Why Schopenhauer Hated Materialists

SUPPORT US ON PATREON:

WATCH: Schopenhauer: How to Be Happy (all parts):

SCHOPENHAUER'S WORKS:

In case it wasn’t clear, the quote at the start of this video should be read with a great deal of sarcasm.

Schopenhauer does not believe that an individual was an absolute nothing before being born, nor does he believe that we are an absolute nothing after we die. We’ve covered his views on death and what happens after it, and the metaphysics surrounding it, in another Patreon-exclusive video on the channel.

But the quote at the beginning does illustrate one of Schopenhauer’s pet peeves, namely his dislike of rationalism and what we may call “crude materialism”, the belief that there exists nothing beyond the material and that metaphysics is useless or not quote unquote “real.”

Throughout his writings Schopenhauer harps on the physicists who look down upon metaphysics and dismiss it as philosophical fables that have no bearing on the real world. These physicists argue that physics is all one needs to explain the world, and consequently that metaphysics is useless at best or harmful at worst.

In the Parerga and Paralipomena, a collection essays that serve as a supplement to his main philosophy but which can be read on their own, Schopenhauer penned down some remarks on the starting point of philosophy.

He argues that there are two possible starting points for any philosophical investigation. Either you take an objective starting point, or a subjective one.
What does he mean by this?

A subjective starting point is any philosophy that begins with the mind, or perception, or consciousness. The philosophy of Descartes is the clearest example, epitomised by the phrase “I think, therefore I am.” But Schopenhauer names Locke and Berkeley as examples, as well as Immanuel Kant, who, in his estimation, reached the peak in this subjective way of thinking.

Kant, like Locke and Berkeley but different in some key aspects, thought that the world is essentially mental, or at any rate, that there is an essential mental quality to the world. That’s why his philosophy is idealism. It’s transcendental because it differs in some important ways from the idealism of Locke and Berkeley, but these details need not concern us here.

What matters is that Kant, Locke and Berkeley all assumed the world to be mental. If not entirely, then at least in essential part. This is why they chose, according to Schopenhauer, a subjective starting point for their philosophy.

A philosophy of this kind will tend to focus on how the mind works and how it comes to knowledge of the world through its mechanisms.

An objective standpoint then, logically, is the opposite. This starting point takes the world, or nature, or matter, or the universe as its beginning.

A philosophy of this kind will end up with a focus on the relations between objects, the laws of nature, the forces at work, the interactions between materials, et cetera.

A philosophy which regards the material world as the only thing that is absolutely given will inevitably become just a form of physics, and indeed, up until recently people used the term “natural philosophy” to refer to disciplines which we would today call biology, chemistry, physics, and so on.

[WeltgeistYT]

This video has a part 2, available on Patreon, with a selection of excerpts and extra content. Thank you for supporting the channel!

[thomasfischer]

I personally love it when Schopenhauer trashes Fichte and the rest of the Hegel goons. Always reminds me of a cranky uncle throwing some wisdom down.

[PessimisticIdealism]

“Modern materialism is the manure to fertilize the soil for philosophy.” (Schopenhauer, “Senilia, ” §71)

[silverballs]

Schopenhauer was a reader of the ancient Indian texts called the Upanishads. I would suggest you to read some of the Vedas and the Upanishads and the Bhagawad Gita. There's timeless wisdom in the Gita, I think you should introduce these texts to your audience. Thank you

[jamesbarlow]

It's hard not to like Schopenhauer....

[moesypittounikos]

Materialism in baloney is the title of a book I am now reading. The author wrote it before he discovered Schopenhauer

[noself]

Schopenhauer's championing of the subjective arguably makes him a proto-existentialist along with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Existentialist philosophy, of course, became (and still is) highly useful to its adherents in coping with the horrors of world war and the impersonal, mechanistic nature of modernity. With the continuing development of modern science, it seems that this is an example of the best use for philosophy: helping us find meaning in life.

[ericv]

"Schopenhauer's philosophy is the match for reality." - Max Horkheimer

[telosbound]

Brilliantly explained!! Amazing video (:

[gavingleemonex]

Schopenhauer hated the material world, and he proved it by throwing a gossiping woman down a flight of stairs. He even wrote a nasty remark in her funeral guest book. My hero.

[tonysandy]

Materialism is all about appearance (surface over substance). There is no depth, no effort to understand things. It is wanting the rewards of society or position within it but not willing to do the work the job entails. Materialists want attention. They don't pay attention, which is why they are shallow compared to those who study reality in depth. All materialists are interested in is objective reality. They are not interested in subjective reality at all. This is the dividing line between true thinkers and the rest.

[BioChemistryWizard]

Not even 100 pages into the WAWAR, Schopenhauer criticizes BOTH materialists and idealists. Schopenhauer does not have a subjective starting point. He argues subjective and external are inextricably linked and should not be used as separate terms. Pure non dualism. This video is wrong.

[JimJWalker]

4:30 My 12 year old daughter said that is quote was: "Bullshit". I could not reprimand her as the words were in context.

[DoubleRaven]

Excellent channel- I’m learning a lot. Interesting that Schopenhauer considers himself an atheist, yet believes in an all-encompassing Will, and rails against materialists. Fascinating!

[erhat]

you may just be trying to get people to click, but these "Why X HATED Y" titles are stupid and oversimplified, these people didn't think about philosophy like the average emotionally thinking person where they disagree with things because they "hate" them, Schopenhauer certainly wouldn't have "hated" Epicurus or Democritus because they are philosophers like him. That's like saying Einstein hated Newton because he thought his theory of gravity was better. He did hate Hegel though. Also, I wouldn't describe idealism as believing "the world is fundamentally mental" because Kant is a dualist, when you say "the world" people think of the noumenal world, and the whole point of Kant and Berkeley and therefore schopenhauer is that your mind can't know the noumenal world and therefore it can't be said to be "mental." It is correct that the only world THAT WE CAN PERCEIVE is mental, but not that the world itself is mental. Anyway, my problem is not really with your videos themselves, I just keep getting them recommended and the titles annoy me.

[danasheys]

Very good video Cleary explains some of the basic thoughts of Schopenhauer and his predecessors

[SevaNapilnik]

Regarding the passage at 3:54, I got curious about the word "physicist". I've read many biographies of 19th-century scientists, and none, bar Tyndall, were atheists nor any kind of strict materialists. Also scientific works from mid-19th-century seldom use the word "physist" to describe the scientists, something confirmed consulting oxford dictionary. Therefore I ask whether you know if Schopenhauer in this passage is actually referring to scientists that we today call physicists or if he is referring to philosophers who at that moment had materialistic conceptions?

[bushfingers]

Your videos are so excellent - thank you

[danielhopkins]

I request another video on Sir Arthur and Siddhartha, thnxs 🙏

[peterclark]

Complex systems rely on an extremely robust foundation, which in our case seems to be a binary logic founded on the polar nature of energy (electro-magnetic, north-south, repellent-attractive, etc.) The 'bug' is Entropy which most likely indicates the energy components are not Legoland consistent. Based on contemplating the confluence of 'Infinity' and 'Eternity'. Where 'all there is' is Energy, and Space; and 'Time' proves that Space is dynamic. The basic logic can compound itself into everything we can experience (Mass and Matter). Therefore proving _Intelligence and Imagination are the Cosmos trying to make sense of itself_ is our challenge. A quaint, anthropomorphic quest but it should be enough to sustain ongoing efforts. In turn our survival instinct will demand the effort. Thus: bright-mindedness and the occasional leaps up into the genius level are the only currency we can bargain with and therefore the only reason to continue to raise children. Finding out how and what makes them into future 'cash points' the first hurdle. For such a compromised creature to even contemplate outliving our big bang universe (one of many) is the highest impertinence. It would of course take our minds off the endless and pointless pettiness we have constructed so far. A permanent frontier.