The question of how you know what you know is far from trivial. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy dealing with this question. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) came up with a unique answer that has influenced later thinkers.
In his early years, Schopenhauer had declared allegiance to the epistemological doctrines of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). I am referring to the theory of concepts formation presented by Kant in his book “Critique of pure reason” (1781).
In 1808, Schopenhauer published his PhD dissertation “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason,” stating his overall allegiance to Kant’s epistemology. However, there is one point where he had not endorsed Kant.
On that point, Schopenhauer claimed that he was improving Kant’s epistemology, although in reality, he was nullifying one of the pillars of Kant’s “Critique of pure reason.”
What was the point of discord between Schopenhauer and Kant? What drove Schopenhauer to build a new philosophical system almost from scratch?
Schopenhauer’s theory of knowledge compared to Kant’s
Schopenhauer diverged from Kant on the nature of “things-in-themselves” or “noumena.” Those Kantian terms refer to the ultimate reality behind appearances.
Kant had employed the word “noumena” to refer to truths, ideas, concepts and principles that aren’t directly derived from perception.
For instance, Kant had argued that ethical truths cannot be derived from perception. In his “Critique of pure reason,” Kant had had categorized ethical principles as “noumena” outside of human knowledge.
In “Critique of Practical Reason” (1788), Kant had softened his position. This time, he had theorized that ethical principles could be inferred from “universal imperatives,” but his formula for arriving at “universal imperatives” is primarily subjective.
In contrast, Schopenhauer affirmed that humans can acquire knowledge in all areas, provided that they take the will (“life force”) into account.
Knowledge and Schopenhauer’s theory of the will
Schopenhauer defined the will as a blind, irrational, strong force that drives all living creatures. While perception enables us to understand reality in a superficial level, we can only gain true insights when we take the will into account.
Without understanding the influence of the will, motivations and actions are bound to remain cryptic in many cases. The will is behind a great deal of mistakes, misrepresentations, and foolish choices. It explains why people engage in detrimental behaviour that delivers short-term satisfaction.
Kant had failed to explain what’s the purpose of acquiring knowledge. His habit of inventing obscure terminology such as “things-in-themselves” or “noumena” had generated confusion without actually solving any problem
In contrast, Schopenhauer viewed knowledge as crucial for enhancing one’s happiness. Grasping the theory of the will can help you avoid dire mistakes, reduce risks, avoid suffering, and raise your happiness level.
Advantages of Schopenhauer’s theory of knowledge
Schopenhauer called his readers to increase their knowledge of the world in their own interest. For instance, the better you learn to assess the success possibilities of a project, the fewer professional and financial errors you will commit.
Furthermore, Schopenhauer extolled knowledge acquisition as a means to reducing stress and preserving one’s balance. I’m referring not only to technical knowledge, but also to artistic or aesthetic knowledge.
Aesthetic contemplation can help you reduce stress and lead a more balance lifestyle. The same applies to knowledge about religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity. Their values can help you enhance your self-discipline, self-reliance, and personal independence.
Schopenhauer’s perspective on knowledge becomes crystal- clear in his work “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), where he dispenses practical advice on how to reduce suffering and raise one’s level of happiness.
Schopenhauer compared with John Locke
Apart from Kant, are there other partial predecessors of the theory of knowledge developed by Schopenhauer? Not really. For instance, John Locke (1632–1704) had written an “Essay concerning human understanding” arguing against innate ideas.
Locke had sustained that, at birth, the human mind is like a blank slate (in Latin, “tabula rasa”); he considered that one can only gain knowledge from sensations (through the senses) and reflection (thinking).
However, Locke failed to explain how thinking becomes distorted through instincts and desires. Schopenhauer’s theory of the will supplies a coherent explanation of those phenomena and covers areas that his predecessors had overlooked.
Schopenhauer compared with David Hume
Even the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) in his “Treatise on Human Nature” had only partially considered the role played by instincts and desires in human action.
According to Hume, knowledge originates from sensations, impressions and experience, which can generate passions, but I do not regard Hume as a precursor of Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. Why not?
Because Hume made arguments against causation, casting doubts on the certainty of predictions based on experience. His arguments made no sense and discredit his whole philosophy.
When Hume argued that we cannot establish connections between cause and effect with certainty and that causation is “a habit of thought resulting from custom,” he discredited himself and placed his whole philosophy at the bottom of the ladder.
I commend you to studying Schopenhauer’s works because they supply invaluable insights. His theory of the will provides a helpful framework for understanding human motivation.
If you are interested in rational philosophical ideas and how to apply them in everyday situations, I recommend you my book “Rational living, rational working.”
Related articles
Critique of Schopenhauer’s views on the unconscious
Schopenhauer and the nature of truth
Examples of Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of truth