In a discussion about pessimism in Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), we must begin by defining our terms. Before you engage any philosophical discussion, you should ask people to define their terms. It’s a waste of time to argue for or against an idea, if words are being misinterpreted. Misunderstandings are a widespread ground for litigation.
I regard Schopenhauer’s pessimism as a myth because those who affirm it are distorting the term “pessimism.” If someone makes an accurate assessment of risks and rewards, you cannot call it pessimism. If someone gathers facts carefully and draws an inevitable conclusion, you cannot call it pessimism.
One should not categorize ideas as “pessimistic” if they do not entail negative distortions. Pessimism means calling a glass “half-empty” when it is filled at fifty per cent. However, if the glass is filled at one fifth, it is not pessimistic to call it “almost empty.” It is just an accurate description of the facts.
Why people persist in calling Schopenhauer pessimistic
Schopenhauer described human life accurately in his work “The world as will and representation” (1818) and then gave a great deal of sound advice in his “Aphorisms about the art of living” (1851) about how to reduce risks and enjoy life.
Why do people persist in calling Schopenhauer pessimistic? The answer to this question is psychological. If you label ideas as pessimistic, you don’t need to debate them, and you can get away with spreading delusions by calling them “optimistic” or “positive.”
Actually, people who favour blind optimism are causing an avalanche of suffering. If the glass if filled at one fifth, you are not helping anyone by calling it “substantially filled” or “filled to a sizeable level.”
It is in your interest to avoid inaccurate information because it leads to bad decisions. Imagine that instead of a glass, we are talking about the fuel tank of an aircraft. Pilots need to know if the tank is filled at one fifth or one third. It would be foolish to call someone “pessimistic” because he tells you the truth.
The myth of Schopenhauer’s pessimism becomes obvious if we compare his works with those of actual pessimists such as Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936), Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) and August Strindberg (1849-1912).
Schopenhauer compared with Miguel de Unamuno
Unamuno lived through a harsh period in Spanish history. He was personally affected by political and social upheavals in World War I and during the Spanish Civil War.
His writings deal with faith, reason, and the uncertainty of life. His novels “Mist” (1914), “Abel Sanchez, a passion” and “Saint Manuel the good, martyr” (1933) are pessimistic to the extreme, precisely because they distort and exaggerate reality.
Unamuno was allegedly preoccupied with the elusive nature of truth and the limits of human knowledge. He blamed those aspects for the existential fear of the characters in his novels.
I invite to read any of those novels and see for yourself their exaggerations and distortions. Schopenhauer never incurred in such deformation of reality. Indeed, Unamuno was pessimistic and enables us to see Schopenhauer from a fair perspective.
Unamuno wrote in 1913 the essay “The tragic sense of life,” where he expressed profound pessimism about human life and the possibility of happiness. He argued that life’s uncertainties lead to anxiety and that mortality makes all human endeavours futile.
In contrast, Schopenhauer was giving solid advice to reduce stress and make the best of our lives. I refer in particular to his appreciation of music, artistic contemplation, natural beauty, travelling, and philosophy.
Unamuno’s novels portray tragic heroes, not happy people. I cannot even compare his heroes with a sophisticated mind like Schopenhauer’s. While Unamuno’s heroes are torn by fear and conflicting desires, Schopenhauer is asking you to remain calm and seize the available opportunities.
Schopenhauer compared with Fyodor Dostoevsky
Fyodor Dostoevsky was even worse than Unamuno because he could not even conceive the idea of happiness. His difficult life included imprisonment in Siberia for taking part in debates (similar to a book club) that the police labelled as a conspiracy.
In his novel “Notes from Underground” (1864), the narrator expresses nihilistic views, rejects ideals, laments the chaos and unpredictability of life, and falls into despair.
Similarly, his novel “The Idiot” (1868) depicts a character that suffers deep stress and guilt from as a result of his foolish actions. Dostoevsky portrays anxiety as a normal, inescapable, dominant element in human life.
Despite Dostoevsky’s literary abilities, the truth is that he is depicting psychopaths. No wonder that his protagonists suffer from deep anxiety. Their thoughtless actions do not mirror real life. Their adventures are entertaining, but highly exaggerated and distorted.
Schopenhauer had no interest in psychopaths and no time to waste with pessimistic distortions. He wanted to obtain a clear, accurate perception of reality and make the best of one’s life. A book by Schopenhauer can make you wiser. That’s not the case of Dostoevsky’s novels.
Schopenhauer compared with August Strindberg
My third example is August Strindberg, whose life included a troubled marriage and financial difficulties; his plays, novels, and essays are imbued with pessimism and disillusionment.
His plays “The Father” (1887) and “Miss Julie” (1888) are portraying failed relationships that are as boring as uninspiring. In “The Father,” a wife drives her husband crazy by pretending that he is not the father of their daughter. “Miss Julie” tells us a failed romance between an aristocratic woman and her valet.
Strindberg presents characters driven by destructive passion that leads to tragic outcomes. They spread deep pessimism for no good reason and there is nothing to learn from their random adventures.
I regard Strindberg as irrelevant, but his plays are still being produced. They make me wonder why anyone would want to watch such exaggerations and distortions of human life. In any case, they place Schopenhauer in a proper perspective as a fair, objective, wise observer.
If you are interested in applying sound ideas 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 pessimism: what it is and what it’s not
Exaggeration and reality in Schopenhauer’s pessimism
Human flourishing and Schopenhauer’s pessimism
Schopenhauer and the idea of justice