for which he employed the term “the will” or “life force”) is chaotic, unpredictable and wild. It pushes in a certain direction, but its influence creates a wide array of unexpected problems.
Schopenhauer also underlined that nature is irrational due to its inability to weigh off risks, costs and consequences. Nature prompts people to secure their own survival and reproduction, and seek short-term pleasure, but remains oblivious to long-term effects.
Schopenhauer and flawed intellectual pursuits
Chaos and irrationality undermine the Ancient Stoic views on intellectual pursuits. For instance, Seneca (4-65 AD) spoke highly of intellectual pursuits, expecting those to help people live more rationally and in alignment with nature.
Seneca considered nature as harmonious and rational. When he wrote about the universe, he praised its orderliness. He was blind to the severe flaws in his arguments.
In contrast, Schopenhauer perceived those flaws right away. He found it ludicrous to call nature harmonious, rational and orderly; the Ancient Stoics were employing nonsensical, poetic images that do not correspond to reality.
The truth is that nature is wild, irrational and merciless, not harmonious, rational and orderly. That’s precisely why we need to rate intellectual pursuits carefully.
Schopenhauer and unrealistic intellectual pursuits
Zeno and Seneca viewed all intellectual pursuits favourably in the same way that they viewed all nature favourably. In their expectations, they only counted positive factors; they expected harmony and rationality, and completely overlooked chaos and destructiveness.
Schopenhauer’s expectations of nature, intellectual pursuits, and human society are far more realistic than Seneca’s. It’s not realistic to expect all intellectual pursuits to increase one’s self-awareness and self-reliance.
When wrong choices are made, argued Schopenhauer, those are likely to lead to suffering. Seneca was wrong in expecting any intellectual pursuit to enhance one’s mental fortitude. It is obvious that bad philosophical ideas, literature and music are bound to cause disorientation, not fortitude.
Schopenhauer rejected the Ancient Stoic tendency to blame emotions for suffering. Epictetus, a contemporary of Seneca, is known to have said that what happens to you matters far less than how you react to it. In this way, Epictetus was blessing everything and everybody under the sun, as though emotions were the only issue.
Schopenhauer and the choice of intellectual pursuits
Epictetus was severely wrong, and possibly also cowardly. I can only praise Schopenhauer for having drawn a clear line on the sand. The truth is that what happens to you matters at least as much as how you react to it.
Your choice of intellectual pursuits is not a trivial matter to be nonchalantly made, as Zeno, Seneca and Epictetus imply.
It’s ridiculous to regard hardship positively, as Epictetus had done, arguing that endurance and struggle bring us glory. Let’s reject those defeatist statements determinedly.
Schopenhauer was right in promoting self-awareness, self-reliance, prudence and foresight. He was right in encouraging people to make choices that prevent hardship.
Epictetus was dead wrong. There is no glory in unnecessary suffering. Let us make choices that avert suffering and enhance happiness, choices that include the right intellectual pursuits.
If you are interested in applying rational principles to daily life in all areas of human activity, I recommend you my book titled “Sequentiality: The amazing power of finding the right sequence of steps.”
Related articles
Errors in Schopenhauer’s views on the problem of evil
Schopenhauer’s views on intellectual pursuits
Analysis of Schopenhauer’s views on intellectual pursuits
Schopenhauer’s views on the relationship between art and morality