Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche are two of the most important philosophers in history. Both lived in Germany (in territories that eventually became part of today’s Germany) and placed the theory of the will at the centre of their ideas.
Schopenhauer (1788-1860) appreciated Kant, but criticised other mainstream philosophers such as Hegel. He had no kind word for Hegel’s determinism, which reduced individuals and history to pawns of a supernatural spirit.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) took Schopenhauer’s ideas to the extreme. He rejected Western rationalism and idealism, and favoured profoundly individualistic ideals.
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche aimed at finding solutions to a key philosophical problem: How can you reduce suffering and experience as much happiness as possible in life?
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche on metaphysics
Their answers are driven by their conception of the cosmos. For Schopenhauer, the universe is driven by the Will, which he defined as the will to live, the will for sexual reproduction, the will for success, and so on. He regarded the Will as a universal, blind, overwhelming force that drives animals and humans.
For Nietzsche, the answer is “the will to power,” which is a narrower concept. It is self-generated and self-propelled. You’ll be able to develop it, if you wish. It can motivate you to pursue challenging goals, persevere, and succeed against all odds.
Both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche acknowledge the strong influence of primal instincts and desires upon humans. In their writings, they give examples of individuals driven by the Will (the Will in general, or the Will to Power), and the results of their actions.
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche on idealism
A common characteristic of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche is that they are sceptical of unproven abstractions, specially when they are built upon several layers of speculations, assumptions, and prejudice.
Schopenhauer had criticised Kantian ethics because of their weak justifications. Kant had initially theorized that normative concepts can only be accessed intuitively, only to fall back on a hogwash of “universal imperatives” that everyone is supposed to feel obliged to obey.
Nietzsche went a step further and rejected traditional ethics and religious dogmas; he claimed that Ancient Greek culture as represented by Sophocles and Euripides had been corrupted. In Nietzsche’s eyes, Christianity is to blame for rendering people intellectually defenceless.
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche on aesthetics
Aesthetics is another commonality between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Both regarded art as a means to seize the deep truth about life, although they emphasized different aspects.
Schopenhauer encouraged his readers to enjoy art because it will help them reduce stress. If they lose themselves in artistic contemplation, they can experience pure beauty and forget the world’s problems for a while.
Nietzsche emphasized the Dionysian elements in art, that is, passion and pleasure. He praised the deep transforming powers of Ancient Greek tragedies because, he argued, the enabled the public top connect with the primal aspects of existence.
In the field of art, Schopenhauer resorted to music and other art forms to escape stress, anxiety and suffering. He wanted to experience perfect beauty and forget about pressing problems.
Nietzsche only cared for art as an affirmation of the power in each individual to improve his own life and attain his goals. In his work “The birth of tragedy” (1872), he emphasizes how theatre can help viewers overcome challenges by providing a model of conduct.
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche on pessimism
Although both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche had pessimistic views, their reasoning is different. Schopenhauer had adopted a pessimistic stance about happiness because all individual must face setbacks and disappointments; nobody attains all his goals in life and nobody get to live forever.
Nietzsche’s pessimism was more societal than individual. In his work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” (1883-1992), he speaks of the need to reject traditional values and establish new ones. At the same time, he was aware of the enormity of such task and wondered if it could be ever accomplished.
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche on the theory of the will
Despite their similarities, there are vast differences between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. They disagreed on metaphysics, that is, on the fundamental principles of reality.
Influenced by Buddhism and Hinduism, Schopenhauer had presented “the Will” as an eternal, overwhelming force driving the cosmos. Human beings are also driven by the Will and, to a large extent, must suffer the consequences thereof.
In contrast, Nietzsche only cared for individual motivation. His works “Beyond Good and Evil”(1886) and “Genealogy of Morals”(1887) are only concerned with human morality. None of his arguments rests on Schopenhauer’s cosmic Will. None of his books supports the idea of a blind, overwhelming force that drives human affairs.
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche on religion
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche also differ in their criticism of traditional ethics. Schopenhauer had preserved a part of Kant’s and Christian ethics. He regarded empathy and compassion as essential values to minimize suffering and lead a good life. The criticism exerted by Nietzsche was deeper and harsher.
Nietzsche strongly opposed traditional morality and went as far as declaring the death of God. His works encourage readers to cultivate their will to power, work hard, and attain victory in their endeavours. Thus, he viewed empathy and compassion as signs of weakness.
I must also mention the large differences in Schopenhauer’s and Nietzsche’s views on religion. Schopenhauer had studied Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity in depth, and drawn key insights from them. He did not endorse empty rituals, but was willing to recognize the beneficial effects of compassion and other traditional virtues.
Conversely, Nietzsche despised all institutionalized religion, which he regarded as an obstacle to individual flourishing. He wanted to replace all traditional virtues by the “will to power” and create a new type of human being. Nietzsche failed totally in his objectives, which remain mainly as literary curiosity.
If you are interested in applying the principles of rational philosophy to solving real-life problems, I recommend you my book “Sequentiality: The amazing power of finding the right sequence of steps.”
Related articles
Schopenhauer’s theory of the will
The great merit of Schopenhauer’s theory of the will
Schopenhauer’s theory of the will compared to other philosophers
Reasons for the similarities and differences between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche
Origins of the similarities and differences between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche