The theory of the will formulated by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was neither original nor revolutionary. Before the publication of Schopenhauer’s ideas, dozens of theologians had postulated that a divine force is the ultimate driver of all events in the world.

Even Aristotle (384-322 BC) had speculated that all actions in the cosmos are driven by one original force, which he called “the prime mover.” Plato (428-348 BC) and his followers had postulated the existence of a world of forms (pure abstractions) which provide the original blueprints for the world’s events.

Despite the large number of prior proponents of the theory of a single cause behind all world’s events, Schopenhauer was the first in history to build a philosophical system around this principle.

He presented his philosophy in two major works: “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) and “The world as will and representation” (1818). I regard these two books as works of genius, rarely equalled in history.

In addition to outlining the theory of the will, Schopenhauer explained its positive and negative consequences. He proposed measures to counter the negative consequences and enable his readers to minimize problems in life.

Religion and Schopenhauer’s theory of the will

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is widely recognized as the intellectual heir of Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. I’m going to devote a separate article to explaining how Schopenhauer’s ideas influenced Nietzsche.

The impact of Schopenhauer’s theory of the will goes much further than Nietzsche and the nineteenth century. I regard as a fundamental human desire to search for an unified explanation of societal history and personal destiny. Schopenhauer did just that and he did it extremely well.

One of Schopenhauer’s great merits is placing his theory of the will outside traditional religious frameworks. His quotes of Buddhism and Hinduism provide complementary explanations, but do not link his theory of the will to those religions.

His books also show appreciation of the Christian virtues of empathy and compassion, but stay afar from the other tenets of Christianity.

One shouldn’t underestimate the difficulty of drawing major elements from existing philosophical systems to create a fresh, daring combination.

Anxiety and Schopenhauer’s theory of the will

The difficulty of such an enterprise is best illustrated by the works of the Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), a contemporary of Schopenhauer’s. Kierkegaard tried to combine Christian theology with psychology and individualism, but he failed totally and completely.

I attribute the brevity of Kierkegaard’s life to his emotional distress and poor sense of direction. Despite repeated attempts, he never managed to integrate his insights. He never succeeded in putting together a consistent set of ideas.

While Schopenhauer’s was putting forward the theory of the will as universal principle, Kierkegaard proved unable to solve the contradictions between his sharp intellect and his Christian faith.

In his works “Fear and Trembling” (1843) and “Either/Or,” (1844), Kierkegaard rejected the idea of a unified driving force and called readers to surmount uncertainty and anxiety through a “leap of faith” based on their subjective values.

While Schopenhauer was presenting art (particularly music) as a remedy for emotional wear and tear, Kierkegaard limited himself to categorizing aesthetic, ethical, and religious motives as separate living spheres that cannot be rendered consistent.

Consistency and Schopenhauer’s theory of the will

Schopenhauer built a well-structured philosophy where all elements strengthen one other. In contrast, Kierkegaard got lost on tangents. He recognized that the search for pleasure (which he called “aesthetic lifestyle”), the adherence to societal norms (which he called “ethical lifestyle”) and a connection with the divine (which he called “religious lifestyle”) are irreconcilable, and proved incapable of surmounting the contradictions.

While Schopenhauer was recommending readers to pursue “nirvana” (peace of mind) by controlling their desires or goals, Kierkegaard was presenting confusing dichotomies.

In his book “Fear and Trembling” (1843), Kierkegaard tells readers about the choices made by the “Knight of Faith” and the “Knight of Infinite Resignation.” Their pursuit of values is prompting them to take “a leap of faith,” but Kierkegaard fails to explain whether those decisions makes sense.

In contrast to Schopenhauer’s ability to integrate ideas into a consistent system, Kierkegaard doesn’t go beyond recognizing the difficulty of making correct choices in life. In view of his intellectual chaos, I find it unsurprising that Kierkegaard could not figure out the answers.

If you are interesting in applying Schopenhauer’s principles of minimum risk and maximum reward, I recommend you my book titled “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”

Related articles

Analysis of Schopenhauer’s views on the role of reason

Schopenhauer’s philosophy summary

Schopenhauer’s theory of the will

Schopenhauer’s theory of the will compared to other philosophers

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche: similarities and differences

Reasons for the similarities and differences between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche