Customer Reviews

Arthur Schopenhauer: The World as Will and Presentation, Volume I (v. 1)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have spent the last several years becoming quite acquainted with Arthur Schopenhauer. I can say, without hyperbole, that it has been an experience unlike any other. Unlike Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer's prose is consistently beautiful, and his literary style is essential in conveying truths about the world and ourselves that can be quite unpalatable. Schopenhauer's view of the world is bleak, and I agree with his assessment. He speaks of the blind drives and cruelty that motivate our species years before Nietzsche; and unlike Nietzsche he certainly did not embrace that cruelty.

This new translation offers, on the whole, a more readable text than the Payne edition. Although I prefer some of Payne's versions of certain passages, he can also tend towards offering brittle translations. In addition, this new translation offers copious notes, an excellent introduction, and helpful chapter subtitles (which were not included in the original volume). At this point, this transaltion is the definitive one.

As a metaphysician, Schopenhauer reveals many insights and a few weaknesses. Schopenhauer appropriated several facets of Kant's system of transcendental idealism, but whereas Kant believed that all things possessed the attribute of "things-in-themselves", Schopenhauer asserts that all things are comprised in essence as "Will". It is essential to grasp that Schopenhauer defines "Will" as blind desire, NOT as a conscious universal mind (i.e., God). Schopenhauer's philosophy is thoroughly atheistic, although many of his philosophical insights slot neatly with Buddhism and Hinduism - and just as easily with Darwinism.

While Schopenhauer's metaphysical system of blind will as the noumenal thing-in-itself is quite iffy when viewed as empirical fact, it is certainly much more plausible than any other grand 19th-Century philosophical system out there - much more so than Hegel's.

Schopenhauer's metaphysical insights on the arts are of a very high order. His views on genres as diverse as architecture and poetry to tragedy are insightful, erudite and, in my opinion, quite profitable to read. As a music lover, Schopenhauer unsurprisingly rates music as the greatest art and the sole art form that completely circumvents the Will. In other words, music appreciation is completely contemplative, and does not involve egoism. I would rate music as the greatest of the arts too, but music can easily involve egoism: sensual music can make me desire sex, harsh music can make me feel abrasive, etc. But then, Schopenhauer says as much himself. And it is here where his theory of the arts fails him. He doesn't seem to take much time in explaining what makes good art, as opposed to merely utilitarian art. In my opinion, his ranking of the arts, as a part of his metaphysical system, easily collapses when viewed as literal fact, but as poetic metaphor it does work quite well.

Some of Schopenhauer's greatest strengths and flaws are in the areas of natural science. His views on the development of consciousness are brilliantly insightful and slot in easily with Darwinian theory, but he falls far short in denying the existence of atoms and preferring Goethe's theory of color over Newton's.

On ethics, Schopenhauer is consistently insightful, but it is likely that not many would find his ethical thought attractive. His beautiful prose on the essential irrelevance of death (especially in Volume II, which has yet to be released in new translation) is some of the most sublime there is. I mostly concur with Schopenhauer's views on animals, although I disagree with his belief that there is occasional justification for the exploitation of animals for human survival. At one point in human history, that was undeniably true. Nowadays, it isn't. As a vegan, I accordingly find Descartes', Spinoza's, and Kant's views on animals repulsive, so Schopenhauer's views were definitely an advance.

Schopenhauer's view on sex is of the St. Augustine school and as such I find it to be the least attractive facet of his ethical thought. (Schopenhauer fought a life-long battle trying to tame his raging libido - more often than not losing). He was quite right in stating that our existence is permeated by sexual desire, but I disagree in trying to eradicate something that is the essence of all of us. It's much better, in my opinion, to indulge those desires responsibly, than repress what will always be there anyway.

Schopenhauer's endorsement of compassion is a wonderful answer to Kant's flawed ethics of duty. Whereas Kant tried to shepherd theological "thou shalts" through the ethical backdoor, Schopenhauer rightly tells us that compassion, not any sense of theocratic rationality (no matter how Kant tries to disguise it), is the basis of morality. Incidentally, it is well worth searching out Schopenhauer's hard-to-find book, "The Basis of Morality", which is a masterpiece of ethical thought.

Finally, there are Schopenhauer's pessimistic conclusions about life itself. He argues that there is no God, no soul, and no hope of a hereafter. I most heartily concur with his conclusions, and his eloquent description of the suffering of the world is necessary reading for both the shallow humanist and the pompous religious fundamentalist. It may disturb us to realize that we are at the mercy of blind forces largely beyond our control, but that same realization can make us more humane to each other, and to other species. It was Arthur Schopenhauer who so eloquently described our predicament, and for that I'll always be grateful.

A brief history of my previous experiences with Schopenhauer: I first read Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation (the Payne, definitive, translation) many years ago. I've also read a number of Schopenhauer's other works (mostly done by Payne) and have tried to pick up as many other works of his as I can.

For the most part, I find that Schopenhauer's philosophy most closely matched/matches my own.

That said, I saw and picked up this translation with a bit of hesitation. The World as Will and *Presentation*? Why go beyond Payne's standard translation?

However, as I read the translator's introduction, I saw that my fears were unnecessary. Aquila (and probably Carus, once Volume 2 finally comes out and we can read it) have given us a truly remarkable book.

Aquila not only knows that Payne's translations are the standards, he doesn't seem to desire to change that. Instead, Aquila has presented us with a new translation, geared towards those new to Schopenhauer. In this sense, while Payne may remain the standard, definitive, translation, I see these new translations becoming the classroom standard.

At last, a new translation of Schopenhauer's magnum opus.

In his preface, Schopenhauer makes several demands of his readers, among them, to read his work twice.

I take this opportunity, as a long time devotee to Schopenhauer, to suggest that for us English speakers, we can follow S's advice by first reading Payne's edition, followed by this one.