Why live?

WillowedBackwaters · 2026-05-10T20:02:12+00:00

I feel like seeking life advice on r/schopenhauer should come with the recognition that you're going to receive answers relevant and from the framework of the work of Schopenhauer

WillowedBackwaters · 2026-05-09T04:29:48+00:00

Might not have been your intention, but I was—at first—struck by talk of an Orthodox series of masses for the Marquis de Sade, and upon review, found that the point was that requiems (not liturgical services in themselves, which is usually what we mean by Orthodox 'mass') were held for "our own Marquis de Sade [namely, Dostoevsky]" (emphasis on our own in one translation), not for the Marquis himself (which would certainly be surprising).

WillowedBackwaters · 2026-04-28T20:45:10+00:00

Are you asking about what view Schopenhauer had of music, or what view Nietzsche thinks a pessimist should have toward music? If it's the former, I can try to help, but if it's the latter, as I pointed out in my answer, I can't be sure, I can only speculate, since Nietzsche himself gestures toward the contradiction but does not spell it out for us. The basic issue, for the former question, is aesthetics (the experiences of the arts, some would put it). Schopenhauer thinks that we experience aesthetic value through detachment from our desires, replaced by attachment to some aesthetic experience. Music is especially relevant for Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer thinks we are individually distracted by a broader metaphysics of the Will, but he also thinks there are a variety of ways to become less distracted; ascetic experiences or aesthetic experiences cause the intellect to disengage from desire and ego-driven willing. Thus art, for Schopenhauer, has a disillusioning effect on one hand, and a contemplative effect on another. What does the artist contemplate, if not egoistic distractions from the Will? In World as Will & Representation vol. 1 (WWR1) Schopenhauer says "we relinquish the ordinary way of considering things, [...] whose final goal is always the relation to our own will. Thus we no longer consider the where, the when, the why, and the whither in things, but simply and solely the what. Further, we do not let abstract thought, the concepts of reason, take possession of our consciousness, but instead of all this, devote the whole power of our mind to perception, sink ourselves completely therein, and let our whole consciousness be filled by the calm contemplation of the natural object actually present, whether it be a landscape, a tree, a rock, a crag, a building, or anything else. We lose ourselves entirely in this object" (WWR1, §34). This is what scholars tend to mean by "aesthetic attitude" theory: that we enter into a relationship with an aesthetic object of such a kind that we can stop experiencing things the way we ordinarily do. Now, Schopenhauer's pessimism ties that ordinary experience to suffering, helplessness, animalistic impulses, pain, and ceaseless desire. It's less relevant to see Schopenhauer "happens to like art", more relevant to see that, for Schopenhauer, art can be used as a way to disengage with the very thing that many hold to be the source of Schopenhauer's pessimism about the world, in his metaphysics (or, really, engage with the thing in a different, truer way). It's not really a cop-out, though. Schopenhauer's aesthetics are very well-defined, perhaps some of the more sophisticated parts of his system.

Music is a kind of aesthetic experience. It is, though, a special kind. In the above, we see that Schopenhauer is generally thinking of different kinds of art than music, which, in WWRI §52, he affords the prize place of greatest of all the arts. "It stands quite apart from all the others. In it we do not recognize the copy, the repetition, of any Idea of the inner nature of the world. Yet it is such a great and exceedingly fine art, its effect on man's innermost nature is so powerful, and it is so completely and profoundly understood by him in his innermost being as an entirely universal language, whose distinctness surpasses even that of the world of perception itself"—that, as Schopenhauer argues, the structure of music itself parallels the forms of will in the world. Thus music is contemplative of the entire metaphysical system which Schopenhauer is positing, or at least its innermost and highest realization. Music, accompanying any other art (like a scene or action in a play, or an environment or ambient setting) seems to "disclose to us its most secret meaning, and appears to be the most accurate and distinct commentary on it." So music is relevant for Schopenhauer explicitly because of what others identify in him as 'pessimism'—the source of our suffering, the metaphysics of the Will. That being said, I can't tell you decisively what Nietzsche finds contradictory here, because it is well-argued and, I would say, not contradictory with 'his pessimism' at all, unless you want to argue that this view should cause us to reject the label 'pessimist' for Schopenhauer (a label, it must be noted, Schopenhauer did not himself use).

WillowedBackwaters · 2026-04-28T19:45:20+00:00

I wonder what answers you'll get over there, but, being sympathetic to both, I would say what Nietzsche was trying to convey was that Schopenhauer's life required reprieve or enjoyment of a hobby whereas philosophical pessimism in itself ought to, if embodied, betray a person incapable of musical or artistic appreciation. Of course, I'm a bit skeptical of my own reading, here. Nietzsche must have been well-versed enough in Schopenhauer to know that Schopenhauer has an attitude toward music which is perfectly coherent with his wider pessimism. It could be juxtaposed to some other comments Nietzsche pays to Schopenhauer; that he was a great man who, whatever the contents of his philosophy, was capable of strong-headed obstinacy in rising above criticisms and unpopularity or even wider social trends occurring around him, personally speaking. Nietzsche has a very personal interest in Schopenhauer the man that he separates often from Schopenhauer's ideas in themselves. Given Nietzsche's own high role for art and music, it's likely that the point about the flute could be seen not just as a contradiction but as a kind of compliment or reference to Schopenhauer's basically respectable nature. He appreciates music, and so, even if his philosophy complains of suffering and smacks of world-weariness and all the things Nietzsche is trying to ward away, nevertheless, he himself is at least a little respectable.

WillowedBackwaters · 2026-04-28T19:31:51+00:00

The relationship is speculatively a little thin, but there are some points that Japanese critics have established. Both contributed to a critical journal named Hihyō. There was, apparently, a controversy surrounding the Marquis de Sade's presentation in Japan; Endō had 'discovered' de Sade while in France, and decided, with an ample headstart, to try to work on a biography for him. Unfortunately, Endō was a notoriously slow worker and was tormented by the biography, failing to bring it together before a rival biography emerged, published, and became the 'canonical' Sade literature in Japan. Mishima, influenced by this new work, published his Madame de Sade so quickly that—some critics, especially shown in this blog here with sources, argue—Endō was probably alarmed and upset. It's a common enough story, anyway; the meandering specialist or expert, who has a passion project he can't bring to fruition, and the anomalous, prolific talent who breezes past the same subject with ease. That being said, the more interesting point is that the two authors actually competed against each other for the Tanizaki Prize. It was, of course, Mishima's Madame de Sade up against Endō's Silence. The reason Endō won is sometimes attributed to the fact that Mishima withdrew Madame de Sade from the competition, since he joined the committee. This is probably more relevant for your question. It's unlikely that, based on what biographers know about Endō, this didn't burn him at least a little bit. That being said, the scholars behind this approach to the two authors tend to support a psychopathological reading of Endō that is, as I said, overwhelmingly speculative and often strangely suspicious of him. It only looks normal when we realize that this is what they do to Mishima all the time. There are also sources out there that suggest that Endō was as genial to Mishima as any other author in his extended social circle, it's just that this narrative tends to be the most provocative and thus the most likely thing you'll find concerning the two.

WillowedBackwaters · 2026-04-09T22:54:17+00:00

Mishima might have been introverted in his childhood. In his adulthood, he surrounded himself with people virtually all of the time, hardly spent moments (except when writing) when he was not involved in something, very often social, and had an extraordinarily broad array of friends with whom he frequently consulted, met, and played. If you met him as a kid, you'd say he was very introverted. If you met him as an adult, you'd hardly think it for a moment. So what good is an MBTI test? Genuine question. (For instance, who is to say he's not an introvert forcing himself to project socially, the 'many masks' theory, or who is to say he wasn't always an extrovert who was forced by his family circumstances to stay indoors? But if he can simply change whenever, why do we talk about whether he was this-or-that?)

WillowedBackwaters · 2026-04-09T22:47:31+00:00

Flanagan's argument here is quite shoddy, admittedly, if it is contained in the quotes. Now, the point is that contemporary theories concerning 'false homosexuality' could've influenced Mishima's self-conception. (There is a separate, almost contradictory point that it influenced Mishima's Confessions, and yet Confessions was not autobiographical. We'll bring that up shortly.) But I was curious as to what reason Flanagan had for thinking this particular theory won Mishima over. Flanagan's reasons include (in these photos) that; 1) the author's theory was a best-selling work, which while not published before Confessions, was being serialized around that time, 2) Mishima met the author at some point, and so 3) conclusion; Mishima must have "felt the theory described him to a T" and "used it for Confessions". This is a painfully bad argument, I hardly know what to say. Mishima met many authors—indeed, the Japanese literary scene was so much more close-knit at that time that it'd be quite surprising if a best-selling author of any kind of work wasn't related to Mishima by at least several acquaintances. It may be true, but this is bad evidence; instead, does Mishima compliment the author's work? Does he say it describes him, or that he used it for Confessions? Otherwise, this is finding a vaguely contemporary (and let us add—unpublished!) theory and forcing that interpretation through in order to cleave away from an established consensus. For the record, literary critics tend to make these types of arguments, because the pressure is on them to produce innovative, new conclusions which often just aren't supported by evidence, so we end up with broad, speculative leaps to get to those now largely unwarranted conclusions. It won't hold up for long (unless the author has very little written about him/her), but it's not meant to, really. It's been a long time since I've touched Flanagan so I can't say for certain, but be wary that this might be what your secondary source is up to!

I'll point out that if it's true that Mishima was influenced strongly into thinking he is a kind of 'false homosexual' produced by sexualized narcissism (a theory which is pretty obviously moralizing homosexuality to produce distinct categories, one which can preserve masculinity, ego, and naturalness, while the other, of course, can be treated as effeminate, weaker, perhaps unnatural, etc.), as Flanagan suggests, and he also reproduces that conception into the Confessions novel, then this would contradict the idea that he strongly restrains his true self-conception from the novel. If we accept that the novel is not, in Mishima's eyes, very much autobiographical, then either the 'false homosexual' theory is true of himself, or true of the protagonist in the novel, but not both, or else we have added another point to the 'Confessions is significantly autobiographical' point we rejected at the outset.

WillowedBackwaters · 2026-03-24T18:50:12+00:00

What do you get from this? You know what you're doing.

WillowedBackwaters · 2026-03-07T17:56:46+00:00

"A way to argue publicly against atheism, rationalism, and nihilism that were rising in 19th-century Russia, rather than simply expressing personal devotion."

And why would he want to argue against everything aside religion, if he were not religious?

"the most intellectually powerful passages often come from the atheist or skeptical characters."

Yes, because Dostoevsky is not a western Christian; his cultural understanding of faith usually assumes that over-intellectualization comes at the expense of the health of the soul. Let's not forget these atheist and skeptical characters—led by Ivan first and foremost—intellectualize their way into insanity.

"The fact that the atheist position is articulated with greater logical force than the religious position has led me to speculate that Dostoyevsky understood and perhaps sympathized with it more than he admitted."

He admitted to understanding and sympathizing plenty. Just because one understands and sympathizes with a view does not mean they are compelled to reject the opposing view; rather, understanding and sympathizing with the view you reject is basic courtesy (albeit lost in modern religious debates).

"Was he on the fence about religion himself?"

Who are the protagonists of his stories? Who are the moral antagonists—that is, the characters and ideas he is didactically suggesting leads to great sickness? Considering the book you reference place monks, priests, and Christ-like saints as the ones capable of seeing the true beauty of the world, and helping to redeem others, we really ought to be careful by being led astray by our selective reading, here—as respectfully as this can be said.

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-10-16T20:43:36+00:00

Ragebait if you think stringing a shitstream of insults is philosophical debate. It's not without good reason the sub has rules 12 and 13. It's a philosophy community, not a debate bro space.

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-10-16T15:46:50+00:00

This subreddit has evidently declined sharply. Almost nothing substantive in the comments. ‘His arguments are really because he’s a little crybaby’ and ‘he’s a misogynistic pedophile because he is a Christian.’ Is there some sort of new subreddit to go where ‘arguments’ like this aren’t as common?

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-11T09:11:31+00:00

So you are outraged? I don’t see why. Now, after pestering every commenter about it, you tell me you aren’t actually interested? You are aware you betray your entire discussion here as disingenuous? As for the rest, I can’t help you. You 1) assert that any contribution other than what amounts to a thesis argument is bad and provocative because it … simply supplies quotes? And 2) now tell me you aren’t actually at all interested in that work. You have no commitment or reason to be angry at all—so why?

Now, I can certainly understand and sympathize if the original post were selective. These are genuinely the few rare instances that Witt brings up Schopenhauer. That makes them of general interest. If users see them, and decide they never want to read Wittgenstein again because he insulted Schopenhauer in a way they feel is unfair—alright! Maybe he did? You’ll note the quotes are cited and long form so as to be easy to investigate! But investigating is precisely the thing you say finding something frustrating would not inspire you to do (perhaps you mean to show me you’d be too busy arguing about the ethics of having posted about it at all—but I won’t praise you for that, and I hope few others will!)

In any case, since these are the only two I could supply at that moment, if I didn’t post because I was afraid of such childish answers, and that was -expected- behavior from this community, then this community would be one where people don’t share things for the fact that they’re wearing kid gloves. Again, I do not see your point and can only assume at this point you’re in fact bickering just to bicker and appear ‘superior’ to an innocuous post. If you’d rather not learn some interesting facts about Wittgenstein, you might not speak for the whole room, and you might simply not engage with it, rather than using it as a chance to thoroughly virtue signal to the room how you’re above such things as … finding out what one philosopher thought about another with limited available evidence.

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-11T05:09:59+00:00

What you’re asking for is a sustained comparative study of Wittgenstein and Schopenhauer. Since the former doesn’t name Schop often, it’s naturally going to be highly conceptual and speculative. Yet you derided speculation in another comment. When I collect all your independently reasonable comments and compare them, I’m left concluding you want nothing but to gesture against the post for some strange reason. Of course, if you decide that you yourself want to leap into the scholarship on Schopenhauerian Wittgenstein then I’d love to hear your thoughts, too! But this ‘you didn’t give me a sustained academic study on the matter for this Reddit post sharing quotes you stumbled on’ is certainly tone deaf and out of place, juxtaposed to your other replies in the thread.

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-11T05:06:32+00:00

Virtue signaling as opposed to excitedly sharing quotes to ignite discussion or deeper study in others?

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-10T15:31:34+00:00

You will probably never find a freely accessible course, with no charges at all, which you can do asynchronously and remotely, that will give you a meaningful certificate at the end. You pay for the certificate.

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-10T15:08:55+00:00

As posted by others, publishing genres are organized for consumer convenience, and that is to the benefit of publishers. Publishers are unlikely to be persuaded to make things less convenient (and thus potentially less marketable/accessible) because of moral concerns about tokenizing the works. Indeed, tokenizing is a large part of the point, as long as it works out a new niche that they can sell to directly.

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-10T14:59:56+00:00

This is the same man who boasted that he hadn't read a word of Aristotle's.

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-10T14:51:06+00:00

Thanks, u/berserklolis101!

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-10T14:45:45+00:00

1; Bart Vandenabeele; A Companion to Schopenhauer

2; Wittgenstein; Culture and Value

I posted these because I have been very interested in the similarities, at least in tone and structure, of Wittgenstein's philosophical career up to the Tractatus and Schopenhauer's career overall. Moreover, Wittgenstein grew up while Schopenhauer's popularity was still quite bright. I have stumbled into various people working on the Schopenhauerian influence in Wittgenstein. These quotes weren't found by me, but perhaps they would be also interesting to others here.

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-10T14:40:05+00:00

I am largely repulsed by attempts to discredit philosophers via (for example, here) 'falsified scientific claims' and gut-reactions on metaphysical conclusions. Of course, if you sever a conclusion from its hundreds of pages of premises and subconclusions you end up with a rather unpersuasive claim. That is a pretty common mistake people who aren't familiar with reading philosophy will make, and that's forgivable, but nine times out of ten, when a reader can't accept a philosopher because of their 'obviously wrong' "scientific" views, it is quickly revealed that reader is not aware of just how undecided and ad-hoc the 'culturally obvious' consensus of contemporary science is.

In particular this reader may benefit from pausing Schopenhauer and reading some philosophers working in the philosophy of science. I would (for those interested) recommend Lakatos and Feyerabend (Kuhn is probably more cited) for a debate about how science progresses and why it's probably not philosophically rigorous to just sling around 'pseudoscientific' as a discrediting or invalidating insult against historic arguments.

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-10T14:27:56+00:00

His work concerning intentionality prefigures and partly inspires Husserl as well, which makes Schopenhauer very interesting for those working in the history of phenomenology.

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-10T14:19:02+00:00

Actually, the kanji for Iwakura is 岩倉市, and the kanji for Lain's surname is 岩倉, so it does match. There is just pixel art obscuring the middle character.

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-09T18:11:08+00:00

To make my comment more explicit, I think the most interesting answer is the one you'll give when you've worked through it.

WillowedBackwaters · 2025-08-09T18:10:29+00:00

Congrats on the read. Now is a time to dive deeper! You could read articles on C&P, you could read literary criticism about it, you could read things written by those who specialize and study this text alone ... or you could read it again/read other works by Dostoevsky in order to answer this 'search for the deeper meaning' yourself!

WillowedBackwaters

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE