The influence of the theory of the will developed by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) has not always been acknowledged by those who had imitated his ideas. More often than not, other thinkers have quietly adopted Schopenhauer’s insights without giving him credit.

Max Stirner (1806-1856) belongs to the next generation and wrote “The Ego and Its Own” in 1845. It is a fact that Stirner published his work twenty-seven years after Schopenhauer had brought out “The world as will and representation,” but had he read Schopenhauer?

In view of the small sales of Schopenhauer’s books, I would not assume that Stirner was familiar with Schopenhauer’s work and terminology.

Stirner’s conception of the will is narrower and harsher than Schopenhauer’s. While Schopenhauer views the will as a single force responsible for all actions in the cosmos, Stirner focuses on the concept of “unique individual” or “unique ego.”

In contrast to Schopenhauer, Stirner rejects the existence of a universal will. As a general principle, he contests that higher forces govern reality and calls for individuals to prioritize their own desires and interests; he regards those desires and interests as superior to society’s moral code.

Schopenhauer’s theory of the will compared to Max Stirner’s

Just as Schopenhauer’s had done, Stirner employs the term “the will,” but he means something else. Stirner is referring to the assertion of individual desires and interests over and above the constraints imposed by society.

Schopenhauer had described the will as an overwhelming, irrational force that rules the world. Stirner is defining the will in a completely different manner. Stirner’s “unique individual” is someone who remains loyal to his own convictions, placing them above ideologies, institutions, morality and religion.

In contrast to the universality of Schopenhauer’s concept of the will, Stirner’s concept is individualistic. Stirner regards the will as the engine of self-realization and self-assertion, not as a force that pushes individuals to act against their own interests.

When it comes to morality, Stirner’s ideas are very different from Schopenhauer’s.

As a remedy for stress, anxiety, and frustration provoked by the will, Schopenhauer had spoken in favour of the Christian virtues of empathy and compassion. In contrast, Stirner took a negative view of altruism and duty, and called for individuals to prioritize their self-interest.

Schopenhauer’s theory of the will compared to Rousseau’s

What about prior thinkers that had written about “the will”? The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), a precursor of modern political systems, had repeatedly referred to “the general will” in his work “The Social Contract” (1762).

Since Schopenhauer had studied philosophy and was fluent in French, it is clear that he was familiar with Rousseau’s ideas, but Rousseau had given the term “general will” a very narrow definition. He was referring to decision-making processes in a democracy, not to a force driving the whole cosmos.

Rousseau had argued that individuals, through a so-called social contract, form a political community. Their participation in the democratic process leads to decisions corresponding to “the general will.” According to Rousseau, the general will is, by its very nature, aligned with the common good.

I must point out that Rousseau’s definition of the “general will” shows mystical tones that remind me of Schopenhauer’s conception. Rousseau did not regard the general will as a mere aggregation of individual votes, but a consensus reflecting the common interests of the community.

In his definition, Rousseau fails to mention the minorities in any political community. What happens if forty-nine percent of individual votes are overruled by the other fifty-one percent? I see as much autocracy in Rousseau’s idea as in Schopenhauer’s mythical conception of the will.

Rousseau had argued that individuals surrender their liberty when they enter the social contract and must thereby accept all decisions taken by the majority. Schopenhauer’s conception of the will as a blind, cosmical force is no less overwhelming that Rousseau’s definition.

Schopenhauer’s theory of the will compared to Henri Bergson’s

The French philosopher closest to Schopenhauer is Henri Bergson (1859-1841). Bergson is the author of “Time and Free Will,” which he published in 1889, seventy-one years after the first edition in German of Schopenhauer’s “The world as will and representation.”

Bergson’s definition of the will overlaps the one put forward by Schopenhauer, but is narrower and individualistic. In “Time and Free Will,” Bergson is employing the term “vital force.” I am translating it from “elan vital” in the French original. Other possible translations are “vital impulse” and “vital energy.”

While Schopenhauer had referred to a blind, overwhelming, cosmic force, Bergson speaks of a dynamic, creative energy. In his writings, he associates this vital force to novelty, ambition, and productiveness mostly at the level of the individual.

Bergson’s explanations are rather confusing; his overall tone is more literary than philosophical. While Schopenhauer aimed at producing an integrated philosophy, Bergson could not care less about consistency, logic, or universality.

He goes on and on for hundreds of pages about the marvels of the vital force, which he defines as “non-mechanistic.” I can only infer that he means “non-causal.” He also employs terms such as non-analytical, evolutionary, intuitive, and optimistic.

I’m reluctant to take Bergson’s writing too seriously because of their literary exuberance. Bergson was a passionate speaker, lecturer and communicator, but when I examine all his ideas in detail, I fail to see the consistency of a great philosopher.

When compared with other theoreticians of the will, I must say that Schopenhauer proves vastly superior. Not only was he an excellent writer, but also a system-builder. His ability to put together complex, coherent arguments earned him a prominent place in the history of philosophy.

If you are interested in putting rational philosophical ideas into daily practice, I recommend you my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”

Related articles

Schopenhauer’s philosophy summary

Schopenhauer’s theory of the will

The great merit of Schopenhauer’s theory of the will

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche: similarities and differences

Reasons for the similarities and differences between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche

Origins of the similarities and differences between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche