The Wisdom of Life and Counsels and Maxims

by Arthur Schopenhauer, T. Bailey Saunders (Translator)

“For the more a man has in himself, the less he will want from other people,—the less, indeed, other people can be to him. This is why a high degree of intellect tends to make a man unsocial. True”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Do you think that usual goals in life such as money, fame, pride, social position, and material and physical pleasures bring actual pleasure in life?

If your answer is no and you are interested in development of one's inner mind and a strong and healthy body, this book is right for you.
This abridged version brought together both essays of Wisdom of Life and Counsels and Maxims. It explores the thoughts behind Arthur Schopenhauer’s more realistic and pessimistic worldview.

In these essays, Arthur Schopenhauer begins with the assumption that individual’s life will be fundamentally painful and miserable, then he considers how to arrange our lives to gain the maximum amount of enjoyment and success. In fact, he offers thoughts about how we can enhance pleasure for ourselves during our brief time on this earth. In author’s opinion, a great life should always reach beyond itself to a higher plane.

About the

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) was a German artist philosopher. He was one of the first scholars in Western philosophy to share and state major thoughts of Indian philosophy, such as asceticism, self-denial, and the concept of the world-as-appearance. His work is also known as the philosophical pessimism, as he expresses a world-outlook that challenges the value of beings.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, German Literature, Psychology, Classics, Essays, Audiobook

234 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

[Glenn Russell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first read this book of Schopenhauer back in college and enjoyed very much. I just did complete listening to the audio book twice. Again, most enjoyable; matter of fact, I had to laugh a number of times as I found what Sir Arthur was saying so much in accord with my own hard knocks through the years. To share a taste of what a reader will find in the writing of this nineteenth century German philosopher’s little book of wisdom and maxims, here are several direct quotes along with my own observations:

“And just for the same reason we can more easily bear a misfortune which comes to us entirely from without, than one which we have drawn upon ourselves; for fortune may always change, but not character. Therefore, subjective blessings - a noble nature, a capable head, a joyful temperament, bright spirits, a well-constituted, perfectly sound physique, in a word, mens sana in corpore sano, are the first and most important elements in happiness; so that we should be more intent on promoting and preserving such qualities than on the possession of external wealth and external honor.

Schopenhauer’s essay on The Wisdom of Life is broken down into three categories: 1) What a man is; 2) What a man has; and 3) How a man stands in the estimation of others (apologies for Schopenhauer’s sexist language). His overarching observation: what we are as people in and of ourselves is of supreme importance, far outweighing our possessions or our reputation. Ironically, as Schopenhauer notes, so much of our time and energy is expended in amassing wealth or worrying about how we look in other people’s eyes. Much more preferable to cultivate our internal resources.

“Cheerfulness is a direct and immediate gain,- the very coin, as it were, of happiness, and not, like all else, merely a check upon the bank; for it alone makes us immediately happy in the present moment, and that is the highest blessing for beings like us, whose existence is but an infinitesimal moment between two eternities. To secure and promote this feeling of cheerfulness should be the supreme aim of all our endeavors after happiness. Now it is certain that nothing contributes so little to cheerfulness as riches, or so much, as health.”

Emphasis on our health, particularly physical health, provides a firm foundation, with exercise, proper diet and a disposition of “good cheer” as the first steps to a fruitful, rewarding, full life. Schopenhauer states directly his essay is no lofty metaphysics or detailed analytic theory but a manual for practical day-to-day living.

“From the essential nature of the philistine it follows, secondly, in regard to others, that, as he possesses no intellectual, but only physical need, he will seek the society of those who can satisfy the latter, but not the former. The last thing he will expect from his friends is the possession of any sort of intellectual capacity; nay, if he chances to meet with it, it will rouse his antipathy and even hatred; simply because in addition to an unpleasant sense of inferiority, he experiences, in his heart, a dull kind of envy, which has to be carefully concealed even from himself.”

With “philistine” Schopenhauer has in mind hardheaded business types who are all business and only take time out to eat, drink, and talk about things like games or sports. According to Schopenhauer, if someone is a seeker of wisdom, a lover of philosophy, art, music or literature, best to steer clear of such philistines, or, if forced to be in their presence, maintain a noble silence as much as possible and keep your interests to yourself.

“Riches, one may say, are like sea-water; the more you drink the thirstier you become; and the same is true of fame. The loss of wealth and prosperity leaves a man, as soon as the first pangs of grief are over, in very much the same habitual temper as before; and the reason of this is, that as soon as fate diminishes the amount of his possessions, he himself immediately reduces the amount of his claims.”

Forever the intellectual and philosopher, Schopenhauer judged people who stake their personal identity and sense of self on things like prestige or wealth as fools walking on thin ice.

“By a peculiar weakness of human nature, people generally think too much about the opinion which others form of them; although the slightest reflection will show that this opinion, whatever it may be, is not in itself essential to happiness.”

From my own experience, I’ve never understood how anybody can worry about what other people think of them. The longer I live, the more I realize most people are drowning in their own chatter.

“If the teaching of experience bears fruit in us, we soon give up the pursuit of pleasure and happiness, and think much more about making ourselves secure against the attacks of pain and suffering. We see that the best the world has to offer is an existence free from pain—a quiet, tolerable life; and we confine our claims to this, as to something we can more surely hope to achieve. For the safest way of not being very miserable is not to expect to be very happy.”

I’m all for keeping pain and suffering at arm’s length and there is great wisdom in Schopenhauer’s words here. However, we are well to consider another angle: creativity requires courage, courage to move beyond safety and security. As anybody on a spiritual or artistic path quickly recognizes, there is much more to life than simply creating a quiet, tolerable space for ourselves.

“To live a life that shall be entirely prudent and discreet, and to draw from experience all the instruction it contains, it is requisite to be constantly thinking back,—to make a kind of recapitulation of what we have done, of our impressions and sensations, to compare our former with our present judgments—what we set before us and struggle to achieve, with the actual result and satisfaction we have obtained. To do this is to get a repetition of the private lessons of experience,—lessons which are given to everyone.”

Schopenhauer puts great emphasis on learning from one’s mistakes. If possible, he advises, we are well to keep a daily journal or, at the very least, before we go to sleep, review the events of the day.

“The more a man has in himself, the less others can be to him. The feeling of self-sufficiency! it is that which restrains those whose personal value is in itself great riches, from such considerable sacrifices as are demanded by intercourse with the world, let alone, then, from actually practicing self-denial by going out of their way to seek it. Ordinary people are sociable and complaisant just from the very opposite feeling;—to bear others' company is easier for them than to bear their own. Moreover, respect is not paid in this world to that which has real merit; it is reserved for that which has none. So retirement is at once a proof and a result of being distinguished by the possession of meritorious qualities. It will therefore show real wisdom on the part of any one who is worth anything in himself, to limit his requirements as may be necessary, in order to preserve or extend his freedom, and,—since a man must come into some relations with his fellow-men—to admit them to his intimacy as little as possible. As a general rule, it may be said that a man's sociability stands very nearly in inverse ratio to his intellectual value: to say that "so and so" is very unsociable, is almost tantamount to saying that he is a man of great capacity.”

Not exactly a perspective in vogue today, but one we would do well considering: Are we friends with ourselves? How much do we cherish our own silence and solitude? Do we consider ourselves blessed for those times we can read in peace?

“In a young man, it is a bad sign, as well from an intellectual as from a moral point of view, if he is precocious in understanding the ways of the world, and in adapting himself to its pursuits; if he at once knows how to deal with men, and enters upon life, as it were, fully prepared. It argues a vulgar nature. On the other hand, to be surprised and astonished at the way people act, and to be clumsy and cross-grained in having to do with them, indicates a character of the nobler sort.”

Schopenhauer urges us not to come down hard on ourselves if we made mistakes in our interactions with others when we were younger. For such mistakes, as it turn out, could be an indication we have a noble rather than a vulgar nature!

[Carlos · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have never disagreed so much with a book that so closely recommended the attitudes towards which I strive. In these essays Schopenhauer seeks to guide the reader to a life of internal contemplation and solitude. He even goes too far on that direction when he emphasizes the importance of being self-sufficient to the point of disregarding friends and espouses. However, despite the fact that my own attitude to life coincides with many of the maxims he endorsed, I kept thinking that such a one-dimensional attitude towards life could not be correct. I couldn’t help but feel that Schopenhauer was defended, indeed deifying, the very life he had lead. The life of a quiet introverted intellectual man. I couldn’t help but feel that trying to suggest that this is the way in which all people should live, or worse, that this was the best way to live, was myopic. It just seemed impossible that no acknowledgement was made for the fact that many people live wonderful lives surrounded by numerous friends and for whom solitude is sterile. This is not to devalue the beauty of a quiet and contemplative life, a live that appeals greatly to me; however, one must not shoehorn the variety of human lives into one’s own preference.

[Rumi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book I randomly stumbled upon at a friend's house. Having nothing to read on the bus, I took it and was surprised to find how easy and pleasant it was to read. Amazingly, this book is far from obsolete. Conclusions are based on solid logic derived from people's behaviour, which obviously has remained pretty much unchanged for the last couple of centuries. I agreed with and enjoyed a great deal of the insights to human nature, and got some interesting new ideas that might affect my thinking from now on.

[Khands · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beginning with the assumption that one's life will be essentially painful and miserable, Schopenhauer proceeds to offer thoughts about how we can eke out a bit of pleasure for ourselves during our brief time on this earth.

Underlying much of his advice is the notion one should proceed cautiously, with restraint, curbing one's desires to avoid falling into situations, social or consumptive that will only make us more miserable. Don't desire too much, he implies, let happiness rest on small simple elements.

Much of Schopenhauer's advice resonates with our modern sensibilities. Maintaining physical and mental health through exercise of body and mine is, he says, essential to happiness.

Much of the advice offered is familiar to us but the thoroughness of his insights into how one best live one's life is definitely worth reading and rereading.

[Derek Lado · Rating 5 out of 5]

Schopenhauer writes in such a direct and refreshing style, that is actually a pleasure to read him. It's like we are all lucky that his thoughts are available to us..
I first read Schopenhauer when I was 16..
I have never been able to let him go..

[Conor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really interesteing, particularly beause of the obvious influence on Nietzsche. I had to take a star off for the extended parts on dueling, and for the bizzare astrological twist at the end, but otherwise it was pretty good.

[Brian R. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some really, really good stuff in here. Amazing book, truly. Would have been 5 stars if it weren't for some tired racist and misogynistic tropes and his annoying habit of going out of his way to rationalize his own misanthropy.

[Derek · Rating 5 out of 5]

The two essays contianed in this book are perhaps Schopenhauers finest and without a doubt his most accessible. This is one of the few books that has changed my life positively. Not in any huge way, but some of the simple insights definetly brought about some eureka moments. Though it was written in the mid-eighteen hunderds, many of the ideas and instructions he provided about living a pleasureable life still hold true today.

[Yuliya · Rating 5 out of 5]

i will definitely reread it in some time. great book!

[Jarpson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best books I’ve read. Arthur Schopenhauer, you have to be thankful to him for the solitary life he had to live to get to the wisdom in his work, it is underrated and under appreciated.

[Alireza Farahani · Rating 5 out of 5]

این‌گونه می‌نویسم که به عنوان خوانش دومی که از کتاب در باب حکمت زندگی داشتم، سعی کردم این خوانش را مفصل‌تر و به صورت تحلیلی و معاصرانه‌تری بخوانم.

به عنوان بار دوم این‌گونه می‌نویسم که کتاب در باب حکمت زندگی، نوشته‌ی آرتور شوپنهاور و منتشرشده در سال 1851، یکی از برجسته‌ترین و خواستنی‌ترین آثار فلسفه‌ی عملی است که تأملاتی عمیق و کاربردی درباره‌ی ماهیت خوشبختی، رنج و حکمت زیستن ارائه می‌دهد.

این اثر را نه‌ تنها به‌ عنوان متنی تاریخی، بلکه به‌ عنوان بخشی از گفت‌وگوی زنده با فلسفه‌ی معاصر انگلیسی‌زبان بررسی می‌کنم. در دو دهه‌ی اخیر، فیلسوفانی چون توماس نیگل (با تمرکز بر پوچی و دیدگاه عینی در منظر هیچ‌کجا, 1986) و مارتا نوسبام (با رویکرد قابلیت‌ها در مرزهای عدالت, 2006) به ایده‌های شوپنهاور پرداخته‌اند.

این اثر، با سبک افوریستیک و نثر روان و سرشارش برای مخاطب هم‌زبان کتاب، پلی میان فلسفه‌ی نظری و زندگی روزمره ایجاد می‌کند و برای مخاطبان عام و متخصص جذاب است.

شوپنهاور، فیلسوف آلمانی قرن نوزدهم، در جهان به‌ مثابه اراده و تصور، جهانی را توصیف کرد که تحت سلطه‌ی اراده‌ای کور و سیری‌ناپذیر است. اما در کتاب در باب حکمت زندگی، او از متافیزیک فاصله گرفته و به فلسفه‌ی عملی روی می‌آورد، با هدف ارائه‌ی راهنمایی‌هایی برای کاهش رنج و دستیابی به آرامش در زندگی.

این اثر، که در اواخر عمر او نوشته شده، شوپنهاوری عمل‌گرا را نشان می‌دهد که بدبینی فلسفی‌اش را به توصیه‌هایی برای زیستن تبدیل کرده است.

برخلاف نظام‌های فلسفی پیچیده، این کتاب با زبانی ساده و مستقیم، خواننده را به تأمل درباره‌ی ماهیت وجود و راه‌های زیستن دعوت می‌کند.

شوپنهاور زندگی را به سه حوزه تقسیم می‌کند: آنچه فرد هست (شخصیت، سلامت جسمی و توانایی‌های ذهنی)، آنچه فرد دارد (دارایی‌ها و شرایط مادی) و آنچه فرد نمایندگی می‌کند (شهرت و جایگاه اجتماعی).

او استدلال می‌کند که خوشبختی پایدار عمدتاً به ویژگی‌های درونی، به‌ ویژه سلامت و خلق‌وخو، وابسته است تا عوامل بیرونی مانند ثروت یا تأیید اجتماعی.

باید با دقت توجه داشت و خرسند بود که این دیدگاه با سنت‌های رواقی و فلسفه‌های شرقی، به‌ویژه بودیسم، هم‌خوانی دارد، اما بدبینی خاص شوپنهاور، که زندگی را ذاتاً پر از رنج می‌داند، آن را متمایز می‌کند.

در فلسفه‌ی معاصر، این ایده‌های کتاب با مباحثی درباره‌ی بهزیستی ذهنی (مانند آثار دانیل هیبرون در پی‌جویی ناکامی, 2008)، محدودیت‌های لذت‌جویی مادی (چرخه‌ی لذت‌جویی) و پرسش‌های اگزیستانسیال درباره‌ی معنا (مانند آثار سوزان ولف در معنای زندگی و چرایی آن, 2010) هم‌صدا است.

سبک افوریستیک کتاب، که یادآور نویسندگانی چون مونتینی و نیچه است، ایده‌های پیچیده را در قالب جملاتی کوتاه و تأثیرگذار ارائه می‌دهد. این ویژگی، همراه با طنز و بینش عمیق شوپنهاور، کتاب را به اثری ادبی و فلسفی تبدیل کرده که برای خوانندگان امروزی نیز جذاب است.

نقطه‌ی درخشان کتاب این است که در جهانی که فرهنگ مصرف‌گرایی و خوش‌بینی کاذب بر آن غالب است، این کتاب پادزهری نیرومند ارائه می‌دهد و خواننده را به تأمل درباره‌ی اصالت، تاب‌آوری و پرورش منابع درونی دعوت می‌کند.

از منظر علمی، کتاب در باب حکمت زندگی شوپنهاور را می‌توان پیشگامی در کاوش مفاهیم بهزیستی ذهنی و روان‌شناسی کاربردی نیز دانست.

همچنین، دیدگاه او درباره‌ی ناچیز بودن دارایی‌های مادی در ایجاد خوشبختی پایدار با مفهوم چرخه‌ی لذت‌جویی (hedonic treadmill) تأیید می‌شود، که در مطالعات مارتین سلیگمن‌ نشان داده شده است که افزایش ثروت یا موقعیت اجتماعی تأثیر محدودی بر رضایت بلندمدت دارد.

بدبینی شوپنهاور، که رنج را جزء ذاتی زندگی می‌داند، با روان‌شناسی تکاملی نیز هم‌سو است. دیوید باس، استدلال می‌کند که نارضایتی انسان‌ها مکانیسمی تکاملی برای تضمین بقا بوده است، دیدگاهی که شوپنهاور به‌ صورت فلسفی در توصیف اراده‌ی سیری‌ناپذیر بیان می‌کند.

توصیه‌ی او به پرورش فعالیت‌های فکری به‌ عنوان پناهگاهی در برابر رنج با یافته‌های علوم اعصاب مدرن، هم‌خوانی دارد که نشان می‌دهند فعالیت‌های شناختی و تأملی می‌توانند تنظیم عاطفی را بهبود بخشند. برای مثال، تکنیک‌های ذهن‌آگاهی (mindfulness)، که در روان‌شناسی مدرن رایج است، شباهت‌هایی با تأکید شوپنهاور بر خودآگاهی و تمرکز بر لحظه‌ی حال دارد.

با این حال، باید اعتراف داشت که کم‌توجهی شوپنهاور به اهمیت روابط اجتماعی در خوشبختی با شواهد معاصر در تضاد است.

از منظر نقد ادبی، کتاب در باب حکمت زندگی اثری است که فلسفه را با زیبایی‌شناسی پیوند می‌زند. زیبایی‌شناسی و مباحث آن همان دل‌خوشی ستودنی شوپنهاور در زیست این‌جهانی بوده است، جهان در نگاه او با هنر تا حدودی قابل تحمل‌تر خواهد بود.

نثر شوپنهاور، که در ترجمه‌های انگلیسی به‌ خوبی حفظ شده، با وضوح، طنز و لحنی صمیمی مشخص می‌شود که آن را از متافیزیک پیچیده‌ی آثار پیشین او متمایز می‌کند.

سبک افوریستیک، با جملاتی کوتاه و مستقل، در سنت نویسندگانی چون لاروشفوکو، مونتینی و نیچه جای می‌گیرد و به شوپنهاور امکان می‌دهد ایده‌های عمیق را در قالب عباراتی موجز و به‌یادماندنی بیان کند. برای نمونه، جمله‌ی «سلامت همه‌چیز نیست، اما بدون سلامت، همه‌چیز هیچ است» فلسفه‌ی او را در عبارتی ساده اما عمیق خلاصه می‌کند.

شوپنهاور از استعاره‌های زنده و ارجاعات کلاسیک بهره می‌برد، مانند توصیف زندگی به‌عنوان آونگی میان ملال و رنج، که نه‌ تنها تصویرسازی قدرتمندی ایجاد می‌کند، بلکه خواننده را به تأمل وامی
‌دارد.
این سبک، که ترکیبی از بدبینی و طنز است، پیش‌زمینه‌ای برای نویسندگان مدرنی چون کافکا و کامو فراهم می‌کند که با پوچی و تناقضات وجود انسانی دست‌وپنجه نرم می‌کنند.
نثر شوپنهاور با توجه به ایجاز و تأثیرگذاری‌اش، با سنت مقاله‌نویسی فلسفی در جهان انگلیسی‌زبان، مانند آثار برتراند راسل یا آیزایا برلین، هم‌خوانی دارد.

از نظر ادبی، کتاب در باب حکمت زندگی، اثری چندلایه است که هم به‌ عنوان رساله‌ای فلسفی و هم به‌عنوان متنی ادبی عمل می‌کند. این اثر با دعوت به تأمل عمیق و ارائه‌ی بینش‌هایی در قالب زبانی زیبا، خواننده را به تجربه‌ای فکری و عاطفی وامی‌دارد.
توانایی شوپنهاور در ترکیب حکمت عملی با بیان شاعرانه، این کتاب را به یکی از ماندگارترین آثار فلسفی-ادبی تبدیل کرده است.

از منظر فلسفی، کتاب در باب حکمت زندگی تلاشی است برای تبدیل نظام متافیزیکی شوپنهاور، که بر اراده‌ی کور و سیری‌ناپذیر به‌عنوان نیروی محرکه‌ی وجود تأکید دارد، به یک اخلاق عملی برای زیستن.

او زندگی را به‌ عنوان فرایندی پر از رنج توصیف می‌کند که در آن اراده‌ی بی‌پایان انسان را به نارضایتی مداوم می‌کشاند. با این حال، شوپنهاور راه‌هایی برای کاهش این رنج پیشنهاد می‌کند، از جمله خودآگاهی، میانه‌روی و پرورش فعالیت‌های فکری.
تقسیم‌بندی او از خیرات زندگی به «آنچه فرد هست»، «آنچه فرد دارد» و «آنچه فرد نمایندگی می‌کند» چارچوبی روشن برای تحلیل عوامل مؤثر بر خوشبختی فراهم می‌کند و بر اهمیت ویژگی‌های درونی مانند سلامت، خلق‌وخو و توانایی‌های ذهنی تأکید دارد.

این دیدگاه با سنت‌های رواقی و بودایی هم‌خوانی دارد، که هر دو بر جدایی از وابستگی‌های مادی و تمرکز بر ذهنیت درونی تأکید دارند.با این حال، بدبینی شوپنهاور، که زندگی را «تجارتی زیان‌ده» می‌داند، او را از خوش‌بینی رواقیون یا آرامش بودایی متمایز می‌کند.

همچنین، دیدگاه او درباره‌ی انزوا به‌ عنوان راهی برای کاهش رنج، با اخلاق کاربردی معاصر، مانند آثار پیتر سینگر که بر مسئولیت‌های اجتماعی و خیرخواهی جهانی تأکید دارد، ناسازگار است. در عین حال، توصیه‌های شوپنهاور برای محدود کردن امیال و پذیرش محدودیت‌های وجودی با بحث‌های اگزیستانسیالیستی، مانند تأملات توماس نیگل درباره‌ی پوچی و تناقضات زندگی، هم‌صدا است.

در نهایت، کتاب در باب حکمت زندگی چارچوبی فلسفی برای مواجهه با رنج و یافتن معنا در جهانی پر از ناکامی ارائه می‌دهد.

این اثر، با ترکیب بدبینی واقع‌گرایانه و حکمت عملی، خواننده را به تأمل درباره‌ی اصالت، خودآگاهی و پرورش منابع درونی دعوت می‌کند و همچنان در گفت‌وگوهای فلسفی معاصر، به‌ویژه در زمینه‌ی معنای زندگی و اخلاق زیستن، جایگاهی ویژه دارد.

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was recommended to me by Richard Jordan over a year aago; it took me a long time to get around to reading it (I always have a tremendous backlog of books I'm meaning to read), but I'm glad I finally did. What a pleasure! One need not agree with every aspect of Schopenhauer's philosophy to find something pleasant in well-ordered and well-considered thoughts. I'm sure some might find Schopenhauer's (once quite reasonable) assumption that his readership if familiar with Latin and Greek to be somewhat off-putting, though I personally found it charming (of course, I know Latin and Greek, so I wouldn't be bothered by it, now would I?).

[Shivam Tiwari · Rating 3 out of 5]

In The Wisdom of Life, Schopenhauer explains how one can order his life by achieving intellectual strength and freeing oneself from the clutches of irrational impulses that most of the society suffer from.

Schopenhauer divides the blessings of life in 3 different classes - 

What a man is; under this, he discusses how important a man's personality is to himself. In personality, he covers a lot many topics such as a person's mental and physical health, morals, attitude, beauty etc.
What a man has; mainly what property he/she holds. What kind of possessions he/she holds dear.
How a man stands in the estimation of others; in which he discusses the importance of a person's reputation, fame and other's opinion.
Schopenhauer strictly believes that an intellectual man possesses a personality which can be a provider for almost any kind of entertainment really needed to survive and thrive with pleasure even. He argues that a man who is intellectually very sound needs less from the outside world. He founds most of the answers inward and hence does not have to look outward for things like companionship, fun, entertainment, pleasure etc. Schopenhauer believes if someone truly wants to live a successful life, they need to find be more focused on developing their own intelligence in various matters.

Thus, according to him, personality is the best and foremost trait on which the whole existence of a person depends. The other two factors are the ones which man can live without and are only required when there are serious deficiencies in someone's personalities. He firmly specifies that it is essential that a person should not be defined by his/her possessions or even company he/she keeps. In the third class as well, respect is the only trait which he believes is worth chasing. He harshly criticises the people who run for fame and rank.

Now all these views are really very easy to get behind. But I urge you to stay with me a minute. Remember that this book was written in the mid 19th century Germany and thus, does contains some aspect which will be very hard to accomplish in the present world. Also, it does not help the cause that the author is very blunt about his views, some of which might be hurtful to some sections of the world. Nevertheless, I will stay true to what I actually felt after reading this.

His views about developing an intellect which makes you more self-sufficient are worth checking out. But then he says, 

"An intellectual man in complete solitude has excellent entertainment in his own thoughts and fancies, while no amount of diversity of social pleasure, theatres, excursions and amusements, can ward off boredom from a dullard." 

I feel that in present times, even an intellectual man is incomplete without the art of being able to interact with the society. Being intellectual in Schopenhauer's dictionary might be different in current one. Nowadays, being socially interactive is a talent in itself and should be cherished. 

He has written some amazing paragraphs about the pursuit of finding one's true qualities and making advantageous use of them. It has the essence of the current conditions where many of us might earn lots but won't be happy because they're not doing what they actually love. Here, Schopenhauer stresses much on figuring out what one likes and keep at it to live happily and avoid boredom. But, what I most like about it was this, which suggested to at least try something out before making assumptions,

"Still, in a case of this kind, it should be our care, especially in youth, to avoid the precipe of presumption, and not ascribe to ourselves a superfluity of power which is not there."

Schopenhauer urges people to not be ordinary. As the ordinary man tries to find happiness in things around him, external things like property, money, children etc. When he losses something of this sort, the foundation of his happiness is destroyed. Very innovatively, he has explained how it is best that the centre of gravity for any person should be the person himself. 

Most of Schopenhauer's theories can still be applicable today, but their remains a few which are better left unread, not because they're radical and wrong, just because applying them now might not result in desirable outcomes. Some of us like me might also find this model highly simplistic for our times. But apart from a few outdated (and sometimes a little offensive) views, the book can be picked up at least once, especially by someone who is into philosophy about wisdom and happiness in life, and also those who are looking for some ideas on how to develop oneself to have a sound mental and physical health.

[Jarin Jove · Rating 1 out of 5]

Schopenhauer’s book “The Wisdom of Life” is pretentious garbage. Nietzsche’s assessment of Schopenhauer, which seemed altogether extreme, turned out to be correct. Schopenhauer was a nihilist of the most lamentable sort – you read that right: Schopenhauer was a nihilist that was more lamentable than traditional nihilism.

The framework of Schopenhauer’s “The Wisdom of Life” is by far the most idiotic principle that I’ve ever encountered. It can and should only be regarded as a piece that was contemporary to its own time from a buffoon. Critics and even agitators of philosophy would be able to use this as the stereotype for why people believe that philosophy is nonsense.

Schopenhauer’s principle is thus: That we should rescind the idea of commercial wealth because they’re just things and they will vanish eventually; if not by us then by our progeny. Thus, because our wealth will eventually disappear and is thus not the key to true happiness. He argues that other people are also not the key to true happiness because being around other people makes one stupid and he uses a very racist generalization of American blacks to support this point. Apparently, singing and dancing are acts of stupidity according to Schopenhauer and he felt that black people – whom he perceived as an inferior race – epitomized this idea of other people being a waste of time.

It actually becomes worse from there. He goes on to make spurious generalizations of women needing men to be rulers of the household – contemporary to how they were treated during his time period – and then talks about honor. He makes it quite clear that honor is just meant to preserve, even violently preserve, the idea of one’s public perception. Men shooting each other on the street in a duel is about honor in his worldview. This type of violence is seen as morally good and rational while he – and others of his time – condemn women for being too emotional because women "give into" gossip. The self-contradiction is for all to see in these modern times. It also shows that chivalry really was nothing more than self-aggrandizing given the veneer of self-respect in accordance with customs at that time. Dueling for “honor” was never some good versus evil type of affair as depicted in Hollywood.

I haven’t been able to finish it because the book was so terrible. I got about half-way through it before I had to put it down so feel free to give me any criticisms on this one. I just couldn't endure the beginning half of the philosophical book.

[Sunrise (Brit) · Rating 3 out of 5]

65% = 3 Stars

Hmm. I'm torn with this one. I went back and forth agreeing and disagreeing, seeing his point and shaking it off.

This is a book written by a man who lived an introverted intellectual life and would like to promote that way of living by claiming that it is the best way to live, and those who cannot live that way due to boredom are just... dullards, because of course a "smart" person can entertain their mind. This of course is not necessarily true.

But, putting that aside, Spending a portion of your day alone and thinking is marvelous, but all the time? I'm not so sure. It might lead you through a more peaceful life but it surely won't aid your mental health in the long run, nor will it include family or children, or at least I assume as much. I will use Albert Einstein as an example since everyone seems to have heard of him. Einstein spent much of his time alone thinking of his ideas, completely enraptured and entertained by them, however he also spent a lot of time with others, sharing his ideas and thoughts and developing his theories. He needed the input of others and desired it, he desired and enjoyed the company of women as well. Would his life have been better, his mind more wise, if he spent more of his time alone? I don't know.

He asks the reader to care for their personality; the self, which is largely determined by nature and matters a great deal. He also claims that property ie material possessions, are a determining factor in our own happiness. Also, true. Then he goes into position, status and fame; well yes, we all want to be viewed by our peers a certain way, and leaving our mark on or in the world is a pleasure that I won't deny many people seek out.

He covers the detriment of pride, the weapon of social rank, and the superficiality of a person who desires fame. Much of what was written I found coincided with reality, but I'm not so sure that this is a go-to book on wisdom and happiness either. Something is missing.

Many philosophies are accurate about very important things and make climactic points but the longer you mull around the implications, the end result, or logical out-workings, you begin to notice a piece of the puzzle is missing, and this incomplete feeling tends to stand out to me more as I get older reading this type of work.

Overall, I liked this book because it was written well and interesting.

[RoWoSthlm · Rating 1 out of 5]

From the middle of the 18th century, Schopenhauer conveys fascinating and thought-provoking points to our modern times. Should we embace solitude to be really free? It was quite an amusing acquaintance with the pearls of wisdom from one of the greatest thinkers of that time. However, even taking into consideration that the book was written almost two centuries ago, I am having a big trouble overcoming some disturbing facts, that Schopenhauer, as well as, unfortunately, many other big names of that time, attributed civilizational primacy to the white races, had discriminating view on women, and some other peculiar how-should-we-live-our-lives pieces of advice, so the text is full of this kind of crap. This is where the rating-stars from me were lost. If you can close your eyes to that stuff and approach philosophers from that epoque with some sort of time-adjusted perception, you might appreciate this book.

[Pete · Rating 3 out of 5]

Published in 1851 and translated by T.B. Saunders into English sometime in the late 1800s (based on some of his commentary) this can be a little wordy but I really like the last half of the book. The first half "The Wisdom of Life" was a 2/5, the last half "Counsels and Maxims" was a 5/5. The first half spent way too much time on honor and duels in Europe and it was hard to tell if it was satire or not. So I'd say skip that part. The last half was philosophical gold. I can see why he's seen as a pessimist though with a quote like this "as we advance in years, it becomes in a greater or less degree clear that all happiness is chimerical in its nature, and that pain alone is real." spot on, but then he goes on point out how to avoid pain and suffering which I enjoyed.

[Alexander Ortega · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a brilliants book, definitely worth-reading. Many good insights of how to go through life with wisdom.
Schopenhauer suggests that to make the most of life we should run away from any type of suffering, instead of searching for pleasure and happiness. Pleasure and happiness are temporary and for this reason frustrating per se, whereas all suffering is real and makes life miserable - that´s his main idea.
This a book that has the power of making you think and question yourself about the way your life has been lived.

[Usfromdk]

Difficult to rate, so I won't rate it. Not as good as I'd imagined, a bit disappointing in fact, but worth reading to the end even so. I added maybe 10 quotes altogether from the book to my collection of quotes on goodreads, which is not very much for a book of this length and type. The remarks about chivalry and related stuff making up a substantial proportion of chapter 4 I thought were quite interesting, but they're hardly of much relevance to most people reading the book today.

[Kyle Muntz · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been writing a lot of negative reviews recently, but fortunately I still love Schopenhauer! These are later books, mostly just opinions on life and extensions of the basic ideas of his philosophy. The essays are full of incisive, brutal critiques of everything and everyone, and mostly still great. The flaws are the same as I remember, but even his obsession with psysiognomy and "the brow of the philosopher" is sort of hilarious.

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review to: L’art d’être heureux de Arthur Schopenhauer could Not find ist here on goodreads

Actually a great book even though it’s kind of pessimistic lol

What I liked most are the quotes of other philosophers that are included

[Anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

The bits about honor were very amusing. I mention them only because they're the only bits I remember.

[Jimmy Shelton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Don't judge this book by its cover!

[Lisa S · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think Schopenhauer has some good insights, but also talks a lot of rubbish

[Madhab Dwibedy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well well well at last...

To understand me , u hv to read every single word that I hv written -schopenhauer

[Titus · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is difficult to write a review on a such a complex and impactful work, one which at the same time is built upon already established thought structures of the past, (the Ancient Stoicism and the more recent transcendental idealism of Kant), while taking elements from voltairian pessimism and another doctrine, completely strange to western thinking of the time: Buddhism. What Schopenhauer achieves is a partly-successful combination of these disparate perspectives, united by an extraordinary insight into human psychology (which would influence Freud’s psychoanalysis). That’s not to say there aren’t incorrections and contradictions along the way, but even at it’s weakest, Schopenhauer’s reasoning remains clear, and his writing always engaging.

Despite the brilliance displayed on every page, I would not recommend this as a self-help book. Though highly stimulating and innovative on a philosophical level, the actual advice Schopenhauer provides is the weakest part of the text, and if taken seriously will probably cause more harm than good. To put it simply: pessimism is the basis of the entire book, and probably the reason it was written. Life is suffering; for to live is to follow passion, the wish to achieve something desired. If you don’t get what you want, you’ll feel frustrated, angry, jealous and bitter. If you get what you want, you’ll eventually feel disappointed and bored, and will keep pursuing passions in order to escape the ever-growing tedium. Also, people are awful: stupid, arrogant, selfish and back-stabbing. So, to Schopenhauer, if you want to be happy, you must avoid suffering, meaning: avoid pursuit of wordly passions and pleasures and contact with other people. Plus, you have to dedicate yourself to higher pleasures (the pleasures of Art in all it’s forms, the only way true happiness can be obtained), exercise your spirit and protect it against the suffering that is life. In general terms, this is the essential advice given to the reader in this book. And this is where Schopenhauer fails: in the avoidance of wordly desires we see the principles of Buddhism that so enchanted Schopenhauer, which will allow a person to experience less suffering; and the suffering that will still make it’s way though the person’s isolation must be endured with Stoic capacity. This attempt to combine ascetism with Stoicism is forced; curiously, it’s more the product of Schopenhauer’s will than that of his reason.

The Greek stoic philosophers, who also viewed suffering as inherent to the very existence of life, chose to accept it and find ways to cope with it through the realization that both suffering and pleasure mean nothing, as all that is will one day exist no more; this realization frees the human being: knowing the meaninglessness of all life, pleasure or suffering, the individual has the freedom to live his life remaining faithful to his own self while respecting the principals of common good; pleasure and suffering can and will invariably be found; when upon him, the individual only has to keep in mind the (little) relative value of them when compared to Eternity, and he will find peace of mind. Schopenhauer has many passages highlighting these principles, for example: «It is much better to take a very calm and prosaic view of what is disagreeable; for that is the easiest way of bearing it». These Stoic-based passages are undoubtedly the best portions of the book. Schopenhauer explains so many ingenious ways of self-improving and dealing better with the suffering of life that his claim of avoidance comes off as an unnecessary and somewhat childish hatred of being frustrated. Take this excerpt, for example:

«No one who has to live amongst men should absolutely discard any person who has his due place in the order of nature, even though he is very wicked or contemptible or ridiculous. He must accept him as an unalterable fact—unalterable, because the necessary outcome of an eternal, fundamental principle; and in bad cases he should remember the words of Mephistopheles: es muss auch solche Käuze geben (Goethe’s Faust, Part I)—there must be fools and rogues in the world. If he acts otherwise, he will be committing an injustice, and giving a challenge of life and death to the man he discards. No one can alter his own peculiar individuality, his moral character, his intellectual capacity, his temperament or physique; and if we go so far as to condemn a man from every point of view, there will be nothing left him but to engage us in deadly conflict; for we are practically allowing him the right to exist only on condition that he becomes another man - which is impossible; his nature forbids it. So if you have to live amongst men, you must allow everyone the right to exist in accordance with the character he has, whatever it turns out to be: and all you should strive to do is to make use of this character in such a way as its kind and nature permit, rather than to hope for any alteration in it, or to condemn it off-hand for what it is. This is the true sense of the maxim - Live and let live.»

If one chooses to follow what Schopenhauer states here, if one could live peacefully even if among people he dislikes, what would be the need for isolation? Schopenhauer presents such wise recommendations for dealing with suffering without the need for avoidance that such isolation becomes superfluous. For example, Schopenhauer also explains that one of the main reasons we suffer lies in the excessive value we attribute to what other people think of us. This has it’s origins in Middle Age, in knightly honor: when someone publicly offended you, even if through lies, and you allowed it to pass by ignored, you would by covered with ridicule for not having challenged and defeated the one who offended you. The other person doesn’t have to prove he’s right; you are the one who have to prove him wrong with a showing of your brute force. Stupid as it may be, this «knightly honor» prevailed in western society, and some of it still manifests itself in what Schopenhauer calls «bourgeois honor», reflected in the importance that other peoples opinions about us have, unjustifiably, to ourselves.

Insights like these only highlight that there is little use for avoidance if you are able to live following stoic principles. But Schopenhauer wants to avoid all suffering, and for that he needs to remain outside of life, to deny life, to live an anti-life. Regardless of your opinion on the value of life and people, and in a purely logical sense, you can’t deny the contradiction, in fact, the impossibility, of wanting to lead an anti-life while you are, at the same time, alive. If you are alive, life is unavoidable, with all the suffering, pleasure and confusion inherent to it, and only death is certain.

These weaknesses in reasoning aside, Schopenhauer shows deep knowledge of the human mind, and his influence on Freud’s writings is quite clear. Schopenhauer was innovative in his view of the sexual impulse as the «nucleus of life»; the existence of unconcious impulses, he says, composed of blind and irrational will, are most evidently expressed in sexuality and in the sexual behaviours. Freud would appropriate these concepts and incorporate them in his construct, the «Id», the sum of all unconcious, primal, urges and desires. Schopenhauer also precognizes the freudian mechanisms of interpersonal projection, the idea that what we dislike in others is what we dislike and reject in ourselves:

«A man bears the weight of his own body without knowing it, but he soon feels the weight of any other, if he tries to move it; in the same way, a man can see other people’s shortcoming’s and vices, but he is blind to his own. This arrangement has one advantage: it turns other people into a kind of mirror, in which a man can see clearly everything that is vicious, faulty, ill-bred and loathsome in his own nature; only, it is generally the old story of the dog barking at is own image; it is himself that he sees and not another dog, as he fancies. He who criticises others, works at the reformation of himself. Those who form the secret habit of scrutinizing other people’s general behavior, and passing severe judgment upon what they do and leave undone, thereby improve themselves, and work out their own perfection: for they will have sufficient sense of justice, or at any rate enough pride and vanity, to avoid in their own case that which they condemn so harshly elsewhere. But tolerant people are just the opposite, and claim for themselves the same indulgence that they extend to others.»

The author's understanding of the psychological processes, along with the importance attributed to sexuality as the ultimate impetus of existence, also constrasts with Schopenhauer’s own position of rejecting sexuality and physical pleasures in general. Again there is a discrepancy between the descriptive and the prescriptive.

Lastly, I’ll leave you with a passage about this subject from Friedrich Nietzsche’s delicious book “On the Geneology of Morals” which brilliantly addresses this logical error that lies in the rejection of human impulses, while still praising (and at the same time mocking) Schopenhauer for being the most eloquent, fascinating and delightful of ascetic philosophers:

«Let us be careful not to pull gloomy faces as soon as we hear the word ‘torture’: in precisely this case, we have plenty to put down on the other side of the account, plenty to deduct – we even have some reason to laugh. For we must not underestimate the fact that Schopenhauer, who actually treated sexuality as a personal enemy (including its tool, woman, that ‘instrumentum diaboli’), needed enemies to stay cheerful; that he loved wrathful, bilious, black-green words; that he got angry for the sake of it, passionately; that he would have become ill, a pessimist (– because he was not one, however much he wanted to be) without his enemies, without Hegel, women, sensuality and the whole existential will to existence, will to remain. Schopenhauer would otherwise not have stayed there, you can bet on that, he would have run away: but his enemies held him tight and kept seducing him back to existence; his anger was his solace, as with the ancient Cynics, his relaxation, his recompense, his remedium for nausea, his happiness. So much with regard to the most personal aspect in Schopenhauer’s case; on the other hand, he is typical in one way, – and here, at last, we come back to our problem. Undeniably, as long as there are philosophers on earth and whenever there have been philosophers (from India to England, to take the opposite poles of a talent for philosophy), there exists a genuine philosophers’ irritation and rancour against sensuality – Schopenhauer is just the most eloquent and, if you have an ear for it, he is also the most fascinating and delightful eruption amongst them –; similarly there exists a genuine partiality and warmth among philosophers with regard to the whole ascetic ideal, there should be no illusions on this score. Both these features belong, as I said, to the type; if both are lacking in a philosopher, he is always just a ‘so-called’ philosopher – you can be sure of that. What does that mean? For we must first interpret this state of affairs: in himself, he remains stupid for all eternity, like any ‘thing in itself ’. Every animal, including the bête philosophe, instinctively strives for an optimum of favourable conditions in which to fully release his power and achieve his maximum of power-sensation; every animal abhors equally instinctively, with an acute sense of smell that is ‘higher than all reason’, any kind of disturbance and hindrance that blocks or could block his path to the optimum (– it is not his path to ‘happiness’ I am talking about, but the path to power, action, the mightiest deeds, and in most cases, actually, his path to misery). Thus the philosopher abhors marriage, together with all that might persuade him to it, – marriage as hindrance and catastrophe on his path to the optimum. Which great philosopher, so far, has been married? Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Schopenhauer – were not; indeed it is impossible to even think about them as married. A married philosopher belongs to comedy, that is my proposition: and that exception, Socrates, the mischievous Socrates, appears to have married ironice, simply in order to demonstrate this proposition. Every philosopher would say what Buddha said when he was told of the birth of a son: ‘Râhula is born to me, a fetter is forged for me’ (Râhula means here ‘a little demon’); every ‘free spirit’ ought to have a thoughtful moment, assuming he has previously had a thoughtless one, like the moment experienced by that same Buddha – he thought to himself, ‘living in a house, that unclean place, is cramped; freedom is in leaving the house’: so saying, he left the house. The ascetic ideal points the way to so many bridges to independence that no philosopher can refrain from inwardly rejoicing and clapping hands on hearing the story of all those who, one fine day, decided to say ‘no’ to any curtailment of their liberty, and go off into the desert: even granted they were just strong asses and the complete opposite of a strong spirit. Consequently, what does the ascetic ideal mean for a philosopher? My answer is – you will have guessed ages ago: on seeing an ascetic ideal, the philosopher smiles because he sees an optimum condition of the highest and boldest intellectuality [Geistigkeit], – he does not deny ‘existence’ by doing so, but rather affirms his existence and only his existence, and possibly does this to the point where he is not far from making the outrageous wish: pereat mundus, fiat philosophia, fiat philosophus, fiam!...
(…)
As you see, they are hardly unbribed witnesses and judges of the value of ascetic ideals, these philosophers! They are thinking of themselves, – they don’t care about ‘the saint’! At the same time, they are thinking of what, to them, is absolutely indispensable: freedom from compulsion, disturbance, noise, business, duties, worries; clear heads; the dance, bounce and flight of ideas; good, thin, clear, free, dry air, like the air in the mountains, in which all animal existence becomes more spiritual and takes wings; peace in every basement; every dog nicely on the lead; no hostile barking and shaggy rancune; no gnawing worms of wounded ambition; bowels regular and under control, busy as a milling mechanism but remote; the heart alien, transcendent, expectant, posthumous, – all in all, they think of the ascetic ideal as the serene asceticism of a deified creature that has flown the nest and is more liable to roam above life than rest.»

[Martin Bradley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book of lessons in psychology and behaviour, most of which are very insightful, and many of the (cynical) maxims are sensible attitudes to take in life. From the naive point of view they might look quite pessimistic, but that wouldn't mean they are incorrect. Much of human motivation and behaviour can be self-centered, mischievous and wicked underneath a benign presentation. But unlike Machiavelli, on the whole this book doesn't encourage diving in and contributing to a noxious game. The full philosophy of Schopenhauer is not detailed here though, it is more of a practical application of his style of thought to everyday life. Robert Greene provides a modern day presentation of many of the thoughts of this book, so if you like his work, you'll likely find this perceptive book too. The themes here having a bit more of a bitter (but perhaps deeper) flavour. As a warning, there are some sections that demonstrate the typical racism of the time, and Schopenhaeur has a heavy misogyny. But that doesn't mean the entirety of the work needs to be discarded as toxic, doing that misses the opportunity to obtain some useful insights.

[Paul Bard · Rating 4 out of 5]

"What people commonly call Fate is, as a general rule, nothing but their own stupid and foolish conduct." - p.92, Counsels and Maxims, Schopenhauer.

The aim of wisdom literature, such as this book, is goodness. By contrast, the aim of self-help and business literature is usefulness, utility for everyday life. Goodness is at once a more general and a higher goal, and all discussions around the scope and end of goodness centre on the one basic idea. Schopenhauer repeats this one idea:

1. The critical factor for happiness and success in life is character, accounting for more than 80% of success.
2. The natural human tendency is to focus on the 20% of things that are not important - that is, on reputation and external success - at the cost of the thing that is really important, character.
3. All the times, classes, and ages of man have their downsides and disadvantages, and life is essentially tragic in nature, and that only thing that gives life value is (you guessed it) character.

In this respect, Schopenhauer is like a man with a hammer to whom all problems seem like nails; the hammer is "character" and the nails are all the diverse appearances of life. The book "The Wisdom of Life" therefore suffers from diminishing returns; once you have got the idea, there really is not much use in going on.

It's fruitful to compare Schopenhauer's wisdom literature to other men who have written similar tomes. So I want to briefly summarise the field of wisdom literature.

Obviously, Aristotle's two books on ethics - the Nicomachean and Eudemian - along with the Magna Moralis, are the key texts at the centre of this literature. This explosion of wisdom takes place in the crater left behind by Plato's middle and early dialogs, especially the Gorgias and shorter Socratic dialogs, which concern the nature of the Good in its practical manifestations.

But rapidly expanding on the heat wave of this ground zero of wisdom we find Boethius' little book, written on death row, The Consolations of Philosophy. And the twin wisdoms of Stoicism and Epicureanism may be regarded as false friends or swerves from the central point of character itself which Aristotle squarely faces. Epicureanism fails by emphasising pleasure too highly over reasonable goodness, and Stoicism fails by emphasising the will too highly over reasonable goodness. Both miss the mark nobly and are worth studying.

Among the moderns, equal in quality at least to Boethius, we find La Rochfoucauld's Maxims, Gracian's Art of Worldly Wisdom. Schopenhauer makes a further suggestion of Cardan's "On Gaining Advantages From Misfortunes", which has sadly fallen into obscurity and appears to be full of fascinating material. (Practically the only site discussing Cardan: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ca... ).

Whereas Rochefoucauld and Gracian fall into expedient Machiavellianism, Schopenhauer accepts the same conditions but comes to a different conclusion. Schopenhauer suggests simply avoiding the world, not out of snobbery, but to be safe and happy. In this respect he differs from the more optimistic bitterness of Rochefoucault and cheerful cunning of Gracian; Schopenhauer may be said to embrace more fully the wisdom of life, but I would question whether he is the happier man for his wisdom.

Because Schopenhauer is pessimistic. Oh, how pessimistic he is! If everyone experiencing irrational exuberance could read this then the world would be a wiser place. But for melancholic folk it is perhaps not a good read.

Schopenhauer writes clearly but it is a hard read. He takes his time to make every point. He is not like an American, in a hurry to say things and be done, nor like an Englishman, interested only in the practical side of things. He is a great German philosopher and he takes his good time to say everything.

Therefore, I recommend skipping the last two sections of "The Wisdom of Life" and only reading the first two sections, the "Division of the Subject" and "Personality, or, What a Man Is." As a man who is retired from the world by nature, Schopenhauer really should keep his big mouth shut on the subject of the world, it seems, and it is not worth reading his opinions on it.

However the "Counsels and Maxims" are all worth reading and re-reading. Schopenhauer starts by recommending Theognis of Megara (poet, poems found here. http://www.blackcatpoems.com/t/theogn... ) and Solomon (the Bible book of Proverbs), which are odd company for a modern writer, but anyhoo. He also recommends Petrarch's rare book on solitude, available in English as "The Life of Solitude" by Francis Petrarch, and summarised here: http://www.hermitary.com/solitude/pet...

"Counsels and Maxims" is a treasure trove of book recommendations, quotes, and sobering wisdom. It is no coincidence that Germans are the world leaders in insurance, logistics, and large-scale industrial planning and social organisation: this is the spirit of German philosophy writ large, and you find the seeds of German greatness in this fine little book.

"Counsels and Maxims" is a book worth chewing over. You can skim Rochefoucauld's cynical Maxims and Gracian's brutal strategems, but do not miss this hidden gem of Schopenhauer's. I will be re-reading it.


2019: I just re read this book. It's a fantastic argument for the intellectual higher life, and perhaps one which most people wouldn't much love. But it's Schopenhauer truth at least! I liked the first section of the Wisdom and section 3, Honor, where he shows how pagan honor was more natural and honest than Christian honor.

[flora · Rating 4 out of 5]

this was my first Schopenhauer book and i'm glad i chose this one. there was not as much pessimism as i would expect, but Counsels and Maxims is a bit more pessimistic than The Wisdom of Life. i read this slowly to completely understand and drink every word he said, but the last several pages of Counsels and Maxims was a bore so i skimmed through it. there was still pretty good stuff in there, but it didn't resonate much with me. i didn't know whether to give this a 3.5/5 or 4/5, but i can't give a 3.5, and 3/5 would be too low for this book, so i settled with 4/5.

this was a great read!

[Jamie · Rating 5 out of 5]

"All eudaemonology must begin by recognizing that its very name is a euphemism, and that to live happily only means to live less unhappily – to live a tolerable life. There is no doubt that life is given to us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome – to be got over."

If I would be allowed to read only one book for the rest of my life, I would choose this book without any hesitation.

I loved every page of it except the parts where he discussed "knightly honor" for 20 pages.

20 pages. Jesus.