Customer Reviews (23)

Great little book on Schopenhauer
This is a brief compendium and collection of Schopenhauer's expository writing, suitable for a quick introduction to many of his ideas and most famous sayings. Few philosophers were as clear and concise in their writing as he was, and this little book contains many of most quotable and trenchant passages. The Schopenhauer neophyte as well as the more experienced reader will find much to reflect on and to entertain here.

Personally, I like Schopenhauer despite his overall downer message, although his philosophy and metaphysics, which is which is called absolute voluntaristic idealism, hasn't faired that well in the last 100 years, although when I was in college 30 years ago he seemed to be popular among the students I knew who were studying philosophy.

There are several reasons why Schopenhauer's thought is still important. An idealist like Kant, he kept Kant's distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal, between the mental and external representations of reality. Kant's defense of idealism, that some ideas or at least mental processes are innate, is still relevant in modern brain science and neurobiology and in Chomsky's theories in linguistics, especially in regard to Chomsky's ideas about language learning and acquisition, in which there is support from brain science for a built-in facility in humans for language, and possibly an innate syntactical generator component to language ability.

Although innate ideas probably don't exist in the way that Kant envisioned them, modern brain science has supported his theory that the mind or brain is actively involved in the organizing and structuring of the data from the senses, and that we couldn't make sense of reality if we didn't have inborn aptitudes and capabilities to do that.

Schopenhauer emphasized the importance of Eastern philosophy and the validity of its introspective methods, while maintaining his overall empirical approach. His moral and ethical philosophy is based on compassion rather than on practical and reasonable considerations like Kant's. He was probably the first important western philosopher to give credit to Zen and Buddhist thought, while remaining faithful to the empirical principles of science.

Outside of philosophy his thoughts have had a major impact on psychology and the arts. He was the most important influence on both Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, and he also had a great influence on Freud and Jung, and on writers and composers from Wagner to Tolstoy. During the 20th century, Schopenhauer's reputation faded and the importance of his work has been to a great extent overlooked, but recent books show that his importance is being rediscovered and reappraised.

I have to include this brief passage on his thought, since it's excellent, which I obtained from the biographies section of Bluepete website.

"Schopenhauer's system of philosophy, as previously mentioned, was based on that of Kant's. Schopenhauer did not believe that people had individual wills but were rather simply part of a vast and single will that pervades the universe: that the feeling of separateness that each of has is but an illusion. So far this sounds much like the Spinozistic view or the Naturalistic School of philosophy. The problem with Schopenhauer, and certainly unlike Spinoza, is that, in his view, "the cosmic will is wicked ... and the source of all endless suffering."

I have a personal anecdote to recount. My college roommates and I used to read Schopenhauer at night to each other over a couple of beers, and we found his acerbic, trenchant style and sharp wit a delight to read, and this book is perhaps the best example of his prose in that regard. One Schopenhauer quote I still remember after 30 years is: "Intellect comes from the mother; character from the father," which might say a lot about his family life and how he grew up.

Schopenhauer is also famous for quotes such as:

"The two foes of human happiness are pain and boredom."
(from his Essays, Personality; or What a Man Is).

"I have long held the opinion that the amount of noise that anyone can bear undisturbed stands in inverse proportion to his mental capacity and therefore be regarded as pretty fair measure of it."

"To marry is to halve your rights and double your duties."

I have to include my favorite quote on marriage here, although it isn't Schopenhauer's, and I don't know where it came from, although it echoes his sentiments: "Marriage is the institution where the woman loses her the name and the man his solvency."

His dyspeptic view of life might have been fostered by his delicate digestive system. He would spent many minutes poring over the menu before ordering his food in the cafes where he usually dined, because a wrong choice "could send his nerves ringing for days," according to one comment I read about him. Whatever the source of his pessimism, Schopenhauer seemed almost embarrassed and ashamed to be in a human body, because he did not seem to find much good in humans or human society. No doubt he would have preferred to be a higher, more intelligent species than humans, if such exists somewhere else in the universe. But Schopenauer didn't seem to think that intelligent life existed here. :-)

Whatever the current fate of his reputation, Schopenhauer was a uniquely gloomy intellect who contributed much to several areas of philosophy. And not the least of his virtues is that he was a true cynic and pessimist--surely the most accurate view of life, after all. :-)

with persistance and arrogance, brain and bile ...
Schopenhauer's father committed suicide. Son Arthur had been very devoted to his father Heinrich Floris. The high-sensitive son could not deal with the fact, that his mother Johanna had preferred to talk with Goethe in her Weimar Literary Salon instead of helping her husband, getting more and more depressed as a salesman in Hamburg. A typical, later on dialogue between mother (at that time a famous novelist) and son, fresh university lecturer: "One still will read my writings, at a time, when your books are out of stock and only one copy can be found in a lumber-room." Mother thereupon sneering: "The whole, complete edition of your writings, my son, still will be waiting to get an order to be shipped..." (the reviewer fears that his own frizztext-book might have to suffer the same fate). "The World as Will", as too much inconsiderate will-to-live - in such a way Schopenhauer (February 22, 1788 - September 21, 1860) experienced the whole human being. With persistance and arrogance, with brain and bile, suffering and bitterly, but with sensitivity and empathy as well he wrote - trying not to get overwhelmed by disgust. He had a deep neurotic aversion against women (surely involved by his mother). Once he pushed in anger his charwoman down the stairs backwards. But this female individual offered resistance very intellectually: She successful called a judge and Schopenhauer was sentenced, to pay a pension to her - all her life long. But exactly this evil bile encouraged him, on the other hand, to fight against mother Johanna and Goethe, against Hegel and diverse money-lenders. However just opposite to his choleric, hot-tempered way of life, his philosophical theory proclaimed to be calm as a Buddha. He adored Eastern Vedic (Buddhist) Scriptures. He adored enjoying art as a way out of the more mediocre and less passionate masses. The summary of his philosophy finally is the reference to the noblesse to demand nothing; this German philosopher's hope is, that "willing" might be silenced. 150 years and some wars later we all should agree. "To be vulgar is nothing else than giving the leading role in our consciousness to the will and not to the cognition." This tiny book is still able to help today's readers to climb not a meditative, but a thoughtful level. And still it is not out of stock in the most nations ...

A good introduction
R.J.Hollingdale was judicious in his choice of material for this text which makes a good 'primer' for reading Schopenhauer
at length. Hollingdale's introduction provides a useful profile on the German philosopher and his background. As other reviewers have remarked, Schopenhauer presented his ideas very clearly and such is the clarity of his thought, you get the feeling that he is addressing you personally. Considering that he is touching on the mysteries of life as a kind of theatre-cum-battle-ground, in which the will struggles to act out its purposes, accompanied by a kind of continuous ground bass of suffering, you might expect Schopenhauer to be heavy going. But his essays are frequently peppered with wit and lively turns of phrase.

Notorious for his contempt of Hegel, the preacher of philosophical optimism, for whom God mutates into the State and thereafter bestows order and felicity with the precision of a Swiss clock(Schopenhauer said that in Hegel's philosophy, the 'turkeys fly around ready roasted'!)- Schopenhauer railed against such bloodless abstractions. This false optimism prevailed well into the late 19th c and even the early 20th c, promising that science and social engineering - the cult of 'progress' - would eventually remove most of life's ills.
For his own part, Schopenhauer saw that all such ventures were likely to remain impotent in the face of human suffering, in his eyes, the most immediate fact of life. For Schopenhauer, the will-to-live and the struggle for existence were synonymous with suffering, and however you dressed it up, it remained the ground bass to life. For the prophets of 'progress' perhaps, that sounded like cowardice, cosmic stage fright. But after all, Buddhism has taught the truth of suffering for 2,500 years. It is well known that Schopenhauer availed himself of Buddhist and Hindu teachings and therefore, the interface between them is worth exploring. In other respects, Schopenhauer remained very much a European, drawing on classical sources and, of course, Kant's philosophy.
Schopenhauer's views on the arts were interesting, seeing all true art as a blessed space in which the struggle of subjective 'willing' might be silenced, leaving us free to see the world as idea or pure 'objectivity.' Schopenhauer was a keen student of human psychology and the peculiar forces shaping human character. His stress on the primacy of the will, and the fact that he regarded the intellect as secondary to it, anticipated much found in Freud and Jung. Hence, these essays and aphorisms make engaging reading.

An exceptional translation of a brilliant mind
This book is a classic. I love it and cart it around everywhere- so much so that my wife took to calling me `Schopey,' soon after we married. Oh what a kidder... The text in question is basically an abbreviated form of "Parerga and Paralipomena," a collection of, you guessed it, essays and aphorisms that Arthur published towards the end of his life. In fact, he owed much of his early popularity to these little bits of brain, blood and bile- they paved the way for the interest in his earlier, more thorough and more intimidating work- `The World as Will and Representation,' his central text. Intense, brooding, and enthrallingly lucid (a trait much lacking in philosophy in general and German philosophy in particular), these little pensees and barbs will provide you with much enjoyment, quotes, quips and boundless food for thought. If you are at all the kind of person who enjoys reading, or if you are buying books with such a person in mind (and if you weren't I don't see how you would have ended up here) I cannot say enough good things about this tiny volume!

Whether or not you agree with Schopenhauer's central philosophic themes, his high-jacking/hybridization of Kantian metaphysics and Eastern Vedic/Buddhist Scripture, his pessimistic misanthropy, his irrational and intuitive bent, his (huge) influence on psychology and psychoanalysis, his dismissal of Judeo-Christian religion, or his overbearing arrogance- he is not a thinker to be dismissed lightly. I disagree with him on practically everything important (as did Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy notwithstanding), except his scathing misanthropy and his views on opera (page 163- he loathed it by the way, as a philistine piling up of styles, an `unmusical invention for unmusical minds...'), but so what?

His views, maxims and opinions are straightforwardly put with all the deceptive elegance of a minor key Chopin Nocturne. A refreshing break from the tireless jargon-juggling of contemporary, pomo, academic charlatans... And the man was brilliant. The kind of brilliance that engenders humility in readers and makes young, would-be philosophers reconsider their choice of profession. You cannot help but enter into dialogue with this man. And hey- All you young, winsome, despairing, romantically-inclined teenagers- take note! This guy was the real deal, it takes serious cajones to spit in the face of the Enlightenment and proclaim to the progress-minded 19th C. that, "Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of existence, then our existence must have no object whatever," (which is the first sentence in this nice little book) and then back that statement up with serious argumentation. And as a literary influence Schopenhauer is in a league entirely of his own. Thomas Mann is unthinkable without him (well, and Nietzcsche). Borges once opined that the only thinkers he thought accurately depicted the world were Schopenhauer and Berkeley.

Finally, The introduction by Hollingdale is .. superb. It is possibly the best brief introduction to Schopenhauer (by way of Kant and 19th C. trends in German philosophy) that I have come across; it manages to be (simultaneously) anecdotal, psychological, historical, humorous and analytic- all in under 40 pages. No easy achievement, that. It should be noted that Hollingdale is a fine scholar/translator; his work with the late, great Walter Kaufmann on a variety of his Nietzsche translations comes to mind, as does his own fantastic critical biography, `Nietzsche: The Man and His Philosophy,' which still may be the best work of its kind in terms of its approachability.

My only beef with Hollingdale is minor: he doesn't mention the effects of the `Nachmearz,' (a period in the mid 19th C. Germany, following revolts in 1848, wherein the public became disenchanted with `academic' philosophy and turned to more literary-outsider intellectuals) as influential in producing the kind of cultural climate in which a thinker and writer such as Schopenhauer could find a mass readership. This is odd because in `The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche,' Hollingdale discusses (at length) the far-reaching effects of said cultural phenomenon in producing the legends that permeate the widespread public perception of Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer...

But I digress. Cheap copies of this are abound. Do yourself a massive favor, live a little- take a chance, as Nietzsche did, when he was a college student, nosing about in a bookstore...

Must read. It could change the world
oustanding. I am speechless. This is a fine author that ought to be read almost everyday of our lives.

I am glad I've had the chance to read Schopenhauer. Don't waste your life. Read it today. Start with this book and then move to his other publications. Hard to stop thinking/reading. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Essential reading for debaters
Anyone who is interested in debating a topic simply has to read Schopenhauer's "The Art of Controversy" and pay particular attention to his "38 stratagems."

You'll find out about sophisms ex homonymia.And special pleading (if I do it, it's cool, if you do it, it's tacky).You'll see links in a chain of reasoning omitted.And false premises, and omitted premises.And non sequiturs (omitted chains).Suppressed majors.Negated minors.Argumentum ad ignorantiam.Question-begging (sticking your conclusion into a premise).

There is advice about false generalizations.Get your opponent to admit that your examples are true.Do not ask about the validity of the general case, but later act as if this has been admitted as well.

Then there are "false choice" arguments, where you pretend that the only alternative to your policy is some manifestly crazy "straw-man" counterplan.And there are false reductio ad absurdums and false counterexamples.There are also suggestive questions, such as asking why something is true, when it may not be true at all.

There are hidden judgments, as anyone will discover when she calls a city by its name in one language as opposed to another.

A very important stratagem is argumentum ad auditores (this ought to be illegal in a debate).Here, you simply make an argument that you and your opponent know full well is totally invalid, hoping to win over your audience.If your audience is a mob, it is called argumentum ad captandum.

You'll learn to blitz your opponent by talking fast (and maybe especially softly or loudly as well).And to extend your opponent's propositions, exaggerate them, and make them absolute.

If you think your opponent has a potentially strong but unusual counter to what you are about to propose, get her to admit the opposite of it before you start your main argument (advice from Aristotle).Try to ask it so that a "no" answer is the one you want.Never tell an opponent that you have won an argument.You do not want to hear her reply.Address victory claims only to the audience.

I've used plenty of Latin here.That's a good idea in general; it makes you look wise even though you are just another plebeian.Don't say "No way!"Say "Non possumus."

You'll learn that the line "That is all very good in theory, but it would never work in practice" is in fact a famous sophism.

And there is much more in this terrific essay.Perhaps the most interesting advice is this.If an opponent comes up with some captious sophistry, try to dispose of her ex concessis rather than ad rem.That is, come up with something just as silly as her nonsense (as long as it is something she can't or won't refute).After all, you are seeking victory, not truth!Schopenhauer assures us that this works better.

I'd be more than a little reluctant to follow this last bit of advice, but I truly enjoyed The Art of Controversy. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

An Absolutely Beautiful Book
The nineteenth century produced many different systems of ethics. While Kant, Nietzsche, Mill, and Hegel all contributed greatly to ethical thought, the greatest contribution, in my opinion, came from Arthur Schopenhauer.

On the Basis of Morality is not only a beautifully written book; it's quite simply, in my estimation, the most convincing (and humane) exposition on ethics that I've ever read. Schopenhauer's rightly hailed literary style is especially lucid here, and On the Basis of Morality is much more of an immediately digestible read as compared to The World as Will and Representation.

Schopenhauer's elegant polemic against Kant's ethics of duty, i.e. the categorical imperative, is very effective. Schopenhauer deconstructs Kant's rational ethics with such prodding efficiency that it's amazing that Schopenhauer isn't mentioned more frequently as a corrective to Kant's ethical thought. Schopenhauer also makes it a point to mention that Kant's ethics rely heavily on theism, albeit in a clandestine way. Schopenhauer's ethical thought is atheistic to the core.

The main thesis that Schopenhauer argues is that the basis of morality is compassion. In other words, the vast majority of so-called "moral" acts that we commit are in fact nothing of the sort. They are merely self-interested acts that we perform to either do what we are supposed to do, or because we will receive some sort of compensation. Schopenhauer's definition is quite different: only completely altruistic acts are moral.

Another aspect of On the Basis of Morality that I find so appealing is that it mixes Kant's transcendental idealism with a Buddhist sense of compassion for all sentient beings. Schopenhauer appropriated Kant's idealism of the thing-in-itself, and he defines that as a blind will to live that permeates all things. Therefore, everything is interconnected via the Will. Schopenhauer reiterates that true morality is compassion for ALL living beings, not humans alone. Schopenhauer was very much ahead of his time in this respect.

This is currently out of print, which is truly a shame. It's a great book by a great philosopher, and it deserves to be read.


... Read more

Book Description
1890. Being the first part of Arthur Schopenhauer's aphorisms on living wisely. Schopenhauer is one of the few philosophers who can generally be understood.His theories claim to be drawn directly from the facts and he is constant in his appeal, no matter what view he takes. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

Wise Words..But what's with the pink cover?
Aside from the wise words of Schopenhauer, which are a given, I must stress my dislike for this specific publishers choice of layout for this paperback.

I mean seriously, who puts a hot pink back cover on a philosophy book?It's so distracting to me that I have removed the back cover completely.

Maybe this is simply a vain observance, but I like my philosophy books low key and powerful for thier messages, not the color of the book..:)

Short and Sharp
This is an excellent small book on the wisdom of life. A 'make you think' for any spare moment.

the wisdom of life
excellent book, wish I had gotten it earlier in life, very pragmatic and absolutely to the point even though today

Great philosopher, bad edition
With his beautifully written Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life (originally published as part of a bigger work, "Parerga and Paralipomena", volume one), Schopenhauer [S] appeals to anyone who acknowledges that this world isn't a particularly nice or fun place to live in. Elaborating on his theories of human suffering, which he links above all to the workings of our Will (a kind of instinct/drive that fosters desires, leads to conflicts, and provokes continual unrest), S proposes the practice of self-awareness, a mild asceticism and intellectual pursuit to counter the pains and boredom of life.

However, what I saw in this edition by Dover Publications can hardly qualify as satisfactory. Two points made this a great disappointment:

1 - This is NOT the COMPLETE translation of S's original Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life - in fact, the whole fifth and sixth chapters are missing. This is a real shame, since it is particularly in the longish CHAPTER FIVE that dear old S actually develops his nicest ideas and advice for anyone interested in leading a thoughtful and serene existence (or rather, spending a lifetime aiming in that direction), mainly by realizing that most desires and pleasures stirring one's brain and body are chimerical, and therefore ultimately frustrating.

The preceding considerations in The Wisdom of Life can in fact be read as a mere introduction to the greater conclusions in this chapter. S organized his work so as to say: "now that you know what you are (chapter 2), what you have (chapter 3) and what you appear to be in the eyes of others (chapter 4), here's what you should DO (chapter 5)." With this edition, though, the best of S is left out.

2 - Probably with the intention of "saving space", the editors have found it fit NOT to translate S's many quotations of other philosophers and of poets, from the ancient Greek and Latin to the French and German. Since it is most unlikely that many modern readers will master these languages (at least all four of them simultaneously), a considerable amount of thoughts in this book is left somewhat incomplete. I find this particularly annoying, as S wasn't quoting others "for the heck of it" or to "appear well-educated": each time he refers to another author or text, he is trying both to prove how much his thoughts are the product of a long tradition of reflection on certain issues - and also to complete his ideas by recurring to formulations which may better convey them to the reader. One can surmise that each quotation was carefully picked with a clear aim - which now eludes the reader, as there is only so much he can make out of "sume superbiam quoesitam meritis" (a sentence attributed to Horace, that much we are told) or the even more frequent sentences in ancient Greek language (and alphabet).

[Incidentally, another edition, by Prometheus Books (1995), has the exact same flaws, so this might be a recurrent problem]

For these reasons, I would urge interested readers to carefully look at the actual contents of an edition of Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life - and to make sure that the translators have really bothered to translate the full text. Socrates and Seneca, Voltaire and Goethe sound much better when one understands what they are on about. And S's subtle irony, wise conclusions and friendly advice are far more enjoyable and useful when one reads ALL he has to say.

Good but not great
I READ THIS BOOK BECAUSE ALL MY MATES WERE BANGING ON ABOUT IT, GOING READ IT, YOU KNOW? LIKE SO WE COULD ALL PHILOSOPHISE AND STUUF, WELL I READ IT AND i HAVE TO SAY THAT I WAS DISSAPOINTED, ARTHUR'S OPINIONS ARE AT ONCE FASCINATING AND LIMITING. THEY LIMIT MY GOALS AND ABILITY, YOU KNOW? BUT SERIOUSLY I THINK THAT ARTHUR PROBABLY SHOUD HAVE DONE A COUPLE MORE VERSIONS SO PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIKE DIFFERENT TASTES COULD ALL TAKE SOMEHTHING FROM IT.I THINK THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL LIKE THIS BOOK WHO MAYBE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM WITH A FOREIGN LANGUAGE, CAUSE ITS TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WHICH IS DEFINITELY A PLUS. ... Read more

Book Description

Part of the Longman Library of Primary Sources in Philosophy,” this first volume of Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Presentation is framed by a pedagogical structure designed to make this important work of philosophy more accessible and meaningful for readers. A General Introduction includes the work's historical context, a discussion of historical influences, and biographical information on Arthur Schopenhauer.Annotations and notes from the editor clarify difficult passages for greater understanding, and a bibliography gives the reader additional resources for further study.

Customer Reviews (1)

Truth Cannot be Cover Up
Schopenhauer said go to the source to get the facts of what the author said.Schopenhauer has been kept like kelp in the closet because he is among the great of the few philosophers of worth.Certainly he is number 1 in stating it as it is without riddles.In my opinion he exceeds all others on the bottom line.

The universities have scorn him as in his own day.What he has said has been distorted because he is great and true.

E.F. Payne in my opinion is best translator for his works.It is amusing to me how writers try to rework,and screw up what a genius has said.The state does not want the facts either,for how could it rule if the truth be known.Schopenhauer is accused of being pessimistic.He is if the truth is pessimistic period.Those who analyze his character to find fault are indicating their own.

Now I know you know I love Schopenhauer.Because I do I will recommend the following books to support him in the standing he deserves.

The basic books to start with are Parerga and Paralipomena,Oxford volume II.The Wisdom of Life and Counsels and Maxims translated by T.Bailey Saunders.Volume I,II The world As Will And Representation.Prize Essay On the Freedom Of the will.Edited by Gunter Zoller.

Now according to Schopenhauer the will is everything.The driving force of all that is.It is what you are made of,but you are only a part of it.You die,but it the will exist forever.The sex drive is a driving force of will.We know how sex distorts our view.I mention this because the will is blind to thinking,and cares nothing for the individual,but only for the continue existence of the will.God does not exist.Life is without meaning,you do not have free will.Whether the world exist ,or not
is immaterial.Reality is your perception only.

Now you do not have free will because of your DNA,and cause and effect,but you think you do.You are responsible for you,but you are not responsible,a contradiction,but if you are not who is.?You have to be,and you pay for it if you don't act right in your society.The Law.To bad.

Schopenhauer was an atheist,but he supported Christ and Buddha.Compassion is necessary as we are all flawed and suffer in varying degrees.To live is to suffer.The cause of suffering is desire.Pain is the normal state,pleasure is temporary and fleeting.Have compassion for mankind as we all suffer and die.Life is it worth living.What will tomorrow bring.You do not usually live long enough to understand the vanity of existence.You cannot change you character.Do you know anyone who has? for sure?.King luck rules the world,he gives and takes away.Thing are as they have to be.God bless Author Schopenhauer.
Walter E. Haas reviews and comments from others.Save America. ... Read more

Book Description

Customer Reviews (11)

Thought-Provoking Discussion on Freedom of the Will
I really enjoyed this essay. I have always been interested in the freedom of the will problem and I thought that this essay provided a good description of the problem and some very interesting discussion. Schopenhauer writes very clearly and in a manner that kept me interested throughout the hundred pages of the essay. Schopenhauer starts out with a consideration of what is meant by "freedom of the will." He considers the statement that "I can do what I will" to be irrelevant to the question of freedom of the will since he says that "...the will is already presupposed...for it assumes that the will has already been decided." He goes on to say, "The assertion does not at all speak about the dependence or independence of the occurrence of the act of volition itself."

The real question that Schopenhauer seems to be interested in is whether an individual can will what he or she wills; he does not think that this is the case. Schopenhauer arrives at the opinion that "...man's will is his authentic self, the true core of his being...he himself is as he wills and wills as he is" such that, "You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing."He then goes on to talk about causality and what compels the will to act in one way or another (i.e., motives) always coming back to what he sees as a confusion when people use the fact that they can do what they will as an argument for free will. Schopenhauer argues that an individual's statement of "...`I can do this' is in reality a hypothetical and carries with it the additional clause, `if I did not prefer the other.' But this addition annuls the ability to will." Schopenhauer considers the notion of an uncaused cause to be unintelligible and at variance with observation. "If freedom of the will were presupposed, every human action would be an inexplicable miracle--an effect without a cause...here we are supposed to think something which determines without being determined, which depends on nothing, but on which the other depends."

One question that often comes up when talking about the absence of freedom of will is "What then happens to individual responsibility?" Schopenhauer answers this by saying that people are responsible for their own characters and that others judge individuals based on the outward signs (actions) that belie their inward character. "So the responsibility of which he is conscious falls upon the act only provisionally and ostensibly, but basically it falls upon his character--for this he feels responsible. And it is for his character that the others also make him responsible." So then Schopenhauer seems to be saying that people are judged based on their actions and underlying motives since these together show evidence of their true nature.

On a somewhat unrelated note, Schopenhauer's relationship with Hegel seems less than cordial as evidenced by his discussing Hegel's philosophical ponderings as "the emptiest word rubbish and silliest gallimathias [the word means nonsense or gibberish] that have ever been heard outside the insane asylum." For some reason, this passage made me laugh such that I wanted to include it in this review. It makes me thankful that my professional relationships have not yet reached such a level of colorful language. At any rate, I enjoyed this essay very much and would recommend it to others who are interested in a freedom of the will discussion.

Schopenhauer at his best
We are free when we are able do what we want, that is, when we are not somehow impeded from doing what we will to do. But we decide what to do as a matter of causal necessity; otherwise, our actions would be random and senseless. The notion that we have the power to originate the causal chain by an act of will makes no sense; as Schopenhauer says, causation is not like a cab that you can start and stop wherever it helps your argument. As he notes, that point also defeats cosmological arguments about "prime movers" and "first causes." This is a great read, a chance to experience a first-class mind grappling with a difficult and interesting problem. Schopenhauer generally even avoids his usual bitter broadsides and against Schelling and Hegel and the sort of philosophizing they represent, although those are fun to read and generally on target. (He lost another, later prize because his essay in that case, although the only candidate for the prize, was so full of personal invective that the judges refused to make the award.)

Another reviewer correctly notes that Schopenhauer undermines his own argument at the last minute, or tries to, in a strange concluding chapter. There he argues that our feelings of personal responsibility for our actions points to freedom of some kind, a species of argument that he had earlier dismantled. Anyway, this freedom would have to exist beyond the empirical level, as his arguments have decisively eliminated any possibility of freedom there. The position Schopenhauer presents in that chapter involves the idea that we, somehow, choose our own characters at some mysterious point of emergence from the Kantian noumena. No commentator I have read has been able to make sense of it. In any case, it's completely skippable, a brief, tacked-on chapter that makes no difference for the rest of the book, which is very well worth reading.

Not a case for determinism
The title of my review is a little misleading, so I'll be quick to explain. In fact, Schopenhauer does make a good case for determinim in his essay. However, there is something noteworthy I haven't seen in any of the reviews so far: At the end of the well-crafted essay, Schopenhauer -- well -- spoils it all. Having established the truth of determinism, he suddenly tries to justify free will. Yes, that's true. He appeals to a Kantian style idealism to try and convince the reader that we are ultimately morally responsible. He asserts that we have metaphysical free will because we FEEL our responsibility. His proclamation that this free will that we are supposed to have is a mystery is strikingly reminiscient of theistic statements like "God works in mysterious ways". This is just an example to illustrate the failure of Schopenhauer's case for free will. In order to defend his free will, "real free will", Schopenhauer is forced to resort to mere assertions. He can't explain why we have this free will or how it works, hence he calls it a mystery. If you are a determinist it may well be that you will feel a little betrayed or even outright disappointed after finishing the book. I give the book 4 stars nonetheless, because for the most part it IS a skillfully written defense of determinism. Schopenhauer should have laid aside his pen a couple of pages earlier than he did, that's all.

Engaging, but open to question.
Almost everyone agrees that - here, Schopenhauer made a convincing case for denying free-will. Nevertheless, I would argue that if we look back to the influence Kant's work exerted on Schopenhauer, and review Schopenhauer's own remarks about the validity of empirical knowledge, it must surely be that Schopenhauer landed himself in difficulties. On his own reading of Kant's philosophy, and those parts of it which he incorporated into his own work, the 'willing' subject, sensu strictu, cannot be said to exist in space and time, but only to be working through those categories in the understanding.

If time and space are transcendentally ideal - as Schopenhauer asserted, following Kant, he ought to have known better than to locate the 'will' in time and space, when according to his own reckoning, 'time and space are in us.'

Kant distinguished here, between 'will' and 'willkuhr' - that is, the practical difference between the will grounded in the noumenon, and the will seen in its phenomenal or empirical
employment. Insofar as Schopenhauer adopted Kant's distinction between appearance and reality, viz. the ideality of time and space, it surely follows that by denying free-will, Schopenhauer was denying a key element in his own philosophy. In short, his argument against 'free-will' amounts to a simplistic observation - namely, 'your willing takes place in the empirical world. The empirical world is conditioned. Ergo, your willing is conditioned' - as if he had suddenly forgotten everything else said in his philosophy, about the ideality of time and space.

By arguing that 'free will' - in the empirical manifold, is simply comparative or relative - viz., when confronted with choices - Schopenhauer was stating the obvious. In this respect, Schopenhauer's position was not unlike that of certain early Buddhists, who almost made Buddhism into a form of determinism. To do that, they had to advocate a kind of empirical realism, while denying any reality to the 'pudgala.' But in actual fact, Schopenhauer's position vis-a-vis the ideality of the phenomenal world, more nearly resembled the Vijnanavada/Yocacara. What mattered to Kant (and what surely matters to anyone else, defending the case for free-will), is that considered as noumenon (i.e. our unconditioned nature), that which can initiate a new chain of events - in the phenomenal world, is not - in itself, phenomenal.

A powerful examination of free will and determinism
For those who are convinced that determinism has been refuted (ie. Popper, Sartre, Kierkegarrd) it is quite obvious that they haven't read this essay because if they had they might put their own presuppositions about the validity of free will into question.
Schopenhauer does a fantastic job at dissecting the concept of the 'freedom of the will' by first showing that it cannot be proven from self-consciounsess. He follows this by meticulously distinguishing between the changes that occur in inorganic objects (cause), plants (stimulus), and animals(intuitive and particularly for humans, abstract motives). He points out that in regards to the automatic organic function of animals bodies, changes occur in the form of a "stimulus" but in willed actionmotivation is the cause (but not in the mechanical sense that the narrow definition of casaulity implies). Schopenhauer writes, in regards to motivation, "causality that passes through cognition... enters in the gradual scale of natural beings at that point where a being which is more complex, and thus has more manifold needs, was no longer able to satisfy them merely on the occasion of a stimulus that must be awaited, but had to be in a position to choose, seize, and even seek out the means of satisfaction."

Schopenhauer thinks that humans have "relative freedom" but that relative freedom is to act in accordance with the motives that are necessitated by the Will-- which in turn is the determining factor of human behavior. In humans the linkage of cause and effect is of a far greater distance than that of intuitive animals-- causing us to mistakingly exclude our behavior from the law of casaulity-- but in the end 'the Will' still determines actions by what he calls "sufficient necessitiy".

"For he (human beings) allows the motives repeatedly to try their strength on his will, one against the other. His will is thus put in the same position as that of a body that is acted on by different forces in opposite directions - until at last the decidedly strongest motive drives the others from the field and determines the will. This outcome is called decision and, as a result of the struggle, appears with complete necessity."

Unlike Sartre's treatise on freedom, which ultimately collapsed into obscurity and contradiction, Scophenhauer's rightly contends that a fixed essence is inborn (what we would today call DNA). In other words, it contradicts Sartre's saying that "existence precedes essence." For Schopenhauer, neither precedes the other. The two are inseparable. The expression of the essence can change through experience within the environment but the fundamental aspects of it remaininstrinsic to the organism (Genes/Biology). Schopenhauer responds to the proponents of absolute free will, who haven't carefully analyzed what it means for the 'will' to be free, by writing: "Closely considered, the freedom of the will means an existentia without essentia; this is equivalent to saying that something is and yet at the same time is nothing, which again means that it is not and thus is a contradiction." So my guess is that if Sartre had happened to stumble upon this particular essay he might have realized that it was he who was in "bad faith" about man being condemned to be free.

It should also be noted that if Schopenhauer is wrong about mans intrinsic nature then all of the social sciences are a fraud and particularly psychology is wrong when it takes genes, biology, and the environment into consideration when interpreting and analyzing human behavior.

The reason people object to philosophical determinism is that it makes morality and personal responsibility a precarious thing. One valuable thing we can adopt from Sartre's ideas is that it is imperative that we take responsibility for our choices. But being that pragmatism is the philosophy of the U.S. and not existentalism, it is more than likely the masses will always assume that Free Will exists because the stability of civil society depends on it. In light of all of this it should be mentioned that Schopenhauer does not think that people can't be morally reformed. In other words he thinks that the expression of behavior can be cultivated. Many people credit Nietzsche for coming up with the idea of sublimation that would later be used by Freud, but it was actually Schopenhauer who was the first speak of the idea.

"Cultivation of reason by cognitions and insights of every kind is morally important, because it opens the way to motives which would be closed off to the human being without it."

Schopenhauer also condemns a moral system that tries to root out the defects of a person's character rather than utilizing sublimation.

For those who consider this type of philosophy immoral because it seems to exclude the possibility of moral responsibility we should remember that in Christianity there is the concept of predesination, and in Islam there is a religious fatalism.On top of that fact, many of the church fathers (Augustine and Luther) didn't accept the notion of free will either.

I highly recommend this book! ... Read more

Book Description

Customer Reviews (29)

How is Hegel held over him?
I have read Schopenhauers works and would heartily agree with the other writers on its beauty, simplicity and philosophy. This author strikes me as a philosopherin the classic sense(a lover of wisdom). Ive read Hegel, Wittgenstien, Kant and attempted Heiddeger and none come close to Schoppenhauer's great work. Not to dismiss the others but their writing style is dodgy, unclear or badly translated. Its fairly clear that Schopenhauer is somewhat of an underdog in scholastic circles as most philosophy professors tend to stress Hegel over A.S.No writer in philosophy writes with as much wit and clarity, if you have read this far and this many reviews stop persecuting yourself and buy this book.

Towering work of genius from the philosopher of gloom
Arthur Schopenhauer is one of the most interesting great philosophers.A misogynist, misanthrope and great lover of music and art, he was kinder to his dogs than he was to people.

Despite his oddities, Schopenhauer provides us with one of the most fascinating philosophical systems a great philosopher has ever produced.Perhaps one of the last philosophers who tried to produce a unified vision of the entire universe, Schopenhauer's universe is as depressing as it is majestic.

Schopenhauer's vision is spelt out at great length in his great masterpiece, the World as Will and Idea.For Schopenhauer, the key to understanding reality is that everything is the product of a blind, unconditioned energy or force called Will.Deeply read in Eastern philosophy, especially Buddhism, Schopenhauer regards the universe as a dark place filled with evil and suffering, caused by the endless activity created in the world by the Will (which as the cause in itself is the One or Absolute as understood traditionally by philosophers East and West) which appears in the world of sense experience in infinitely diverse ways, yet in ways which are perpetually in conflict and war with each other.For Schopenhauer, this dark force shows itself no more truely in the biological and human worlds, in the terrible struggle for existence which relies on killing and destruction of other life along with rapine, greed and war essentially for one being to triumph over the other.Schopenhauer, writing about three decades before Darwin, remarkably anticipates some of the ideas of evolutionary theory and also the psychoanalytic theories of Freud, which sees concious human activity as being the result of deeper unconcious, instinctual drives, especially those of sex and survival.He also anticipates some aspects of physical science which see the universe as a whole being the product of chaotic energy and forces acting at the deepest levels of reality.

Schopenhauer, despite being an idealist, marshals many powerful philosophical arguments as well as quotes from writers, poets, mystics, and also evidence gathered from science and even newspaper reports to support his worldview.He is deeply empirical and believes his idea explains not just philosophical issues but the very way the world is as it is found by scientists and naturalists.Indeed, his close attention to science makes Schopenhauer one of the most astute philosophers of the natural world, along with Aristotle and Descartes.

Schopenhauer also deduces a system of ethics and salvation from his system.His ethics are essentially Buddhist; indeed, Schopenhauer argued that of all the world's religions, Buddhism is the best because it accords most closely to the truth (salvation comes through renouncing the world and through a selfless ethic of compassionate love for suffering) although he also greatly admires the Hindu sages who wrote the Upanishads, a work he quotes very frequently.He also admires Christian mystics, especially Eckhart and Boehme.

Schopenhauer like Plato is a great writer as well as Philosopher.Unlike many German philosophers who wrote very obscurely, Schopenhauer believed strongly in expressing ideas clearly and very often he uses many rhetorical and literary tropes to create beautiful concrete illustrations of his philosophical ideas.This is especially so in his brilliant and witty essays, which earned him more fame than his true magnum opus ever did.He also viciously attacks Hegel and his school, feeling they have betrayed the legacy of Kant (of whom Schopenhauer claimed he was a true disciple) through obscure sophistry designed to reintroduce the metaphysical bugbears Kant had properly banished forever from Philosophy.For Schopenhauer, clarity was always central, unfortunately something many later German philosophers did not learn.

Schopenhauer's work had a massive influence on many leading lights in European thought.People influenced by his ideas and who quoted him readily included Goethe, Joseph Conrad, Nietzsche, Wagner, Tolstoy, Albert Einstein, Schrodinger, Wittgenstein, Thomas Mann, and many others.Today he remains a fascinating philosopher to study and his relevance remains, particularly as his ideas seem to have anticipated some of the ideas of modern evolutionary biology and physical science, and also for his keen interest in Eastern philosophical and religious thought, which is starting to strongly impact the West today. He is certainly one of the greatest philosophers Germany ever produced after Kant.

More than a precursor to Nietzsche...
First, a word about the form of this two-volume work. Volume One contains the core of Schopenhauer's philosophy and is his one absolutely essential book. Volume Two, which is longer, consists of elaborations upon the themes of Volume One. So, if you're strapped for cash and desperately need to own some Schopenhauer, it's fine to buy only Volume One. You won't be missing anything essential.
This book is one of the most provocative and readable works of 19th-century Western philosophy. Anyone who has waded through the soggy, muddy-bottomed marshes of Hegel's prose will be delighted by the clarity of Schopenhauer. While I remain unconvinced by his theory of all-pervading Will, seeing it as a way of sneaking transcendentalism back into a fortunately disenchanted world (Will seems at times too much like an omnipresent god for my tastes), I still highly recommend Schopenhauer. Even if you don't agree with him, arguing with him keeps you on your intellectual toes.

The Knight calmly facing Death and Devil!
Written when he was 30 Schopenhauer single-mindedly preserved the book and abstained form changing it in the subsequent decades and publications (however he wrote a supplemental volume II years later to expound on the main themes of the volume I). This English translation beautifully conveys the clarity, simplicity and magnificence of Schopenhauer's perfect German prose. As a person who reads philosophy for pleasure and insight, I must say I enjoyed it immensely and gained insight into fundamental questions of existence. Influenced by Eastern (Indian) philosophies, Schopenhauer courageously expounds his profoundly Pessimistic ideas without ever entering into dogmatism, characteristic of many philosophers, and "mystification" which he accused Hegel and other contemporary "Philosophy Professors". A familiarity with Kantian philosophy and Schopenhauer's other works (especially: On the Fourfold Root of Principle of Sufficient Reason" and "On the Will in Nature") is needed in order to clearly grasp the fundamental ideas of this book.

Philosophy for independent thinkers
Schopenhauer's magnum opus towers high above the silly word games of the analysts. This book is philosophy at its very best- a book that no educated person should miss for Schopenhauer wrote primarily for the layman. Like Nietzsche, he was highly skeptical of the "professionals" of his time. One thing that immediately strikes the reader is Schopenhauer's clear and crisp command of the written word unlike the severe case of abstractionitis that both Hegel and Heidegger seem to suffer from.

The World as Will and Representation clothes Transcendental Idealism in a pessimistic dress and offers a glorious, bold and innovated view of Kant's critical philosophy. Its scope and breadth reaches the outer limitations of human understanding creating a new and beautiful, yet cold and austere, vision that will forever challenge, shake, and destroy most people's views of reality. This book along with Kant's Critique gives a possible answer to one of the most perplexing problems of human understanding: it challenges and attempts to disarm Hume's powerful attack against the perceived "illusion" of causality. Whether it succeeds or not is left to the reader to decide.

Schopenhauer starts where Kant stops and he easily transcends him showing us how the world is a hostile place to live in and how reality is forever unknown to the knower. Few professional philosophers would probably agree with Schopenhauer. This in no way dimishes the value of his philosophy.

It is amazing that today most people simply ignore Schopenhauer and take him as a minor figure in the Western tradition. Part of the reason for this is because of Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, who simply dismissed Schopenhauer and gave him a bad reputation in his popular book "History of Western Philosophy." (This book is heavily biased and is probably one of Russell's worst books causing more harm than good for people new to philosophy.) Russell basically rejected Schopenhauer's work on the premise of hypocrisy since Schopenhauer did not actually practice the philosophy that he preached; yet ironically enough, Russell, being a brilliant logician and no less than the father of modern analytic philosophy, succumbed to emotionalism via the tu quoque fallacy. (i.e. judging a claim as false based on the character of the person claiming it instead of its truth value)

The best thing to do is to simply read the book yourself. Commentaries are helpful after one has understood the work, never before. It is highly recommended that one read Kant and then follow-up with Schopenhauer's book. (Though many have still profited skipping Kant altogether.) Very few things in life will probably be more important or rewarding than doing this. ... Read more

Book Description
This is a revised and enlarged version of Bryan Magee's widely praised study of Schopenhauer, the most comprehensive book on this great philosopher.It contains a brief biography of Schopenhauer, a systematic exposition of his thought, and a critical discussion of the problems to which it gives rise and of its influence on a wide range of thinkers and artists.For this new edition Bryan Magee has added three new chapters and made many minor revisions and corrections throughout.this new edition will consolidate the book's standing as the definitive study of Schopenhauer. `This is a book of many virtues and vices...The book reads well.It deserves to be well read...surpass(es) all current English-language treatments of Schopenhauer.' David Cartwright, Schopenhauer-Jahrbuch`an ambitious book and, on the whole, a highly readable one.Magee moves with confidence and ability among the connecting structures of philosophy, the history of ideas, the arts, and human psychology.' Diane Collinson, Philosophically QuarterlyMagee's study should however not merely be reviewed but also read; for it is thorough, lucid and wide-ranging...a substantial work.' Times Higher Education Supplement`He brings out well the development of the German philosopher's thought, and the fact that in the course of doing so he does some philosophising of his own increases the interest of the volume.Further, Schopenhauer's influence on a number of other eminent people is discussed much more at length than is usual in monographs on his philosophy.As for the author's criticism of Schopenhauer, it seems to me sound.' Frederick Copleston, The month `Philosophers have long known that Schopenhauer was the first of the very few philosophers Wittgenstein studied intensely.Magee supplies the detail of the debt with impressive and original fullness.Bryan Magee may leave himself open to critical nigglings of various degrees of significance by his enthusiastic resolution to stand up for Schopenhauer and not just to expound him from a safe distance.The compensation is that his own excitement is communicated to the reader.' Anthony Quinton, The Times`il convient de saluer et d'apprecier, pour le public qui ne l'aurait pas encore lu, ce livre elegant, suggestif, perspicace...clair, excellent.' P. Trotignon, Revue Philosophique`Bryan Magee's book is...to be welcomed as the most illuminating and admirable study of Schopenhauer's philosophy yet to appear in English.' I. B. Gleaves, Wagner`He sets about the task of explaining Schopenhauer's ideas with a commitment and enthusiasm all too rare in philosophical writing, and succeeds admirably in communicating his excitement to the reader.' Sean Sayers, Philosophy and Psychology`This is a wide ranging book and Mr Magee's enthusiasm makes it stimulating.' The Economist`Bryan Magee has given us and extremely well-organized book...an accurate and innovative introduction...Its great merit is that it takes Schopenhauer seriously and relates his work to contemporary concerns.' James Moulder, South African Journal of Philosphy ... Read more

Customer Reviews (17)

A question answered
In the opening lines of chapter 3 Bryan Magee, paraphrasing Schopenhauer, writes: "If there is to be any point in my looking for something, I need to have some idea of how I shall know if I find it". Whoever comes to philosophy would be well-advised to keep this in mind. Can we really read philosophy without any idea, or to use an expression from Saul Bellow, any `metaphysical hunch' about what we think (or hope) to find? It was while reading this wonderful book on Schopenhauer that I suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, found the answer to the question, "Why do I read philosophy?". And the answer was not, as the expected knee-jerk response would have it, to find `truth', but to break away, if only for a moment, from the deadening gravity of the obvious and the mundane into an awareness of a reality more awesome and profoundly mysterious. For me few philosophers manage this better than Schopenhauer, and Magee is absolutely brilliant at conveying this to his readers in his book The Philosophy of Schopenhauer. Hardly surprising from a man, who, on another occasion wrote,

"At the heart of the mystery, it seems to me, must lie the relationship between the self and the empirical world in which it is not an object. In fact I am tempted to believe that the ultimate mystery `is' the relationship between the self and the empirical world. With his usual acumen Schopenhauer thought this, `the solution of the riddle of the world is only possible through the proper connexion of outer with inner experience, effected a the right point.' The first time I read those words I got gooseflesh all over my body, my scalp pricked and tingled, and I knew that I was going to read every word written by Schopenhauer". (Confessions of a Philosopher - Bryan Magee).

Excellent!
I find it amusing that someone would give this excellent overview of Schopenhauer a two-star rating on the grounds that it is "difficult". Schopenhauer's philosophy is profound and requires much thought and reflection in order to grasp it. There may be "easier" introductions than this book but if you want to actually try and understand Schopenhauer then read this book. Remember, understanding Schopenhauer or any great philosopher will be difficult. If you can't do "difficult" then read Dr. Seuss.

Psychoanalysis
If you are coming from psychoanalysis, this might be a good book to explore its philosophical roots. You can disregard his opinions on women. In fact, please do so.

An excellent study
Bryan Magee has done a superlative job in writing this work. It is both a review and explanation of Schopenhauer's philosophy as well as an exposition of his influence on artists such as Richard Wagner. There is also much biographical material on Schopenhauer. This is a 400 page book and will take a while to get thru. It is not an easy read, though well written. It's just that Schopenhauer's philosophy takes some time to get used to if you have not encountered him before. But you will be richly rewarded.

If you only study one philospher...
Perhaps the most unjustly neglected philosopher in the western world.I would hope this very readable introduction will encourage more people to take up the study of this great thinker.Bryan Magee, as usual does, what many professional philosphers are unable or unwilling to do: he makes philosophy accessible to almost everyone.While I haven't found Schopenahuer's writing all that difficult, reading this first has helped me grasp The World as Will and Representation better than I could have without it.

Philosophy needs more Schopenahuers and Magees and fewer obfuscators. ... Read more

Book Description
The World as Will and Idea (1819) holds that all nature,including man, is the expression of an insatiable will to life; that thetruest understanding of the world comes through art, and the only lastinggood through ascetic renunciation. Unique in western philosophy for hisaffinity with Eastern thought, Schopenhauer influenced philosophers,writers, and composers including Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Wagner,Tolstoy, Thomas Mann, and Samuel Beckett. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Schopenhauer's great work abridged
This is a really excellent and readable version of Schopenhauer's seminal work. Any abridgements are very judiciously made, so that none of the essential ideas are left out. The introduction is excellent, and the translation very coherent and easy to follow. It is one of the most engrossing of philosphical primary texts, much easier to understand than Kant, and the presentation and translation are excellent. Anyone with an interest in philosophy, especially in the period of 19th Century philosophy from Kant to Nietzche, will find it indispensable.

More than just a bridge between Kant and Nietzsche
Often Schopenhauer does not receive the same respect as other German philosophers such as Kant, Hegel and the now incredibly popular Nietzsche.

Admittedly he is neither as difficult as Kant, nor as easy to read as Nietzsche. His style is not as charming as Nietzsche's and not as complex as Kant's.
He remains however one of the most influential philosopher's of modern times, who influenced people as widely as Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Wagner, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud.
Most notably, Nietzsche has taken much of his ideas from Schopenhauer, partially the 'will to power' can be retraced back to him, though it has to be said that Nietzsche drew different conclusions from similar thoughts.
His philosophy was grounded firmly in Plato's ideas, however he wrote very much in support of the new world Kant had opened up for philosophy with his idealism, which he however critiques in "The World as Will and Representation", too.

Schopenhauer is often referred to as the ultimate pessimist, both being atheist and thinking that since will which can never be utterly fulfilled, will lead to endless suffering, being frustrated as soon as it gains actual target by just creating a new hurdle/ something to gain. As such, he thinks that the will/ desire will inevitable always lead to suffering.
Schopenhauer sees in what he describes 'the denial of the will to live' in asceticism the answer. The only escape Schopenhauer sees is within art, more precisely within music, which has lead in the 20th century to people like Adorno and Horkheimer, and the Frankfurt school to adapt many of his thoughts.

In my opinion Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation is an 'attainable' book, even for people who have given up on Kant, Hegel or Heidegger. Not being a philosophy student myself, I first had to get a certain knowledge of Kant in order to fully understand it. I cannot critique the translation, simply because I have only read the book in German.
Schopenhauer's style is not only digestible, but being written in prose, it's even partially humorous, mostly witty and almost completely free of complex philosophical jargon.
I count this book amongst the best I have ever read, and can only recommend it to anyone. I don't even find it very pessimistic, rather romantically- realistic.

the futility of willing
For someone with no formal instruction in philosophy this is a very good book to begin with. Schopenhauer avoids the use of pretensious "philosophical" jargon and writes in a predominantly literaryfashion.

The main value in this book is its ideas. Its basic premis issimple, yet the range of topics that Schopenhauer delivers treatises on isquite astounding - art, gambling, contract theory, sexual love and asceticrenunciation, to mention but a few. Only a man of his genius could havefound a thread to link these diverse topics together. One does, however,sense at times that he distorts his philospophical beliefs in order toexpress his revulsion about his least favourite types of humanactivity.

I found the discussions on art the most insightful andrewarding. The book is a good dissection of the blind striving and willingof our world and has the potential to alter the way you view the nature ofthings. ... Read more

Book Description
A disciple of Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer took the Kantian concept that all knowledge derives from experience and broadened it to conclude that our experience of the world is necessarily subjective and influenced by our own intellect and biases, and that reality is but an extension of our own will.This is the basis of all of Schopenhauer's thinking, and here, he offers an essential foundation for understanding and appreciating all of his work. First produced as his doctoral dissertation in 1813, these two essays-"On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" and "On the Will in Nature"-were revised and published by the author in 1847; this 1889 edition represents its first translation into the English language. Students of philosophy and of 19th-century culture will find this a demanding but satisfying read.The writings of German philosopher ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860) were a profound influence on art and aesthetics, music and literature in the 19th century. Among his many writings, The World as Will and Idea (1819) is considered his masterpiece. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

Good Book, Cosimo Classics=Bad Translation
I bought the Cosimo Classics edition of "on the fourfold root" (its the pink one) and basically there is on major problem with this copy, there are entire passages that Schopenhauer uses from other philosophers that are left completely untranslated, rendering null any ability to make sense of an already not too easy volume (that is of course unless you know latin, french, german, etc...)

Minor Problem
This amazing treatise on human knowledge has one little fault. The editors at Open Court left out eleven words in the Tranlator's Introduction. This omission should gratify present-day philosophers in that it turns Schopenhauer's words into modern-sounding nonsense. I will surround the omitted words with parentheses. On page xx, Schopenhauer is quoted: " ...so that I cannot hope ever to find a more correct and accurate expression of that core of my philosophy (than what is there recorded. Whoever wishes to know my philosophy) thoroughly and investigate it seriously must take that chapter into consideration." You see, the occurrence of the word "philosophy" twice in close proximity utterly confused them. I notified Open Court but did not receive an acknowledgement. Other than this, I have to judge this book as one of the few life-changing writings that occur a few times every century. For laughs, read Heidegger's "Principle of Reason" and compare the two.

easy reading
This work is well written, like the rest of Schopenhauer's books, and many of its arguments stand strong today. That the understanding is active in perception, that percpetion is intellectual, is a huge step beyond Kant. Furthermore, Schopenhauer's claim that causality is necessary for sense experience, though not proving the a priori nature of causality as he thought, is strong and holds true whether one is a realist or an idealist. In the case of realism, sense experience is gotten by the affectation of objects upon the body, and in the case of idealism, sense experience is the production of the individual, and thus causality is necessary either way. One may object to Schopenhauer's attempt to rationalize everything down to human action - that he makes the entire phenomenal world deterministic. But he has strong arguments for this as well which are further explained in On the Basis of Morality and On the Freedom of the Will. Schopenhauer is one of the few philosophers I still enjoy reading, and rather than finding gaps in his system... people would do well to learn from him. While this work prepares the way for his whole system, and is essential to understanding particulary Book One and the Appendix on Kant of his magnum opus, this work should make any openminded empirical realist uneasy, though it does not prove the radical kind of Berkeleian idealism to which Schopenhauer subscribed.

Lucid and a bit quaint
It is one of the few injustices of Bertrand RussellÕs ÒHistory of Western Philosophy,Ó that he failed to appreciate SchopenhauerÕs thesis for his doctorate. But it is really one of the seminal documents that conclusively closed a debate which had begun with Descartes and included David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Schopenhauer was very much a no nonsense thinker who felt nothing but contempt for people like Hegel (his bte noir) or Fichte. He also had an open mind for the sciences, yet came a bit too early for Gregor Mendel and Darwin. So Schopenhauer proposed his famous voluntarism, a blind, but all-pervasive will behind the shifting spectre of never ending changes. In this sense Schopenhauer holds a middle position like Tycho Brahe had held between Copernicus and Kepler. It is not science yet, but already departing from the realm of pure thought. There are many ways to understand the meaning of philosophy, but I believe Bertrand Russell had put it best: ÒIs there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside of our thought? If yes is the right answer, there is a bridge from pure thought to things, if not, not.Ó SchopenhauerÕs answer to this question is fourfold, i.e. his exposition of the Òprinciple of sufficient reason,Ó and it is as good an answer, as anybody possibly could give, who puts himself under the constrains of BerkeleyÕs idealism. It is not only the epistemological core to SchopenhauerÕs own philosophy, it really takes the fundamentals through the paces and answers to David HumeÕs demolition of causality. In essence it says, that causality is a common bias in human and animal sensibility, which Ôa prioryÕ enables us to operate on our empirical sensations. It is the way how we structure the world, but not necessarily a feature of the empirical phenomena under scrutiny as Hume had already had observed. Then why does a sensibility based on the concept of causality operates so efficiently?

Schopenhauer is still a classical rationalist of the old school. Like his master, Immanuel Kant, instead of postulating a convenient set of inborn instincts or acquired intuitions, he prefers the premise, that there is a LOGICAL reason, a preconceived NECESSITY, for the way we slot and pigeonhole perceptions and employ our operative ideas. So how does this work in the real world? In essence Schopenhauer takes ÒperceptionÓ not to be the product of sensation, but of understanding. In other words what our senses present to our cognition is transformed by the 4 linchpins of common sense: causation, plausibility, geometry, and psychological motivation. So there is a chain of mental events: sensation is converted by an act of recognition to perception. From this it is only one logical step further to SchopenhauerÕs first premise of his mature philosophy that the world is Òmy will and representation,Ó because the Òobjective worldÓ which we naively take to be given to our senses is in fact a transformation from raw data to perception. To illustrate this point just consider how the mind compensates for mild astigmatism: the afflicted still perceives a correct picture of the object. And this is a faculty animals obviously share with us. What makes man different is merely the scope and refinement of his percepts.Schopenhauer is at his best in his exposition of causation. By shifting it from a relationship between things to a relationship between different states of things, he shows the fallacy in HumeÕs scepticism. It is not the sun as such that melts the snow but the heat absorbed which causes a change from crystalline to liquid - 2 states of the same thing: water. This causal relationship between changes we judge to be necessary and not merely to be an incidental regularity. Our exposure to such regularities authorizes what Schopenhauer called a Òhypothetical judgementÓ or in modern parlance a Òcounterfactual inference.Ó But our absolute TRUST in such judgements comes from nowhere but from ourselves - it is a feature of our sensibility, because we actually apply it on every event we can imagine, and not just on actual experience. It makes us intuitively and a priory look for things to happen the way it is expected. (ThatÕs why modern science had such a hard time to get o