Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) would have been amused to see philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) theorize about anxiety and personal authenticity. Sartre didn’t regard as self-evident that individuals are aware of their freedom and the need to make constant choices.
In contrast to Sartre and other existentialists, Schopenhauer considered self-evident that happiness is the purpose of life; he had taken that idea from Aristotle (384-322 BC) and viewed it as obviously true.
Schopenhauer didn’t spend a minute worrying about anxiety and personal authenticity because he viewed them a non-issues in the quest for personal happiness.
He considered it healthy, reasonable and proper that people want to improve their lives. The objective of philosophy is to help individuals make better choices and attain happiness, not to worry about non-issues. This point marks a major difference between Schopenhauer and existentialism.
Schopenhauer discarded the concept of absurdity
Existentialism is the product of a particular historical period that drove the world into collective trauma. It started at the end of World War I and reached its apex after World War II. People were facing massive physical destruction and couldn’t come up with any justification other than absurdity.
If existentialism was a philosophical response to feelings of absurdity, I must first point out that the concept of absurdity in life was foreign to Schopenhauer. It does not appear even once in his writings, in the sense employed by existentialism.
Schopenhauer’s main works “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818) and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) acknowledge that life can be harsh at times, but not absurd.
A feeling of absurdity is incompatible with the theory of the will (“life force”) developed by Schopenhauer. He theorized in his works that the will is driving all living entities towards the fulfillment of basic goals such as reproduction and survival.
Schopenhauer’s self-reliance instead of anxiety
Schopenhauer presented vast evidence for the theory of the will and, in this manner, discarded the concept of absurdity. He rejected absurdity once and for all. If individuals are strongly driven in a certain direction, it makes no sense to label life as absurd. It makes no sense to equate freedom with anxiety.
The work of Schopenhauer revolves around how to secure happiness in the face of setbacks and disappointments; he gave practical recommendations such as risk reduction, maintaining a margin of safety, self-discipline and self-reliance. Those help people get ahead in real terms, not just “become authentic.”
Albert Camus (1913-1960), another French existentialist, is the archetype of meaningless novelist. In novels such as “The Pest,” he depicts heroes in search of meaning. Camus wants to show the struggle of individuals to find meaning in a universe that he regards as absurd.
Unfortunately, Camus was unable to figure out the answer. I find his novels disorienting because his heroes are profoundly confused. They do not seem to learn from their mistakes. They just keep complaining that life is absurd and feel overwhelmed by the need to make choices.
Schopenhauer’s sense of purpose instead of nihilism
Schopenhauer would have found incomprehensible the call made by Camus for rebellion in the face of the absurd. What is the point of rebellion if the rebel has not objectives? Camus is advising people to rebel against nihilism by creating their own values, but why are random values better than none at all?
The key difference between Schopenhauer’s philosophy and existentialism is that Schopenhauer had a sense of purpose. His concern was the difficulty of achieving happiness and keeping it over time. In contrast, existentialists had no sense of purpose and, as a result, regarded life as absurd and anxiety-creating.
If you compare Schopenhauer’s principal work “The will as will and representation” with “The Myth of Sisyphus” written by Camus, the philosophical difference becomes crystal-clear.
Camus compared human life with the Ancient Greek myth of Sisyphus, a man condemned by Zeus to endlessly roll a rock uphill. When Sisyphus attains the top of the mountain, the rock rolls back downhill and he has to start again from scratch.
Schopenhauer’s practical approach instead of confusion
The task imposed on Sisyphus was absurd, meaningless and degrading. Camus never explained why human life is similar to Sisyphus’ rolling a rock uphill or downhill.
I would not waste time trying to explain Camus’ philosophy because it is as absurd as his novels. Schopenhauer could not care less about rolling rocks uphill and downhill. He regarded life as a challenge full of obstacles that need to be surmounted.
Schopenhauer was a practical man and his essays “Parerga and Paralipomena” condense what he had learned in decades. I commend you to study Schopenhauer’s advice and steer away from the existentialists. Their speculations provide no practical value and are unlikely to help you improve your life.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to your own life here and now, I recommend you my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”
Related articles
Analysis of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of happiness
Schopenhauer and existentialism
Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life