Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer’s work prefigured important developments in philosophy, psychology, and political thought. On the two-hundredth anniversary of the publication of his 'The World as Will and Representation', we examine the life and work of Arthur Schopenhauer. How can we better understand his relationship with Eastern philosophy? How can his work help us address current questions in art and ethics? And what can he teach us about human suffering?

Speakers

Christine Battersby, Reader Emerita in Philosophy, University of Warwick

Christopher Janaway, Professor of Philosophy, University of Southampton

Christopher Ryan, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Education, London Metropolitan University

Chair

Danielle Sands, Fellow, Forum for Philosophy & Lecturer in Comparative Literature and Culture, Royal Holloway, University of London

Recorded on 7 May 2019 at the LSE

[domci]

The constant and regular negative judgement by one of the panel is peculiar.

[lucasheuring]

The irony of a woman discussing Schopenhauer in subjective terms is apparently lost on Christine.

[balwindergill]

Dr Julian Johnson was way ahead of his time in America. I suggest people look up ishwar puri on radha soami path. Schopenhauer was right this is a dark world full of fear which is another word for stress . A world full of constant take or be taken, jealously and greed

[johnjepsen]

just read Schopenhauer's books...ignore these opinions by commentators unless you're really bored and lazy

[thomasfischer]

Women seethe and cope when talking about Schopenhauer.

[paul-andregravelle]

Very fair assessment of Schopenhauer's philosophy. Thank you.

[secondwavesoftware]

As a philosophical discussion this is really miserable of course. But it's also very instructive in a way - it shows very well the position of Schopenhauer in modern world. Today he is regarded as some dangerous punk, enfant terrible. And he doesn't deserve any serious analysis.
A short summary of the conversation:

- Schop said that life is pain and not worth living.
- Ahahaha
- He also said that women are not beautiful and not smart.
- Ahahaha
- He also must have been a favorite philosopher of Hitler
- He was also very incosistent in his views
- He wrote a lot about Will but that's some incoherent gibberish
- But, alright, he is somewhat entertaining to read.

I'm not sure why they are making fun of him.
Just because he doesn't pass the misoginy-racism-etc check? Or is it that pessimism looks so weird today? Or maybe philosophy at large is not ok, not practical enough?

Anyway I wonder what these speakers are doing in their universities. Are they interested in philosophy at all?

[JL-oguf]

The Will is an impersonal energy or a Godhead. Quacademics continue to broadcast received opinions from others of learned ignorance. The only reason Schopenhauer used the Will-terminology was because he didn’t want any religious undertones or dogmatic overtones. The one guy who mentioned “The All” is on point.

[davidhubbardmd]

The term "pessimism" is not mentioned in World as Will and Idea.

[bernardofitzpatrick]

Learned more from the comments section than the convo. I think they need to read Bernardo Kastrup on Schopenhauer.

[IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT]

He’s right, Nietzsche only side steps Schopenhauer. Nietzsche couldn’t handle the gravity of Schopenhauer’s insights, so he manipulated them to his own Will. Lol naturally.

[IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT]

I detest the notion that Schopenhauer influenced Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

[fenjohrer]

Christine is seemingly incapable of unbiased evaluation

[IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT]

He literally never “contradicted” himself. The guy was a genius. Seriously. 🤦‍♂️ Read Decoding Schopenhauer’s Metaphysics by the great Bernardo Kastrup. It might as well be the Schopenhauer for dummies. Lol

[JohannMint]

1. Schopenhauer never read an English translation of the Upanishads. Instead, he read a Latin translation of a Persian translation, which he referred to as the "Upnakhad" in the German original, possibly a corruption through multiple translations. English translators in India were not the middle man here.

2. Schopenhauer was not Hitler's favourite philosopher. Hitler did not read philosophy. Hitler did not read. The closest contact Hitler had with philosophy was when Friedrich Nietsche's sister Elisabeth, an ardent Nazi all her life from before Nazism ever even existed, gave Hitler Friedrich's walking cane as present. Friedrich, dead and gone for more than 30 years at that point, was in no position to object. The idea that Nietzsche was somehow more of an anti-semite than other German people of his time was mainly due to the extensive edits, alterations and interpolation that Elisabeth undertook in his work when he was dead. Those falsehoods were discovered and rectified in the 1980s, but his reputation as being something of a precursor of the Nazi philosophy persists.

Whether Schopenhauer was anti-semitic or not is a separate point to be discussed. What does the term even mean for a man who was born in 1788? He criticises the Jewish origin story but only as part of what he repeatedly considers "Teutonico-Christian stupidity". You can call that antisemitism if you like.

There are other things, but I'm not going to bother. It must be said, however, that it is a little surprising to see three academics rely so heavily on speculation and conjecture.

[enlightenmentandphilosophy]

I tend to agree with Shopenhauer's pessimist philosophy despite being a misogynist. However, what a fool he was for not meditating, as he had wasted the life on intellectualizing everything.

[No_Avail]

41:10 _"Possibly the most extreme misogynist in the history of western philosophy"_

Absurd claim. On a consistent gender-egalitarian lens, you can read him as being sweeping and unfair to _men too._ Plenty of misandry in his chapter on women, but modern readers are trained to pick up on the misogynistic aspects only. For instance, his claim that life ought to feel less onerous for women than for men. He holds that women are designed for a more comfortable, easygoing, nurture-driven existence. Right after, he adds that neither sex should necessarily end up living happier/sadder lives on the whole compared to the other, but this isn't fully satisfactory. Why should men feel like they're shouldering a greater share of life's burdens and worries, much less form beliefs that it's proper to do so? The answer is Nature: the very force he cautions against when it comes to countless non-gendered themes/situations.

Then there's his criticisms of institutionalized monogamy, in the same chapter. He exposes real issues (of the day) with monogamous life, but curiously he only points to the detrimental effects this has on women. Just think about that epoch. We can reasonably speculate that his proposed alternatives would have benefitted women on the whole, but this would've almost certainly come at a great cost to most men. Reread the chapter with this in mind and you'll doubtless agree. Well, not doubtless. A genuine misandrist will fail to see the point.

[jordanpeterson]

Its not pronounced "Schoppenhauer" its if you have a "pp" the o is pronounced like you say it. Even germans get it wrong. But with one "p" its a long "o".

Thanks for uploading

[Samuel]

Why would I want to hear a woman discussing Schopenhauer. it is beyond a woman's understanding to discuss these things

[IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT]

The truth would seem pessimistic to an optimist just as it would seem optimistic to a pessimist. These descriptions aren’t helpful.