There is substantial overlapping between the philosophies of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). The main reason for their similarities is that both men were dissatisfied with the Enlightenment ideas (from Kant and other thinkers) that dominated European universities.
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were not the only ones to feel discontented, but they expressed their rebellion in similar ways and employed similar terminology (I am referring to the theory of the will).
The works of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had dominated the philosophical scene for decades when Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche began to verbalize their discontent.
While mainstream philosophers continued to endorse Kant’s and Hegel’s versions of idealism, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were growing sceptic towards “pure reason” and the “absolute spirit.”
Both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche reject the Enlightenment
Schopenhauer had been initially a disciple of Kant, but had transformed Kant’s philosophy by incorporating the theory of the will. Schopenhauer had argued that “the Will” is the eternal and overwhelming force driving the cosmos.
Nietzsche had rejected the Kantian transcendentalism (such as the existence of categorical imperatives). Instead, he viewed the will to power as the key driver of human action. Nietzsche built his whole philosophy on the will to power, and how it can help human beings get the best out of life.
In contrast to Kant’s and Hegel’s idealism (abstract ideals that are allegedly common to all persons), Schopenhauer cared much more for individual experience. The goal of his works is to help readers reduce suffering and increase happiness.
Similarly, Nietzsche focused on the individual will to power as a subjective force. The will to power, argued Nietzsche, can help people surmount obstacles and become “superhuman.” He did not mean “superhuman” in a supernatural sense, but in real down-to-earth terms.
Both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche reject organized religion
In the nineteenth century, European culture was still under a strong religious influence. Schopenhauer witnessed a profound decline in religious authority, but he retained his admiration for the Christian, Buddhist and Hindu virtue of compassion.
Nietzsche undertook a more direct attack against established morality and religion. His works “Thus spoke Zarathustra” and “Beyond good and evil” (both written in the period 1883-1992) reflect a shift towards secularism and individualism.
There is also a commonality between Schopenhauer’s works and Nietzsche’s works in that they both draw inspiration from Eastern religions.
Schopenhauer was very familiar with Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, and promoted self-control as a means to achieve peace of mind (“nirvana” in Buddhist terms).
Nietzsche also made references to Eastern philosophies, but mostly as a literary tool. “Thus spoke Zarathustra” imitates the apocalyptic language of ancient Eastern prophecies but favours ideas that don’t fit with Zarathustra, Buddhism or Hinduism.
The theory of the will is different in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche
Despite all of the above, there are substantial differences in meaning between Schopenhauer’s and Nietzsche’s philosophies and style. The main reason for their differences is that they did not agree on metaphysics. They employed similar terminology, but they meant something different.
Schopenhauer based his metaphysical ideas on his theory of the will. His main work “The world as will and representation” (1818) argues that the will is the fundamental force driving the cosmos overall, and human action in particular. He defined the will as a blind, irrational, overwhelming force.
Nietzsche also employed the term “the will,” but only as the “will to power.” He rejected Schopenhauer’s overarching idea of the will as an external force, and focused on the individual’s drive and ambition as motivators for the “will to power.”
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche promote different ethical values
The differences between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche grew larger over time. In Nietzsche’s “Genealogy of Morals” (1887), there are harsh attacks against Christianity as morality and as a millenarian institution.
Schopenhauer had rejected Christianity as an institution, but endorsed some of its virtues (empathy, compassion). Those are beneficial to humanity, argued Schopenhauer, because they can help reduce suffering.
Nietzsche’s all-out rejection of Christian morality was based on his belief that altruism had undermined all the pagan ethics and brought about a decadent world. He first outlined this idea in his work “The birth of tragedy” (1872). Eventually, he went to proclaim the death of God in “Thus spoke Zarathustra.”
The references to “the Will” in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche can lead to the erroneous conclusion that they both favour the same type of society. No, they definitely don’t.
While Nietzsche considered human society as a dog-eat-dog competition, Schopenhauer advocated for compassion. While Nietzsche promoted unabashed individualism, Schopenhauer is calling readers to engage in meditation, enjoy art, and choose thoughtful lifestyle.
Related articles
The great merit of Schopenhauer’s theory of the will
Schopenhauer’s theory of the will compared to other philosophers
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche: similarities and differences
Origins of the similarities and differences between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche