Considering the rather miserable life of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), it is fair to ask why he grew apart from the ideas presented by Schopenhauer (1788-1860), instead of endorsing them and build them further.
I must start by saying that the differences in personality and motivation between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche developed in a period of thirty years. You can observe those difference in the writing style of the young Nietzsche compared the the style in his last decades.
Schopenhauer’s prose is systematic and accurate. His works embody the traditional style of European essayists. In contrast, Nietzsche adopted in his last decades a poetic, metaphorical, apocalyptic style. If Schopenhauer had aimed at presenting his philosophy, Nietzsche was trying to shock and irritate readers.
Early similarities between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche
Early in his career, Nietzsche was heavily influenced by the works of Schopenhauer. While Nietzsche was still a philology professor at the University of Basel (Switzerland), he admired Schopenhauer’s emphasis on the instinctual aspects in humans.
Schopenhauer’s “theory of will” matched Nietzsche’s early exploration of human motivation in his “Birth of the tragedy,” published in 1872. Nietzsche loved Schopenhauer’s critique of Kant, Hegel, and mainstream philosophers.
As Nietzsche evolved, he grew apart from Schopenhauer’s pessimism. Nietzsche was a prodigy of erudition about Ancient Greece. He loved the ambition, optimism, resourcefulness and boldness of Ancient Greek heroes such as Odysseus, Antigone, and Alexander the Great.
Little by little, he let go of Schopenhauer’s pessimism since it didn’t match the Ancient Greek attitudes. While the works of Schopenhauer (e.g., “The world and will and representation”) revolve around how to reduce suffering, Nietzsche focused on how to get the best out of life.
Schopenhauer’s and Nietzsche’s views on human suffering
Like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche acknowledged the existence of human suffering, but refused to give it excessive weight. It’s much more important, argued Nietzsche, to achieve as much as possible in life, even if you endure stress and anxiety along the way.
Nietzsche’s concept of the “will to power” emerged in 1882 as a response to Schopenhauer’s pessimism. His works “Thus spoke Zarathustra” and “Beyond good and evil” belong to the period when he definitely grows apart from Schopenhauer.
In addition to disliking Schopenhauer’s pessimistic outlook, Nietzsche wanted to cut himself off from mainstream thinkers such as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
Schopenhauer had adopted key Kantian ethical values such as compassion and empathy. In contrast, Nietzsche rejected all aspects of traditional morality. He would not have a good word for Kant, Fichte ( 1762-1814) or Hegel (1770-1831).
He considered their idealistic philosophies as hogwash that prevents individuals from growing stronger. Schopenhauer had focused on avoiding pain in life, but that’s not good enough for Nietzsche. He wanted to develop ideas leading to societal and individual flourishing.
The “will to power” became Nietzsche’s alternative to the “theory of the will” put forward by Schopenhauer, but even in his last years, Nietzsche stayed appreciative of Schopenhauer. I personally doubt that Nietzsche would have produced his key works without Schopenhauer’s original insights.
Differences between Schopenhauer’s and Nietzsche’s books
To which extent are Nietzsche’s books similar to the ones written by Schopenhauer a generation earlier? They are similar in Nietzsche’s early years. At that point, Nietzsche’s philosophy was close to Schopenhauer’s as presented in “The world as will and representation.”
Schopenhauer’s pessimism finds echoes in Nietzsche’s early books such as “Untimely observations” (1873) and “The joyful science” (1882). At that time, Nietzsche was still incapable of offering solutions to the suffering arising from failure, setbacks and disappointments.
Differences between Schopenhauer’s and Nietzsche’s aesthetics
In his early years, Nietzsche had endorsed Schopenhauer’s views of the function of art as a means to idealize and escape a painful reality. By 1872, Nietzsche had changed his mind also on this matter. He began to regard art as an inspirational force for Dionysian values, that is, passion and pleasure.
By 1972, Nietzsche also grew disenchanted with the Eastern influences (Hinduism and Buddhism) in Schopenhauer’s work. Nietzsche’s works such as “Genealogy of Morals” (1887) say no Schopenhauer’s recommendations to attain “nirvana” (peace of mind).
Nietzsche’s first major work, “Birth of Tragedy” (1872) is still showing influence of Schopenhauer’s aesthetics. Although Nietzsche was identifying the differences between Apollonian and Dionysian ethics, he was still accepting Schopenhauer’s views of art as a soothing experience of pure beauty.
Even in his last book “Ecce Homo” (1888), Nietzsche was still writing that “We have art in order not to die of the truth.” He was clearly referring to Schopenhauer’s conception of art.
Nietzsche’s rejection of Schopenhauer’s pessimism
Schopenhauer had not presented the world as hopeless, but his analysis of history had led him to conclude that all humans are confronted with disappointments, setbacks and frustration.
In his main work “The world as will and representation,” he had argued that “The greatest wisdom is to enjoy the present, because that’s the only reality. Everything else is just a mental construction.” The book revolves around enjoying the here and now as much as possible by reducing suffering.
In contrast, Nietzsche was affirming in “Beyond Good and Evil” (1886) that “the will to power can turn obstacles, pain, and disappointments to its advantage.” The difference with the works of Schopenhauer could not be clearer.
In another chapter of the same book, Nietzsche categorized traditional morality as the herd instinct of weak people. He was referring primarily to Christian ethics, but his criticism applies equally to Hinduism and Buddhism.
If you want to apply rational ideas to problem solving each day, I recommend you my book “The 10 principles of rational living.”
Related articles
Schopenhauer’s theory of the will compared to other philosophers
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche: similarities and differences
Reasons for the similarities and differences between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche
Schopenhauer and the philosophy of perception