We
can, rather superficially and offhandedly, although usefully in practical
terms, distinguish between the young Schopenhauer, in his twenties, the author
of the world-famous Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, and the much
older man in his sixties, of the Parerga und Paralipomena fame, which
brought him a latter-day recognition after decades of unfair neglect. (Who says
that life was ever fair? But, in his case, at least some fairness was restored
to him in his autumnal season.)
Both
these works have great value, each in its own way. Die Welt is
Schopenhauer’s claim to the elite club of professional philosophy, whereas Parerga
is his sure way to the heart of every connoisseur of aphoristic expression
and of everything what is good about “non-professional” philosophy (which is of
course no less professional than the other kind, except that it is
written with an exceptional literary skill, and does not in the least pretend
to be esoteric, meant exclusively for the members of the professional
club who spend their lives trying to understand each other, and themselves as
well, but, privately speaking, never succeeding).
Naturally,
Die Welt revolves around a central theme, which is the triumph of Will
over Reason, in human psyche, and it is therefore easier to
summarize, whereas the multiplicity of themes in the Parerga makes it
virtually impossible to convey even in the faintest outline. One cannot, however,
overlook the multiplicity of sub-themes in Die Welt, which are
interwoven into the fabric of Schopenhauer Junior’s magnum opus, among which we
find priceless thoughts on aesthetics, and, of course, the monumental assertion
that music represents Wille an-Sich.
Criticizing
Kant and Hegel, Schopenhauer denies their optimistic assertion that human
morality can be at all influenced either by reason or by social conventions. He
maintains that man’s chief motivation is Wille zum Leben, which is the
dominant driving force of man’s nature, hence, his pessimistic outlook, as he
sees that only a superior philosophical mind can find enough strength within
itself to renounce, or at least to resist the pressures of the Will. His ethics
emphasize the positive value of compassion whereas man’s inherent malice and
egoism are the negative forces, supporting the Will and working against man’s
better instincts.
Bertrand
Russell correctly notices that Schopenhauer’s philosophical edifice is an
adaptation of Kant’s, yet Kant had effectively played down his distinctive Ding
an-Sich, while Fichte and Hegel had eliminated it altogether. In the presence
of such a mighty consensus that the Ding an-Sich was an inconvenient
philosophical rudiment, Schopenhauer bravely restored its legitimacy, but found
it where Kant never even looked, namely in the Will. Thus, returning to Kant’s
old terminology, invested with a brand-new meaning, the Body is the
appearance, of which Will is the reality.
What
is the good life, then, the life of a sage? It is the life of
diminishing the quantity of evil in his self by weakening his will. However,
here comes the most pessimistic part of his philosophy. As long as he lives,
the will cannot be completely extinguished, because it is the reality of his
physical existence. Therefore, the sage’s ultimate goal is not a better life,
but an escape from life into non-existence, which is represented by the
Indian religions as Re-absorption in Brahma of the Hindus or the Nirvana
of the Buddhists.
The
essential pessimism of “Schopenhauer Junior” does not go away, but
acquires an even greater finality and resignation in “Schopenhauer Senior.”
Yet, none of his works is really depressing, but on the contrary, the Parerga
und Paralipomena are sheer delight. (Russell quite correctly points to a
discrepancy between Schopenhauer’s glum theory and his very different real-life
practice, but he fails to make the conclusion to the effect that his theory is
not a prescription for life, which he himself hypocritically does not follow,
but only a contemplation on life!) He never seems to impose his gloomy
view on the reader, but offers it as an alternative outlook, whose
vista-broadening possibilities, in fact, constitute the positive, optimistic
side of his teaching, unless we should take Byron too narrowly, and
denounce any expansion of our knowledge as a curse, in: “Sorrow is knowledge: they who know the most must mourn the deepest
o’er the fatal truth, the tree of knowledge is not that of life.”
No comments:
Post a Comment