Scan barcode
junyan's review against another edition
3.0
I bought the Chinese edition when I was in high school. I spent several years reading it intermittently. Giving this book 3/5 is very appropriate. There are points I highly agreed and disagreed. The biggest inspiration from this book is that reading doesn’t equal independent thinking.
hank_grimm's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
casparb's review against another edition
3.0
a 3.5. in that Schopenhauer is a real mixed bag in this collection. His work on Kant is very impressive and a highlight of E&A. On Women and his critique of religion were more tedious and I felt weren't even especially original for the time. On Suicide was good and I felt deserved elaboration in that I left unsatisfied. I do enjoy him, and he writes well, but there's plenty work left to do.
thejdizzler's review against another edition
4.0
II'll try and avoid one of Schopenhauer's pet peeves here: writing for the sake of writing (or worse for $$) rather than writing because I have something to say. I explicitly set out review book I read this year in a thorough fashion in order to encourage myself to think more deeply about the content I am consuming. Posting to Goodreads (or substack) is not a method garner fame or wealth (lol) but a way to keep me accountable and force me to revise my thoughts in order to think more. I'm not sure if this review counts as writing for the sake of writing or for the sake of thinking, but I have plenty to say about Schopenhauer.
I discovered Arthur Schopenhauer through two different channels. The first was an interview with the Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges where Borges states that he never wrote a philosophical treatise because Schopenhauer had already done it for him. The second source was an off-hand mention by the fairly neoreactionary neoplatonist Christian YouTuber Aarvoll: who mentioned that Schopenhauer had started him on the road to platonism. If these two very different individuals, for Borges is often considered a classical liberal, had this much respect for this philosopher, he had to be worth checking out.
Luckily, I'm part of a weekly philosophy book club made up of college buddies and 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon friends of friends. We had just finished reading two pretty religious philosophical works: The Muqqadiamah of Ibn Khaldun and Saint Augustine's City of God. Schopenhauer seemed like an excellent refresher after those two. We decided to read his essay and aphorisms, a collection of shorter works, rather than the big tome of World as Will and Representation.
Rather than summarized each of his essays, and the shorter "tweet-like" aphorisms, I will try and explain the main thrust of Schopenhauer's thoughts, and how tidbits of his essays relate to it. I think he would appreciate this more than me just regurgitating.
The central point of Schopenhauer's philosophy is his idea of the world as Will and Representation. Basically in contrast to Decartes and others, Schopenhauer claims that what is common to all of existence, and thus what is real is the will of things to keep existing. This "vital force" is separate and distinct from the intellect, which perceives the world as representation. The best example of this distinction is our sexual organs, which are just not under conscious control at all, but merely respond to the "will" (i.e. the desire to reproduce oneself and perpetuate existence). I found grasping what will actually means to be a fairly difficult task, but I suppose that just means I'll have to read his main work.
Following from this Schopenhauer posits a metaphysical system that is centered on the denial of the will and embracing the intellect. He claims that this system is common to all serious religious and philosophical systems from Plato, Hindu-Buddhist and Christian schools of thought. His system borrows heavily from each of these: claiming that the point of life is to suffer, and thus grow (via reincarnation) further away from the “Will”. He also uses the Christian idea of original sin to justify wy we have to do this, which paired with reincarnation is much more palatable to me now that "you" are the one who committed the original sin. He claims that all religions that are true contain this message, although hidden behind layers of allegory, which is simultaneously necessary and harmful (see Kierkegaard). This was my favorite part of Schopenhauer, and makes a lot of the problems I still have with the Catholic Church melt into thin air.
When we get to more quotidian matters, Schopenhauer seems to contradict his own metaphysics. He has little regard for the common man and little hope for the improvement of his abilities and character over time. This flies I the face of the whole premise and promise of the combined doctrines of reincarnation and thesis. How can creation really be more "just" if God it impossible for some to improve their character, and thus keep getting reincarnated I the same shitty situation over and over again. This misanthropy does not fi with the rest this philosophy and definitely seems to stem from his life experience and temperament rather than reason.
However, two sections from Schopenhauer's less metaphysical work really struck me. The first was on "Thinking for Oneself" which argued that one should rely on one's own intuition and muse to come to decisions rather than other people's writing. Schopenhauer clearly didn't mean this in the extreme sense as suggested in the essay, as he is himself very well read, but the direction, certainly for me, is more than correct. In a society that wants you to "source" all your claims, which is more often than not just an appeal to authority, this was a welcome breath of fresh air. I have consciously tried to build in more time for reflection, and to read slower, as a result of this essay.
The second section I really liked was "On Writing" a collection of aphorisms, a 19th-century version of tweeting. These will serve as a style guide for me in the future, especially in terms of Schopenhauer's extortions to stop using parentheses.
Overall, this book came to me at the perfect time, neatly completing my conception of Christianity and providing more justification for the idea that I had arrived on that more reading != more insight.
I discovered Arthur Schopenhauer through two different channels. The first was an interview with the Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges where Borges states that he never wrote a philosophical treatise because Schopenhauer had already done it for him. The second source was an off-hand mention by the fairly neoreactionary neoplatonist Christian YouTuber Aarvoll: who mentioned that Schopenhauer had started him on the road to platonism. If these two very different individuals, for Borges is often considered a classical liberal, had this much respect for this philosopher, he had to be worth checking out.
Luckily, I'm part of a weekly philosophy book club made up of college buddies and 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon friends of friends. We had just finished reading two pretty religious philosophical works: The Muqqadiamah of Ibn Khaldun and Saint Augustine's City of God. Schopenhauer seemed like an excellent refresher after those two. We decided to read his essay and aphorisms, a collection of shorter works, rather than the big tome of World as Will and Representation.
Rather than summarized each of his essays, and the shorter "tweet-like" aphorisms, I will try and explain the main thrust of Schopenhauer's thoughts, and how tidbits of his essays relate to it. I think he would appreciate this more than me just regurgitating.
The central point of Schopenhauer's philosophy is his idea of the world as Will and Representation. Basically in contrast to Decartes and others, Schopenhauer claims that what is common to all of existence, and thus what is real is the will of things to keep existing. This "vital force" is separate and distinct from the intellect, which perceives the world as representation. The best example of this distinction is our sexual organs, which are just not under conscious control at all, but merely respond to the "will" (i.e. the desire to reproduce oneself and perpetuate existence). I found grasping what will actually means to be a fairly difficult task, but I suppose that just means I'll have to read his main work.
Following from this Schopenhauer posits a metaphysical system that is centered on the denial of the will and embracing the intellect. He claims that this system is common to all serious religious and philosophical systems from Plato, Hindu-Buddhist and Christian schools of thought. His system borrows heavily from each of these: claiming that the point of life is to suffer, and thus grow (via reincarnation) further away from the “Will”. He also uses the Christian idea of original sin to justify wy we have to do this, which paired with reincarnation is much more palatable to me now that "you" are the one who committed the original sin. He claims that all religions that are true contain this message, although hidden behind layers of allegory, which is simultaneously necessary and harmful (see Kierkegaard). This was my favorite part of Schopenhauer, and makes a lot of the problems I still have with the Catholic Church melt into thin air.
When we get to more quotidian matters, Schopenhauer seems to contradict his own metaphysics. He has little regard for the common man and little hope for the improvement of his abilities and character over time. This flies I the face of the whole premise and promise of the combined doctrines of reincarnation and thesis. How can creation really be more "just" if God it impossible for some to improve their character, and thus keep getting reincarnated I the same shitty situation over and over again. This misanthropy does not fi with the rest this philosophy and definitely seems to stem from his life experience and temperament rather than reason.
However, two sections from Schopenhauer's less metaphysical work really struck me. The first was on "Thinking for Oneself" which argued that one should rely on one's own intuition and muse to come to decisions rather than other people's writing. Schopenhauer clearly didn't mean this in the extreme sense as suggested in the essay, as he is himself very well read, but the direction, certainly for me, is more than correct. In a society that wants you to "source" all your claims, which is more often than not just an appeal to authority, this was a welcome breath of fresh air. I have consciously tried to build in more time for reflection, and to read slower, as a result of this essay.
The second section I really liked was "On Writing" a collection of aphorisms, a 19th-century version of tweeting. These will serve as a style guide for me in the future, especially in terms of Schopenhauer's extortions to stop using parentheses.
Overall, this book came to me at the perfect time, neatly completing my conception of Christianity and providing more justification for the idea that I had arrived on that more reading != more insight.
bradach's review against another edition
5.0
Schopenhauer is one of my favorite philosophers. No other philosopher was so intent on speaking harsh, uncomfortable truth than Schopenhauer (except perhaps Nietzsche). I find his philosophy not pessimistic or despair inducing as is often described, but rather soothing and I have great respect in his inquisitive nature and general scientific knowledge when many philosophers have little scientific knowledge, but at the same time I also love how Schopenhauer acknowledges and has appreciation for the metaphysical needs of man and his philosophy is an excellent and comforting philosophy for a skeptic like myself. I’ve found I’m in complete agreement with his retorts against Christianity, which are very much in line with Nietzsche, and his general favor of Vedantic or Buddhist philosophy, if one feels a need for a religion.
nadnin's review against another edition
3.0
I don't get it, is being a misogynist a prerequisite for being a male philosopher?
“Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man’”
how to continue after this wretched statement??? I did anyway. I cannot stand pessimism but I liked the first two essays and the essay on aesthetics, the rest were just especially- in the words of his mother- irritating.
“Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man’”
how to continue after this wretched statement??? I did anyway. I cannot stand pessimism but I liked the first two essays and the essay on aesthetics, the rest were just especially- in the words of his mother- irritating.
snapier's review against another edition
slow-paced
3.5
A bit of a slog at first (due to the way this period of philosophers write) but an interesting read. Humorous at times but the chapter on women was one of the most misogynistic pieces of writing I've ever laid eyes on
anti_formalist12's review against another edition
4.0
Schopenhauer is probably one of the few philosophers, along with Mill, who was actually a good writer. And a lot of what he is writing here feels surprisingly modern. Save for the essay on women which is probably the most retrograde misogyny I have ever read. That's really what keeps me from truly loving this.