The world as will and idea: Nihilism and oriental pessimism

Understanding Schopenhauer from the literary perspective

Schopenhauer, A., & Payne, E. F. J. (1966). The world as will and representation. New York: Dover Publications.

Introduction

It is a fact that, in order to understand the writings and philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, we need to find the philosopher stone. The whole discourse of ‘the world as will and idea’ revolves around the category of ethics and metaphysics. The basic premise of the work ‘The world as will and idea’ opines that in order to understand the concept of whole, we must have the understanding of parts. It is because, in the domain of part-of-a-whole, we are required to much comprehend on the genesis of different parts.

In the latter context, the form and matter has always been in conflict or contradiction. Likewise, the case of subject and object has always been in contradictory discourse, for which we must go beyond the concept of subjectivity, inter-subjectivity, objectivity and inter-objectivity. The point to ponder that if someone wants to understand the basic introduction of ‘The world as will and idea’ there is a famous pamphlet ‘on the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason: A Philosophical essay’. Moreover, one thing is very much clear that the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer is beyond the Kantian Categories: the inner and the outer sense. Likewise, in order to correctly understand the introduction of ‘The world as will and idea’ then we must have acquaintance with some of the important phenomenon, which has appeared in philosophy especially those of the writings of Immanuel Kant.

On the contrary, the writings of Immanuel Kant are very key to understand the very essence of the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer. It is all about the mind against will—is our mind against our will? The whole history of literature proves that, everything of real value requires a long time to gain the acceptance. Here is the question, what comes after the life and truth? The German nation in the broader context believes in the creation of philosophy from all domains whether it is politics, economics or the general social domain. In contrast, light and truth are the two most important myths of our time—we must borrow the darkness will all epical revulsions to illuminate the light. Perhaps, it is the darkness not the light which serves as the better description of the light. Likewise, it is a lie not the truth, which is the better description of the truth itself.

The point must be kept in mind that, truth is not a prostitute that throws herself upon those, who do not desire her. She is rather so coy and beautiful that he who, sacrifices for her cannot even then be sure of her favors. In our age, everything has been degenerated to sophistry. It is said about sophists that ‘I sing the song of him, whose bread I eat’. In this regard, sophistry was one of the most degenerated philosophies of our time. Moreover, it is fact that philosophy has always been obliged to serve the public end on one hand, while serving the private end on the other. Basically, Schopenhauer attempts to rediscover the bigotry of the sophistry and wants to reinvent the enlighten corner of the Kantian traditions. What Schopenhauer believed that ‘Rational deliberation+ Honest Statements =Intellectual intuition.

In the late 20^th century, it was only the criticism of the Kantian philosophy that illuminated the new discourse on philosophy. Basically, is all about positioning oneself towards subjectivity and objectivity. Basically, it is the illumination of what is thought to be the eccentricity and the concreteness of thought. We cannot thoroughly comprehend anything. Because, it is all about the orientation of mind and will: both mind and will speaks about the ways to comprehend the very essence of nature and its existence.

Basically, the whole philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer relies on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, because earlier both Berkeley and Malebranche failed to succeed in describing the particular context of their philosophies: perhaps, they remained too much universal. Whoever, who did not studied Kantian Philosophy, who will grasped in the natural and childish realism which we all are born.—Both pro-Kantian and anti-Kantian studies require to understand the phenomenon of mind and will. In this regard, a new Kantian generation is needed to bring up in the pursuit of fixing the confusion of philosophy. Schopenhauer was staunchly against the philosophy of Hegel:

How should the minds that are in freshness of youth have been strained and ruined by the nonsense of Hegelianism?

But, when it comes to Kant, he prefers it as a profound investigation. Moreover, throughout the course of history, philosophies came to be known because of their famous works that created a huge impact upon politics, society, and economics. There famous malicious phrase of Goethe; “appropriating of what is of weight and significance”—in the context of Schopenhauer, it is the Kantian political traditions that must be appropriated for weight and significance. Basically, it came be summed up in this famous legal Maxim: “these gentlemen desire to live, and indeed, to live by philosophy”.

On the other hand, there is a need of apprehension about every illusive concept within subjectivity and objectivity. Moreover, throughout history, there has always been a big problem with the speculative philosophy. For instance, Kant’s famous critique of pure reason—it has been the most landmark work in the history of philosophy. Moreover, it is a fact that our age is going through a scientific dogmas; those dogmas which are empirically constructed. Likewise, there are two broad domains of philosophy: the idealistic and the scholastic. Both have huge divergence in both ontological and epistemological domain—one is with personal aim while the other is with the public aim.

Similarly, there is a need of general and through description in the context of philosophy. when it comes to the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer, his writing style is unique, as he puts the title very strikingly and very beautifully, he illustrates the dynamics—likewise, he attacks everything with savage mood. His writing method is as complex as his philosophy. In addition, he is an eccentric individual with compulsive thoughts and different attitudes. His writing is the expression of his personality. His own peculiar character is the will of which his philosophy is the representation and this has never been with other philosophers. He received the eccentric personality traits from his father while from his mother; he didn’t receive any love or affect. Schopenhauer accused his mother of frivolity and heartlessness. In addition, Schopenhauer was inspired from the Plato’s story of cave—but he adopted the neo-Platonist approach. He was also inspired from the oriental speculated Buddhism, Buddhistic self-obliteration, its annihilation of will to live, its Nirvana.

He was writing that suit as his own predilection. He attacked Kant for some kind of diversion in the second edition of the ‘Critique of pure reason’. According to his theory of Universe, the whole universe is the mighty contradiction, where the false appearance continuity strives to usurp that place that rightly belongs to the will. For Schopenhauer, a man should have metaphysics then he elaboratively explains that all metaphysics is foolishness. Schopenhauer overturns, the Metaphysicists, Pietists, and pantheists in demands, not only for the renunciation of the joys of life but also for the love of life. For Schopehauer, a man should have his own theory of life not blindly adopted from the others. He refers to ‘Will’ as his ultimate metaphysical reality, and to ‘Sympathy’ as his ultimate ethical principle. The conclusion of Schopenhauer has always been pessimistic—therefore, he is also known as the father of the Oriental pessimism. Basically, he was seduced from the ‘Materialistic Pantheism’. In this regard, he gave birth to the theosophical Pantheistic system and has announced his open revolt against every orthodox position. [1] The writing of Arthur Schopenhauer can be understood in the following dimensions:

Famous Ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle divides the blessings of life into three classes:

1. Those, which come to us from without.
2. Those of the soul.
3. Those of the body.

For Schopenhauer, the fundamental difference in human lot may be reduced to three distinct classes.

1. What a man is: that is to say, personality, in the wildest sense of the world. It includes health, strength, beauty, temperament, Moral character and intelligence.
2. What man has: that is, property and possessions of everykind.
3. How a man stands in the estimation of others: It refers to the image of man in the eyes of his fellow man.

If we talk about the first difference, it is nature that herself has created between man and man. And, from this fact alone, they infer the happiness and unhappiness of the mankind. The same thing is said by the Metrodorus, the earliest disciple of the Epicurus, who wrote the title of one of his chapters: the happiness we receive from ourselves is greater than the happiness we receive from the surrounding. Basically, it is the Existence, which is the principle element of the well-being. On the contrary, the inner source of satisfaction and dissatisfaction arises from the sum of total of his sensations, desires and thoughts, while the surrounding has an indirect influence upon him.

The world in which the man lives shapes itself chiefly by the way in which he looks at it; to some man it is barren, dull and superficial; and to others, it is rich, interesting and full of meaning. Sometimes, man turns the fairly common experience into something so great and so beautiful. On the contrary, we cannot make something or describe it without giving meaning to it. Every event in order to be realized and appreciated requires the cooperation of two factors; namely subject and object. It is like same the combination of hydrogen and oxygen in water. For the blunt intelligence, the object in the world always presents a poor reality. [2] In the latter context, every man pants up within the limit of his own consciousness. For instance, there is a prince, another minister, a third a soldier and a general besides their external difference their inner reality is same—in life, they are just the same. Basically, it is the difference of wealth and rank give everyman his part to play, but this by no means implies the difference of inward happiness and pleasure.

 

---

[1] Edacmonolgy is a theory of pleasure and success, which opines that we know nothing about the stereoscopic combinations that refers to the fact that we should give each other a humble and hearty thanks!

[2] Eamera Obscura—the fine landscape in a dull water.