I did not know this:
In Einstein’s study in Berlin in the 1920s, three portraits hung on the wall: Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Arthur Schopenhauer.
I learned that from Don Howard’s fascinating “A Peek behind the Veil of Maya” (pdf).
Schopenhauerâs pessimism was extreme. Reality, he wrote in The World as Will and Representation, is a âworld of constantly needy creatures who continue for a time merely by devouring one another, pass their existence in anxiety and want, and often endure terrible affliction, until they fall at last into the arms of deathâ (p. 349). And more: âwe have not to be pleased but rather sorry about the existence of the world, that its non-existence would be preferable to its existenceâ (p. 576). As for mankind: ânothing else can be stated as the aim of our existence except the knowledge that it would be better for us not to existâ (p. 605).
For what Einstein admired in the great life-denier, check out Howard’s essay. (Thanks to Professor Fred Seddon for recommending it to me.)
Which of the two would win in a fist fight?
”Schopenhauerâs pessimism was extreme. Reality, he wrote….”
Sorry, but first of all, the paragraph is sloppily written. ”Reality, he wrote” ?
Schopenhauer’s pessimism was not extreme at all, it can only be ‘extreme’ if you are still 14 years old. Your argument is so weak and superficial that deserves no other comments. As someone I don’t remember, said: ‘A short question deserves a short answer’. (Yours wasn’t a question, but still.)
You are philosopher? I hope you are not one of these ‘university philosophers’ the very Schopenhauer always brutally opposed.
PS. apologies about the unfriendly message.
PS. I am in a hurry, but my argument about why Schopenhauer’s ‘pessimism’ (a label he himself disagreed with, I guess because it implies a bias, just as ‘optimism’ does) is not extreme at all, is this:
Schopenhauer’s message is that our existence is worthless, because for example childhood is the best part of life (and this, not for all of us), and that life becomes progressively worse, until one becomes, in the best of cases, ugly, ill, weak, etc. (”When you are young, you are still reaching the summit; but once you reach the summit, you can clearly see what lies on the opposite side, which you could not see before”).
In the world, pleasure is ‘negative’, and pain is ‘positive’. Some previous philosophers such as Leibniz stated the opposite. Schopenhauer argued that it’s the other way around; furthermore, he wrote that pleasure is ‘merely the absence of pain’ and short-lived: once a goal is accomplished, it largely becomes worthless, and a new one is set, which is, as he explained, what Plato called: ‘Becoming, but never being!’.
But pain is not merely the absence of pleasure. And, as oppose as pleasure, it is long lasting.
How can you people fail to notice the truth in all these assertions? I could just say the first thing that comes to my mind, i.e. how anyone, even non smokers, non drinkers, etc, has a default chance of 40 per cent to get cancer.
Anything can be taken away from us tomorrow, as all the best philosophers always asserted.
Just read in a good newspaper what happens around the world. You people must be living in La la land. đ
PS. I learned about how Einstein (and others) was influenced by Schopenhauer, in many biographies about Schopenhauer. Which might prove that you don’t know nearly enough about Schopenhauer.
sorry, I kept using that dumb ‘PS’ over and over. I didn’t have much sleep.
hello sir,
I wanted to apologize about being somewhat unfriendly earlier. You are a philosopher and that’s more than most people will ever be, so I highly respect that. Most people don’t want to think or are incapable of. Which is why the world is the place it has always been, i.e. not a very good one.
I wish you a great day.
Thanks, Arthur. Happy to read your civil thoughts.
Hi Stephen,
I found your post to be very significant. As you might already know it, Schopenhauer inspired a big spectrum of people ranging from philosophy, arts, science, psychology and mathematics. It’s really a shame that Schopenhauer isn’t well known amongst the general public. With the amount of his intellect and clarity, he should be the household name, in my opinion.
Arthur, by the amount of logical fallacies in your comments, it seems like you have read “the art of controversy” very well. I must say that for an ordinary average person, Schopenhauer’s philosophy does seem to be extreme according to me. I can’t see any reasoning in your arguement regarding why his philosophy isn’t extreme. Further, blaming a university professor because Schopenhauer used brutally oppose them, is very rude and stupid. First of all, a lot about a person is known posthumously. In Schopenhauer’s time, the university professor didn’t know about him and didn’t care to read his dissertations which Arthur had set as a prerequisite to read his Magnum opus WWR (Although Goethe at that time was very impressed by it and invited Schopenhauer (for tea I guess) and later worked together on theory of colours). Secondly, it’s induction fallacy. Thirdly, you can’t even apply induction as he didn’t opposed all university professors but was almost specifically insulting Hegel.
How does your knowing about Schopenhauer’s influence on others prove that doctor Stephen doesn’t have good knowledge about Schopenhauer? Was this method also from the art of controversy? If you read Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, or some other significant existential philosopher, you will see that we all are living in our lala lands with our illusions, presumptions and prejudices.
Thank you, Mr Hicks. The least I could do is apologize. I have the utmost respect for you and your work. Have a great day.
Dear Sunil Rampuria,
You don’t know what I have read or not read by Schopenhauer: so, don’t just assume you automatically know, for that is quite frankly idiotic. As for my seeming lack of valid arguments, it has more to do with a lack of clarity and with the fact that there’s a lot to say, and it’s difficult to say it, because thought is far faster than words, and putting words together to illustrate all I have to say, it’s time consuming, since I would have to sit here, and I don’t have time for you. Don’t be puzzled: you will see what I mean in due time, life will clarify everything. As for me being stupid, I only went to middle school, but I learned 2 different languages on my own, plus a third one you don’t understand, for we speak a very different language, and are very different people. I could take my time here and tear you to pieces (I am speaking about arguments, not violence, of course; we’ll leave that stuff to people far more stupid than you and me are). I learned all I could about fallacies, but I really have better things to do than try to demonstrate that to you. I’ll give you a taste of this here, though: you said I am stupid and rude while accusing me of being stupid and rude, which seems a major fallacy, a moral one, that is, vulgar hypocrisy, since I have not insulted anyone here in the worthless manner you insulted me, which really says more about dumb you are than it does about how dumb I am. I’ll explain better: your insult was far more vulgar and rude than the one you just accused me of. Not only that, I have also apologized to Mr Hicks, which I had no problem doing when I found out who he is. Mine was simply a lack of better judgement. The fact remain that you were far more vulgar and rude than I was, yet you were accusing me of being just that, which means, after all, it seems you are worse than I am, i.e. more dumb, more stupid, more vulgar, and more rude. When you point your finger at people, make sure you aren’t as bad or even worse than they are, which is just your case. Does that sounds like a valid argument? Indeed. Go back to school, amateur.
” you said I am stupid and rude while accusing me of being stupid and rude”
I meant ”You said I am stupid and rude, when you were just being stupid and rude yourself”. That doesn’t seem a valid argument; the worst thing you can do in one, is to state a conclusion, and doing the very thing you blamed someone for. You’ll only look like an idiot. We all know about the ad hominem attack, but this is different, it is someone accusing someone of an ad hominem attack, while getting entangled in the very same fallacy themselves.
I have not come across of an explanation of this fallacy anywhere, it seems some sort of ad hominem attack in which the accuser shoots themselves in the foot by committing the very same fallacy. You might argue, well, who’s to say I am right? After all, I could be truly stupid, right? That would not be a fallacy. Well, the proof is one that I have, that you cannot see; as I wrote, it would take me too long to explain it to you and I could fill a book myself. But just because you found ‘no valid premises’ to my arguments, it doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Just that you don’t know of their existence. I owe you nothing and am not obliged to explain to you anything. What I wrote to Mr Hicks, I wrote because I am quite certain he can at least read ‘between the lines’. Which you obviously cannot. Not only that, it’s disappointing that you have read Schopenhauer but found all I wrote some kind of nonsense. I seriously question what you ever learned from Schopenhauer. As for me, I see what he wrote all around me, very, very clearly, and not just in my own life, but in that of every one else. But I don’t have to explain this to you, in your case it would be far too hard a job. Who has the time?
And just to clarify more…..philosophers don’t go around openly saying to other people that they are stupid. The rabble does that.
At least, I did not make that mistake; you did. Don’t be an hypocrite, don’t be fake. Don’t be the vulgar thief that accuses another of stealing. I would have had more respect for you if you had just told me ‘you are an idiot, end of story. Bye.’. But accusing me of being one, and being one yourself, and in fact a worse one? ‘Suicidal’ ad hominem. đ
and, really, Mr Rampuria, you just wrote to me that my arguments were invalid, when in most cases I have simply stated what Schopenhauer himself wrote, i.e. that we are cursed beings who are basically condemned to get old, weak and decrepit, ‘a shadow of our former selves’ (unless you have a special elixir we don’t know about?), and then to certain death (if nothing happens beforehand) that we can lose anything tomorrow, that we aren’t in control of anything, ‘not even the nose in the middle of our face’, that ‘being happy’ is an illusion, and that at most we can hope for being less unhappy (see below), that we can never get happiness, but, at most, experience, etc etc. One example I made is of Schopenhauer quoting Plato about ‘becoming, but never being!’. You have no clue about what it means?
Well, blame yourself, don’t blame me for a lack of valid arguments, for my arguments are the same ones S wrote. Maybe not word for word, if so tough luck: I am completely self taught, in English.
to Mr Hicks:
I wrote: ”Sorry, but first of all, the paragraph is sloppily written. âReality, he wroteâ ?”
I have read the article again, and it was obvious that it was my reading that was sloppy, not your writing. My apologies again. A thousand of them.
oh, and Mr Rampuria….I did of course read ‘The Art of Controversy’. But this is more of a sarcastic ‘most people are that bad’, misanthropic criticism by Schopenhauer about most people (which is correct, of course) , than anything else.
I also have studied:
’76 fallacies’ by Michael LaBossiere, (which packs quite a punch)
The Art Of Debate and The Art Of Argumentation, both by The Great Courses, about 24 or so, hours of lectures, plus about 10 hours for studying all the guidebooks in detail. I still have to review it all, though.
I suggest you check all this material out, they should help you a lot with your banal and insipid arguments.
Granted, I am a bit of a sophist: I care to win more than I care to discuss truths. I mostly discuss the latter with myself. Unless, of course, one approaches me without insults. Or ‘suicidal’ ones at that. đ
”I must say that for an ordinary average person, Schopenhauerâs philosophy does seem to be extreme according to me. ”
And you call that a good argument?
But the first part is correct. I keep hearing this over and over. Schopenhauer is NOT for the average or ordinary person. He decidedly did NOT write for ordinary or average people. His material will NOT work for most people, because they ARE average and ordinary. It will only work if -you can see what he was seeing-. And most people do NOT, because they are too engrossed with the APPEAREANCES.
And what does ‘average’ and ‘ordinary’ means to Schopenhauer? It means ‘conformist’. If you want to live like everyone else, i.e. find a job, marry, have a hobby, and especially, if you are a ‘people’s person’, then Schopenhauer is DEFINITELY not for you.
So, yes, I agree with your statement; only that it surprises you, but it doesn’t at all surprises me. Some time ago I have read of a research paper that tried to empirically prove that Schopenhauer’s philosophy ‘reflects reality’ or not. So, for example, they concluded that he was right on something, such as not being a conformist being a good quality, but that being with other people, or getting married, made the ‘subjects’ far happier.
Ah ah. Seriously, laughing is all I can do. I doubt most people get Schopenhauer at all. As for me, the accuracy I see reflected in all I have done, is astonishing. For example, he is the only source I have heard explaining that being ‘social’ and ‘knowing the ways of the world, especially at a younger age, is a sure sign of vulgarity’.
Brutal, just brutal. He made me re-evaluate my entire life and where most other people seem to say: ‘that’s wrong’ he seems to say: ‘that’s RIGHT’.
Well I am probably speaking that ‘language’ I alluded to before.
but about Schopenhauer, yes, people said all kind of nonsense about him, and they still do, for example how in his last works he doesn’t mention his philosophy, which is absolutely untrue. In these works he speaks in more ordinary ways; it doesn’t mean at all he doesn’t mention his philosophy because it didn’t matter anymore, he only takes for granted that the readers know it, and if they don’t, he could care less: his work was done.
Or they say that just because he didn’t start to live like S. Francis Of Assisi, he was some kind of fake. His point was that you can, and should, be an ascetic everywere. You don’t have to live in a cave. You don’t have to flog yourself. He even wrote that he thought people who this were fanatical and degenerate. He was NOT for extreme ways of living, quite the contrary, he was for a quiet way of living, ‘a tolerable life’. His message was about not caring for the things most people care about, not being sorry for every more or less stupid thing you don’t have, not wasting your life with ‘vulgar trouble, for in doing so means losing sight of the very end of life’. Because most of the things that ORDINARY people value, aren’t worth the trouble. I have seen it happen to people I know. It happened to myself. And every time I examine ANYONE’S life, I can see it happened to them too. And if it didn’t yet, it probably will. He advised to learn, to do something worthwhile. Even if you live in a trailer park. Or ‘write like Cervantes, in a jail’.
Yep. Schopenhauer is definitely NOT for the ‘average person’. Bingo. At least you got that one right. What is surprising to me, is that you found that fact surprising.
Sunil Rampuria, one last thing: I wasn’t suggesting that being a conformist is necessarily bad, or that being anti-conformist is better. You can get a bad conformist, or a bad anti-conformist. Bank robbers aren’t conformists, and bad parents might be conformists. But you cannot be conformist and REALLY get Schopenhauer. That’s not what I believe, anyways.
Your stupidity and arrogance has left me speechless Arthur. I hope you start learning things instead of being this sick, it’ll be good both for you and the people around you. Best of luck.
ah ah. Sunil Rampuria, arrogant or not, at least I was able to put together an argument at all, As for stupidity, you certainly beat me to it! We were doing all fine here until you came along, go back to where you belong, you trollish, dull minded and stupid clown đ
I had already apologized to Mr Hicks, and he had accepted my apologies. Then you came along and started to attack and provoke me like any common fool would have, and proceeded with your second- rate, predictable, mediocre and banal thoughts. Great philosopher, ha ha đ
PS. I have a confession to make: after reading the attacks at the start of your message, I stopped reading. Which means, I didn’t even give you the time of day. Try to start your arguments without spite, if you don’t want to be deemed despicable. You donkey đ
PPS. Mr Sunny,
if you are that stupid and dumb after studying, I can just imagine how much more stupid you were when you started. That means that for me there’s much more hope, ha ha
Thanks for the post Dr. Hicks. Perhaps I can give readers someone to whip. At the age of 72, Schopenhauer is pretty new to me⌠apart from some longer term memories of the usual summary cliches. I believe I bought a couple of his books a year or so ago, and Fred Nietzscheâs too. (Thank heavens this device fills in those names with the correct spelling, I hope!) I have always had difficulty reading, the more so now that my eyes donât lubricate themselves well anymore. In college days I had to surmise a lot of book material from book titles, tables of contents, indexes and first paragraphs⌠and listening to lectures and the chatter around the college grounds. From very early days I became somewhat sceptical about supposed certainties, authorities and reputations; I tended not to be comfortable with inconsistencies⌠(until my mid-twenties when I became comfortable with inconsistencies because they seemed to be the stuff of the intellectual life, obviously at the human herd level, but also at the personal intellectual system(s) level). My un-willingness to accept authority blindly and my willingness to lose some benefits by challenging authority has often left me perched âlike a shag on a rockâ (a cormorant on an rocky outcrop)⌠alone but not lonely (most times)! (I think Schopenhauer would like my formulation there. [SIC] I give him no credit for my personal realisation of it, but I am glad he got that point too and that I could possibly cite him as a supporter. More on that appearance of arrogance* in a moment.) 40 years ago, one of my mentors wrote an official report regarding my defrocking (from a Dutch Reformed denomination). In it he said, âJohn has always had a problem with authorityâ. I think he said that because I did not dedicate myself to choir practice when I was an âinternâ under his wing in what was called my âvicarageâ. We had a couple of healthy struggles. *The point being that I generally did not think that I âknewâ unless âI knew for myselfâ, by my own experience of âitâ; I had to experience âitâ for myself; I got beyond trying to experientially realise (manifest) the certainties, theories, dogmas, ârevelationsâ of pundits via intellectual apprehension – (N.B. I did not use the word âmereâ there.) I became very comfortable ânot knowingâ propositionally and also without entering into any discussion with formulations arising out of past encounters (though all of them contribute in subtle ways; Iâm keen to understand the problem rather than to solve it – hmmm⌠yes, thatâs right⌠so I am okay with death and darkness; I gather Arthur S. felt such losses were rather unnecessary along with life itself). Now here is another confession, worthy of a whipping from the learned! These days I listen to and read short summaries of people of renown. I do not remember who said what and I am not very concerned about that because I am satisfied that they agree with me and my experience of âitâ ⌠I hear their ideas in summary and I often feel, âYes. Arthur! You got that bit right, but not that bit!â I judge them because they are of no use to me as authorities⌠i.e., I do not believe them or hear them or agree with them because they are greats⌠but because I know this and that experience, Iâm on that trajectory; I even think I might know where and why things some things got screwed up for them. Obviously, I canât prove anything of that nature, but I do not care about that; what matters to me is that I listen, observe, discern not as them (now, that would be arrogance) but as a âselfâ (so to speak) âwhoâ picks up residual effects from the shadows made by the sparks they chipped out of their âmiserableâ existences (;-). The net result to date is that I keep seeing why these guys were so mad at the old ways inherited from Judeo-Christian âculturesâ⌠I hesitate to call them theologies⌠too much explanation required there. Anyway, I suppose I would be classified as âa theistâ, but I hasten to add that the secret to my continuing âfaithâ is ânot knowingâ⌠I am sure others have written about that somewhere. More to the point re Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, I am given to understand that they are classified as âatheistsâ and I would say⌠âYes. I get that fellas!â I think both of those lads seem to take the notion of âineffabilityâ seriously in their respective ways⌠seriously in the sense that much of what is claimed to be known about âGodâ (in objective terms) is highly prejudicial against any case for divine transcendence. It seems to me that Christianity may have accepted an all too happy juxtaposition between âLaw & Spiritâ (controlling dogmatics and inner awareness) such that it is reduced to gross dogmatics with only lip service being paid to âmy personal insightâ, âmy instincts and discernment regarding a spirit of authenticityâ; by this latter, I mean that I know that folks donât know via overhead authority and that they donât really have solutions to the things that concerned them; I reckon our two learned professors (RIP) probably described meaninglessness very accurately but that their problem, in part was that they demanded to know the ins and outs of meaning if being was to be meaningful; that I do not know the meaning of being, that I appear to be left to make it all up as I go is meaningful ⌠a divine activity by definition⌠and above all, this not knowing explains why trust is the way, compassion is up to us, humanism is the gift, ultimate tolerance (grace) sustains. What is the option? But I do not state thieve things as an argument, only as a deep conviction. Heavens⌠I wonât elaborate further on that, except to say that I think those fine, suffering gentlemen were rightly reacting to oppressively dominant intellectual excretions from the aforementioned âhappy juxtapositionâ which knows more about temporal power over territory and conscience than it does about the âineffableâ in which we (may well) live and move and have our beingâ.
[Homework! (Just joking). But I would like to know, from anyone who knows, who dies in Romans 1:1-3) ].
Once again, Dr. Hicks. Thanks for the post. Iâll look into others over the coming days.
Thanks so much for the reference to Howard’s article. Fascinating piece of work.
Cheers
Len