What characterizes the philosophy of the self developed by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)? Which are the differences between Schopenhauer’s ideas and those of other philosophers?
Schopenhauer outlined his philosophy in “The world as will and representation,” a book published in 1818. The books puts forward the “theory of the will” as explanation for the cosmos, society, and human nature.
According to this theory, the will (“life force”) is driving all living creatures to ensure their own survival, reproduction, and to seek short-time pleasure.
To a large extent, the concept of instincts in Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) corresponds to Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. In Freud’s books, instincts are also defined as unconscious and primordial forces driving animals and humans.
The will shapes the human self, but it’s not the only element at play. The self entails individual aspects that are enhanced by self-awareness and thinking, and weakened by passivity, blind conformity, and ignorance.
Schopenhauer and the individuation of the self
According to Schopenhauer, the will is insatiable, relentless, short-sighted and often destructive, but the human self doesn’t need to fall prey to those influences.
Schopenhauer views the self as the individual expression of of the will, but accentuating any individual aspects requires a substantial effort. The less personal effort, the stronger the grip of the will on the concerned person. If there is no effort on the part of the individual, the will is going to take full control.
Self-awareness is the starting point for enhancing the self. If you grow aware of the will, you can adopt countermeasures to protect yourself, reduce risk, and increase your happiness.
Why do you need self-awareness? To remove the cognitive limitations that prevent you from perceiving the will. Without self-awareness, people fail to assess the long-term cost of their actions. They fail to identify and pursue ambitious objectives.
According to Schopenhauer, the individualization of the self takes place by transcending the will. In his book “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), he shows how to transcend the will by increasing one’s self-reliance and prudence, and by engaging in artistic contemplation.
The self can also be enhanced by practising compassion, a virtue that Schopenhauer drew from Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity. The more you become aware of how other people feel (empathy), the higher your independence from the will.
Schopenhauer’s views on the self compared to Immanuel Kant’s
Schopenhauer’s philosophy of the self in very different from the ideas of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), which distinguish between phenomena and noumena.
Phenomena are human perceptions shaped by the categories of understanding (for instance, causality); noumena are things-in-themselves (for instance, ethics) and lie beyond the grasp of human cognition.
According to Kant, the self is the result of all experiences gathered by the senses, filtered by categories of understanding, and organized into concepts. The self is a container where the individual’s experiences have been filtered and organized.
In his book “Critique of pure reason” (1781), Kant uses the terms “empirical self” and “transcended self” to indicate the level of processing of one’s experiences. First, data is gathered by the “empirical self.” Then the data is filtered and organized by the “transcended self.”
Schopenhauer considered Kant’s disquisitions about the self too abstract, too far removed from day-to-day problem solving, goal setting, and decision making.
Later, in “Critique of practical reason” (1788), Kant argued that the self can infer ethics from categorical imperatives, that is, from rational precepts (such as “don’t kill” or “don’t steal”) that rationally apply to all people in all circumstances.
Schopenhauer regarded the Kantian categorical imperatives as vague and impractical. You cannot expect people to entrust their lives to some undefined “categorical imperatives.” Kant’s theory of the self is unfinished and unworkable.
Schopenhauer’s views on the self compared to Plato’s
The vision of the self developed by Schopenhauer possesses commonalities with that of Plato (429-347 BC). In “Republic,” Plato had described the human self (“soul”) as the combination of three elements, namely, reason, spirit, and appetites.
Plato’s definition of “appetites” is similar to Schopenhauer’s definition of the will. Plato calls “reason” to the capability to gather knowledge, and “spirit” to the practice of ethical values such as honour, justice, and courage.
If you add up Plato’s definitions of “reason” and “soul,” you will arrive at Schopenhauer’s definition of individuality. I must point out however that Plato’s concept of “reason” is narrower than Schopenhauer’s.
According to Plato, reason consists of grasping that we live in a world of imperfect entities inferred from perfect concepts (which he calls “forms”) existing in an intangible world. Plato defines the process of thinking (reason) as the ability to access the intangible world of the forms (pure abstractions).
Schopenhauer discarded Plato’s forms and Kant’s things-in-themselves as incompetent attempts to explain the human self.
For Plato, reasoning means remembering abstractions that one knew before birth. For Kant, morality means discovering a set of categorical imperatives beyond this world. Neither forms nor categorical imperatives are reliable for making choices and shaping the self.
Schopenhauer’s views on the self compared to Aristotle’s
In contrast, Schopenhauer’s views on the self resemble what Aristotle (384-322 BC) had postulated. Aristotle distinguished three parts in the self (soul): the nutritive, the sensitive, and the rational. Let us pass review to these three parts.
First, Aristotle’s concept of “the nutritive soul” corresponds to the will (“life force”) as defined by Schopenhauer and the instincts as defined by Freud. It refers to the force that prompts living entities to obtain food, grow and reproduce themselves.
Second, Aristotle’s concept of the “sensitive soul” includes perception, locomotion, and emotions. Schopenhauer regarded all those as driven by the will unless individuals become self-aware and take steps to regain control of their lives.
Third, Aristotle called “rational soul” the ability to employ logic, assess conflicting arguments, and pass moral judgement. By using the rational soul, humans can acquire skills, flourish, and achieve “eudaimonia” (happiness).
Schopenhauer and Aristotle regard happiness as the primary purpose of the self. Virtues such as self-discipline, courage and prudence are habits that increase one’s chances of fulfilling the purpose.
All living creatures eventually pass away but it makes a vast difference whether the self has achieved happiness. Although a perfect, steady state of happiness is unworkable, it’s worth it to heed the advice given by Aristotle and Schopenhauer.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in daily life, I recommend you my book titled “The philosophy of builders.”
Related articles
Schopenhauer’s key ideas on ethics
Schopenhauer’s views on solitude
Analysis of Schopenhauer’s views on solitude
Schopenhauer and the philosophy of education