What do you think?
Rate this book
Schopenhauer: A Biography
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) was one of the most original and provocative thinkers of the nineteenth century. He spent a lifetime striving to understand the meaning of living in a world where suffering and death are ubiquitous. In his quest to solve “the ever-disquieting riddle of existence,” Schopenhauer explored almost every dimension of human existence, developing a darkly compelling worldview that found deep resonance in contemporary literature, music, philosophy, and psychology. This is the first comprehensive biography of Schopenhauer written in English. Placing him in his historical and philosophical contexts, David E. Cartwright tells the story of Schopenhauer’s life to convey the full range of his philosophy. He offers a fully documented portrait in which he explores Schopenhauer’s fractured family life, his early formative influences, his critical loyalty to Kant, his personal interactions with Fichte and Goethe, his ambivalent relationship with Schelling, his contempt for Hegel, his struggle to make his philosophy known, and his reaction to his late-arriving fame. The Schopenhauer who emerges in this biography is the complex author of a philosophy that had a significant influence on figures as diverse as Samuel Beckett, Jorge Luis Borges, Emile Durkheim, Sigmund Freud, Thomas Hardy, Thomas Mann, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.
600 pages, Hardcover
First published October 15, 2004
20 people are currently reading
254 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
Read
December 7, 2013Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) was born into a north German merchant's family whose activities were centered in Hamburg. His father, who was distant and nagged Arthur constantly about his handwriting and posture, was also mentally unstable and committed suicide when Arthur was in his late teens. His mother was an early free spirit, who, after her oppressive husband's death, moved to Weimar, started a bi-weekly salon attended by many of the luminaries of the German literary world (including Goethe, who interceded on Arthur's behalf at the beginning of his university education), and commenced writing. She was for a time the best selling female author in the German speaking world. However, both Arthur and Cartwright saw her as self-centered and only weakly maternal. Arthur grew to despise her and eventually cut off all ties with her. But, then, Arthur despised almost everybody he knew, referring to his fellow human beings as "unfeathered bipeds"...
From a early age Schopenhauer was caustic and arrogant, traits which only became more prominent with time, so he had few friends and fewer lovers (primarily of the sort with whom money changes hands). Reluctantly beginning an apprenticeship in business, which he continued two years after his father's death, he convinced himself and his mother that he wanted to go to university. He began studying medicine at the University of Göttingen but after two years went to the University of Berlin to study philosophy, primarily with Fichte, whom he soon execrated. He ultimately took his doctorate from the University of Jena, because Napoleon was rampaging through Germany at the time, Berlin was occupied, and German universities were being closed left and right by the occupiers. (His mother was in Weimar when Napoleon's troops looted and burned most of the city. With no sign of self-centeredness she pitched in to help many of the people left homeless and hungry.)
This biography, written by an academic philosopher on the faculty of a branch campus of the University of Wisconsin, is actually a "life and work" with an emphasis on "work". And Cartwright does not shrink from gracing the reader with sentences like "As an object of the inner sense, the subject of willing was cognized only in time," when discussing Schopenhauer's philosophy. You should know what you are getting into if you choose to read this book.
For Schopenhauer, all of the post-Kantian idealists were idiots who had destroyed Kant's ideas by badly misunderstanding them, and he, Schopenhauer, was instead correcting Kant's mistakes and oversights. The favor of contempt was returned in spades by the "idiots", so that Schopenhauer's writings had little resonance for most of his life, which only increased his gall and bitterness.
Though Cartwright's prose is generally graceless and, for me, irritatingly repetitive, he does, nonetheless, deliver insight into Schopenhauer's life and work. As an individual, Schopenhauer was sarcastic, cranky, self-centered and unbelievably arrogant.(*) So, once again, a total asshole managed to write some very interesting books, some of which I shall be reading (or re-reading) in the near future and hope to report upon. From my perspective, one of the more important insights I gained in reading this book is that Schopenhauer was deeply pessimistic already as a teenager, so pessimistic that his mother, who preferred to overlook the less happy aspects of life in order to enjoy what was left, avoided his presence as much as possible.(!) Here is yet another philosopher whose attitudes and inclinations as a teenager had lasting influence on the mature man's thought.
Another matter of some importance to me is the further insight provided by Cartwright into which Asian sources Schopenhauer was familiar with, for his philosophy was definitely influenced by Asian thought. Curiously, his preferred translation of the Upanishads, even though other translations emerged during his lifetime, was a Latin translation by Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron from a Persian translation by Sultan Mohammed Dara Shikoh (for which transgression he was executed during another Persian spasm of fundamentalism) from the original Sanskrit. Schopenhauer also studied a German translation of an English translation of the Bhagavad Gita. It appears that he used primarily Indian sources. But he read quite a bit of secondary literature, including many years of journals like Asiatick Researches, where he also acquired a certain amount of exposure to Ch'an Buddhism. Late in his life he would refer to himself as a Buddhist and assert that the three immortals of philosophy were Buddha, Plato and Kant.
In an attempt to reach a wider audience Schopenhauer put together in 1850 Parerga und Paralipomena, a two volume collection of various and sundry essays (including his infamously misogynistic diatribe "On Women" in which all women had to stand stead for those who told him "no") which he marketed as a more approachable entryway into his ideas. Surprisingly, it worked. It found a readership, and academic philosophers started to break their embargo of silence. His work came to the attention of Wagner, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, and the waves of his influence began to spread.
On a side note, how can it be that a nearly 600 page hardback biography has not a single photograph?! The University of Cambridge Press should be ashamed of that, as well as of the many "misprints" crowding the pages of this book. For many reasons I count myself fortunate that I only borrowed the book from a university library instead of paying the $50.00 (!) the publisher asks for it.
I also ask, in general, how is it that in an age when the authors provide the publishers with a proofread file in a format prescribed by the publisher that is designed to be ready to be fed directly into the publisher's electronic and fully automatized printing presses, that these publishers are raising their prices through the roofs while simultaneously reducing the extra value that they themselves are supposed to be providing? Is that "Taps" I hear playing?
(*) Aside from his arrogance regarding all other philosophers except Kant and Plato (which one could claim would be necessary in order to bring himself to the required efforts), he was a Besserwisser in every conceivable regard. Here an example: Goethe had worked for 20 years on his idiosyncratic Farbenlehre (theory of colors), which he actually thought was more important than his literary accomplishments. He introduced Schopenhauer (who was only 26 at the time) to his theory, and the young philosopher immediately produced his own theory of colors, writing to Goethe (who was at the pinnacle of the German intelligentsia) that he, Schopenhauer, had, on the basis of Goethe's phenomenological endeavors, for the first time succeeded in arriving at a theory of color.(!) Goethe indicated that he was not particularly pleased and ended what he had considered to be a collaboration...
Rating
http://leopard.booklikes.com/post/721...
From a early age Schopenhauer was caustic and arrogant, traits which only became more prominent with time, so he had few friends and fewer lovers (primarily of the sort with whom money changes hands). Reluctantly beginning an apprenticeship in business, which he continued two years after his father's death, he convinced himself and his mother that he wanted to go to university. He began studying medicine at the University of Göttingen but after two years went to the University of Berlin to study philosophy, primarily with Fichte, whom he soon execrated. He ultimately took his doctorate from the University of Jena, because Napoleon was rampaging through Germany at the time, Berlin was occupied, and German universities were being closed left and right by the occupiers. (His mother was in Weimar when Napoleon's troops looted and burned most of the city. With no sign of self-centeredness she pitched in to help many of the people left homeless and hungry.)
This biography, written by an academic philosopher on the faculty of a branch campus of the University of Wisconsin, is actually a "life and work" with an emphasis on "work". And Cartwright does not shrink from gracing the reader with sentences like "As an object of the inner sense, the subject of willing was cognized only in time," when discussing Schopenhauer's philosophy. You should know what you are getting into if you choose to read this book.
For Schopenhauer, all of the post-Kantian idealists were idiots who had destroyed Kant's ideas by badly misunderstanding them, and he, Schopenhauer, was instead correcting Kant's mistakes and oversights. The favor of contempt was returned in spades by the "idiots", so that Schopenhauer's writings had little resonance for most of his life, which only increased his gall and bitterness.
Though Cartwright's prose is generally graceless and, for me, irritatingly repetitive, he does, nonetheless, deliver insight into Schopenhauer's life and work. As an individual, Schopenhauer was sarcastic, cranky, self-centered and unbelievably arrogant.(*) So, once again, a total asshole managed to write some very interesting books, some of which I shall be reading (or re-reading) in the near future and hope to report upon. From my perspective, one of the more important insights I gained in reading this book is that Schopenhauer was deeply pessimistic already as a teenager, so pessimistic that his mother, who preferred to overlook the less happy aspects of life in order to enjoy what was left, avoided his presence as much as possible.(!) Here is yet another philosopher whose attitudes and inclinations as a teenager had lasting influence on the mature man's thought.
Another matter of some importance to me is the further insight provided by Cartwright into which Asian sources Schopenhauer was familiar with, for his philosophy was definitely influenced by Asian thought. Curiously, his preferred translation of the Upanishads, even though other translations emerged during his lifetime, was a Latin translation by Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron from a Persian translation by Sultan Mohammed Dara Shikoh (for which transgression he was executed during another Persian spasm of fundamentalism) from the original Sanskrit. Schopenhauer also studied a German translation of an English translation of the Bhagavad Gita. It appears that he used primarily Indian sources. But he read quite a bit of secondary literature, including many years of journals like Asiatick Researches, where he also acquired a certain amount of exposure to Ch'an Buddhism. Late in his life he would refer to himself as a Buddhist and assert that the three immortals of philosophy were Buddha, Plato and Kant.
In an attempt to reach a wider audience Schopenhauer put together in 1850 Parerga und Paralipomena, a two volume collection of various and sundry essays (including his infamously misogynistic diatribe "On Women" in which all women had to stand stead for those who told him "no") which he marketed as a more approachable entryway into his ideas. Surprisingly, it worked. It found a readership, and academic philosophers started to break their embargo of silence. His work came to the attention of Wagner, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, and the waves of his influence began to spread.
On a side note, how can it be that a nearly 600 page hardback biography has not a single photograph?! The University of Cambridge Press should be ashamed of that, as well as of the many "misprints" crowding the pages of this book. For many reasons I count myself fortunate that I only borrowed the book from a university library instead of paying the $50.00 (!) the publisher asks for it.
I also ask, in general, how is it that in an age when the authors provide the publishers with a proofread file in a format prescribed by the publisher that is designed to be ready to be fed directly into the publisher's electronic and fully automatized printing presses, that these publishers are raising their prices through the roofs while simultaneously reducing the extra value that they themselves are supposed to be providing? Is that "Taps" I hear playing?
(*) Aside from his arrogance regarding all other philosophers except Kant and Plato (which one could claim would be necessary in order to bring himself to the required efforts), he was a Besserwisser in every conceivable regard. Here an example: Goethe had worked for 20 years on his idiosyncratic Farbenlehre (theory of colors), which he actually thought was more important than his literary accomplishments. He introduced Schopenhauer (who was only 26 at the time) to his theory, and the young philosopher immediately produced his own theory of colors, writing to Goethe (who was at the pinnacle of the German intelligentsia) that he, Schopenhauer, had, on the basis of Goethe's phenomenological endeavors, for the first time succeeded in arriving at a theory of color.(!) Goethe indicated that he was not particularly pleased and ended what he had considered to be a collaboration...
Rating
http://leopard.booklikes.com/post/721...
April 26, 2024
İlk kez 2010 yılında yayımlanan biyografinin yazarı David E. Cartwright, Wisconsin Üniversitesinde felsefe ve din araştırmaları profesörüymüş.
Bu yönüyle bir akademisyen-araştırmacı olan yazarın, mesleğinin araçlarını şahane bir şekilde kullanmış olduğunu en başta söylemeliyim.
Üstelik, teknik anlamda zaman, kaynakların kullanımı, bilgi yönünden sağlam metnine ağırlık katmayacak ama bu sağlam temelde ayakta kalacak akıcı, açık, ilgi çekici anlaşılır bir dil ekleyerek Schopenhauer'in hayatını anlatmış. Filozofun hayatını merak eden okurların, ayrıntıları ve kaynaklarıyla epey bilgi alacaklarını garanti ederim.
Cartwright'ın kaynakları arasında filozofun ve aile üyelerinin kendi kaleme aldıkları günlükleri ve mektupları -ilk elden, dolaysız- biyografi kitabını zengin, doyurucu malzemelerle hazırlayarak kaliteli bir araştırmayı ortaya koymasını sağlamış.
Bunun yanında yazar, Schopenhauer'in "çatışmacı, kavgacı" kişiliğinin göründüğü kısımlarda öfkeli ifadelerinin kimilerine "atıp tutmak" gibi ifadeler yakıştırmış. Bir anlamda kimi ifadelerini yerici, yani kendi negatif fikirlerini ve yorumlarını biraz alaylı biçimde belirtmekten geri durmamış. Ancak genel olarak söyleyecek olursam, filozofun olumlu ve olumsuz özelliklerine karşı tutumunun belli bir araştırmacı mesafesini olabildiğince korumaya yönelik olduğunu söyleyebilirim. Filozofun önemini, kişisel özellikleri üzerinden karalamaya yönelik hiç bir ifadesi yok; böylesi bir eğilimi sezdiren cümlelerine ben rastlamadım. Hatta övgü ya da yergi dolu olmaktan uzak bir yaklaşım yazarınki; meselesi filozofun hayatının kişisel, tarihsel, akademik, ailevi ayrıntılarına girerek zaman çizelgesinde yaşadıklarını derinlemesine takip etmek.
Kitabın biyografi kitabı ölçüsünde başarılı olması gibi bir filozofun hayatının, felsefesini geliştirme ve savunma özelliğinin ne demek olduğunu anlamak için de özel bir yeri olduğunu düşünüyorum. Ayrıca varoluş durumumuzun, insan olmanın toplumun ve zamanın getirdiklerinin dışında olmanın kişiyi az rastlanır derin deneyimlere taşımasının anlamlarını da düşündüren bir önemi olduğuna inanıyorum.
Schopenhauer'in ülkemizde de en çok bilinen yani onu "popüler" yapan "Aşkın Metafiziği" kendi zamanında da en çok ilgiyi gören metinlerindenmiş. Hem söz konusu yazısında hem de eserlerinde ve hayatında "kadın düşmanı" olarak anılmasının sebepleri çok net bir şekilde yer alıyor kitapta, filozofla ilgili kafa kurcalayacak "neden böyle?" sorularına bol bol cevabı var kitabın.
Müzikle olan ilişkisi, köpeği Atma, kendini Budist olarak tanımlaması, ölüme yaklaşımı, yaşam üzerine düşünmeye kendini adayan bu özgün, özel insanın eserleri gibi bizzat yaşadığı hayatı da okunmaya, düşünmeye, anlamaya değer.
Kitabı okumak büyük bir zevkti. Cartwright'ı bu başarılı çalışması için tebrik eder bunca bilgiyi sağlaması ve dinamik bir şekilde işlemesi bakımından teşekkür ederim.
Bu yönüyle bir akademisyen-araştırmacı olan yazarın, mesleğinin araçlarını şahane bir şekilde kullanmış olduğunu en başta söylemeliyim.
Üstelik, teknik anlamda zaman, kaynakların kullanımı, bilgi yönünden sağlam metnine ağırlık katmayacak ama bu sağlam temelde ayakta kalacak akıcı, açık, ilgi çekici anlaşılır bir dil ekleyerek Schopenhauer'in hayatını anlatmış. Filozofun hayatını merak eden okurların, ayrıntıları ve kaynaklarıyla epey bilgi alacaklarını garanti ederim.
Cartwright'ın kaynakları arasında filozofun ve aile üyelerinin kendi kaleme aldıkları günlükleri ve mektupları -ilk elden, dolaysız- biyografi kitabını zengin, doyurucu malzemelerle hazırlayarak kaliteli bir araştırmayı ortaya koymasını sağlamış.
Bunun yanında yazar, Schopenhauer'in "çatışmacı, kavgacı" kişiliğinin göründüğü kısımlarda öfkeli ifadelerinin kimilerine "atıp tutmak" gibi ifadeler yakıştırmış. Bir anlamda kimi ifadelerini yerici, yani kendi negatif fikirlerini ve yorumlarını biraz alaylı biçimde belirtmekten geri durmamış. Ancak genel olarak söyleyecek olursam, filozofun olumlu ve olumsuz özelliklerine karşı tutumunun belli bir araştırmacı mesafesini olabildiğince korumaya yönelik olduğunu söyleyebilirim. Filozofun önemini, kişisel özellikleri üzerinden karalamaya yönelik hiç bir ifadesi yok; böylesi bir eğilimi sezdiren cümlelerine ben rastlamadım. Hatta övgü ya da yergi dolu olmaktan uzak bir yaklaşım yazarınki; meselesi filozofun hayatının kişisel, tarihsel, akademik, ailevi ayrıntılarına girerek zaman çizelgesinde yaşadıklarını derinlemesine takip etmek.
Kitabın biyografi kitabı ölçüsünde başarılı olması gibi bir filozofun hayatının, felsefesini geliştirme ve savunma özelliğinin ne demek olduğunu anlamak için de özel bir yeri olduğunu düşünüyorum. Ayrıca varoluş durumumuzun, insan olmanın toplumun ve zamanın getirdiklerinin dışında olmanın kişiyi az rastlanır derin deneyimlere taşımasının anlamlarını da düşündüren bir önemi olduğuna inanıyorum.
Schopenhauer'in ülkemizde de en çok bilinen yani onu "popüler" yapan "Aşkın Metafiziği" kendi zamanında da en çok ilgiyi gören metinlerindenmiş. Hem söz konusu yazısında hem de eserlerinde ve hayatında "kadın düşmanı" olarak anılmasının sebepleri çok net bir şekilde yer alıyor kitapta, filozofla ilgili kafa kurcalayacak "neden böyle?" sorularına bol bol cevabı var kitabın.
Müzikle olan ilişkisi, köpeği Atma, kendini Budist olarak tanımlaması, ölüme yaklaşımı, yaşam üzerine düşünmeye kendini adayan bu özgün, özel insanın eserleri gibi bizzat yaşadığı hayatı da okunmaya, düşünmeye, anlamaya değer.
Kitabı okumak büyük bir zevkti. Cartwright'ı bu başarılı çalışması için tebrik eder bunca bilgiyi sağlaması ve dinamik bir şekilde işlemesi bakımından teşekkür ederim.
March 25, 2020
David Cartwright’s Schopenhauer is a great place to start for those looking to learn more about the cantankerous man and thinker that was Arthur Schopenhauer. Cartwright provides us a useful synopsis on Schopenhauer’s intellectual mentors, namely Fichte and Kant, without exhausting the reader. We also learn of Schopenhauer’s fascination for Buddhism and Eastern thought, how he held Plato in high esteem, not to mention his immense condemnation of Hegel and his followers.
Cartwright also does an exquisite job of explaining Schopenhauer’s principle work, The World as Will and Representation, which I hope to begin reading soon. But that is not the only reason to read this book. Schopenhauer was not a pleasant man. Previous to reading this book, I came across many infamous tidbits from Schopenhauer’s life. Many people reading this review may already be aware of the incident where Schopenhauer pushed a cleaning lady down a flight of stairs, or when the philosopher offered his apartment and opera glasses to Prussian snipers during the Revolution of 1848. But there’s more. So much more.
Let’s face it: Schopenhauer was a prick. But if anything, he was not a boring prick. I imagine that Cartwright must have had a lot fun writing this biography. What I do know for certain is that it was a thrill to read. I highly recommended Cartwright’s book for those interested in Schopenhauer and/or German philosophy, or for those who like reading biographies about people who behave badly.
Cartwright also does an exquisite job of explaining Schopenhauer’s principle work, The World as Will and Representation, which I hope to begin reading soon. But that is not the only reason to read this book. Schopenhauer was not a pleasant man. Previous to reading this book, I came across many infamous tidbits from Schopenhauer’s life. Many people reading this review may already be aware of the incident where Schopenhauer pushed a cleaning lady down a flight of stairs, or when the philosopher offered his apartment and opera glasses to Prussian snipers during the Revolution of 1848. But there’s more. So much more.
Let’s face it: Schopenhauer was a prick. But if anything, he was not a boring prick. I imagine that Cartwright must have had a lot fun writing this biography. What I do know for certain is that it was a thrill to read. I highly recommended Cartwright’s book for those interested in Schopenhauer and/or German philosophy, or for those who like reading biographies about people who behave badly.
August 24, 2018
"Students of philosophy usually know much more about Schopenhauer than they know about his philosophy." This biography does a good job of fleshing out the life of Schopenhauer and connecting it to his writing and philosophy. In terms of the philosophy itself, I'd recommend Janaway's entry in the Very Short Introduction series over this for an understanding of Schopenhauer's philosophy, but this was better at fitting Schopenhauer's philosophy into the various debates of his time.
It's weird but, I feel like Schopenhauer's philosophy does itself a disservice because it's so complete that it's never been worked into a school of thought, like with Hegelians or Aristotleans or whatever, and so in a sense a biography is necessary for bringing attention to his work. Especially when he has such a better life story than other philosophers. I don't know. I have a lot of stray thoughts about this but don't feel like writing them down.
Think I'll read The World as Will and Representation soon.
It's weird but, I feel like Schopenhauer's philosophy does itself a disservice because it's so complete that it's never been worked into a school of thought, like with Hegelians or Aristotleans or whatever, and so in a sense a biography is necessary for bringing attention to his work. Especially when he has such a better life story than other philosophers. I don't know. I have a lot of stray thoughts about this but don't feel like writing them down.
Think I'll read The World as Will and Representation soon.
June 26, 2023
4.5/5
August 17, 2018
Schopenhauer: Philosopher of the 19th Century
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was born into a German merchant’s family with a father who committed suicide and a mother who was a renowned author at the time. He was indebted to his father for his melancholy temperament and his financial independence, both of which had arguably contributed to his lofty life as an obscure philosopher. On the other hand, his mother was too busy with her own literary salon and conversing with dignitaries, such as Goethe, to care much about her son. From this unique family came our philosopher of the will.
The will, according to Schopenhauer, is what makes us, animate beings, do what we do and the world, rife with misery, is absolutely nothing. The only way out is to practice asceticism, to weaken the will, to finally escape the will. As the will is a fundamental part of us, I do not see how we can escape it without ourselves perishing at the same time. I guess that is why his philosophy was criticized as full of contradictions. His theory is also significantly influenced by the Eastern religion, Buddhism. Schopenhauer, the self-proclaimed Kantian, borrowed heavily from Kant’s theory of the thing in itself as well. Kant and Goethe are two figures Schopenhauer admired, while Hegel was viewed as a nemesis, a fraud who, in Schopenhauer’s eyes, poisoned the minds of young Germans. Hegel’s theory of the spirit was dismissed by Schopenhauer as “the product of bad digestion, of winds raging in one's guts, which, when drifting downward, produce flatulence, but which, when drifting upward, produce spirits.” Aside from questioning Hegel’s intellectual abilities, he also found Hegel’s writing style absolutely repulsive. Schopenhauer was a master of style himself, as myriad readers of his had appreciated his clear and elegant writing. He inveighed against Hegel’s notoriously difficult writing style, likening Hegel to “a cuttlefish creating a cloud of obscurity around itself so no one sees what it is.”
In Schopenhauer’s dotage, he finally got what he always wanted, what he had worked so hard to achieve: fame and recognition. Even though he argued for an ascetic life in theory, he had spent his life indulging in corporeal pleasure and fine dining. He never tired of complaining being handed the silent treatment by the academic world, and vehemently engaging in polemics with the few who paid attention to his works. In the end, he was content and died in peace.
“I have always hoped to die easily,” in his private diary, Schopenhauer reflected; “for whoever has been lonely all his life will be a better judge than others of this solitary business. Instead of going out amid the nonsense and foolishness calculated for the impoverished capacity of human bipeds, I will end joyfully conscious of returning to the place where I started out so highly endowed and of having fulfilled my mission.”
For those who plan to read this biography, keep in mind that nearly half of the book is about explaining Schopenhauer’s philosophy and how his philosophy fits into 19th century German philosophy as a whole, where theories from Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Fichte etc. will all be discussed more or less. I originally categorized this book as biography/history, scheduled for my afternoons, but as the book progressed, I had to bump it up to one of my morning reads, for in the morning, my mind is most sharp (with a cup of coffee of course).
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was born into a German merchant’s family with a father who committed suicide and a mother who was a renowned author at the time. He was indebted to his father for his melancholy temperament and his financial independence, both of which had arguably contributed to his lofty life as an obscure philosopher. On the other hand, his mother was too busy with her own literary salon and conversing with dignitaries, such as Goethe, to care much about her son. From this unique family came our philosopher of the will.
The will, according to Schopenhauer, is what makes us, animate beings, do what we do and the world, rife with misery, is absolutely nothing. The only way out is to practice asceticism, to weaken the will, to finally escape the will. As the will is a fundamental part of us, I do not see how we can escape it without ourselves perishing at the same time. I guess that is why his philosophy was criticized as full of contradictions. His theory is also significantly influenced by the Eastern religion, Buddhism. Schopenhauer, the self-proclaimed Kantian, borrowed heavily from Kant’s theory of the thing in itself as well. Kant and Goethe are two figures Schopenhauer admired, while Hegel was viewed as a nemesis, a fraud who, in Schopenhauer’s eyes, poisoned the minds of young Germans. Hegel’s theory of the spirit was dismissed by Schopenhauer as “the product of bad digestion, of winds raging in one's guts, which, when drifting downward, produce flatulence, but which, when drifting upward, produce spirits.” Aside from questioning Hegel’s intellectual abilities, he also found Hegel’s writing style absolutely repulsive. Schopenhauer was a master of style himself, as myriad readers of his had appreciated his clear and elegant writing. He inveighed against Hegel’s notoriously difficult writing style, likening Hegel to “a cuttlefish creating a cloud of obscurity around itself so no one sees what it is.”
In Schopenhauer’s dotage, he finally got what he always wanted, what he had worked so hard to achieve: fame and recognition. Even though he argued for an ascetic life in theory, he had spent his life indulging in corporeal pleasure and fine dining. He never tired of complaining being handed the silent treatment by the academic world, and vehemently engaging in polemics with the few who paid attention to his works. In the end, he was content and died in peace.
“I have always hoped to die easily,” in his private diary, Schopenhauer reflected; “for whoever has been lonely all his life will be a better judge than others of this solitary business. Instead of going out amid the nonsense and foolishness calculated for the impoverished capacity of human bipeds, I will end joyfully conscious of returning to the place where I started out so highly endowed and of having fulfilled my mission.”
For those who plan to read this biography, keep in mind that nearly half of the book is about explaining Schopenhauer’s philosophy and how his philosophy fits into 19th century German philosophy as a whole, where theories from Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Fichte etc. will all be discussed more or less. I originally categorized this book as biography/history, scheduled for my afternoons, but as the book progressed, I had to bump it up to one of my morning reads, for in the morning, my mind is most sharp (with a cup of coffee of course).
August 30, 2023
It's amazing biography. His philosophy and life are explained very well
December 10, 2019
Schopenhauer: A Biography - David E. Cartwright
This book isn’t just a life, it also includes analysis of his works. Since these are quite demanding, the parts where the author analyses them are also quite demanding. A main motive for Schopenhauer seems to have been a desire to improve on the work of Emanuel Kant such as the Critique of Pure Reason. I’m not qualified to say whether he succeeded or not, but the author of this biography makes a stab at it, so if you’re into this sort of thing then this book is for you.
For me, I found his life more interesting than his philosophy. His father died well before his mother and his main advice to his son had been to stop slouching and improve his handwriting. But he thought more highly of his father than his mother. Part of this was because his mother ‘took up’ with another man after his father’s death, which clearly bothered him a lot. A psychiatrist might delve deeply into this and compare his reaction to that of Hamlet, clearly disturbed by his mother’s sex life after the death of his father.
Another reason for his hostility to his mother was that Johanna was a successful author at a time when he was not, another opportunity to get the knife in. He wrote in a letter to a friend:
‘She has become famous and has experienced the second edition of her 24 volume collected works. She is a good novelist, but a very bad mother.’
His bad relations with his mother probably led to his misogynistic essay, ‘On Women’, though his experience of prostitutes might have been a factor too and there is some evidence that he contracted syphilis. He was unable to form a conventional relationship with a woman.
But it was through his mother that he met Goethe and was persuaded by Goethe’s theory of light, which he defended on several occasions. According to Schopenhauer, Goethe had a better handle on this subject that Sir Isaac Newton.
All told, this book is very detailed and hard to do justice to in a few words. As far as I can see, Mr. Cartwright covers the philosophy well and certainly gives a full picture of the life. Schopenhauer was one of the first Western philosophers to pay attention to the philosophy of the East and bought a bust of the Buddha. He thought that philosophy and religion were not compatible, and he thought that music was the highest of the arts. He played the flute.
This book isn’t just a life, it also includes analysis of his works. Since these are quite demanding, the parts where the author analyses them are also quite demanding. A main motive for Schopenhauer seems to have been a desire to improve on the work of Emanuel Kant such as the Critique of Pure Reason. I’m not qualified to say whether he succeeded or not, but the author of this biography makes a stab at it, so if you’re into this sort of thing then this book is for you.
For me, I found his life more interesting than his philosophy. His father died well before his mother and his main advice to his son had been to stop slouching and improve his handwriting. But he thought more highly of his father than his mother. Part of this was because his mother ‘took up’ with another man after his father’s death, which clearly bothered him a lot. A psychiatrist might delve deeply into this and compare his reaction to that of Hamlet, clearly disturbed by his mother’s sex life after the death of his father.
Another reason for his hostility to his mother was that Johanna was a successful author at a time when he was not, another opportunity to get the knife in. He wrote in a letter to a friend:
‘She has become famous and has experienced the second edition of her 24 volume collected works. She is a good novelist, but a very bad mother.’
His bad relations with his mother probably led to his misogynistic essay, ‘On Women’, though his experience of prostitutes might have been a factor too and there is some evidence that he contracted syphilis. He was unable to form a conventional relationship with a woman.
But it was through his mother that he met Goethe and was persuaded by Goethe’s theory of light, which he defended on several occasions. According to Schopenhauer, Goethe had a better handle on this subject that Sir Isaac Newton.
All told, this book is very detailed and hard to do justice to in a few words. As far as I can see, Mr. Cartwright covers the philosophy well and certainly gives a full picture of the life. Schopenhauer was one of the first Western philosophers to pay attention to the philosophy of the East and bought a bust of the Buddha. He thought that philosophy and religion were not compatible, and he thought that music was the highest of the arts. He played the flute.
March 28, 2017
It is a great book. I enjoyed reading it. (I read it in Turkish. Sibel Erduman's translation is also great)
Schopenhauer felsefesi ile ilgilenenler için harika bir kitap. Türkçesi İş Bankası yayınlarında var. Sibel Erduman'ın çevirisi ise çok özenli.
Schopenhauer felsefesi ile ilgilenenler için harika bir kitap. Türkçesi İş Bankası yayınlarında var. Sibel Erduman'ın çevirisi ise çok özenli.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews