Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays, Vol. 1

Sämtliche Werke in fünf Bänden (Arthur Schopenhauer) #4

by Arthur Schopenhauer, E.F.J. Payne (Translator)

This is the only complete English translation of one of the most significant and fascinating works of the great philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). The Parerga (Volume 1) are six long essays; the Paralipomena (Volume 2) are shorter writings arranged under thirty-one different subject-headings. These works won widespread attention with their publication in 1851, helping to secure lasting international fame for Schopenhauer. Indeed, their intellectual vigor, literary power, and rich diversity are still extraordinary even today.

Genres: Philosophy, Essays, Nonfiction, History, 19th Century, Classics

497 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1851

About the author

Arthur 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.

Reviews

[Cameron · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the darkest hours of my darkest nights, I know that I have Schopenhauer.

[Starch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rating and review are for both parts of the audiobook.

Schopenhauer has a lot of interesting things to say. Though much of it is wrong, and the parts that aren't wrong are often not exactly right either. Still, it's more than worth the read, as the good parts make up for the bad. I especially liked the dialogues about religion and morality.

The most interesting part of this collection, to me, was the realization that the opening lines of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra (the ones about the sun) are a direct reference to something Schopenhauer wrote.

Schopenhauer was a pessimist, and I'd go as far as calling him an extreme nihilist. For him existence is suffering, and the goal is not to be at all. This being the cornerstone of his philosophy, everything else bends over backwards to fit it. Schopenhauer is at his worst when his hate towards life is driving his argument -- which is often the case.

At one point he says that mockery is a worthy response to bad ideas. At a different point he complains that people mock his ideas, and says that mockery is a clear sign of one's lack of reason. And he published these two in the same book...

He repeats over and over how advances in knowledge take time to be accepted, because people are too stupid to see what is 'clearly true'. One of his main examples is how scientists follow Newton's "wrong" theory of color, and dismiss Goethe's "correct" one...

He has a lot to say about women, and none of it is good. The somehow funny part is the comparison to his opinion of men: after hours of hearing him ramble on how men are stupid, irrational, and incapable of self rule, he finally gets to talk about women. And guess what? he says women should have no rights because they are stupid, irrational, and incapable of self rule...

[شمس]

However, what the public never recognise and comprehends, because it has good reasons for not wanting to do so, is the aristocracy of nature. That is why they so soon put aside the rare and few whom, over the course of centuries, nature had given the noble calling of reflecting on it or of presenting the spirit of its works, in order to make themselves familiar with the productions of the newest bungler . . . they do not comprehend, or even suspect, how aristocratic nature is; it is so aristocratic that not even one truly great mind is to be found in three hundred million of its manufactured goods.thus we must become thoroughly acquainted with such a mind, consider its works as a kind of revelation, read them tirelessly and use them day and night; on the other hand, we should leave untouched all the ordinary minds as what they are, namely something so common and ordinary as the flies on the wall. —On university philosophy

That this contributes much more to a person’s happiness than what he has or what he represents, we have already recognised in general. All depends on what someone is and, accordingly, has in himself; for his individuality accompanies him at all times and in all places; it colours all that he experiences. In and through everything he initially enjoys only himself; this is true of the bodily, but much more of the intellectual pleasures. Hence the English ‘to enjoy oneself’ is a very fitting expression, with which, for example, we say ‘he enjoys himself at Paris,’ this not ‘he enjoys Paris’, but ‘he enjoys himself in Paris’.—However, if the individual character is badly constituted, all pleasures are like delicious wines in a mouth full of bile. Accordingly, in good times and bad times, leaving aside great calamities, it is less important what befalls us in life than how we feel about it, hence what is the nature and the degree of our receptivity in every respect. —Aphorisms on the wisdom of life, What one is

__________
On University Philosophy and Aphorisms on the wisdom of life are both excellent and highly recommended.

I think Schopenhauer would have liked Robert Burton (and his views expressed in Pt. 1. Sec. 2. Mem. 3. Subs. XV of his The Anatomy of Melancholy : Love of Learning, or overmuch Study. With a Digression of the Misery of Scholars, and why the Muses are Melancholy.)

I typed up far too many quotes to include here. May post some more in the future.
__________
Nevertheless, people are a thousand times more anxious to acquire wealth than culture of mind; whereas what we are surely contributes more to our happiness than what we have. Hence we see quite a few people, in restless activity, industrious like ants, trying from morning to night to increase the wealth they already have. Beyond the narrow horizon of the means to this end they know nothing; their minds are empty and hence unreceptive to anything else. The highest pleasures, those of the mind, are inaccessible to them; and in vain  they try to replace them by the fleeting, sensuous ones, costing little time but a lot of money, which the indulge in now and then. At the end of their lives then, as a result, they really have a large pile of money, if they are lucky, which they leave to their heirs either to increase further or to squander. Such a life, though plain lived with an air of great seriousness and importance, is as foolish as many another that wore a fool’s cap as its symbol.

But of all these goods, what makes us most immediately happy is a cheerful spirit; for this good quality automatically rewards itself. Whoever is cheerful has good reason to be, namely the fact that he is. No other quality can completely replace every other good the way this one can. People may be young, beautiful, rich, and honoured; but if we wish to judge their happiness, we will ask whether they are cheerful. On the other hand, if they are cheerful, it does not matter whether they are young or old, straight or hunchbacked, poor or rich; they are happy. In my early youth I once opened an old book, and there it said: ‘Whoever laughs a lot is happy, and whoever cries a lot is unhappy’—a very simple-minded remark, which nonetheless I have not been able to forget because of its plain truth, as much as it is the superlative of a truism.

An abnormal prevalence of sensibility will lead to uneven moods, periodical shouts of excessive cheerfulness and predominant melancholy. But since the genius too depends on an excess of nervous power and hence sensibility, Aristotle quite rightly remarked that all excellent superior human beings are melancholic: ‘All men who have distinguished themselves—either in philosophy, or politics, or poetry, or arts—seem to have been melancholic.’ Undoubtedly, this is the passage that Cicero had in mind in his often quoted statement: ‘Aristotle said that all geniuses are melancholic.’

The ingenious person will above all strive for freedom from pain and annoyance, for tranquility and leisure, and consequently seek a quiet, modest life, as undisturbed as possible, and accordingly, after some possession of a great mind, even solitude. For the more somebody has in himself,  the less he needs from the outside and the less others can be to him. Therefore, intellectual distinction leads to unsociability. Indeed, if the quality of society could be substituted by quantity, then it would be worth the effort to live in the world at large; but unfortunately a hundred fools in a pile still do not make one intelligent person.

On the other hand, the existence of people with predominantly intellectual powers is rich in ideas and full of life and meaning; worthy and interesting subject matters occupy them as soon as they can devote themselves to them, and they have within themselves a source of the noblest pleasures. The works of nature and the contemplation of human affairs stimulate them from the outside, also the diverse achievements of the most highly gifted human beings of all times and countries, which really these people alone can thoroughly enjoy, since only they can fully understand and feel them. Here those highly talented human beings have actually lived for them, have addressed themselves to them, whereas the others only half comprehend this and that as incidental listeners. Because of all this, they naturally have one need more than the others, the need to learn, to see, to study, to meditate, to practice, and thus also the need for leisure. But since, as Voltaire rightly observed, ‘there are no real pleasures without real needs’, this need is the condition for their having access to pleasures that others are denied, for whom beauty of nature and in art and intellectual works of all kinds, even if they accumulate these around them, at bottom are only what mistresses are to an old man. As a result, such privileged people, aside from their personal life, lead a second, namely an intellectual life, which gradually becomes their real purpose and for which they see the first only as a mere means, whereas for the rest this stale, empty, and sad existence must itself be regarded as the end. Consequently, the former are primarily occupied with the intellectual life, which attains, through continuous increase in insight and knowledge, cohesion, steady augmentation, and wholeness and perfection, completing itself more and more, like a slowly maturing work of art. On the other hand, the life of the rest, which is merrily practical, merely aimed at personal welfare, merely capable of growing in length, not in depth, stands in sad contrast to it, but must nevertheless count as an end in itself, whereas it is a mere means for the former sort of people.

When the absurdities of a conversation that we happen to overhear start to annoy us, we should imagine that it is a scene in a comedy between two fools. This is well-tried—Anyone who has entered the world to instruct is seriously in regard to the most important matters can count himself lucky to escape unscathed.

[Stas Sajin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Schopenhauer would be an unknown entity for us if not for this book. According to Irvin Yalom, Parega is the masterpiece that got him noticed, and I can see why. He wrote most parts of it as a personal epistle to the reader about how one should live his life.

[Jan Jasič · Rating 4 out of 5]

Somehow i gotten the over 1000 book version so it was a challenge to go through this. Not as enjoyable as his other works

[Cybermilitia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kitap adindan da anlasilacagi uzere zaten eklerden ve unutulmus notlardan mutesekkil. Ama bir kitaptaki notlar olarak dusunmeyin, daha cok bir ustunden gecme. Isteme ve Tasarim olarak Dunya'yi okumamislar icin pek bir anlama gelmeyecektir.

Kitap, Fichte, Schelling ve ozellikle de Hegel'e karsi buyuk bir nefret iceriyor. Onlar disinda, postmodern bir pop-felsefe tarihi yaziminin butun ana hatlari cok ilginc bir sekilde bu kitapta var. Sanki herkes Schopenhauer'a burun kivirirken, tum tarih yazimini adama yaptirmislar gibi.

Bu kitapta neleri goruyoruz?
- Kant devrimini ve ardillarini kesinlikle anlamadigini, kendisi neyi iddia ederse etsin Kant'in ardili felan olmadigini (Kendinde Sey'in ozunde isteme vardir/Kendinde Sey yasaktir), Isteme ve Tasarim Olarak Dunya'daki Kant elestirilerinin bile kendisini icerdigini goremedigini (Numen ve Kendinde Sey arasindaki kavram kargasasi vs)
- Rolativite ve kuantum teorisine yol acacak gelismeleri kesinlikle kavrayamayacagini (Sf 135 ve takip eden sayfalardaki zaman ve mekan uzerine dusunceler)
- Hegel uzerine elestirisindeki birbiriyle celisen unsurlari (Devlet'in adami olmak, komunizme neden olmak, kurumsal dinin adami olmak vs)
- Schopenhauer'in inanilmaz entellektuel bir insan oldugu (Yok boyle bir Latince, yunanca deyim bilgisi)

Son olarak ceviri: Tek kelimeyle mukemmel.

Geri kalanlar siyah (2017) ve gri defterde.

[Henrik Maler · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Notizen aus dem ersten und zweiten Teilband)

Was sind die Charakteristika von (guter) Philosophie und guter philosophischer Schriftstellerei?
Einerseits erachtet es Schopenhauer ganz traditionell als die Aufgabe der Philosophie,
- allgemeine Antworten zu finden
- und das Selbstverständliche zu hinterfragen. “[D]ie Höflichkeit, als welche aus der Gesellschaft stammt, [ist] ein fremdartiges, sehr oft schädliches Element; weil sie verlangt, daß man das Schlechte gut heißt und dadurch den Zwecken der Wissenschaft, wie der Kunst, gerade entgegenarbeitet.”

Andererseits weicht Schopenhauer von der Tradition ab und teilt Meinungen mit den Existenzphilosophen, welche wie er finden, dass
- man, wenn er nötig ist, Mut aufbringen muss, um zu kritisieren und seine Antwort vorzustellen.
- die Phänomene, auf die sich die allgemeinen Antworten beziehen, ihren Ursprung im Konkreten, in der Lebenserfahrung haben müssen (und somit Allgemeinplätze bilden)
- man selbst denken muss: Nur wer sich eigene Gedanken macht, versteht und findet heraus, woran er glaubt und glauben will. Man liest also weniger und eignet sich weniger fremde Gedanken an. Lesen bringt allenfalls Kunde. Gelehrte hoffen, dass im Gegensatz zu ihnen *andere* sich etwas denken werden. “[A]n ounce of a mans own wit is worth a tun of other people’s” (Sterne in Tristram Shandy).
-> “Zum eigenen, in uns aufsteigenden Gedanken verhält der fremde, gelesene, sich wie der Abdruck einer Pflanze der Vorwelt im Stein zur blühenden Pflanze des Frühlings.”
-> “Im Grunde haben nur die eigenen Grundgedanken Wahrheit und Leben: denn nur sie versteht man recht eigentlich und ganz. Fremde, gelesene Gedanken sind die Ueberbleibsel eines fremden Mahles, die abgelegten Kleider eines fremden Geistes.”
-> “Wenn man auch bisweilen eine Wahrheit, eine Einsicht, die man mit vieler Mühe und langsam durch eigenes Denken und Kombiniren herausgebracht hat, hätte mit Bequemlichkeit in einem Buche ganz fertig vorfinden können; so ist sie doch hundert Mal mehr Werth, wenn man sie durch eigenes Denken erlangt hat.”
-> “Die Leute, welche ihr Leben mit Lesen zugebracht und ihre Weisheit aus Büchern geschöpft haben, gleichen denen, welche aus vielen Reisebeschreibungen sich genaue Kunde von einem Lande erworben haben. Diese können über Vieles Auskunft ertheilten; aber im Grunde haben sie doch keine zusammenhängende, deutliche, gründliche Kenntniß von der Beschaffenheit des Landes. Hingegen Die, welche ihr Leben mit Denken zugebracht haben, gleichen Solchen, die selbst in jenem Lande gewesen sind: sie allein wissen eigentlich wovon die Rede ist, kennen die Dinge dort im Zusammenhang und sind wahrhaft darin zu Hause.” Fremde sind wie durch Studieren einer Landkarte angeeignet; eigene sind durch Bewandern des Landes erworben.

Weitere Aspekte, die (gute) Philosophie kennzeichnen, sind:
- aufrichtiges Interesse: “Den bei Weitem allermeisten Gelehrten ist ihre Wissenschaft Mittel, nicht Zweck. Darum werden sie nie etwas Großes darin leisten; […] Denn Alles, was man nicht seiner selbst wegen treibt, treibt man nur halb”.
- Bescheidenheit: “Das, was man weiß, hat doppelten Werth, wenn man zugleich Das, was man nicht weiß, nicht zu wissen eingesteht.” Nach Lichtenberg: Auf Errungenschaften in der Wissenschaft stolz zu sein, ist etwas für die, die Stolz wollen und brauchen, ihn nötig haben. Die, die ihn nicht brauchen, fühlen ihn seltener, wenn überhaupt, denn sie sehen, was noch getan werden muss, um etwas wahrhaftig Großes zu leisten, und dann ist es nicht nur eine exzellente Übung in der Wissenschaft, sondern für die Wissenschaft.
- Muße: Um nachdenken zu können, sollte man also am besten nicht das Nachdenken zum Beruf machen, denn die zeitlichen, inhaltlichen sowie förmlichen Grenzen mindern die Radikalität, Unkonventionalität und Reife des Gedankens. “[Philosophie] ist eine Pflanze, die wie die Alpenrose und die Fluenblume, nur in freier Bergluft gedeiht, hingegen bei künstlicher Pflege ausartet.”
- Dilettantismus: Echte Philosophen können keine Fachgelehrte sein. Dies ist erstens so, weil sie mehr selbst denken, und also ihre Zeit nicht dafür aufwenden, zu lesen. “[O], wie wenig muß doch Einer zu denken gehabt haben, damit er so viel hat lesen können!” Zweitens, weil ihnen das Ganze des Daseins ein Problem ist. Sie haben also einen holistischen Anspruch, den sie durch Vielseitigkeit und Überblick, durch das Verbinden entferntester Fäden zusammenzuspinnen suchen.
- klare Darstellung: Echte Philosophen geben sich große Mühe, sich deutlich auszudrücken, denn ihnen ist ihr Gedanke viel Wert. Wer nachlässig schreibt, zeigt, dass er selbst keinen großen Wert auf seine Gedanken legt.
-> “[N]ichts ist leichter, als so zu schreiben, daß kein Mensch es versteht; wie hingegen nichts schwerer, als bedeutende Gedanken so auszudrücken, daß Jeder sie verstehn muß.”
-> “Wer preziös schreibt gleicht Dem, der sich herausputzt, um nicht mit dem Pöbel verwechselt und vermengt zu werden; eine Gefahr, welche der Gentleman, auch im schlechtesten Anzuge, nicht läuft.”
- Unzeitgemäßheit: Echte Philosophen gehen nicht mit der Mode, sie erkennen die falschen Ansichten ihrer Zeit. Deshalb bleiben sie unbeliebt. Die Masse ist jedoch nicht interessiert an der Wahrheit und dem Guten, sondern nur am Neuen und Beliebten. “[W]em nichts für schlecht gilt, dem gilt auch nichts für gut”. Sie sucht sogar, das Wahre, das Gute und das Schöne zu unterdrücken. Beschränktheit und Dummheit hasst nichts mehr auf der Welt als den Verstand, den Geist, das Talent.
- Eindruck der Naivität: (Gute) Philosophen wirken naiv. Nennt man sie so, ist das gut, denn es besagt, dass sie sich zeigen dürfen, wie sie sind, so Schopenhauer.

Nur von den Selbstdenkern kann die Welt Belehrung erfahren: "[N]ur das Licht, welches Einer sich selber angezündet hat, leuchtet nachmals auch Andern”

Was sind die Charakteristika des Gelehrten-Typus und des schlechten Schriftstellers?
1.a Sie denken unoriginell, weil sie nicht selbst denken, und sie denken nicht selbst, erstens weil ihr Interesse am Schein der Weisheit größer ist als ihr Interesse an der Wahrheit. Sie studieren, um lehren und schreiben zu können, nicht um Denken zu lernen und Einsicht zu gewinnen. “Den bei Weitem allermeisten Gelehrten ist ihre Wissenschaft Mittel, nicht Zweck. Darum werden sie nie etwas Großes darin leisten; […] Denn Alles, was man nicht seiner selbst wegen treibt, treibt man nur halb”. Das Wissen bleibt unverdaut und geht so auch wieder in Schrift und Vortrag hervor.
- Sie bevorzugen den Stoff, nicht die Form. Ein Buch kann auf zweierlei Weise Wert erhalten: durch die Originalität des Stoffs (worüber gedacht wird; objektiv) oder durch die Originalität der Form (was gedacht wird; subjektiv). “Diese Vorliebe für den Stoff im Gegensatz der Form ist wie wenn Einer die Form und Malerei einer schönen hetruxischen Vase unbeachtet ließe, um den Thon und die Farben derselben chemisch zu untersuchen.”
- Sie gehen mit der Mode, oder ahmen nach und verkommen zu Epigonen. Sie arbeiten daran, was irgendein Anderer gesagt hat und gemeint haben mag statt selbst zu denken.

1.b Zweitens denken sie unoriginell, weil sie unfrei sind. Sie sind unfrei, weil sich ihre Gedanken aus monetären Gründen an die Vorgaben von Staat, Religion und Mode richten müssen. Sonst werden sie ihres Amts enthoben.
2. Sie sind unaufrichtig mit sich selbst und anderen, weil sie vorgeben, an der Wahrheit interessiert zu sein, obwohl sie bloß am Schein der Weisheit interessiert sind.
- Sie schreiben obskur, weil sie den Schein der Größe wahren wollen. Sie legen sich einen “gründlichen wissenschaftlichen” Schein zu, wo man dann von der “narkotischen Wirkung lang gesponnener, gedankenleerer Perioden zu Tode gemartert wird” (z.B. Hegelianer). “[Ihr Gerede [hat] oft so unbestimmten Sinn, daß man vergeblich sich den Kopf zerbricht, herauszubringen, was sie denn am Ende denken. Sie denken eben gar nicht.” Sie leben allein von der Narrheit des Publikums. Sie betrügen den Leser, denn dieser denkt, dass der Schriftsteller schreibt, um etwas mitzuteilen. Und wer für Narren schreibt, findet immer ein großes Publikum.
- Sie reden sophistisch, weil sie über das Rechtbehalten den Schein der Größe wahren wollen.
3. Sie ziehen das Bildungsniveau runter statt die Welt zu belehren.

Schopenhauers Urteil über seine akademischen Zeitgenossen: “Seht sie nur an! kahle Köpfe, lange Bärte, Brillen statt der Augen, als Surrogat der Gedanken ein Cigarro im thierischen Maul, ein Sack auf dem Rücken statt des Rocks, Herumtreiben statt des Fleißes, Arroganz statt der Kenntnisse, Frechheit und Kamaraderie statt der Verdienste.”

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

En breve: Hermosamente Sabio (a excepción de la misoginia)

[Douglas Kim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written after the 1848 Revolutions (which Schopenhauer helped fund counterrevolutionary forces against), this is Schopenhauer's "victory lap" over Hegel, where he spends more than the first third of the book going over the history of philosophy, and claiming that it ends with him, instead of the Kantian line of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. While I won't go into my "did the UK Secret Service secretly promote Schopenhauer as a result of Marxist ideology" conspiracy theory here in depth, it is my belief that Schopenhauer's connections within the UK may have helped put this work, and as a result, the rest of his canon, on the map, as he was relatively obscure before this, despite being connected to figures like Johann von Goethe. Even the introduction by the editor claims that it became the "Bible" for the European bourgeoisie, showing that Schopenhauer clearly was writing with a specific audience in mind.

Still, there's a certain charm about Schopenhauer that I don't find with Nietzsche, primarily in the fact that despite his curmudgeon personality, you get a sense that Schopenhauer at least fully believes in most of what he's saying as the truth, and that his anger with Hegel, while somewhat personal, is about his disagreement with his ideas that he feels is straying from the path of truth, however wrong he may be, whereas you get the sense that Nietzsche is somewhat playing hard and fast with the truth at various points and not being completely honest in search for a truth, rather than a search for a justification. After reading this first volume, I can see now why people say Nietzsche is simply Schopenhauer for dumber people, because after reading most of Nietzsche's canon, nearly every one of his ideas can be traced to something Schopenhauer had already written, and in much more clearer prose, as opposed to Nietzsche's more poetic style coupled with his "so go out there and take what's yours" conclusion in contrast to Schopenhauer's "try to not do anything so you suffer as little as possible in a reality that only contains suffering".

In any case, if you've read the World as Will and Representation, this is kind of more of a companion book that's dumbed down so that you don't necessarily need to read the WWR to understand, but serves as kind of a, so this is how my system manifests in society. Most interestingly is the sections on spirits other sort of supernatural phenomena, as this somewhat serves as the basis for the revival and the legitimization of esotericism in the west, that influences many other thinkers and artists aside from Nietzsche, such as Wagner or Jung. Jung even claims that Schopenhauer was the first true psychologist, from his attempts to examine human nature from a scientific point of view rather than a one that was mostly seen through the metaphysical lens of Christianity in Europe since the Dark Ages.

As a more scientific minded person myself, if you had to choose between reading Nietzsche's canon and Schopenhauer's Parerga series for purely data reasons alone, I'd choose the latter since it is much better organized and has most of the same content, but packaged differently.

[Andrea G. Morales · Rating 3 out of 5]

Schopenhauer concibe la idea de felicidad como una meta inalcanzable para los seres humanos. A partir de esta consideración pesimista de que la vida del hombre oscila entre el dolor y el aburrimiento, Schopenhauer plantea el cultivo del ingenio y la prudencia para evitar las penurias y golpes del destino, es decir, para evitar en todo lo posible el dolor, que es lo máximo a lo que podemos aspirar. La idea del autor es proponer un camino intermedio entre el estoicismo y el maquiavelismo

[Frank · Rating 3 out of 5]

Volume 1 is in two parts. The first is a kind of "Everything you wanted to know about philosophy, but didn't know who to ask" and serves its purpose very well, while reminding me of Diogenes Laertius. The second part was Schopenhauer's ethics - a subject I am not especially interested in - and was dull and prolix.

[Pol Monclús · Rating 4 out of 5]

No le pongo 5 por que se me ha hecho largo, pero los aforismos son preciosos

[Pedro · Rating 1 out of 5]

Depressive and simply bad. A hurried book.

[Ana-Maria Cojocaru · Rating 5 out of 5]

O carte la care mă voi întoarce cu siguranță de mai multe ori.

[Augustus · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The Wisdom of Life" = read it twice

The other essays, not so.

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Life Aphorisms are worth the price of admission. Schopenhauer is one of the clearest and most entertaining philosophical writers. Whatever one's views on the credibility of his theory of the Will and his overall pessimism, he's a fun read.

[Max · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not in complete agreement with these essays. However, the intelligence and education of Schopenhauer shine through, even after his demise from our world.

[Andrea_03 · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Pero ahora el hombre que los profesores de filosofía han hecho callar como un muerto ha resucitado, para gran desconcierto de los profesores de filosofía, que no saben qué cara poner ahora" (164)