What do you think?
Rate this book
I due problemi fondamentali dell'etica
L'etica, con tutte le sue ramificazioni e tutti coloro che cercano di spiegarla, è diventata un'utopia interiore. Per tal motivo non poteva mancare un classico di questa disciplina filosofica nella presente collana. Ci è sembrato utile offrire qualcosa di organico, una di quelle opere capaci di condurci nel dibattito contemporaneo: e la scelta non poteva non cadere su Arthur Schopenhauer, filosofo tedesco nato a Danzica nel 1788, nemico degli idealisti ma sodale di Goethe, autore dei due trattati "Sulla libertà del volere umano" (1839) e "Sul fondamento della morale" (1840), riuniti nel 1841 sotto il titolo qui pubblicato. Le sue pagine non si perdono nella discussione di futili argomenti e ci consentono di riflettere su ciò che di noi è libero, sul perché ogni nostra azione è il prodotto del carattere e della motivazione, su che cosa desideriamo quando vogliamo qualcosa. Meglio ancora possono aiutarci le osservazioni del grande pensatore tedesco quando, esaminando la legge morale, individua nell'egoismo il vero problema con cui fare i conti, e ricerca gli impulsi capaci di vincerlo. Il suo magistrale risultato è che l'unico antidoto contro l'egoismo è la compassione. E questa che neutralizza l'istinto a servirsi degli altri come mezzo per il raggiungimento dei propri fini, e ci fa rispecchiare negli altri: tat twam asi ("questo sei tu"), come recita l'antica saggezza orientale di matrice brahmanica.
724 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1841
63 people are currently reading
1513 people want to read
About the author
Arthur Schopenhauer
2,050 books6,008 followersArthur Schopenhauer was born in the city of Danzig (then part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth; present day Gdańsk, Poland) and was a German philosopher best known for his work The World as Will and Representation. Schopenhauer attempted to make his career as an academic by correcting and expanding Immanuel Kant's philosophy concerning the way in which we experience the world.
He was the son of author Johanna Schopenhauer and the older brother of Adele Schopenhauer.
He was the son of author Johanna Schopenhauer and the older brother of Adele Schopenhauer.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
May 4, 2022
It was a difficult read for me at the beginning since this was my first Philosophical book in english. i didn’t want to rush reading the book and it took me more than two months to finish it.
As he quotes in the book “preaching morals is easy,Grounding morals is hard” Schopenhauer tries to ground morals .
In the first essay which is On the freedom of the will he starts by putting forth the presupposition that human actions like any other actions in the universe are subject to law of causality. And regarding Causality he says on page 56 “the law of causality is firmly established a priory as the universal rule to which all real objects of the external world ,without exception are subject”.Schopenhauer differentiate between human consciousness from animals by the type of motivation that affect our consciousness and our will. Humans are able to apprehend abstract ideas from external world and these abstract ideas which is “Thinking and thoughts” widen our mental horizon which can grasp the absent ,the past and the future while animals consciousness is limited to motives working in the present and this makes humans relatively free only in that they are not merely influenced by intuitive (present )motives.Schopenhauer says in order for a cause to bring an effect,it has to interact with “the will” and the innate character .he says the will is a natural force that is only manifested when there is a sufficient motive and it self cannot be explained further.
And he also uses Kant’s empirical and intelligible character to explain why we feel responsible and morally responsible for our deeds(conscience).he says (the will) “as a thing in itself “belongs to it absolute freedom and it is independent of Causality but this is a transcendental freedom ,not occurring in” the world of appearance”.our conscience appears to be concerned with which we have done but actually and fundamentally it concerns itself with our intelligible character whether we could have been someone else and acted otherwise which is impossible.
in the second essay he tries to set grounds for morality, he rejects the imperative form of ethics and says it applies only in theological morals.and unlike Kant he isn’t setting a priory nor absolute laws for grounding morals.he is concerned with which type of actions we give genuine moral worth and which incentives are we responsive to to act morally.any action that has the agent’s well-being and woe at its end is an egoistical action and has no moral worth .
Most of the paragraphs is about the effectiveness of the natural human characteristics which is compassion.he says negative incentives like (injustice and violence) effect our compassion and in these situations we act morally and our action would not rest on egoistic incentives.regarding improvements Schopenhauer says character plays an important role and there are characters that respond only to egoistic incentives,so one can persuade such person to do a philanthropic action only through delusions that the action contributes to his own advantage.
at the end of the book he explain the metaphysical bases which to be honest I didn’t understand,once again i am at the beginning of my philosophical journey .
so this is what I grasped from this book ,Arthur Schopenhauer is famous for his pessimism as himself says he is like Dante he leads to Hell.he tries to explain human nature and concluded from it his moral bases.although I really found the book very interesting and I liked his methods explaining the material but I think grounding morality and human nature needs more investigations and more evidences than he used in the book.
As he quotes in the book “preaching morals is easy,Grounding morals is hard” Schopenhauer tries to ground morals .
In the first essay which is On the freedom of the will he starts by putting forth the presupposition that human actions like any other actions in the universe are subject to law of causality. And regarding Causality he says on page 56 “the law of causality is firmly established a priory as the universal rule to which all real objects of the external world ,without exception are subject”.Schopenhauer differentiate between human consciousness from animals by the type of motivation that affect our consciousness and our will. Humans are able to apprehend abstract ideas from external world and these abstract ideas which is “Thinking and thoughts” widen our mental horizon which can grasp the absent ,the past and the future while animals consciousness is limited to motives working in the present and this makes humans relatively free only in that they are not merely influenced by intuitive (present )motives.Schopenhauer says in order for a cause to bring an effect,it has to interact with “the will” and the innate character .he says the will is a natural force that is only manifested when there is a sufficient motive and it self cannot be explained further.
And he also uses Kant’s empirical and intelligible character to explain why we feel responsible and morally responsible for our deeds(conscience).he says (the will) “as a thing in itself “belongs to it absolute freedom and it is independent of Causality but this is a transcendental freedom ,not occurring in” the world of appearance”.our conscience appears to be concerned with which we have done but actually and fundamentally it concerns itself with our intelligible character whether we could have been someone else and acted otherwise which is impossible.
in the second essay he tries to set grounds for morality, he rejects the imperative form of ethics and says it applies only in theological morals.and unlike Kant he isn’t setting a priory nor absolute laws for grounding morals.he is concerned with which type of actions we give genuine moral worth and which incentives are we responsive to to act morally.any action that has the agent’s well-being and woe at its end is an egoistical action and has no moral worth .
Most of the paragraphs is about the effectiveness of the natural human characteristics which is compassion.he says negative incentives like (injustice and violence) effect our compassion and in these situations we act morally and our action would not rest on egoistic incentives.regarding improvements Schopenhauer says character plays an important role and there are characters that respond only to egoistic incentives,so one can persuade such person to do a philanthropic action only through delusions that the action contributes to his own advantage.
at the end of the book he explain the metaphysical bases which to be honest I didn’t understand,once again i am at the beginning of my philosophical journey .
so this is what I grasped from this book ,Arthur Schopenhauer is famous for his pessimism as himself says he is like Dante he leads to Hell.he tries to explain human nature and concluded from it his moral bases.although I really found the book very interesting and I liked his methods explaining the material but I think grounding morality and human nature needs more investigations and more evidences than he used in the book.
April 14, 2016
His essay On the Freedom of the Will stunned me. What I got out of it was this: We aren't well and truly free after all. The decisions we make are due to our consciousness of other things, our experience in space, time and causality. Our ego, or self-consciousness, suggests we can make decisions, however we have already willed that decision; deep inside us, in this realm of the mind, our will has sort of carved out our true choices and decisions due to the inner world's experience with the outer world. If one says, "I can walk right, or left, or forward or backward," one is given the illusion of free choice (liberum arbitrium indifferentiae); however we have already willed the true decision long before our ego or self-consciousness at the forefront has accepted what 'decision' to take.
Schopenhauer is as German as it gets: Intense, incredibly smart and disciplined. Using quotes and sources from other important texts by the world's greatest thinkers and poets (Augustine, Hume, Kant, Goethe etc), he defends this philosophical idea right to the last sentence. What we get is an incredibly well-written, deep and rewarding piece of philosophical literature.
This book contains another essay, On the Basis of Morals, which I did not read, hence the four star rating.
Schopenhauer is as German as it gets: Intense, incredibly smart and disciplined. Using quotes and sources from other important texts by the world's greatest thinkers and poets (Augustine, Hume, Kant, Goethe etc), he defends this philosophical idea right to the last sentence. What we get is an incredibly well-written, deep and rewarding piece of philosophical literature.
This book contains another essay, On the Basis of Morals, which I did not read, hence the four star rating.
December 22, 2018
A small masterpiece--
This is probably a great entry point for Schopenhauer's philosophy—I read The World as Will and Representation (Volume 1) first and had a good grasp of his metaphysics and ethics, but this little book—clocking at 257 pages—was still an illuminating read. In the first essay on freedom of will, he pretty much demolishes any attempt at finding it, at least in the world of senses/appearances, and that's where you find still valid psychological insights like you can't choose to want something and the like. His discussion of how people mistake the freedom of will as something else entirely was quite amazing (we think we're free to do as we please based on the fact that we can do what we will, but then that's a misleading answer because the real question in a nutshell is, "Can we will what we will?" the answer to which is in the negative).
The second essay is also really good. Continuing his bulldozing of German philosophy, he dismantles Kant's categorical imperative in its various formulations. His main argument against it is that it utterly fails to take into account the reality of moral judgments, that it ultimately rests on egoism. His positive account of the basis of morality on compassion is superbly clear, simple, and convincing. Though I had some squabbles with his claim about our indifference toward another's happiness as such (don't we feel energized or maybe warmed by the sight of, say, people meeting at the airport?), I couldn't help but nod along to his classification of moral incentives into three (egoism, malice, and compassion) as well as his argument for why any moral action is and should be based on compassion alone (and not on, say, Kant's universal maxim or any hokum human reason can concoct) and the relationship between compassion and egoism (how they vary in the distinction we make between the I and not-I). All of this mostly jibed with Buddhist thoughts as I understand them, though Schopenhauer disagrees with it over the possibility of changing one's character: he says it's impossible, that we're stuck with our innate character, but Buddhists might say we can change it to some extent through prolonged meditation practice (which is borne out by science).
All in all, another great read from a great man (but also flawed like any human being, because he shows the slightest trace of anti-Semitism and is glaringly misogynist. I don't want to throw all the good he has to offer just because of those flaws, though).
This is probably a great entry point for Schopenhauer's philosophy—I read The World as Will and Representation (Volume 1) first and had a good grasp of his metaphysics and ethics, but this little book—clocking at 257 pages—was still an illuminating read. In the first essay on freedom of will, he pretty much demolishes any attempt at finding it, at least in the world of senses/appearances, and that's where you find still valid psychological insights like you can't choose to want something and the like. His discussion of how people mistake the freedom of will as something else entirely was quite amazing (we think we're free to do as we please based on the fact that we can do what we will, but then that's a misleading answer because the real question in a nutshell is, "Can we will what we will?" the answer to which is in the negative).
The second essay is also really good. Continuing his bulldozing of German philosophy, he dismantles Kant's categorical imperative in its various formulations. His main argument against it is that it utterly fails to take into account the reality of moral judgments, that it ultimately rests on egoism. His positive account of the basis of morality on compassion is superbly clear, simple, and convincing. Though I had some squabbles with his claim about our indifference toward another's happiness as such (don't we feel energized or maybe warmed by the sight of, say, people meeting at the airport?), I couldn't help but nod along to his classification of moral incentives into three (egoism, malice, and compassion) as well as his argument for why any moral action is and should be based on compassion alone (and not on, say, Kant's universal maxim or any hokum human reason can concoct) and the relationship between compassion and egoism (how they vary in the distinction we make between the I and not-I). All of this mostly jibed with Buddhist thoughts as I understand them, though Schopenhauer disagrees with it over the possibility of changing one's character: he says it's impossible, that we're stuck with our innate character, but Buddhists might say we can change it to some extent through prolonged meditation practice (which is borne out by science).
All in all, another great read from a great man (but also flawed like any human being, because he shows the slightest trace of anti-Semitism and is glaringly misogynist. I don't want to throw all the good he has to offer just because of those flaws, though).
June 12, 2025
imagine mieć beefa z kimś, bo myśli inaczej niż ty. iconic
July 23, 2020
This book contains two essays: On the Freedom of the Human Will and On the Foundation of Morals.
(Five Star) The first was a strikingly powerful and lucid exposition on deterministic necessity and freedom. Easily the best treatment of the topic I've ever read. I would suggest it to anyone who thinks this subject is unclear or under debate by serious persons.
(Three Star) The second was the lesser of the two and while I enjoyed his grounding of morals in compassion as a natural capability, which really got me thinking, the rest of the essay wondered a bit and I lost the thread growing more unclear as to his purpose and message. He was constrained by the nature of the contest to which I attribute my confusion. Several interesting ideas were put forth but not pursued far enough for me to grasp them, but far enough to spark interest and a hope that I can find them more clearly expounded in one of his other writings.
I suggest these essays to anyone who likes Schopenhauer and enjoys his wit (and him ripping on his favorite targets :-), and anyone with specific interest in the topics covered.
(Five Star) The first was a strikingly powerful and lucid exposition on deterministic necessity and freedom. Easily the best treatment of the topic I've ever read. I would suggest it to anyone who thinks this subject is unclear or under debate by serious persons.
(Three Star) The second was the lesser of the two and while I enjoyed his grounding of morals in compassion as a natural capability, which really got me thinking, the rest of the essay wondered a bit and I lost the thread growing more unclear as to his purpose and message. He was constrained by the nature of the contest to which I attribute my confusion. Several interesting ideas were put forth but not pursued far enough for me to grasp them, but far enough to spark interest and a hope that I can find them more clearly expounded in one of his other writings.
I suggest these essays to anyone who likes Schopenhauer and enjoys his wit (and him ripping on his favorite targets :-), and anyone with specific interest in the topics covered.
Read
July 29, 2023Wyjątkowo bez oceny, bo jestem fanem Gustava Radbrucha wiec ocena nie byłaby nawet w najmniejszym stopniu rzetelna XD
March 7, 2024
Czytałam: *Erystyka. O wolności ludzkiej woli*
Str 265/265
ogólnie nie mój typ książki, ale jak zaczęłam czytać to trzeba skończyć xD strasznie dziwnym językiem napisane
Str 265/265
ogólnie nie mój typ książki, ale jak zaczęłam czytać to trzeba skończyć xD strasznie dziwnym językiem napisane
read-the-summary
January 27, 2025Read the Blinkist summary. Will not read the book.
Key Takeaways
Schopenhauer argues that emotions (compassion), not rational thinking, forms the true basis of morality.
Schopenhauer identified three fundamental forces that drive human behavior.
1. Self-interest: Acting to help yourself
2. Compassion: Acting to help others (even to the point of ignoring your self-interest)
3. Malice: Acting to harm others
Schopenhauer says through introspection and deliberation we can hone in our compassion, look beyond our immediate self-interest, and not act on our feelings of malice. He recognizes that self-interest and compassion may sometimes be aligned, but if they're not, choose compassion over self-interest.
My review
At face value this may seem reasonable. I would argue that it isn't (entirely) reasonable, but if the basis of morality is emotions, then why should you care if it sounds reasonable or not? Why not just take the bull by the horn and be irrational?
These are, in effect, simply justifications for what Ayn Rand refers to as Altruism (a term coined by philosopher August Comte - literally meaning "other-ism.") Since no reason could possibly be given for such views, proponents of altruism must necessarily ask you to give up reason and simply go by your feelings.
Schopenhauer (and generations of philosophers, psychologists, and laypersons indirectly influenced by him - among other key figures) takes it for granted that feeling compassionate while doing something for others is enough to show that the action is moral. This is fantastic! How do you know, without the use of reason, whether your actions in fact even help others?
Ask yourself the following.
1) Without reason, can you distinguish between intention and impact?
A bleeding heart liberal sees people working hard at a minimum wage job. Driven by compassion, he lobbies to increase the legal minimum wage. Patting himself on the back for achieving his goal, he moves on to the next social cause to help himself feel good. But did he, in fact, by his own standard do good, or simply feel good?
If you understand economics (which requires the use of reason), you know that he didn't. While he moved on with his life, little did he know how many minimum wage workers he intended to help lost their jobs because it was simply became too expensive to hire them for the same job. Little does he think about the businesses closed, jobs outsourced, or automated.
2) Is it helpful to pour into a broken cup?
As the saying goes, "give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."
Imagine a friend or a stranger comes to you and asks for help. He has a gambling/drinking problem, and he's broke because of it. In your compassion, you give him some money. He spends it on gambling/drinking once again and comes back to you asking for more. If you, feeling sad for that person, bail him out again, are you helping him?
Or are you simply enabling him to continue being self-sabotaging? Are you sure you don't just want him to remain dependent on you, so that you feel important and wanted? And aren't you hurting yourself in this process, by spending your money - which is earned with your time, your labor, your life - on this instead of other better aims? But, perhaps you think your self-interest doesn't take priority over helping others. That brings me to the next question.
3) Can you pour from an empty cup?
Now that you've enabled someone else to become dependent on you, what happens to them once you've ruined your own life by ignoring your own genuine and rational self-interest? Recall the safety instructions you hear on a flight: Wear your own oxygen mask before helping others. Because if you can't help yourself, what makes you think you can continue helping others?
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement."
- Ayn Rand
4) But is helping others the primary justification for your life?
It's perfectly fine, and recommended, to get into "win-win" relationships in life, where you mutually help each other move towards your goal. Not every act of helping others is an act of sacrifice. It is only an act of sacrifice when you give up a higher value in pursuit of a lower value. But is helping others the highest value, the primary justification of your life, even if you sacrifice yourself in the process? But if YOUR life doesn't matter, then why do other lives matter? If other lives matter, why is it only YOUR life that doesn't? If it's good for others to get and keep the unearned, why is it bad for you to keep that which you've earned?
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
- Ayn Rand
Reject altruism. Not only does that make you hate others who you believe you're morally obligated to serve, it is the path to self-hate and nihilism. It is the morality of death and destruction. What, then, is the proper mode for healthy relationships between rational people? Trade, in matter and in spirit.
The symbol of all relationships among [rational] men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread—a man of justice.
- Ayn Rand
There's nothing wrong in asking for help when you need it. But reject the mindset that you're entitled to being helped, or obligated to help others who feel entitled to your life, your energy, your time, your money. A trader will find plenty of other traders to help him during unexpected hard times, and he will on average have fewer such hard times. A looter / moocher will create hard times for himself and others.
Key Takeaways
Schopenhauer argues that emotions (compassion), not rational thinking, forms the true basis of morality.
Schopenhauer identified three fundamental forces that drive human behavior.
1. Self-interest: Acting to help yourself
2. Compassion: Acting to help others (even to the point of ignoring your self-interest)
3. Malice: Acting to harm others
Schopenhauer says through introspection and deliberation we can hone in our compassion, look beyond our immediate self-interest, and not act on our feelings of malice. He recognizes that self-interest and compassion may sometimes be aligned, but if they're not, choose compassion over self-interest.
My review
At face value this may seem reasonable. I would argue that it isn't (entirely) reasonable, but if the basis of morality is emotions, then why should you care if it sounds reasonable or not? Why not just take the bull by the horn and be irrational?
These are, in effect, simply justifications for what Ayn Rand refers to as Altruism (a term coined by philosopher August Comte - literally meaning "other-ism.") Since no reason could possibly be given for such views, proponents of altruism must necessarily ask you to give up reason and simply go by your feelings.
Schopenhauer (and generations of philosophers, psychologists, and laypersons indirectly influenced by him - among other key figures) takes it for granted that feeling compassionate while doing something for others is enough to show that the action is moral. This is fantastic! How do you know, without the use of reason, whether your actions in fact even help others?
Ask yourself the following.
1) Without reason, can you distinguish between intention and impact?
A bleeding heart liberal sees people working hard at a minimum wage job. Driven by compassion, he lobbies to increase the legal minimum wage. Patting himself on the back for achieving his goal, he moves on to the next social cause to help himself feel good. But did he, in fact, by his own standard do good, or simply feel good?
If you understand economics (which requires the use of reason), you know that he didn't. While he moved on with his life, little did he know how many minimum wage workers he intended to help lost their jobs because it was simply became too expensive to hire them for the same job. Little does he think about the businesses closed, jobs outsourced, or automated.
2) Is it helpful to pour into a broken cup?
As the saying goes, "give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."
Imagine a friend or a stranger comes to you and asks for help. He has a gambling/drinking problem, and he's broke because of it. In your compassion, you give him some money. He spends it on gambling/drinking once again and comes back to you asking for more. If you, feeling sad for that person, bail him out again, are you helping him?
Or are you simply enabling him to continue being self-sabotaging? Are you sure you don't just want him to remain dependent on you, so that you feel important and wanted? And aren't you hurting yourself in this process, by spending your money - which is earned with your time, your labor, your life - on this instead of other better aims? But, perhaps you think your self-interest doesn't take priority over helping others. That brings me to the next question.
3) Can you pour from an empty cup?
Now that you've enabled someone else to become dependent on you, what happens to them once you've ruined your own life by ignoring your own genuine and rational self-interest? Recall the safety instructions you hear on a flight: Wear your own oxygen mask before helping others. Because if you can't help yourself, what makes you think you can continue helping others?
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement."
- Ayn Rand
4) But is helping others the primary justification for your life?
It's perfectly fine, and recommended, to get into "win-win" relationships in life, where you mutually help each other move towards your goal. Not every act of helping others is an act of sacrifice. It is only an act of sacrifice when you give up a higher value in pursuit of a lower value. But is helping others the highest value, the primary justification of your life, even if you sacrifice yourself in the process? But if YOUR life doesn't matter, then why do other lives matter? If other lives matter, why is it only YOUR life that doesn't? If it's good for others to get and keep the unearned, why is it bad for you to keep that which you've earned?
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
- Ayn Rand
Reject altruism. Not only does that make you hate others who you believe you're morally obligated to serve, it is the path to self-hate and nihilism. It is the morality of death and destruction. What, then, is the proper mode for healthy relationships between rational people? Trade, in matter and in spirit.
The symbol of all relationships among [rational] men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread—a man of justice.
- Ayn Rand
There's nothing wrong in asking for help when you need it. But reject the mindset that you're entitled to being helped, or obligated to help others who feel entitled to your life, your energy, your time, your money. A trader will find plenty of other traders to help him during unexpected hard times, and he will on average have fewer such hard times. A looter / moocher will create hard times for himself and others.
January 28, 2025
Arthur Schopenhauer’s "The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics" delves into two profound questions of moral philosophy: whether humans have free will and what underpins moral behavior. His revolutionary perspective challenges conventional ideas, prioritizing compassion over reason as the foundation of ethics. In these two prize-winning essays, he argues that moral behavior is deeply rooted in our capacity to connect with and empathize with others. Schopenhauer’s ideas offer insights into human nature, character, and morality that remain relevant today, helping us navigate personal growth and societal challenges.
Schopenhauer lived in a period of upheaval, observing the industrialization of Europe and its impact on traditional life. This transformation inspired him to question the dominant philosophies of the time, especially Immanuel Kant’s theory that morality arises from rational principles and universal rules. Instead of relying on abstract reasoning, Schopenhauer studied human behavior as it naturally unfolds, focusing on real-life experiences rather than hypothetical ideals. He proposed that compassion, rather than rationality, is the true source of morality, a perspective that set him apart from the prevailing philosophical norms.
In his exploration of free will, Schopenhauer challenged the traditional notion of absolute freedom in human decision-making. He argued that our actions are determined by two primary factors: our individual character and the motives present in any given situation. For example, the seemingly simple act of choosing breakfast is influenced by personal tastes, habits, and external circumstances, all shaped by past experiences and innate tendencies. Actions, he asserted, reveal the true nature of our character rather than being entirely free choices. Responsibility, then, lies in the expression of one’s character through actions.
This perspective on free will shifts the focus from making individual choices to cultivating one’s character over time. By understanding the patterns of one’s motivations and reactions, individuals can consciously shape their moral character. Schopenhauer believed that personal growth and moral development arise not from rigid adherence to rules but from self-awareness and the practice of compassion. This approach offers a liberating view of morality, emphasizing the importance of understanding oneself and acting authentically.
Schopenhauer’s concept of compassion as the foundation of ethics is particularly striking. He observed that acts of kindness and justice often stem from an innate ability to empathize with others’ experiences. When we recognize someone else’s suffering as if it were our own, we are moved to act compassionately. This connection transcends rational calculation and highlights the emotional core of moral behavior. Unlike traditional philosophies that viewed emotions as obstacles to moral reasoning, Schopenhauer argued that compassion is the truest guide to ethical action.
His analysis identified three fundamental motivations that drive human behavior: self-interest, malice, and compassion. Self-interest focuses on personal needs and goals, while malice derives from a desire to harm others, even if subtly. Compassion, however, stands apart as the purest moral force, inspiring actions that prioritize others’ well-being without regard for personal gain. By understanding these motivations, individuals can better recognize the forces influencing their decisions and strive to nurture compassion as a guiding principle.
Schopenhauer also emphasized the role of character in moral development. He likened the growth of moral behavior to the acquisition of a skill, where repeated practice and experience gradually transform one’s natural responses. Compassion becomes second nature as individuals consistently recognize and respond to others’ needs. This developmental process underscores the importance of real-world experiences in shaping moral character. Rather than relying on external rules or abstract principles, Schopenhauer believed that true moral growth emerges from engaging with life and cultivating empathy.
Significantly, Schopenhauer’s ideas extend beyond individual morality to societal implications. He envisioned communities where compassion is the norm, fostering a collective ethos of kindness and understanding. This vision remains relevant in addressing modern challenges such as climate change, social inequality, and global conflicts. By expanding our capacity for compassion, we can create a more just and empathetic world.
Schopenhauer’s legacy has had a lasting impact on philosophy, psychology, and ethics. His emphasis on compassion anticipated modern research on empathy and moral behavior, which has demonstrated the biological basis of our capacity to connect with others. Neuroscientific findings, for instance, reveal that witnessing another person’s pain activates the same areas of the brain as experiencing pain oneself, affirming Schopenhauer’s belief in the intrinsic connection between individuals.
Moreover, his nuanced view of free will and moral responsibility resonates with contemporary debates about the influence of genetics, environment, and culture on behavior. While we may not have complete control over our actions, understanding the factors that shape our character empowers us to make meaningful changes. This insight encourages a shift from rigid moral judgments to a more compassionate and nuanced understanding of human behavior.
Schopenhauer’s work challenges us to rethink the foundations of ethics, prioritizing the cultivation of compassion over strict adherence to rules or logical principles. His ideas remain relevant in a world where moral choices are increasingly complex and interconnected. By embracing his philosophy, we can better understand ourselves, foster genuine connections with others, and contribute to a more compassionate society.
In essence, "The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics" offers a timeless exploration of morality rooted in human experience and empathy. Schopenhauer’s insights into character, motivation, and moral growth continue to inspire personal reflection and societal change. His emphasis on compassion as the foundation of ethics serves as a powerful reminder that true moral behavior arises from the heart, not just the mind. Through conscious self-awareness and a commitment to caring for others, we can build a world that embodies Schopenhauer’s vision of kindness and understanding.
Schopenhauer lived in a period of upheaval, observing the industrialization of Europe and its impact on traditional life. This transformation inspired him to question the dominant philosophies of the time, especially Immanuel Kant’s theory that morality arises from rational principles and universal rules. Instead of relying on abstract reasoning, Schopenhauer studied human behavior as it naturally unfolds, focusing on real-life experiences rather than hypothetical ideals. He proposed that compassion, rather than rationality, is the true source of morality, a perspective that set him apart from the prevailing philosophical norms.
In his exploration of free will, Schopenhauer challenged the traditional notion of absolute freedom in human decision-making. He argued that our actions are determined by two primary factors: our individual character and the motives present in any given situation. For example, the seemingly simple act of choosing breakfast is influenced by personal tastes, habits, and external circumstances, all shaped by past experiences and innate tendencies. Actions, he asserted, reveal the true nature of our character rather than being entirely free choices. Responsibility, then, lies in the expression of one’s character through actions.
This perspective on free will shifts the focus from making individual choices to cultivating one’s character over time. By understanding the patterns of one’s motivations and reactions, individuals can consciously shape their moral character. Schopenhauer believed that personal growth and moral development arise not from rigid adherence to rules but from self-awareness and the practice of compassion. This approach offers a liberating view of morality, emphasizing the importance of understanding oneself and acting authentically.
Schopenhauer’s concept of compassion as the foundation of ethics is particularly striking. He observed that acts of kindness and justice often stem from an innate ability to empathize with others’ experiences. When we recognize someone else’s suffering as if it were our own, we are moved to act compassionately. This connection transcends rational calculation and highlights the emotional core of moral behavior. Unlike traditional philosophies that viewed emotions as obstacles to moral reasoning, Schopenhauer argued that compassion is the truest guide to ethical action.
His analysis identified three fundamental motivations that drive human behavior: self-interest, malice, and compassion. Self-interest focuses on personal needs and goals, while malice derives from a desire to harm others, even if subtly. Compassion, however, stands apart as the purest moral force, inspiring actions that prioritize others’ well-being without regard for personal gain. By understanding these motivations, individuals can better recognize the forces influencing their decisions and strive to nurture compassion as a guiding principle.
Schopenhauer also emphasized the role of character in moral development. He likened the growth of moral behavior to the acquisition of a skill, where repeated practice and experience gradually transform one’s natural responses. Compassion becomes second nature as individuals consistently recognize and respond to others’ needs. This developmental process underscores the importance of real-world experiences in shaping moral character. Rather than relying on external rules or abstract principles, Schopenhauer believed that true moral growth emerges from engaging with life and cultivating empathy.
Significantly, Schopenhauer’s ideas extend beyond individual morality to societal implications. He envisioned communities where compassion is the norm, fostering a collective ethos of kindness and understanding. This vision remains relevant in addressing modern challenges such as climate change, social inequality, and global conflicts. By expanding our capacity for compassion, we can create a more just and empathetic world.
Schopenhauer’s legacy has had a lasting impact on philosophy, psychology, and ethics. His emphasis on compassion anticipated modern research on empathy and moral behavior, which has demonstrated the biological basis of our capacity to connect with others. Neuroscientific findings, for instance, reveal that witnessing another person’s pain activates the same areas of the brain as experiencing pain oneself, affirming Schopenhauer’s belief in the intrinsic connection between individuals.
Moreover, his nuanced view of free will and moral responsibility resonates with contemporary debates about the influence of genetics, environment, and culture on behavior. While we may not have complete control over our actions, understanding the factors that shape our character empowers us to make meaningful changes. This insight encourages a shift from rigid moral judgments to a more compassionate and nuanced understanding of human behavior.
Schopenhauer’s work challenges us to rethink the foundations of ethics, prioritizing the cultivation of compassion over strict adherence to rules or logical principles. His ideas remain relevant in a world where moral choices are increasingly complex and interconnected. By embracing his philosophy, we can better understand ourselves, foster genuine connections with others, and contribute to a more compassionate society.
In essence, "The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics" offers a timeless exploration of morality rooted in human experience and empathy. Schopenhauer’s insights into character, motivation, and moral growth continue to inspire personal reflection and societal change. His emphasis on compassion as the foundation of ethics serves as a powerful reminder that true moral behavior arises from the heart, not just the mind. Through conscious self-awareness and a commitment to caring for others, we can build a world that embodies Schopenhauer’s vision of kindness and understanding.
April 4, 2025
Schopenhauer setzt sich in der ersten Abhandlung mit der Freiheit des menschlichen Willens auseinander, wobei zuvor natürlich nicht vergisst noch ein paar Seiten lang ausfallend über seine philosophierenden Zeitgenossen zu werden. Bei seiner Auseinandersetzung mit der Willensfreiheit kommt er relativ schnell zu der Einsicht, dass es Diese nicht geben kann. Ebenso wie der Stein erhitzt wird durch die Sonnenstrahlen, handelt der Mensch durch ein Motiv. Eine Freiheit des Willens könnte nur durch die Negation der Notwendigkeit so zu Wollen bestehen, also dass es bei einem Motiv unterschiedliche Möglichkeiten zu wollen gäbe. Dies sei nicht gegeben. Der menschliche Wille stellt keine Ausnahme beim Gesetz der Kausalität dar. Das Missverständnis Derer, die von einer liberum arbitrium indifferentiae ausgehen, liegt darin, dass sie denken sie können ja entweder so oder so wollen. Bei diesem Zeitpunkt ist jedoch der Wille schon als Prämisse angenommen. Es ginge um das Verhältnis von Motiv und Wille und dieses Aufeinanderfolgen folgt ebenso dem Satz vom Grunde wie das Runterfallen eines Stiftes vom Tisch. Welchen Willen das Motiv jedoch hervorruft ist wiederum von Charakter eines Menschen abhängig, von welchem Schopenhauer ein relativ starres Bild hat. Dieser ist angeboren und nicht wandelbar, wenn er auch durch äußere Umwelteinflüsse geleitet werden könne. Ansonsten schreibt Schopenhauer auch zwischenzeitlich über das Buridan’sche Eselproblem, welches auch auf den Menschen anzuwenden sei. Eine These die aus heutiger Sicht etwas lächerlich erscheint.
Die zweite Abhandlung gibt eine Einführung in Schopenhauers Mitleidsethik. Alle Handlungen eines Menschen lassen sich auf drei unterschiedliche Motive zurückführen: a) Egoismus, b) Bosheit, c) Mitleid. Eine moralische Handlung könne nur eine solche sein, die aus Mitleid vollzogen wird und sich durch Abwesenheit von jeglichem Egoismus kennzeichnet. Schopenhauer zeigt sich hier besonders bzgl. Tierethik für seine Zeit als relativ fortgeschritten. Mit ihnen müsse man genauso Mitleid haben wie mit dem Menschen. Gleichzeitig wäre es jedoch in Ordnung sie zu essen, da Leiden nur ab einem bestimmten Ausmaß an Vernunft möglich ist, das das Tier nicht besitzt. Der Mensch würde insofern durch einen Verzicht auf Fleisch mehr leiden als ein Tier, was eigentlich im kompletten Widerspruch steht mit der Aussage, dass man Mitleid mit Tieren haben müsse. Im Großen und Ganzen halte ich Schopenhauers Mitleidsethik für nicht ganz überzeugend. Er empfindet Handlungen als unmoralisch und egoistisch, wenn sie aufgrund der Orientierung an einem höheren Regelsystem geschehen bspw. einer Vorstellung von christlichen Werten bei Gläubigen. Genauso müssten auch Handlungen unmoralisch/egoistisch sein, die bspw. lediglich aufgrund schlechten Gewissens vollzogen werden, das bspw. durch eine Vorstellung von richtig und falsch ausgelöst wird. Enthält das Motiv hier auch nur die Spur eines Wunsches eigenes schlechtes Gewissen zu beseitigen, ist die Handlung ja zumindest teilweise auf eigenes Wohlbefinden ausgerichtet und somit nicht frei von Egoismus. Mir ist nicht ganz klar, warum Mitleid hier eine solche Sonderrolle spielt. Am Ende des Tages, auch wenn Schopenhauer es so formuliert, als würden wir durch die andere Person leiden, ist es ja auch ein Gefühl, dass eben mir innewohnt und das ich wohlmöglich eben bei mir beseitigen möchte. Auch ansonsten halte ich die Aussage, dass eine moralische Handlung frei von Egoismus sein muss für etwas realitätsfern. Sein Menschenbild, das maßgeblich von Hobbes beeinflusst ist, lässt gute Handlungen unter Menschen komplett außen vor, obwohl Diese gar nicht unbedingt seiner These, dass Egoismus i.d.R. das Hauptmotiv ist, gar nicht widersprechen muss. Man denke an das egoistische Gen oder altruistisches Strafen in der Biologie. Ich denke, dass der einzige progressive Aspekt seiner Ethik vermutlich das nicht vollständige Ignorieren von Tieren als Lebewesen ist.
Die zweite Abhandlung gibt eine Einführung in Schopenhauers Mitleidsethik. Alle Handlungen eines Menschen lassen sich auf drei unterschiedliche Motive zurückführen: a) Egoismus, b) Bosheit, c) Mitleid. Eine moralische Handlung könne nur eine solche sein, die aus Mitleid vollzogen wird und sich durch Abwesenheit von jeglichem Egoismus kennzeichnet. Schopenhauer zeigt sich hier besonders bzgl. Tierethik für seine Zeit als relativ fortgeschritten. Mit ihnen müsse man genauso Mitleid haben wie mit dem Menschen. Gleichzeitig wäre es jedoch in Ordnung sie zu essen, da Leiden nur ab einem bestimmten Ausmaß an Vernunft möglich ist, das das Tier nicht besitzt. Der Mensch würde insofern durch einen Verzicht auf Fleisch mehr leiden als ein Tier, was eigentlich im kompletten Widerspruch steht mit der Aussage, dass man Mitleid mit Tieren haben müsse. Im Großen und Ganzen halte ich Schopenhauers Mitleidsethik für nicht ganz überzeugend. Er empfindet Handlungen als unmoralisch und egoistisch, wenn sie aufgrund der Orientierung an einem höheren Regelsystem geschehen bspw. einer Vorstellung von christlichen Werten bei Gläubigen. Genauso müssten auch Handlungen unmoralisch/egoistisch sein, die bspw. lediglich aufgrund schlechten Gewissens vollzogen werden, das bspw. durch eine Vorstellung von richtig und falsch ausgelöst wird. Enthält das Motiv hier auch nur die Spur eines Wunsches eigenes schlechtes Gewissen zu beseitigen, ist die Handlung ja zumindest teilweise auf eigenes Wohlbefinden ausgerichtet und somit nicht frei von Egoismus. Mir ist nicht ganz klar, warum Mitleid hier eine solche Sonderrolle spielt. Am Ende des Tages, auch wenn Schopenhauer es so formuliert, als würden wir durch die andere Person leiden, ist es ja auch ein Gefühl, dass eben mir innewohnt und das ich wohlmöglich eben bei mir beseitigen möchte. Auch ansonsten halte ich die Aussage, dass eine moralische Handlung frei von Egoismus sein muss für etwas realitätsfern. Sein Menschenbild, das maßgeblich von Hobbes beeinflusst ist, lässt gute Handlungen unter Menschen komplett außen vor, obwohl Diese gar nicht unbedingt seiner These, dass Egoismus i.d.R. das Hauptmotiv ist, gar nicht widersprechen muss. Man denke an das egoistische Gen oder altruistisches Strafen in der Biologie. Ich denke, dass der einzige progressive Aspekt seiner Ethik vermutlich das nicht vollständige Ignorieren von Tieren als Lebewesen ist.
January 22, 2023
Schopenhauer is, above all else, a very *readable* philosopher - even though he's going about the project of 19th c. German Idealism, he's a good enough writer (even in translation!) that it's actually possible to get some insight from him. Compare to his favorite punching bags of the German academy, like Hegel!
It's also interesting because his ideas in these two essays sure do seem vindicated by the forward march of time. Defenders of "libertarian" free will (i.e. The ability to have done otherwise, with no change in initial conditions) have had to construct ever more abstruse machinery to kind of, sort of, find it in reality, if you squint. And the further diffusion of Eastern philosophy into the West might make his finding a first principle of ethics in compassion - giving rise to the motives of justice and loving-kindness - a bit more familiar.
The one big misfortune in his writings is his misogyny, which stands out all the uglier because he is remarkably fair minded about non-Europeans, and quite progressive for his time and place with respect to the treatment of non-human animals. The other misfortune is his repeated blaming of "Judaism" for certain elements in European Christendom, although it's not clear whether he means the Jewish people if his own day, or just the Abrahamic tradition that started with ancient Judaism before Christianity ever arose. (He also has some pretty wacky speculation about a supposed East Asian [i.e. Non-Jewish!] origin of Christian doctrines, which I would like to read more about but which I expect has been fairly comprehensively destroyed by later historiography.)
Four stars.
It's also interesting because his ideas in these two essays sure do seem vindicated by the forward march of time. Defenders of "libertarian" free will (i.e. The ability to have done otherwise, with no change in initial conditions) have had to construct ever more abstruse machinery to kind of, sort of, find it in reality, if you squint. And the further diffusion of Eastern philosophy into the West might make his finding a first principle of ethics in compassion - giving rise to the motives of justice and loving-kindness - a bit more familiar.
The one big misfortune in his writings is his misogyny, which stands out all the uglier because he is remarkably fair minded about non-Europeans, and quite progressive for his time and place with respect to the treatment of non-human animals. The other misfortune is his repeated blaming of "Judaism" for certain elements in European Christendom, although it's not clear whether he means the Jewish people if his own day, or just the Abrahamic tradition that started with ancient Judaism before Christianity ever arose. (He also has some pretty wacky speculation about a supposed East Asian [i.e. Non-Jewish!] origin of Christian doctrines, which I would like to read more about but which I expect has been fairly comprehensively destroyed by later historiography.)
Four stars.
December 3, 2020
Too bad Schopenhauer did not include "On the freedom of the will" in his "The World as Will and Representation". Brilliant introduction to his practical philosophy, especially the part about the difference between human and animal motives.
Freedom of the will is not thinkable, in other words it is nonsense.
Why? - Because we know through our intellect, and the main job of the intellect is to always ask "Why?".
And once you ask "Why?" with the freedom of the will is finished. You did something because you _____ (fill the most powerful motive).
Freedom of the will may exists but our intellect just can not comprehend that. It's the limited tool.
Freedom of the will is not thinkable, in other words it is nonsense.
Why? - Because we know through our intellect, and the main job of the intellect is to always ask "Why?".
And once you ask "Why?" with the freedom of the will is finished. You did something because you _____ (fill the most powerful motive).
Freedom of the will may exists but our intellect just can not comprehend that. It's the limited tool.
June 12, 2025
la cosa che mi dispiace di Schopenhauer è che fino all'ultimo è stato filosofo, anche laddove, chiaramente, era spinto dalle sue stesse conclusioni ad abbracciare una visione del mondo quanto più brahmanica possibile per un figlio dell'Occidente. invero, Schopenhauer si esaurisce nell'essere un altro figlio dell'Occidente, solo con qualche tinta esotica in più - è a suo modo un merito, certo, ma questo è quanto. troppo ancorato al kantiano, non ha mai osato il tuffo nel mistico, nonostante l'abbia indicato; a malapena ha tastato l'acqua, suggerendo Volontà, che subito già la mano si ritraeva dietro alle convenzioni linguistiche della filosofia da lui stesso criticata.
April 18, 2021
Ciekawe spojrzenie na wolę człowieka i być może najbardziej bliskie "prawdzie" z którymi dotychczas się spotkałem. Schopenhauer twierdzi, że każde działanie człowieka wynika z ciągu przyczynowo skutkowego. Człowiek według niego nie ma wolnej woli i działa zawsze z konieczności. Schopenhauer w swojej pracy powołuje się także na innych filozofów, pisarzy czy nawet do ówczesnej wiedzy chemicznej/fizycznej aby udowodnić swoją tezę. Na pewno warto poświęcić trochę czasu tej pozycji pomimo, że niektóre fragmenty są dosyć zawiłe.
February 23, 2024
Ciekawa książka, zupełnie nie spodziewałem się, że Schopenhauer ma w sobie tyle z kantysty. Bardzo ciekawe i metodycznie poprawnie przeprowadzone rozważania. Zdecydowanie więcej się tutaj objawia niż tylko znany z memów pesymizm. Bardzo ciekawe rozważania dot. woluntaryzmu.
Książka pełna erudycji, ale uważam, że wiele tez dot. natury ludzkiej jest błędnych i wątpliwie uzasadnionych. Na pewno przeczytam jeszcze raz jak będę lepiej orientował się w filozofii najbardziej sławnego pesymisty z Gdańska
Książka pełna erudycji, ale uważam, że wiele tez dot. natury ludzkiej jest błędnych i wątpliwie uzasadnionych. Na pewno przeczytam jeszcze raz jak będę lepiej orientował się w filozofii najbardziej sławnego pesymisty z Gdańska
May 12, 2024
Schopenhauer is well known as a pessimist, so I cant really criticise him for that, as its not exactly a secret. That said, his entire thesis in this work seems to be humans are bad because we eat animals, which are living things, therefore, morality is an illusion, and so is free will because we cant just starve ourselves to death. The work is not badly written, it's just I fundamentally disagree with his reasoning and conclusions. It's nevertheless still worth reading, at least to get an understanding of his thinking without having to plough throw the world as will and representation.
May 26, 2022
There are so many quotable instances by Schopenhauer on this book. I hated the first half of it cause the author was on a roll dismantling Kantian morality basics; hence often incanting his name. Nonetheless he makes up for it where he lays the new simple foundation, which adheres to all mortals... making ethics the simplest philosophical field. It could all be summed on one word - compassion.
“Compassion is the basis of morality.”
“Compassion is the basis of morality.”
May 24, 2024
Removes the presupposed basis of ethics from the (high minded) pretense of reason and places it within one’s character, or the hidden and inner primacy of self (which produces and is only known via one’s own willing — or will — in retrospect). Ethics therefore — as he writes — stems from one’s essence; from who one is. I enjoyed this throughly. [also, I quoted nothing of Schopenhauer in his own words, above.]
October 7, 2019
It's no 'The World as Will and Representation' but what is? Schopenhauer super-fans (like me), will either have read this or have it on their 'to read' list. Everyone else is probably better off checking out the Penguin Classics version of his Essays and Aphorisms.
March 8, 2020
As a lover of philosophy. Schopenhauer does it like no other. A pessimist at heart he understands the daily grind and how subjective we are to change our mind if it pleases the masses. A must have if you want to learn about realistic philosophy.
March 31, 2021
A very complex work of philosophy and in some ways spirituality. Great read, though difficult to keep up with, without a thorough knowledge of Kant's work. Definitely a prerequisite to this book!!! Would also suggest brushing up on Descartes.
May 4, 2019
profound and disagreeable.
February 25, 2020
Too dumb for this, definitely would read again
February 8, 2021
My introduction to Schopenhauer's philosophy was a dense and humorous one. It was this collection of two essays, in fact. I found his writing gripping but difficult, and very satisfying. 4/5 stars.
May 26, 2021
While it presents discussion with great detail and understanding, it is by no means easy read or listen. Definitely worth a second pass to fully comprehend the text.
August 24, 2023
Ottima edizione di questi due classici, con la relativa introduzione. La prova provata che la filosofia di Schopenhauer è veramente la Tebe dalle cento porte!
dnf
January 10, 202414.11.2023 -> 76 %
April 24, 2024
Doceniam myśli i światopogląd ale raczej nieprędko sięgnę po coś filozoficznego xd
March 27, 2025
arthur you'll always be kinda famous to me (elaborerò un giorno)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews