Customer Reviews

Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy

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

 

 

There are several excellent books available that describe and analyze the life and works of Schopenhauer. One is 'Schopenhauer' by Patrick Gardiner, another is 'The Philosophy of Schopenhauer' by Bryan Magee; the Very Short Introduction by Christopher Janaway is also very good. To those must be added this book by Rudiger Safranski, although it is a significantly different treatment. Gardiner, Magee, and Janaway are all Brits and write largely from that philosophical tradition, while Safranski, a German, is steeped in Continental philosophy and writes from that perspective. That means a perspective heavily informed, as he tells us, by Heidegger, Sartre, and Foucault, among others. It means that the prose will often be highly dramatic, with words like 'being' and 'self' appearing in caps, as 'Being' and 'Self.' If your patience for that sort of thing is limited, you may experience a rising sense of irritation by somewhere in the second half of Safranski's book. But Schopenhauer was, after all, a European metaphysician, wasn't he?

The book shows great scholarship, with many fascinating details about Schopenhauer's life and times; it also contains sections of analysis that are breathtakingly well written and insightful. Safranski is extremely good on Kant; his identification of Kantian ideas presaged in Rousseau was something I've not seen elsewhere, for one example. He sometimes uses "will to live" as a synonym for "will," which makes it sound close to the Nietzschian notion of the "will to power." But the reader should know that for Schopenhauer will also had a much broader meaning, encompassing even the most basic natural forces, like magnetism or the force involved in a stone falling toward the earth. And Schopenhauer's metaphysics had three tiers, the will and its objectification in individual objects, plus an intermediary level corresponding to Plato's Ideas. That intermediate level does not seem to be mentioned anywhere by Safranski, even though it is both a very problematic aspect of Schopenhauer's system and plays an important role in his theory of the visual arts. In Safranski's treatment of Schopenhauer's ideas about human freedom, the philosopher's doctrine of character is not adequately developed, although it is critical for his ethical theory. Finally, Schopenhauer carefully analyzed the nature of concepts, and he spent a lot of time railing against the use of concepts that are not grounded empirically in perception, thus rejecting the floating idealisms of Fichte, Schelling, and especially Hegel. Schopenhauer's theory of concepts is not adequately explicated by Safranski; the term 'concept' does not even appear in the index.

Safranski's book probably has maximum value as a supplement to Gardiner or Magee. It is not as complete or systematic as those in its presentation, but it contains a lot of additional insights and factual material that make it well worth reading. And, of course, none of these are substitutes for reading Schopenhauer himself, as he was a superb writer who constantly strives to be clearly understood.

arlodriver is rightly concerned with the wooden style displayed in this book and the volume on Heidegger. The fault, however, is not Safranski's but rather that of his translator, Ewald Osers, as Shelley Frisch's fine rendering of Safranski's biography of Nietzsche conclusively proves.

I'm torn in reviewing this item, only because the subject is so damn interesting that any modern scholarship is appreciated. However, for me, Safranski is one of those writers who either suffers from poor translation or simply a wooden style. Very few authors can get in my way of enjoying a philosophical biography the way Safranski can (I felt this with his treatment of Heidegger as well). He would benefit from a more transparent prose to go with his fascinating subjects. However, this is a book that attempts to chronicle the life of that wildman of thought, Schopenhauer, and even a rough attempt is indispensable. The facts are here, copious, and surrounded by pertinent details of Arthur's time, and for that reason alone it's probably a must have for fans of this philosopher. For a more biased but better written account of his ideas, I'd probably recommend Magee's "The Philosophy of Schopenhauer".

Rüdiger Safranski writes his books rather too easily. After his biography of Schopenhauer there followed volumes on Heidegger, Nietzsche, and most recently Schiller. Though not exactly 'dumbed down,' all of them are geared towards a wide audience, which he also commands in his native Germany, where he hosts a TV show together with Peter Sloterdijk. The book on Nietzsche I find entirely superfluous -- but Safranski knew there was a market for it, and my guess is that he wrote it with relative ease. The same must be said for this book on Schopenhauer.

This is a fairly decent biography, however. I share the predicament with another reviewer here who wanted to like this book more than he actually did, as the subject is indeed so interesting. And in the main, the biography of this great philosopher is ably retold. There are grave weaknesses, though, mainly having to do with the way Safranski inserts himself between Schopenhauer and the reader, always mirroring not only his philosophy, but his emotional life as well through the prism of his own (Safranski's) interpretations. For one, there's too much amateur psychology in it, constantly reducing Schopenhauer's pessimistic system to feelings of inadequacy and pain experienced during his youth. In general, the man Schopenhauer comes off rather badly; and though he undoubtedly was a difficult man to deal with, there's something petty in that approach. As a reader, I never felt I got close to what this enigmatic man might in fact have been like.

Another weakness comes from Safranski's -- in my judgment -- inadequate grasp of Schopenhauer's philosophy, which he labors far too much to contextualize and rewrite in his own language. This is in no way an adequate introduction to Schopenhauer's thinking, which is really the only thing that matters. Indeed, I came away with the feeling that Safranski hadn't really 'got it;' that he had never acquired any deeper understanding either of transcendental idealism, or of Schopenhauer's particular brand of it.

In short, the reader is much better advised to turn instead to Bryan Magee's study 'The Philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer,' which remains unparalleled in scope and brilliance. Admittedly, Magee's book is primarily concerned with Schopenhauer's thought, not his life. But he in fact does provide a brief (about 20 pp) biography as well in one of his first chapters, which is really all that anyone needs. For the reader who would then want to delve even deeper into the life of the Sage of Frankfurt, I would recommend turning to a volume of his letters, or to one of the earlier biographies written about him, but to avoid Safranski's book.

Arthur Schopenhauer was an important, if now largely forgotten, philosopher of the 19th century. Counted among his disciples are such thinkers as Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, as well as Sigmund Freud, who takes a large part of his psychological theory from the writings of Schopenhauer. Safranski has written an interesting and readable volume on the man and his times. Schopenhauer's life was truly one for the books and Safranski captures the flavor, as well as the thought, of Arthur Schopenhauer. Safranski is a journalist, not an academic, which accounts for the lively style of the book and the enthusiasm for its subject. The best introduction I've seen to the man and his thought.

I've heard it said ((and by biographers, no less)) that a good biographer needs to spend so much time with his subject that he either ought to start off in love with him--or end up falling in love with him. Reading *Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy* I'd say that Rudiger Safranski most definitely belongs in the second category. But it's a tough love that Safranski feels for his subject; out of all the principle characters in this comprehensive study of the life and philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, Safranski is hardest on the philosopher himself. He even shows more sympathy for Schopenhauer's preternaturally cold, self-serving, and reluctant mother--only criticizing Johanna S., at last, in relation to her shabby mistreatment of Schopenhauer's sister. So glaring is Sadanski's efforts to bend over backwards to accommodate and excuse Johanna that one finally wonders if he were afraid of being accused of otherwise justifying Schopenhauer's misogyny and being tagged with the same label himself.

By the same token, and rather paradoxically, Safranski starts off his exegesis of Schopenhauer by actually attributing the philosopher's pessimistic philosophy in no small part to the lack of motherly affection he experienced as a baby. I found this sort of revisionist psychoanalytic reductionism almost insufferably disheartening, to say the least. One might similarly reduce any philosopher's work on the basis of such a critical method and thereby render the entire history of philosophy nothing more than a catalogue of psychiatric curiosities--the solipsistic compensations of so many emotional cripples, sexual neurotics, and late bedwetters who, blessed with immense logical and linguistic gifts, managed to successfully reconfigure their childhood dysfunctions into grand world-views. If nothing else, one might at least theorize that Schopenhauer's distant, hands-off mother gave him a direct--and painfully accurate--experience of the coldness and indifference of the universe itself--and, thus, the enduring relevance of his resultant philosophy even for those of us who were raised by warm and nurturing moms. We are all of us orphaned in this heartless cosmos.

These caveats aside, I found Safranski's *Schopenhauer* to be an excellent book that admirably balances the life and work of the philosopher, while also providing an excellent historical and political background of the period and its major philosophical figures--Fichte, Kant, Hegel, Goethe, etc. After reading some of the reviews here criticizing the text and/or the translation as dull and plodding, I was pleasantly surprised to find how *readable* and, yes, even lively the book was, relatively speaking. To be sure, it's a densely-written book and the typeface is too small. But, let's face it, this is a scholarly biography published by Harvard University Press about a 19th century philosopher. Schopenhauer isn't an action hero and this isnt the latest potboiler by John Grisham or Dan Brown. Just how lively can you expect the book to be?! Nonetheless, for a work about a 19th century German guy who thought life was a terrible mistake that only grows worse and worse over time until the worst of all happens and you croak--I actually found myself laughing out loud in parts, especially at some of the excerpts from the philosopher's own texts. Schopenhauer can be hilariously funny and there's probably no greater put-down artist in the entire philosophical canon.

Of course, it helps enormously if you're a fan of Schopenhauer, or have an affinity for his dour outlook on life, but I'd wholeheartedly recommend *Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy* as an excellent one-volume treatment of the life, the times, and the philosophy of one of history's great misanthropes and one of its most incisive theorists of human misery.

I didn't mind the style of this book. It doesn't feel wooden to me. I will admit Safranski does repeat himself to fill pages and that's why I am not going to gush and give this five stars. I think editting is more of an issue here than translating.

All biographies - I should say "successful" biographies - aim at presenting an individual in his/her time, mentioning his/her relationships and his/her work. Safranski gives the reader a fairly thorough look at the beginning of the 19th century. I really enjoyed getting to know the dark, misanthropic philosopher. He was a complex, albeit egotistical man with a penchant for isolation, paranoia and hypochondria. I will recommend Bryan Magee's book as well. It's nice to compare.

Schopenhauer, I discovered borders somewhere between the artist and the intellectual as a personality. There is something about him that reminds me of other artists with huge egos and incomprehensive manners. Unlike Immanuel Kant, Schopenhauer lived a stormy inner life. His father was rumored to have committed suicide, he was at loggerheads with his mother, he looked down on women, he was anti-patriotic, despised Napoleon (while Hegel revered him as did many of the Romantic French writers following the Napoleonic Era), moved around, slept with a gun close by, allowed government troops into his room to fire on the uprisers in Dresden, physically assaulted a cleaning lady, wrote works of genius, inspired great artists and thinkers (Nietzsche, Wagner, Mahler, Mann, Conrad, Hardy, Proust, Wittgenstein, Tolstoy, Turgenev) had two dogs named "Atmen" and died sitting on his sofa. And these are just the highlights.

I doubt I would have enjoyed his company had I met him in his time. Safranski offers, in my opinion a "compassionate" glance at a man too obstinate to be socially graceful and too important in the history of ideas to be ignored.

This is an exciting book. Often I found it rather exhilarating to read. (I don't agree with the reviewer who found it "plodding," unless in re. its lingering on topics peripheral to Schopenhauer's philosophy, though I find these very enlightening and a major strength of the book.) Safranski provides a wonderful synthesis of the intellectual, psychological, sociological, cultural and historical contexts of Schopenhauer's thought, as well as a fine exegesis of his philosophy. I had read Magee and Gardiner on Schopenhauer, as well as "The Fourfold Root...." (and P&P, as well as Kant's first Critique), so perhaps one needs some acquaintance with Schopenhauer to appreciate Safranki's remarkable eclecticism in portraying this brilliant thinker and his philosophy from so many perspectives. Safranki's prose is often vivid and it occasionally soars beyond, perhaps, conventional academic form -- at least in the translation from German -- but that seems to me to reflect the same boldness that characterizes Schopenhauer's mature editions. I'm not a professional philosopher and I recommend this book as such; it's quite accessible to the interested layman.

There are already several good reviews to this book, so I will only add that it is easy to follow and in order to savour it one only needs to be a curious layperson. So my rate is 4 (content) and 4 (pleasure).

I also suggest reading the following readable books dealing with philosophical matters in addition to Safranski's interesting book: a) "Hegel" by Terry Pinkard; b) "Justice. What's the right thing to do" by Michael Sandel; c) "The God Question: What Famous Thinkers from Plato to Dawkins Have Said About the Divine" by Andrew Pessin; d) "The proper study of mankind" by Isaiah Berlin; and e) "Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors" by Susan Sontag. Other interesting books, but no so readable would be the following: 1) "The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies" by Thomas McEvilley; 2) "Moral Measures: An Introduction to Ethics West and East" by James Tiles; and 3) "The accessible Hegel" by Michael Allen Fox.

Like particle tracks from an atom smasher the Kantian heritage splits into a multiplicity of outcomes of which Schopenhauer's line, beside the Fichte to Hegel sequence vociferously denounced by the philosopher, is the clearest and yet most mysterious. As if attempting to recover from the sudden ambiguity of the conceptions of the noumenal yet reinstating its foundations in the distractions of Hegelian dialectic, Schopenhauer in his brilliant grasp of all the fundamental issues recasts the Kantian basics into his own more streamlined perspective of the breakthrough, or breakdown, of transcendental idealism.
This biography tells the exciting tale of this exile in the generation of Hegel, where the unity of the original discourse suffers its passage through the rapids in the disintegration of a creative era of philosophy, the mirror image of Marx. The story told by Safaranski evokes perfectly the strange charm surrounding this irrascible and one-pointed genius, whose absurd dismissal by too much modern thought as some eccentric antique only shows philosophy has lost its way, and forgets the clear strains of his melody streaking a host of successors, beginning with Nietzsche, whose intoxication with the dangerous elixir of the noumenal exteriorizing as a concept of will, like a rock star on drugs, is a harbinger of the reversal of the source, in a tragic finale. Schopenhauer remains a great test of one's understanding of Kant, for he dared a further critique, with a result that demands a clear vision of the original critiques, without mesmerization of the texts. He also saw the direct connection, obvious, yet elusive, with the greater traditions of the Indian yogas and Upanishads as the European Enlightenment moves instinctively to grope beyond its victories to compensate for its limitations. Each will follow here, because he must, in the void between Hegel and Schopenauer, seeking the unity from a bifurcation, to which the philosopher bore constant witness, through these wild years.