O si pensa o si crede

by Arthur Schopenhauer, Bettino Betti (Translator), Anacleto Verrecchia (Translator)

Di solito sono gli dèi che fulminano gli uomini. In questa raccolta di scritti, invece, abbiamo un filosofo che fulmina gli dèi, al plurale come al singolare. E non è detto che le sue saette siano meno micidiali di quelle celesti. Eccone qualcuna: “Se un dio ha fatto questo mondo, io non vorrei essere quel dio, perché il dolore del mondo mi strazierebbe il cuore”. Oppure: “Quando uno comincia a parlare di Dio, io non so di che cosa parli”. Infatti “le religioni, tutte, sono prodotti artificiali”. Se Nietzsche, con l’enfasi abituale, proclama la morte di Dio, Schopenhauer, ora con il suo sarcasmo ora con la sua logica implacabile, quel dio lo uccide davvero, togliendo qualsiasi validità teoretica al teismo.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Religion, Classics, Essays, German Literature, Germany

330 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

[Julian Worker · Rating 4 out of 5]

It takes a lot of time to read this short book.

It is thought-provoking and I understood some of what he meant, but not all of it I am sure. I agree with some things he wrote, for example about man's treatment of animals.

Can I recommend a book I didn't fully completely understand? I think so, because the parts I didn't understand are probably down to my lack of suitable comprehension of the subject rather down to the writer not being able to explain them properly.

I will read it again in a few months and see whether I understand more (I did understand more but not everything).

[Peiman · Rating 3 out of 5]

در بخش اول کتاب یک مناظره و گفتگو داریم بین دو نفر در مورد دین و فلسفه، یک طرف موافق و طرف دیگه مخالف دین. این گفتگوها برای اینکه شما رو به تفکر وادار کنه جالبه ولی برای به نتیجه رسیدن خیلی کمکی نخواهد کرد، چرا؟ چون نظر من با هر دو مخالفه، یعنی هر دو هم حرف‌های درست میزنند و هم حرف های اشتباه، از بین چنین دو گزینه ای قطعا انتخاب خیلی راحت نیست و شاید اصلا درست هم نباشه.ه
بخش دوم در مورد اخلاقیات هست، ابتدا توضیحاتی میده راجع به صفات خوب ذاتی از نظر دین و از نظر فلسفه یا به صورت مشخص افلاطون. و بعد به شر درونی و صفات پلید ذات انسان و نمونه هایی مثل بلایایی که بر سر برده ها آورده شده میپردازه و در نهایت گریزی میزنه به مرگ و اخلاق.ه
بخش سوم به طور کلی در مورد روانشناسی هست. به طور خیلی خلاصه و پاراگرافی به مسائلی مثل تمایل به زیستن، عادت، جدایی و وصال، شادی و اندوه، امید و یاس، لجاجت، انتقام، نفرت و ... پرداخته شده.ه
و در بخش چهارم هم به مقوله ی دین پرداخته شده که من حرفی ندارم راجع بهش :))

[Sadra Kharrazi · Rating 2 out of 5]

به ازای هر صفت خوب که در انسان یافت می‌شود، یک صفت بد هم وجود دارد که ممکن است انسان تسلیم آن شود و حتی به آن تبدیل گردد. دلیل این که اغلب در قضاوت دیگران دچار سوء تفاهم می‌شویم، این است که در اولین آشنایی با ایشان، صفات بد یا خوبشان را اشتباه متوجه می‌شویم. به طور مثال شخص محتاط و محافظه کار را ترسو و شخص صرفه‌جو را طمع‌کار می‌پنداریم. یا از سوی دیگر فرد ولخرج و اسرافگر را سخاوتمند و فرد گستاخ را رک‌گو تصور می‌کنیم.

[Jason Mills · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a pocket-book collection of five essays, translated by R J Hollingdale in 1970. Penguin lazily provide no background information whatsoever, not even dates, let alone context, so I have no idea whether these were spread across decades of Schopenhauer's career or written all at one go.

The first essay, "On Religion: A Dialogue", is the best, being a fair and shrewd discussion of the utility of religion. The next, "On Ethics", is perhaps the worst, packed with spurious claims and special pleading that would require a much longer work to justify. There's also a startling pomposity in its pronouncements, particularly this one:

After my prize essay on moral freedom no thinking person can remain in any doubt that moral freedom is never to be sought in nature but only outside of nature.

No thinking person can doubt..? Is this a joke, or the arrogance or youth, or was the author an insufferable prig?

The remaining three essays are "On Psychology", "On Religion" and "On Various Subjects". All the essays, bar the dialogue, are in choppy bite-size pieces, which makes for easy reading. Schopenhauer does make some arresting observations, aspiring to aphorisms:

If you want to know how you really feel about someone take note of the impression an unexpected letter from him makes on you when you first see it on the doormat.

I enjoyed his dissection of the particular problems faced by christian theologians in attempting to reconcile their scriptures, and there is much in here that is striking. Equally, however, much is simply asserted without philosophical rigour, and the essays make little effort to develop substantial arguments. This is not, then (I would guess), a representative summation of his philosophy, but simply a spicy taster.

[Mohammad Ranjbari · Rating 5 out of 5]

بحث های مربوط به ماهیت دین و چیستی و بود و نبود آن در زندگی از مهمترین بخشهای کتاب بود. و البته پاره های یادداشت مانند آخر کتاب هم همینطور.
تکه هایی مختصر برای مهیا ساختن تلنگرهای بزرگ در ذهن و روح

[Ali Di · Rating 3 out of 5]

گزیده‌هایی از کتاب:

جدایی تمرینی است برای مرگ، و وصال تمرینی است برای تولد. شاید دلیل خوشحالی دو نفر که بعد از بیست سال یکدیگر را می بینند همین باشد، فرقی هم نمی کند که آنها در طول آشنایی خود نسبت به یکدیگر بی تفاوت بوده باشند یا خیر.

اعلام ناگهانی یک خبر مسرت‌بخش میتواند منجر به مرگ شود، شاید علت آن این است که شادی و اندوه هر دو به آن چه می‌خواهیم و آنچه به دست می‌آوریم مربوط‌اند. ممکن است در سعادت به سر بریم، اما نسبت به آن بی‌خبر باشیم، زیرا شادی همان فقدان درد و رنج و گرفتاری است، در حالی که درد یا اندوه مقوله‌هایی قابل لمس هستند.

اگر توانایی‌هایتان در حدی متوسط است، تواضع پیشه کنید، اما اگر دارای استعدادهای بی‌شمار هستید، تواضع، نشان دهندۀ دورویی شماست.

دلیل همه‌گیری مسیحیت و اوج‌گیری آن در تمدن‌های مختلف، محبوبیت بالای آن در این جوامع نیست، بلکه به این خاطر است که مسیحیت مُرده و در واقع وجود خارجی ندارد. تا زمانی که مسیحیت دارای تاثیر و نفوذ بود، تمدن‌هایی که مسیحیت در آنها جریان داشت از عقب‌افتاده‌ترین جوامع به شمار می‌آمدند.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting first encounter with Schopenhauer and in conclusion, another reading of this or a more complete work is needed.

A deep and meaningful read that cannot be digested in one sitting.

Looking forward to it!

[Somayeh Fatemi · Rating 5 out of 5]

عالی بود.
_چهره ی هر فرد حقایق عمیق تری نسبت به دهان او فاش می‌کند.
_بعضی از احمق ها بر این باورند که ظاهر انسان اهمیت خاصی ندارد و ارتباطی با درونیات و روح او ندارد.
_هدف اصلی از آموزش، آشنایی با جهان است.
_دنبال کردن تفننی هنر یا علم به معنی عدم حرفه ای بودن است.
برای داشتن ذهنی زیبا واقعا باید زندگی کردو بودن را به معنی واقعی کلمه تجربه کرد.
_تئوری های درست علمی تنها پس از قرن ها مبارزه‌ی سرسختانه توانستند به اعتبار عمومی دست پیدا کنند.
_بزرگترین شوربختی متوجه شایستگی های عقلی است که خوب بودن‌شان باید توسط کسانی تایید شود که فقط آثار بد تولید می‌کنند.
_زمان همه چیز را در خود حل می‌کند جز رنج.
_ اگر توانایی‌هایتان در حد متوسط است تواضع کنید و اگر بی‌شمارند، تواضع شما نشانه دورویی است.

....

[ciel]

let me first tell you about the book cover: it is iconic. the two emblematic quotes summarise things not too badly; we have "mankind is growing out of religion as out of its childhood clothes" and (my favourite) "religion may be an excellent means of taming and training the perverse, obtuse and wicked biped race: but in the eyes of a friend of truth every fraud, however pious, is still a fraud."

the dialogue between demopheles and philalethes was the high point for me. schopenhauer urges for 'simplex sigillum veri' (simplicity is the seal of truth) throughout the book, i.e., "naked truth must be so simple and intelligible that it can be imparted to everyone in its true shape without adulterating it with myths and fables (a mass of lies) - that is, without disguising it as 'religion'" (p.16).

tbh, i wasn't too impressed by the ethics and the way schopenhauer (over)generalised the various & different views on virtues of ancient philosophers to 'the ancients'. there was a passage, too, that argued that procreation is the concentration of the affirmation of the will to live (p.93)? a nauseating thought, v bleak.

my overall surprisingly positive impression of this schopenhauer is probably due to its lack of vibrant misogyny (due to its not mentioning women much lol). also some early beginnings of vegetarianism in german philosophy?

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting writings on religion, as well as animal rights and human nature. Very easy to read and follow.

Who knew my guy Schopenhauer the woman hater loved animals so much?

[Gabriela · Rating 4 out of 5]

Czytając tą książkę uświadomiłam sobie, jak ważny jest język. Tutaj niestety był ciężki do zrozumienia, przez fragmenty łacińskie i ich niezrozumiały przekład. Stąd też 4 gwiazdki. Jednakże, jeśli chodzi o treść, to naprawdę jestem pozytywnie zaskoczona. Na przestrzeni lat miałam podobne spostrzeżenia i poglądy, co autor na ten temat. Sądzę, że książka powinna skłaniać do refleksji, zaś ta zachęciła mnie do zgłębienia wiedzy na temat innych religii, a więc można stwierdzić, że spełniła swoją funkcję.

[Rafael Almada · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unexpectedly funny. Schopenhauer was introduced to me by a friend as being very hard to understand, so it was a pleasant surprise to read this book. Some of the more infamous writing quirks of his are tamer or absent, so I think it would be a good introduction that is not offputting. But I'm not a philosopher so there may be a better starting point.

[Tammam Aloudat · Rating 4 out of 5]

The books is good, and here, I am reviewing the book rather than Schopenhauer as the book does very little to reflect the philosophical ideals and ideas, but I don't think it was meant to give an idea of what one of the biggest philosophers of the nineteen century. However, my little issue with it, despite being a good quotable book, is that the book doesn't give a view of how much of a pessimist he was.

Anyhow, I am not sure what to do with a book like that beyond appreciate the composition of some little quotes out of context and idea. If you have read some of Schopenhauer, it won't add much, if you haven't, it won't be much of an idea.

Not sure how to think, I have the "Aphorisms of Love and Hate" of Nietzsche lining up!!

[James Millen · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fantastic collection, the first philosophy book I've fully enjoyed. Devastatingly enlightening, particularly the bits NOT about religion!

[🍚 · Rating 4 out of 5]

“For men have an absolute need for an interpretation of life, and it has to be one they are capable of understanding.”

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sometimes the synchronicity of the world is just plain weird. I was reading this alongside 'State of Wonder', where there's a small but vital subplot involving magic mushrooms, and 'How to change your mind,' which is all about the clinical potential of psilocybin and LSD. And then there's this book.

The Penguin Great Ideas series is great in the sense that they are small and cute and portable, and they come free of any long-winded spoilery introduction by an expert in the field of the writer. However, that also leaves you-the-reader completely contextless, because they don't give any bio about the writers either, or even the true date of publication - just the first date PENGUIN published them, which is usually like '1995'. Not helpful in the case of Schopenhauer, who presumably published this sometime between 1788 and 1860 (the only biographic information provided). The book doesn't even say what language this was published FROM.

Hence I don't know two key things about Schopenhauer the man, which are: whether he was religious or not, or pro-religion or not; or whether he ever did psychedelics. The tone of some of what he says would suggest to me that he's a pro-religion atheist, and that he's definitely in the course of his interaction with Buddhists and India and whatnot taken something mind-altering. All the chat about the 'will' and the wider consciousness suggests to me he dropped acid at some point.

It's funny, too, that over my life I have come to various conclusions 'on my own' that I then read about in books. It's nice to not feel alone and also a bit annoying that other people got there first.

Then I suppose the physician’s would be: fiant pilulae et pereat mundus [Let pills be distributed though the world perish] – which would be the one most likely to be realised.

LOL.

Don’t worry about the baroque and apparently paradoxical forms it [religion] assumes: for you, with your learning and culture, have no idea how torturous and roundabout a route is required to take profound truths to the mass of the people, with their lack of them.

Yes, I have thought for a long time that religion was designed to appease the stupid. Latterly I have thought it left a hole that something needs to fill.

It is common knowledge that religions don’t want conviction, on the basis of reasons, but faith, on the basis of revelation. And the capacity for faith is at its strongest in childhood: which is why religions apply themselves before all else to getting these tender years into their possession.

Also sounds legit.

Even if a really true philosophy had taken the place of religion, nine-tenths of mankind at the very least would receive it on authority, so that it too would be a matter of belief.

As does this.

You ought to guard against letting your theoretical cavilling discredit in the eyes of the people and finally wrest from them something which is an inexhaustible source of consolation and comfort, and which they need so much, indeed, with their hard lot need more than we do; for this reason alone it ought to be inviolable. […] Before you deprive someone of something you must have something better to put in its place.

I don't know what side of this argument Schopenhauer actually came down on - this is written in the form of a dialogue - but he didn't live in a time when religion had been erased, and I do, and from that standpoint can categorically say if you take it away something just as awful fills the spot. (Hi, Instagram!)

rites of all kinds soon come to be pronounced of more immediate interest to the divine will than moral actions
whereby the priests finally appear as virtually no more than go-betweens in a trade with bribeable gods.

This reminded me of Bertrand Russell (although of course it's the other way around).

Re: courage -

a finite individual […] should not place the preservation of self before all else. A wholly immanent, that is to say purely empirical, explanation based on the utility of courage would be inadequate.

Interesting. This is where I wondered does he then believe in God, because he's saying courage is a pointless trait if we don't have some inherent feeling that there's a greater existence beyond this life?

The mushroom episodes:

There are in fact two anthetical ways of becoming conscious of one’s own existence: firstly, by empirical perception, by seeing it as it appears from without, an evanescently small existence in a world boundless in space and time […] secondly, however, by plunging into one’s own inner self and realising that it is all-in-all

Sounds very like the realisations all the trippers had in Pollan's book.

by what we do we know what we are, just as by what we suffer we know what we deserve.

OK cool.

an accurate knowledge of a man’s character can be arrived at from a single characteristic action

Hmm.

all enjoyment is really only negative, only has the effect of removing a pain, while pain or evil, on the other hand, is the actual positive element and is felt directly.

Double hmm.

He’s good on revenge:
A great deal of hatred, indeed, has no other source than a compelled respect for the superior qualities of some other person

This restless, confused dream constitutes the lives of millions of men. They know only for the purposes of their present wants; they give no thought to the coherence of their existence, not to speak of that existence itself; to a certain extent they exist without really being aware of it.

This again sounds like the remains of an acid-trip, which Pollan commented left a lot of people quite arrogant about how they'd experienced divine mysteries and everyone else hadn't. Then again, this might just be the usual arrogance of the smart towards the dumb, which I also get.

He, on the other hand, who wants to be altogether uncommon, that is to say great, must never let a preponderant agitation of will take his consciousness over altogether, however much he is urged to do so. He must, eg, be able to take note of the odious opinion of another without feeling his own aroused by it

Reminds me of the Ultimate Bae, Marcus Aurelius. There certainly is a common theme in philosophy about how 'you are not your thoughts', presumably because it's the only way out of suffering and concomitantly allows for the rumination required for philosophical theorising.

it is all one whether you live and die trusting in your own thoughts or in those of others […] the enormous intellectual inequality between man and man, then the thoughts of one may very well count with another as revelation

Ha fair.

we have to recognise that the absurd is to a certain extent appropriate to the human race, indeed an element of its life, and that deception is indispensable to it

Very Pratchettian.

According to this dogma, then, he called into existence out of nothing a weak and sin-prone race in order to hand it over to endless torment. […] the God who prescribes forbearance and forgiveness of every sin […] fails to practice it himself, but does rather the opposite: since a punishment which is introduced at the end of things, when all is over and done with forever, can be intended to neither improve nor deter; it is nothing but revenge.

Again this reminds me of Russell, and also how the whole edifice collapses with just a tiny poke of logic.

[Filip · Rating 2 out of 5]

Arthur Schopenhauer is the most famous philosopher and fierce critic of jewish and christian religions. Now I know from where atheists of today get their arguments from (althougt I think he never states he is atheist himself). It is incredible simplicity in wich he destroyes old an new testaments and he has very high opinion on eastern religions like budhism and hinduisn. Many of his points are simple and with no evidence whatsoever , for example he thinks Jesus was taught by Egiptian priests magic tricks, evidence for that? Zero, pure speculation on his behalf. Whole book could be writen to disprove him (and Im sure sombody has already done that). Also is his obvious disdain for Jews, we could call him antisemite for some of his comments, and his disdain for "masses" of stupid and uneduceted people (his words) who belive everything priests teaches them, and they need someone inteligent and enlightened like him to help them because they are to stupid to help themselfs. The nerve of this guy.

I recommend this book to all the atheist and critics of religion, you will love it. To all the reast I think you will be insulted by it.

[Matty van Hoof · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s obviously very harsh towards religion but a lot of his insights were interesting. Not only on religion but on psychology and ethics as well. Loved the various subjects in the back. Definitely some stuff to initiate reflection.

‘Envy reinforces the wall between Thou and I: pity makes it thin and transparent; indeed, it sometimes tears the wall down altogether, whereupon the distinction between I and Not-I disappears.’

[Gabunie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Każdy chrześcijanin, który nie lubi ateizmu powinien to przeczytać:))))))) (bo wtedy zrozumie czemu nie wierzę)

[Moriah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bow bow bow bow bow 🔫

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

krótkie A JAKIE TRUDNE

[Maja Ilić · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vrijedi pročitati prvo poglavlje kome ću se i vratiti, gdje je prikazan dijalog Filaleta i Demofila - racionalan filozofski pogled nasuprot praktične društvene vrijednosti religije. Sjajnih 50 strana!

Sve nakon toga je ili besmisleno ili samo nije doprlo do mene.

[Joe · Rating 2 out of 5]

This volume opens with 'On Religion: A Dialogue' which discusses, alternately, the utility of religion and how it endangers rational thought. Although the points made on either side will be largely familiar to most readers, this constitutes the best portion of the book and is still an entertaining read that occasionally gives pause for thought with relevance to the modern world :-

"Even if a real true philosophy had taken the place of religion, nine-tenths of mankind at the very least would receive it on authority, so that it too would be a matter of belief."

The latter essays 'On Ethics', 'On Psychology', 'On Religion' and 'On Various Subjects' are each split into ordinally sub-headed chunks. The main insight that can be drawn from reading these is, unfortunately, not a philosophical one but only that Schopenhauer was wildly misanthropic and illiberal, and that he held himself in far greater esteem than he did the hoi-polloi.

There are many attempts made to coin aphorisms throughout, so much so that I began to suspect that Schopenhauer's aims lay more in crafting them and having them be quoted than it did in properly and clearly communicating his ideas. It is unfortunate that though several of these would-be aphorisms hit the mark (and the best of them has already been quoted in a review by Jason Mills), the majority lack that necessary ring of truth.

I think that Schoenhauer's distaste for the masses and his desire for validation from his peers (the two principles pervading this volume) is well borne-out by what he states in 'On Various Subjects' 5B:

"The great misfortune for intellectual merit is that it has to wait until the good is praised by those who produce only the bad; indeed, the misfortune already lies in the general fact that it has to receive its crown from the hands of human judgement, a quality of which most people possess about as much as a castrate possesses of the power to beget children."

[Eduardo Contreras · Rating 1 out of 5]

Thankfully, this book is only 106 pages long — a mercy, if the first chapter is anything to go by. For now, I will limit my critique to Chapter 1, which I found not only basic and intellectually lazy but outright nauseating. Rather than engaging in any serious reflection on the truth or falsehood of religion, the chapter merely presents a hollow and cartoonish debate between a smug, arrogant atheist and a religious believer who is so uninformed and foolish that he would embarrass even the simplest of caricatures. It’s a staged farce devoid of real argumentation, insight, or philosophical rigor.

In essence, Schopenhauer’s approach to religion in this chapter fails on multiple levels:
1. Condescension instead of argument – The dialogue opens with a patronizing tone that immediately frames religious believers as stupid and unthinking. Rather than engaging with serious theological or philosophical arguments, the text insults its opposition and builds its case on straw men.
2. Confusing human tendencies with religious doctrine – Schopenhauer criticizes religion for being imposed with authoritarian force, but this phenomenon is not unique to religion. Any human institution that claims access to truth — be it political, scientific, or ideological — can behave in exactly the same way. The problem is not faith per se, but human power structures.
3. Ignores the historical reality of adult conversion – Schopenhauer suggests that religion only survives because it is taught to children. This ignores the fact that many people throughout history have converted to Christianity as adults — including the apostles themselves — after rational deliberation and personal experience.
4. Makes absurd hypotheticals – The idea that most people would commit murder if they believed it led to salvation is both empirically and ethically bankrupt. The Gospel explicitly condemns such violence, and the history of Christian practice does not support the idea that most believers are latent killers.
5. Overidealizes human reason and science – The text suggests that knowledge based on reason leads to consensus and objectivity, unlike religious dogma. This is historically false. Disagreement, controversy, and uncertainty exist in every field of human inquiry — from politics to physics to psychology. There is no monolithic consensus even in the most “rational” disciplines.
6. Presents a shallow and utilitarian view of religion – The religious character in the dialogue defends faith as little more than a tool for social control. This is an insult to the profound theological, philosophical, and mystical traditions of Christianity. The Christian faith has produced some of the deepest and most rational thinkers in Western history — none of whom are represented here.
7. Completely misunderstands the concept of mystery – Schopenhauer presents religious mystery as blind, irrational belief. But in Christian theology, mystery refers to the horizon beyond reason — not its negation, but its culmination. It is not a leap into darkness, but a step beyond the limits of human comprehension, built upon a rational framework.
8. Fails to consider the possibility that religion might be true – The chapter never even tries to engage with the actual truth claims of Christianity. It assumes from the outset that religion is false, without serious argument or consideration of evidence. This is not philosophy — it’s prejudice dressed up as dialogue.
9. Misrepresents disagreement as proof of falsehood – Schopenhauer suggests that because religions disagree internally (e.g., Protestants vs. Catholics), none can be true. But disagreement exists in every serious intellectual tradition. The existence of divergent opinions does not invalidate a search for truth — in fact, it proves that the questions at stake are worth thinking deeply about.
10. Makes unsubstantiated claims about religion’s harm – The final blow is a sweeping declaration that religion has done more harm than good. No effort is made to support this claim with evidence or thoughtful analysis. Such a statement may work in polemic, but not in serious philosophy.

In summary, Schopenhauer’s first chapter reads more like a lazy Enlightenment-era pamphlet than a real philosophical inquiry. It mocks instead of analyzes, dismisses instead of engages, and assumes instead of argues. He attacks a grotesque parody of religion, rather than grappling with its deepest claims. As a result, the entire exercise falls flat — shallow, one-sided, and intellectually dishonest.


On chapter 2:

Schopenhauer argues that humans always act the same under identical circumstances due to an innate, unchangeable character. But this collapses against basic human experience. For example, at 28, I know I wouldn’t approach a romantic situation today the same way I did at 16—even if the setting were identical. We grow. We change. That’s freedom.

His view of morality is deeply cynical: courage is just extreme altruism, good deeds are masks, and true morality is rare. But history shows countless sincere acts of kindness and sacrifice, often rooted in religious belief—belief he reduces to superstition without engaging its moral claims.

He claims evil is done for evil’s sake, yet most atrocities are committed in pursuit of perceived good—national glory, love, prosperity—through wrong means. That’s a far more realistic moral analysis.

Even his key idea—that morality is seeing oneself in the other—is essentially Christian, though he never admits it.

Schopenhauer’s analysis is sharp, but selectively blind and ultimately pessimistic. It underestimates the human capacity for moral growth and reduces ethics to determinism and suspicion.

On Chapter 3:

The writer delves into the psychological dimensions of human behavior. While I find his reflections generally well-articulated and insightful, the analysis remains somewhat broad and occasionally betrays a limited understanding of the full complexity of human nature. Nonetheless, in many respects, I agree with his observations, and overall, the chapter is coherent and well written.

[Frank · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was an okay read. To be honest, I was rather disappointed with the book, as I thought it would deliver a short and precise argument against religion, which it does the first 10 pages, but sadly fails to do for the remaining 90+ pages. Often it just discussed the philosophy of enlightenment, instead of the absurdity and horrors of religions. Unless you have read extensively on the topic and need a new/other angle, then I would not recommend that you read this book. Instead, start with Dawkins' The God Delusion or Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, as they are far better reads and are more precise in their argumentation.

[izabella · Rating 2 out of 5]

this book wouldve been better if i hadnt literally JUST read on the geneaology of morals by nietzsche beforehand. the essays look into a small section of what nietzsche looks at and really just makes a dogs dinner out of it. nietzsche dragged this man through the mud for this reason! and honestly i see it, alot of it just felt like he was making observations and not really saying anything too special about it religion, he didnt seem like someone who proved that religion is evil or something we should condemn, rather someone who just doesnt really like religion. he spoke alot about human psychology as if he been knew but girl he was an incel so what does he actually know about how humans work?? i just wanna say to schopenhaur if youre reading this, say hello to mrs schopenhaur for me! mwahahaha LOSER!! two stars however for the tiny section at the end about the child rationalist, made me giggle

[Alan · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's amazing how similar Schopenhauer's arguments in favor and against religion are to the arguments one hears today. The first section of the book, a long dialogue between two educated individuals, an atheist and a theist, could easily be misconstrued for a conversation between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. Unfortunately Schopenhauer's biases make this collection somewhat unbearable. He is arrogant, makes scoping claims, and bases much of his information on false premises. I was particularly turned off by his fetishization of eastern religions (Buddhism in particular) and his poorly informed opinions on Judaism and Zoroastrianism. There is no doubt, however, that his arguments are (at least for the 19th century) sound. While I would disagree with him on a lot of things, I don't think I would on everything - it was an interesting read.

[Roisin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Small but mighty! Often amusing and enlightening, this is a fabulous series of short writings against religion and examines ethics too. Schopenhauer uses the words, ideas and beliefs of Kant, Herodotus, Ancient Greece, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism and Islam, among others to make short and to the point comments about religious ideas and concepts that don't make sense or have been borrowed, or influenced by other religions.

In some of the writings further on he considers belief and what leads individuals to trust in such ideas, the devil, sin, hypocrisy, human behaviour using the treatment of slaves in American slave owning states for example. Well thought, well argued. Wonderful stuff!

[Chris · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not really a page-turner, or even very compelling. Not much to disagree with, however. Of interest to students of the Enlightenment, or those who have suffered (even if only psychologically), at the hands of dogmatic religions and their adherents. I'm interested in philosophy, but often, works by philosophers, such as this, are merely the collections of their random, unedited, and unstructured thoughts.

[Doug Newdick · Rating 3 out of 5]

This short collection of Schopenhauer's writings focusses on religion, but in a way that may be unfamiliar. Schopenhauer argues that religion is an allegory that cannot reveal it is an allegory. That somehow it uses falsehood to tell greater truths. He seems ambivalent towards religion, especially Christianity. Alternatively he defends it and condemns it. He appears to be too much a creature of his time to understand the full implications of his reasoning.