Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
50 of 52 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliantly written, but not for the tender-skinned., November 9, 2001
I have to disagree with the other review I read on this work. I prefer Schopenhauer's 'pessimism' (which by the way, is written with great wit and humor and had me laughing quite a bit) to Nietzsche's destructive, puffed-up idealistic gas. This is not because I think pessimism is a good thing taken by itself, but rather that there are a great many things in life that SHOULD be avoided. I will say, however, that I think those who enjoy Nietzsche will have a true appreciation for this book (Nietzsche was deeply unfluenced by S.). He discusses an array of subjects, such as the emptiness of those things commonly pursued by the masses (money, status/position, vanity, sensual pleasure, etc.), and those most commonly ignored by most (temperance, good health, character, individuality, and developing one's mind). It is an eye-opener for people absorbed in their careers entrenched in the politics and daily grind of life.Though riddled with hard-nosed realism and misanthropy, the book was positively entertaining and enjoyable. His style is fluid, prosaic, and imaginitive, unlike most German philosophy. In lieu of modern world events, it is probably more relevant a work today than ever before.
|
|
|
29 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Schopenhauer as an exemplar, July 15, 2003
"Philosophy" is often refered to as a field of study in which questions regarding the nature of reality, beauty and man are taken up with vigor. Those who are interested in these topics and all of their tributary subjects are said to be "philosophers" or "philosophical" in nature. Others, whose concerns are strictly material, are considered to be "unphilosophical" in nature. They have no philosophical disposition towards anything: it is as if their behavior is guided by their immediate circumstances and that they are prey to interests that are common and trite. It is this very distinction between the "philosophical" and "unphilosophical" that I wish to refute by appealing to Schopenhauer as an exemplar of what it means to have a philosophy of life. All of the reviews below adequately convey the merits of the book itself. But what is also important is understanding what this book represents within the context of philosophy itself. And what we discover from reading this book is that even the most vulgar man, a man considered by all measure to be morally and intellectually inept, has a philosophy of life. Schopenhauer was a genius and therefore had the capacity to articulate his thoughts in a powerfully original manner. His outlook on the world stands out from the rest precisely because his intellect is capable of penetrating to the heart of things and describe them in a manner that is at once lucid and compelling. Most of us, however, do not have the mental power nor the luxury of time to express our views on life in general. But I believe this book, when taken as a whole, will help us understand that every life is ultimately guided by a point of view which, underlying all its idiosyncratic characterstics, refers to philosophical assumptions and hence a philosophy of life. In sum, our relation to life is and always will be philosophical in nature. The difference between an ordinary man and Schopenhaure is merely a qualitative one. Schopenhauer's book proves that, and I invite you to see how it does.
|
|
|
30 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
essential for anyone inclined to contemplation, November 13, 2001
arthur schopenhauer had a more accurate and realistic outlook on life than his student, friedrich nietzsche, who i also have a great deal of admiration for. which is not to say that going on tirades against life and intellectualizing everything is the way to go, but which is to say that anyone who recognizes the basic facts of existence is hardly going to reply with a tremendous "YES TO LIFE" as nietzsche so ridiculously and psychotically suggested. is schopenhauer a decadent, as nietzsche claimed? by his standards, yes, but let's remember that by nietzsche's standards he himself was a decadent of the worst kind. he had very few interpersonal relationships that were successful, he was an utter failure when it came to women, he was filled to the brim with bitterness and contempt for religion, and he was for the most part a solitary neurotic, who tried to conceal his own fear of life as some sign of nobility or superiority. i disagree with schopenhauer's supposed 'renunciation of life', but i am in decided agreement with his firm and unyielding belief that ultimate satisfaction and total happiness, those absurd myths which themselves bring terrible unhappiness to those who imagine they exist, are fictions created by society. both philosophers contradicted themselves constantly, but of the two i would say that nietzsche was by far the more hypocritical and blind to his own failings while so harshly critical of the failings of others. nietzsche preached the virtues of creativity and self realization as the highest possible goal man could reach for, and yet he attacked everything strange, odd, interesting, as 'decadent'. there is no better way to discourage creativity and perpetuate bourgeois values than to contemptuously dismiss everything unusual and unique as 'sick'. and all that 'will to power' BS gets pretty tiresome after awhile, especially considering that nietzsche himself was utterly lacking in any kind of power whatsoever, save that of the intellectual type. nietzsche dismisses with disgust everyone and everything that doesn't strive for worldly influence and domination, and yet three sentences later he will admit openly that the universe is basically subjective and that all meanings and goals are equally legitimate and equally relative. if that's the case, as i believe it is, why not enjoy ourselves and stop stressing about things like 'power' and 'greatness' that don't really matter in the bigger picture? anyone with the slightest experience of life will immediately agree with schopenhauer that our 'inner wealth' is what really matters, not the accidental and meaningless distractions of the external world. if this is decadence, roll in the decadence! this book is a must.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|