Abstract: Both Hegel and Schopenhauer departed from Kant’s ideas about the relationship between our sense and the mind which organises them and the mental categories necessary to learn the truth about the world. But the two thinkers arrived at very different conclusions, writes Joshua Foa Dienstag. For Hegel, the unfolding of truth could be revealed in history – human culture was a process of becoming something better, which reached its culmination in the period of the Enlightened Europe. Schopenhauer, on the other hand, thought the exact opposite: truth was not to be found in history but only outside of it. He saw reality as detached from our notions of space and time because our human understanding, reliant, as Kant argues, on mental categories, always contained something illusory. Thus, Hegel’s optimistic idea that humanity was following a predictable pattern of growth towards an ultimate stage of development clashed with Schopenhauer’s pessimism about our capacity to fundamentally change. He recognised an immutable essence that ran through all of history, despite its periods of growth and deterioration. Schopenhauer’s solution was resigning from Hegel’s deceiving optimism bound to lead us to disappointment and to “lose ourselves” in activities that allow us to contemplate the eternal, such as art.

I’m glad I read this. Doing so led me to discover what pessimism really is. Thanks for posting

It’s funny because as much as I agree with Schopenhauer, I still side with Hegel. Simply due to the fact that being optimistic and positive just feels better than being a negative downer. I think the inherent problem with thinking pessimistic is that it just makes you into an unlikable person.

And time is the essence of everything.

Reading Schopenhauer isn’t negative or a downer to me, it just feels more grounded than Hegel. If it brought me down, I wouldn’t read it. There’s something deeply therapeutic about Schopenhauer’s pessimistic philosophy that I don’t get from Hegel.

I hate how people just go with “Why would I want to read Schopenhauer when he’s a pessimist…yadayada”…it’s because the way he’s talked about not the way his philosophy actually is.

Both are correct, of course, but at different levels of conception and understanding.

One can easily look at history and see that much of it is chaotic, subject to human whims and illusions, and rife with repetition of the same tragedies and folly, recurring endlessly. But, at the same time, if one considers all of human culture over the fullness of time, you can ascertain that the arc of history (to paraphrase MLK) is long, and it bends toward justice.

Within anyone's given lifetime, it's impossible to perceive that arc... just as it's difficult to see the curvature of the world when sitting in an open field. But the world is spherical, nonetheless.

"Il faut cultiver notre jardin."

Voltaire

I actually find him delightful and humorous to read. Reading Hegel is like having to drink cough syrup while having a migraine and insomnia in comparison, at least The Phenomenology of Spirit.

Safranksi's bio on Schopenhauer is worth a read too imo.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I think a healthy way of being pessimistic is just to have more tempered expectations of things. Someone more optimistic is more prone to disappointment and upset because they have a higher bar in what they expect.

There's no doubt that over time, the human condition has been and is improving.

Humans, on the other hand, are just as awful as they have ever been.

I wonder about non western influence on Shopenhauer. His 'resignation' and appreciation concepts sound as if they were lifted from a meditation lecture.

If you're interested in reading more modern Pessimists I would suggest Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Thomas Ligotti and just about any fiction or non fiction by Gary J Shipley.

Arthur Schopenhauer shows in his texts an influence from Hinduism as it was translated into Europe (as limited as those translations were).

Yeps...it's a very good read!

Scopnehauer was apparently heavily influenced by his reading of the Upanishads, which are some of the key Hindu philosophical texts. What I am not sure is the quality of the translations that he read since we do know he did not read them in the original Sanskrit.

Yep. This subreddit is very negative. It's a lot of nihilists and pessimists who refuse to acknowledge that a tree is always growing. And I do despise them for that. Although I am working on letting go of blame. Because it just makes life easier if you don't blame people.

Yep, unlikable even to yourself. A lot of people were raised wrong or misguided and don't realize that they are able to like themselves. Or they feel blocked from admitting that point. So they refuse to get help when people offer it. Like, for instance, someone with depression is told that they have to snap out of it. And then you'll see people saying that it's terrible advice and it's not helpful. But that's the only solution. Snap out of it.

A more recent book worth checking out regarding modern pessimism is Szymczyk's Atlantis & Its Fate In The Postdiluvian World, slightly philosophical and extremely pessimistic at times, bordering on science-fiction at others, but overall a highly entertaining read with some interesting comparisons of Kodiak Island around 10,000 BC with descriptions of Atlantis in Plato's Timaeus and Critias. He also mentions Schopenhauer quite a few times, which is why I'm mentioning it (disclaimer: I know the author and have been championing this book so I might be a bit biased, however, the book is free on Kindle right now so this is not a commercial endorsement).

Both don't have to be correct though. It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I think you might be in denial a little bit. Optimism is about overcoming those negative feelings. Pessimism is about falling to those negative feelings. And perpetuating them. An optimist has those negative feelings and addresses them in a healthy way. A pessimist refuses to let go of them.

But I don't mean to be disrespectful or to disregard what you said. Because I think it's an interesting perspective

In light of the philosophical discourse surrounding Schopenhauer's pessimism, it behooves us to contemplate the potential merits of adopting an optimistic perspective. Acknowledging the veracity of Schopenhauer's arguments does not preclude us from considering alternative, more sanguine outlooks on life.

First and foremost, one must take into account the undeniable progress humanity has achieved over the course of history. Through a myriad of advancements in technology, medicine, and overall living standards, we are presented with compelling evidence that progress is not merely a chimera.

Furthermore, the human propensity for resilience and adaptability in the face of adversity cannot be understated. The annals of history are replete with instances of cultures and societies surmounting seemingly insurmountable obstacles and emerging stronger as a result.

The capacity for collective learning is another noteworthy aspect of the human experience. Through the transmission and accumulation of knowledge across generations, we have witnessed astonishing achievements in diverse fields such as science, art, and technology. This continual process of intellectual advancement stands as a testament to humanity's potential for growth.

Moreover, the human capacity for altruism, empathy, and compassion serves as a beacon of hope amidst the darkness of adversity. These innate qualities foster collaboration and inspire individuals and communities to strive for positive change, even under the most daunting of circumstances.

The potential for personal growth and self-improvement, as exhibited by countless individuals, should not be neglected in this discussion. The capacity for transformation and development on a personal level can provide solace and engender optimism for the future.

Additionally, empirical research has demonstrated the tangible benefits of embracing a positive mindset. Optimistic individuals are more likely to take proactive measures and seek solutions, whilst concurrently experiencing reduced levels of stress and anxiety.

Lastly, it is crucial to recognize the moral progress humanity has made in addressing social injustices, promoting human rights, and fostering equality. This trajectory of amelioration offers a glimmer of hope for continued improvement.

In conclusion, it is incumbent upon us, as seekers of philosophical truth, to entertain the prospect of an optimistic outlook on life, whilst duly acknowledging the validity of pessimistic perspectives. By appreciating human resilience, adaptability, and the potential for positive change, we are better equipped to navigate the vicissitudes of existence and strive for a more promising future.

I'd always considered the definition of optimism and pessimism to see things either more positively or more negatively. I don't think how you feel about things is part of the definition. I'd also argue that the more negative take is almost always closer to reality than the positive take.

I find that having a lower expectation approach to life has been better for my happiness. Less disappointed when things don't go ideally, more pleased when they actually do. Meanwhile most people I know who are more optimistic and expect more, ironically end up being more disappointed.

[deleted]

They definitely feuded. Hegel was a superstar in his day and for a ehile both him and Schopenhauer taught at the same university. Arthur was so jealous of Hegel that he would schedule his classes at the same time as Hegel's. Of course almost everybody preferred Hegel which left Schopenhauer even more bitter. Germans who thought they'd figured it all out. Not the first, not the last.

It's not as hard if you can make yourself forget everything you possess of logic, common sense and critical thinking. That's all hindrance. And get one of the two modern Cambridge translations. Pinkard or Inwood, or both.

> I'd also argue that the more negative take is almost always closer to reality than the positive take.

People tend to overly lean on negativity. It's why you can be sure a negative opinion will reach further and persist despite any evidence to the contrary. People don't want to be hurt.

Being optimistic is not about expectations either, it's about seeing the potential in people or things. It's not "he is the best person and will never let me down" but "he has good qualities and I would like to see him cultivate them". It's akin to Existentialism and there being no inherent meaning but infinite space for you to fill with meaning.

How much do you wonder about it on the scale of 1 to 10? 2 being opening the article and reading about it.

There is nothing in the article about Eastern philosophy. Only Kant is mentioned as a foundation of his thought. There was simply enough of his philosophy for me to notice the parallels.

Ironically, it is clear that you yourself didn't open and read the article before commenting.

I believe they call that a “tautology”. The only solution is to solve it.

I also recommend reading The Last Hour of Gann by R Lee Smith. Looks like shitty alien erotica, but is something like 800ish pages of debate about what it means to be human. One of the most honest takes that I’ve ever read. Is like seven different genres.

It’s not precisely pessimism, but dances around the topic with the plot. (I’ve read Ligotti, but I think R Lee Smith conveys stuff in a way that is really clever. She doesn’t have answers for anyone, basically—I thought Ligotti was heavy handed.)

[removed]

Both are correct in different ways, and wrong in different ways. Thesis, antithesis... synthesis. Cake got nuthin' ta do with it, bro.

That's interesting because Schopenhauer is by far the easier read.

[removed]

>People tend to overly lean on negativity. It's why you can be sure a negative opinion will reach further and persist despite any evidence to the contrary. People don't want to be hurt.

My take is that because people generally prefer to accept more positive thoughts, the neutral reality seems negative in comparison. It doesn't have to be that way though, it's always possible to change how you feel about things.

>Being optimistic is not about expectations either, it's about seeing the potential in people or things.

The very definition of expect is to believe something more likely to happen. Which in the case of optimism, is to believe that a favorable outcome is more likely to happen.

>"he has good qualities and I would like to see him cultivate them"

This is not an optimistic statement, it's neutral. It doesn't suggest any outcome, it's just commentary.

An optimistic statement would be "I believe he'll cultivate his qualities and grow". If you don't truly believe in or expect the outcome, by definition you're not actually being optimistic about it.

Just to elaborate on what I mean:

• Optimistic: things will get better

• Neutral: things could get better

• Pessimistic: things won't get better

I'm a firm believer of neutral in most cases when things are uncertain. I do like to be cautiously optimistic sometimes though.

I must've confused it with another article about Schopenhauer that I had read earlier which goes more in depth about those influences. He even had a bust of Buddha on his writing desk. My mistake then, I was convinced I had read it in this article.

Hegel was right. Given how AI gathers data from human beings and then formulates the equivalent of thoughts or information when prompted, humanity has effectively harnessed the power of the zeitgeist. For the non-tech heads, AI is a hive mind and cannot exist, or continue to do so without constant human interactions with it. Don’t let Hollyweird movies and science fiction fool you. The laws of physics are the primary reason for the occurrence. Finally, we may now revisit the Phenomenology of Spirit with renewed vigor. :)

Edit: grammar

Edit: spelling

And then you had Kierkegaard who thought Hegel’s ideas anathema. And I would suppose he did or would have felt the same of Schopenhauer’s. Kierkegaard believing that the idea of becoming better naturally was not inevitable. That the individual and individuals collectively were responsible thought by thought and action by action for their own future (and present).

what's wrong with negativity ?

Metaphysical is a concept created by a mind, we have no reason to think there is anything metaphysical in the first place. It needs to be demonstrated that there is such thing as "metaphysical", as well as "essence" and other similar terms, before it can even be considered as a reasonable position to hold. We can debate about it, philosophize about it, but holding any positive or firm beliefs about the existence of anything metaphysical would be illogical until it can be demonstrated to have substance or standing as a legitimate part of our reality.

As a pessimist myself, naturally I find it highly attractive in others. It’s more unusual to come across though because everyone else is trying to adopt more positive frameworks, but that doesn’t necessarily work for everyone. Somehow we view it as a moral failing so it makes sense you would try to escape it, but I find a sort of comfort, refreshing honesty, and even humour in pessimistic philosophy... beautiful and uplifting on the contrary.

Believe it or not, the reality is even spicier than that. When Schopenhauer was applying for a lecturer position at the university, one of requirements was to deliver an oral presentation (if I'm not wrong the subject was his PhD thesis) which would be evaluated in front of a committee. Hegel was one of the three members of the committee and in fact Hegel's vote ended up being decisive for Schopenhauer to be approved. Hegel was pretty much totally indifferent towards Schopenhauer during his tenure as a lecturer, even though Schop quarrelled with a lot of people there.

That's funny but makes sense too.

Oh yeah, let's trust in stuff that feels good.

Well, it's 2023, and there's a barbaric war in Eastern Europe right now between two Slavic countries. Could Mr Schopenhauer be onto something, by any chance?

Renny Descartes was a drunken fart who was just as sloshed as Schlagel

>Germans who thought they'd figured it all out. Not the first, not the last.

What does that mean? Do you mean like Nietzsche?

This is already a metaphysical position lol

The existence of anything metaphysical is implied by the existence of anything

> There's no doubt that over time, the human condition has been and is improving.

This is a completely arbitrary assessment. People belonging to societies wiped out might disagree. The billion or so undernourished people currently alive might disagree. The two billion without ready access to clean water might disagree. And even the people who drive to work and work to drive might disagree.

> Humans, on the other hand, are just as awful as they have ever been.

That might be harder to measure. But I'd tend to bet that people are worse now than they were during most of human existence.

Yall say pessimist i say realist

so thesis, antithesis, …

[deleted]

Could they both not be right.

Kierkegaard knew of Schopenhauer and felt a deep resonance with him.

[removed]

[removed]

Probably: Marx, likely: Hitler, unlikely: Kissinger. Makes you wonder who’s next.

One of those is not like the other

Even for all its tragedies, the war in Ukraine doesn’t come remotely close to the horrors of the great wars of the 20th century, neither in its scale, nor in the method in which it is conducted.

Both Vietnam and the Korean War had millions of civilian deaths. Millions. Ukraine will have several tens of thousands by the time it’s done. Horrendous but… still very small in comparison.

And that’s not even talking about the methods. The Nazis were obviously monsters, but even looking at the Allies - the indiscriminate bombing civilian targets to oblivion was not only not as controversial as today but the standard practice. Killing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands.

Nowadays, when we talk about civilian bombing, it’s generally about infrastructure being destroyed and whether the collateral was acceptable or not. No one wants to be seen as targeting civilians and comparatively, the deaths among them remain low.

Targeting civilians was a crime even back in WWI. The weapons have become more sophisticated, thus less civilians suffer. But the casus belli is still as ridiculous in Ukraine as it was during both world wars. I would not call Russians super-smart and mature when they follow the original Nazis step by step. Doesn't look they've learnt anything.

In response to the eloquent commentary proffered by the esteemed KwesiJohnson, I am compelled to concede the undeniable verity that optimism may, in fact, be a privilege reserved for certain echelons within our contemporary society. The disparities and injustices that persistently plague our world render the notion of universally embracing an optimistic outlook an exercise in futility.

It is of utmost importance to emphasize that the intention behind my erstwhile response was not to cavalierly dismiss the harsh realities that a significant portion of our global populace endures. Rather, the objective was to present a counter-argument to Schopenhauer's unyielding pessimism, thus providing a more comprehensive and multifaceted analysis of the philosophical debate at hand.

I duly acknowledge your unvarnished candor and concur wholeheartedly that it is incumbent upon us as denizens of this shared reality to labor assiduously toward the creation of a more equitable, just, and compassionate society. In so doing, we shall endeavor to afford all individuals the prospect of adopting a more optimistic outlook on life, irrespective of their station or circumstances.

It is through enlightened discourse and rigorous dialectical examination that we may gain a deeper understanding of the manifold experiences and perspectives that inform our collective philosophical ruminations. As such, we shall be better equipped to confront and surmount the seemingly insurmountable challenges that beset us all in our ceaseless quest for wisdom and enlightenment.

It's fine to point out that children die of starvation and preventable disease in truly horrific numbers, but it is dishonest to not acknowledge that the rate at which that is occurring is dropping and has been for decades.

It's fair to point out that the gap between the low class and the high class is widening, but dishonest to ignore that the percentage of people in the lowest margins of wealth has plummeted.

[removed]

[removed]

Pinker is Hegelian 😂 😂 😂

This is the premise for a sitcom I think

That's literally what the article starts with.

Just to echo what others have said, Schopenhauer was into the Vedantist/Brahmanism of the Upanishads. In the Upanishads, there is the Atman (translated many ways) which is also called the Self or God in existence (as opposed to Brahman or the universal infinite God that can’t be put into conception).

Instead of Atman, Schopenhauer used the term Will. His most famous (and really only) book is called The World as Will and Representation. Representation as Maya, illusion of separate things representing themselves as the material world, and Will as Atman, the true underlying/changeless force emanating maya.

The whole of Schopenhauer’s initial foundation for his philosophy is Vedantic, just not necessarily his conclusions.

I will spew my train of thought here, maybe redefine some terms hehe. Not that I disagree with what you said.

I never looked at optimism or pessimism as needing specificity in an outcome. It is more as an attitude toward the future and of possibilities, and not knowing. That's what I think of expectation, in that it expresses a specific outcome that I don't think necessarily applies to an attitude.

But then I don't view this as a strict dichotomy but a spectrum of feeling. There's a scale of perceived freedom. In the existential sense of starting with nothing, the optimist sees ways to engage with possibility while the pessimist still sees nothing, within the context of each choice. The pessimist negates what is inherent to them while the optimist perceives various levels of possibility that is subjective to them.

So I see pessimism as seeing no meaningful choice and no freedom, the bottom where we all start, and optimism is any level above that where we actively engage, positivity, as it relates to existentialism. People with more optimism can feel like more is possible, that more choices can be made. Like that Bernard Shaw quote "There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”

> but it is dishonest to not acknowledge that the rate at which that is occurring is dropping and has been for decades.

Were we talking about just decades? I mean sure, in the decades since the invasion of Vietnam and Iraq the population there is doing better... but I don't think that's the best metric for overall improvement.

And not every place is improving. Much of Africa is undoubtedly much worse that it was hundreds of years ago before European colonization. One in eight people starving isn't an improvement brought about techno-industrial civilization, it's a CONSEQUENCE of techno-industrial civilization. It's the same with potable water. Most of the springs, streams, rivers weren't flooded with sewage and agricultural runoff 1000 or 100,000 years ago.

> dishonest to ignore that the percentage of people in the lowest margins of wealth has plummeted.

This just isn't true. Both in total numbers AND in relative degree of poverty, more people are poorer now than in the distant past. In fact, if you go back far enough, most people living in tribal societies had no discernible differentiation of wealth. And, again, most tribes weren't starving or unable to find clean water.

‘Recognised’? Philosophically I think the best way to put a world view is ‘the (world) occurred’ there is both truth and not truth in every occurring.

[removed]

First, I only mention the change over decades because change over centuries or millennia are blurrier. But they HAVE improved since then. You think one in eight is bad? The best records we have suggest that more than half of people died before the age of 20 in our ancient past.

And of course tons of it was death in childbirth, because our horrible techno-industrial civilization that freed countless people to work on science and medicine didn't exist to show people how that worked.

I also think it's unreasonable to say that people were at equal wealth when everyone had nothing. Did they have access to food and water? Sure. As long as the weather was good. Or the winter didn't last too long. Or a rival group of people didn't wander by and decide they liked the place you lived. I notice some people yearn for the past, but so few of them are willing to just wander off into the mountains or the jungles.

There are plenty of places untainted by man out there. But very few people live out there. Surviving off the land just like people did thousands of years ago. People DO do it. Just very rarely. You could go do it right now. A family holding you back? People had family back then. Bring 'em. Do they not wanna go? Couldn't imagine why.

It wasn't better. It was much much worse. If you disagree so much, go prove it.

You know what? That whole thing had a bit too much edge to it. I'm leaving what I said, but know that I'm just tired. Should have gone to sleep hours ago. I value and respect your views even if I disagree with them.

When Columbus landed in what is today Haiti... the tribes there were not warring or violent. They were not starving. In many ways, depending upon which metrics you want to use, they were very well off. They were surrounded by friends, family, nature, and had a very healthy lifestyle. Of course, that's not gold or combustion engines or life support machines that can technically keep you alive and increase your life expectancy while you vegetate... but they were still arguably wealthy.

But, today, I can't go live off the land in the forests of Haiti. Even if the forests there still existed I couldn't. The same holds true for much of the world. Any relatively idyllic place is either already owned or regulated to the extent that no one is allowed to live there. And you certainly couldn't plant a coconut tree and enjoy its fruits for generations.

So it's really just an empty challenge suggesting that I go wander off and live in the woods to prove how nice it would be. I'd love to that. I'd love to. But the techno-industrial civilization in place simply does not allow for any random person to have that freedom.

It should be noted that nationalism in the wake of the Napoleonic wars were still seen as a positive and liberating idea, especially for German speaking peoples who had never had their own singular state up to that point

Schopenhauer read the Oupnek'hat, which is a collection of Upanishads, mixed with the commentary of Shankara, which the freethinking sultan Dara Shikoh had ordered to be translated to Persian. According to the scholar Paul Deussen, it is an extremely bothersome work to read:

>Owing to the excessive literality with which Anquetil Duperron rendered these Upanishads word by word from the Persian into Latin, while preserving the syntax of the former language, — a literality that stands in striking contrast to the freedom with which the Persian translators treated the Sanskrit text, — the Oupnek'hat is a very difficult book to read ; and an insight as keen as that of Schopenhauer was required in order to discover within this repellent husk a kernel of invaluable philosophical significance, and to turn it to account for his own system. (The Philosophy of the Upanishads)

Well, would you cut off your own foot? Why wouldn't you do that? What's wrong with pain?

Well, it just makes no sense otherwise. You start off saying that they're both correct. But did somebody say that neither were correct? It seems like you put that forward unprovoked. So, it seems like you're trying to get two opposing sides to agree by simply saying that they're both right.

Interesting concept! Yeah that does kind of sound similar or like it might be that.

Yeah actually, I think that does fit that term. It's sort of like the opposite of a paradox.

It's just so unsettling to see someone say that negativity is more real than positivity.

So, let's say Your mother hates you and despises you. What do you think that would do to you? You would probably have a very tough time with life. You would encounter a lot of problems simply from that one thing.

But then let's say Your mother loves you and adores you. Now you're going to be healthier and stronger. You're going to have an easier time in life. You're going to feel better.

Negativity is not more real than positivity.

I know that wasn't your main point, but I kind of picked up on that even before you stated that. Like I could tell that you were thinking along those lines.

I recently saw a TED talk about that! And it really changed how I deal with negative people. Or difficult people. Like Trump types who refused to see logic. Because, apparently humans tend to have a hard time letting go of negative facts. So, you might think that curly hair looks good on somebody. So you like Curly hair. But then you meet somebody who has curly hair who treats you like shit. Now you don't like people with curly hair. And then it takes a lot more for you to let go of that negative idea. Whereas it just took one negative instance to get rid of the positive idea.

So I'll get really frustrated when I talk to negative people because they refuse to let go even when I'm showing them facts, and even when I open up to them emotionally and heal their emotional wounds with them. They'll still refuse to let go of the negative point.

So it's become really frustrating for me. But I guess if it's true that people have a hard time letting go of negativity, it kind of makes it easier for me to just let go of them. And let them work through things in their own time.

[deleted]

So that’s my bad actually for framing my stance inaccurately, but what I’m really trying to say is not that I prefer negativity over positivity, it’s that I prefer honesty over positivity. But because being honest is often viewed as negative, the two concepts are often conflated. And the reason why is simple, there is usually much more reason to hide negativity than there is to hide positivity.

So back to your example, I would much rather my mother just authentically treat me the way she feels like it. Especially if I can tell if she’s showing false positivity. I don’t need things sugar coated, I’m very comfortable with the truth and reality.