C

HAPTER ONE

1.0 PHILOSOPHERS’ VIEWS ON SUFFERING

Human suffering has been a re-occurring philosophical

issue that has in one way or the other moved even the

ancient philosophers into deep philosophical

reflection

In this first chapter, we are going to discuss the

ideas of ancient thoughts that moved Schopenhauer to

channel his philosophical thought on the world as

will and representation.

1.1 ANCIENT PERIOD

The philosophers of the ancient era served as

precursor to the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer.

Examining the concept of suffering in this era, the

beginning of the western philosophy and the Ionian

school of thought portrays Pythagoras and the

doctrine of Orphism which served as the foundation of

his philosophy of the human soul.

According to Orphism,

Man is a mixture of both divine and

human elements. The soul is the

divine element in man and is the

essential aspect of man. It formerly

lived in the other world and was

sent into this world the soul is

imprisoned in the body. The body in

other words is the prison of the

soul. After death, the soul will

transmigrate into another body, thus

leaving one prison for another. The

next prison may be worse because it

may be the body of an animal. For

the soul could transmigrate from a

human body to that of an animal.1

The Pythagoreans believed that by contemplating the

eternal truths, the soul gradually purifies itself.

Philosophy for the Pythagoras was a way of purifying

the soul and as such, a way of life and salvation. They

as well considered music highly therapeutic for certain

nervous disorders.2

Introspection into the Pythagoreans doctrine of the

soul portrays two different worlds; the world habited

by the soul formerly and the sinful world of suffering

1J. Omoregbe, A Simplified History of Western Philosophy. Vol.2. Ikeja: Joja Educational Research andPublishers, Reprinted, 2003. P. 72 S. E Stumpf, Philosophy, History and problems, New York: Mc Graw-Hill inc. Publication. 2003, p.12

which is a prison and a purgatory for purification is

what causes suffering. That is why they preach a strict

way of life that centered on purification and

asceticism.3

An intensive study on the Pythagorean doctrine of the

soul and Schopenhauer’s concept of human suffering

would see a great deal of similarities. Both Pythagoras

and Schopenhauer believed that the world is a

battlefield where each human being must struggle for

survival. For the Pythagoreans, the true self of every

person was the soul, the essential element in

partnership of the body4

The soul is therefore in continuous combat with the

body. Thus the human body is similar to Schopenhauer’s

3 Edward Craig, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New Fetter Lane, 1998, London Vol.7 p.860.4 J. Omoregbe, op. cit., p.8

concept of the will-to-live which manifest in the world

of representation. The human element with its bodily

needs like desires, fear, and thirst is some sort of a

burden and suffering to the true self of the human

person.

The Pythagoreans however believed that the way out of

this bondage of the soul is by contemplating the

external truths. And by doing so, the soul continues to

transmigrate from one body to another during which it

attains purification and immortality and is liberated5

this affirms what Hermmant said that so long as we

retain our body, there is absolutely no escape from

suffering, since our body is contaminated with

desires6.

5 V. Jadha, Hermmant, Why do we face problems in life.Copyright 1996, p.2.6 Ibid., p.32

We shall also consider another philosopher of the

ancient period known as Epicurus.

Epicurus was a practical philosopher who considered

philosophy as a medicine of the soul. Pleasure is for

him the standard of goodness and the chief aim of human

life. He was of the opinion that not every kind of

pleasure had the same value. Thus he distinguished

between various types of pleasures, namely, pleasures

that are intense but last only for a short while,

pleasures that are not so intense but last longer,

pleasures that have a painful aftermath and pleasures

that give a sense of calm and repose.

Epicurus emphasized these distinctions between various

kinds of pleasures “in order to guide people to the

happiest life”7 However, he decried the pleasures that

7S.E. Stumpf, philosophy History and problems. P. 105

have painful aftermath. S.E. Stumpf rightly quoted him

thus;

When….we maintain that pleasure is

the end, we do not mean the

pleasures of profligates and those

that consist of sensuality…, but

freedom from pain in the body and

from trouble in the mind. For it is

not continuous drinking and

revellings nor the satisfaction of

lusts, nor the enjoyment of fish and

other luxuries of the wealthy table,

which produce a pleasant life, but

sober reasoning, searching out the

motives for all choice and avoidance

and banishing mere opinions, to

which are due the greatest

disturbance of the spirit.8

Most importantly, the surest way of unhappiness and

pain for Epicurus is to emphasize too great a concern

for the above enumerated pleasure. In this manner,

Certain kinds of body pleasures

could never be fully satisfied…..

and if such pleasures require

continuous indulgence, it followed

that people pursuing such pleasures

would by definition always be

unsatisfied and would, therefore,

constantly suffer some pain. If for

example they wanted more money, or

more public acclaim or more exotic

8 S.E STUMPF, opp. cit., p.107

foods, or a higher position they

would always be dissatisfied with

their present situation and would

suffer some internal pain.9

Hence, even in pleasures, there are pains or suffering.

However, Epicurus suggests that humans have both the

power and the duty to regulate these unbridled desires

which Stumpf called ‘traffic of our desires’.

Nevertheless, one striking thing in the philosophy of

Epicurus is the view that “it does not follow that

every pleasure is worthy of being chosen; ``just as

every pain must not be avoided”10 Now the question is;

if some pains are not to be avoided does it mean that

there is something pleasurable or something good about

9 Ibid10 J. Omoregbe, opp. Cit., p.129

painful experiences? In other words, can one derive

happiness from suffering?

Perhaps, Epicurus’ attitude to life answered yes to

this question as he lived ascetic life, living on bread

and water. Thus for him, “once there is no peace of

mind there can be no happiness, but with peace of mind

one can be happy even in the midst of bodily torture”.11

It follows therefore that Epicurus was to some level

very optimistic about humanity and suffering unlike

Schopenhauer, even though there is some similarities in

their view about human suffering.

Hence it is now clear that the concept of human

suffering in Schopenhauer is not all that new. It

derived its origin from the history of philosophy.

11 S. E. Stumpf, opp. cit., p.138

1.2 MEDIEVAL PERIODD

The notion of human suffering in the medieval period

can be traced in the philosophy of Saint Augustine. He

considers evil and suffering as a consequence of man’s

misuse of free will. He maintained that God created man

to be free, responsible and to exercise his rights but

this freewill man misused and as such incurred evil on

himself. Hence the soul can never attain rest until it

rests in God12

For Plato, goodness is not matter of opinion but an

object of knowledge which implies that suffering is as

a result of ignorance13. Augustine however did not

accept Plato’s ideas on suffering thus maintaining his

stand that evil is a result of misuse of freewill. Our12 S. Borruso, The confessions of St. Augustine Nairo: Pauline Publishers, 2003, p.1113 William Benton, Great Ideas, A syntopicon of the great book vol.5, inc. Chicago, 1952, p.606

predicament is not that we are ignorant but that we

stand in the presence of alternatives. We must choose

to turn toward God or away from God14. So the wrong use

of God’s free will to man gave rise to human suffering

Augustine is of the idea that only in the metaphysical

sense can things be thought of as entirely good. That

is the reason why Augustine claimed that our load can

only be laid down by God15. The freewill given to man by

God is what Schopenhauer will call the Will-to-live,

which is the thing in itself. And according to

Augustine, the way out is contemplation of God and

turning back to him as the only source of happiness.

Schopenhauer did mention contemplation as a way to get

rid of human suffering on temporal basis but in a

different sense.

14 S. E. Stumpf, op. cit., p. 13815 William Benton, op. cit., p. 610

1.3 modern periods

The concept of human suffering in the modern era is

will illustrated in the political philosophy of Thomas

Hobbes and the state of nature, According to Hobbes:

The state of nature is a stat in which man

lives prior to the setting up of an organized

society, it is characterized by insecurity.

Life full of conflicts, struggles and men live

in perpetual danger and fear of death. A state

of war of all against all16

Hobbes attributed the cause of human suffering and pain

as a result of the selfish and self-seeking nature of

man. Human action is directed towards the satisfaction

of man’s self interests and will17. The picture we get

16 Edward Craig, Routledge Ency. Op. cit., p. 47017 Ibid, p. 470

of this state of nature is of people moving against

each other- bodies in motion or the anarchic condition

Hobbes called “the war of all against all”18. As the

sate of nature is that of equality and freedom of will

in which one is able to do whatever he likes. Life in

it becomes solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

The only way to alleviate suffering in the state of

nature according to Hobbes is the way of peace which is

also the way of reason,. Reason brings about the

natural law that would enhance peace. Through reason,

an agreement is reached though which each person’s

right is delegated to the sovereign. By so doing, they

lend their wills by doing only what is permitted by the

sovereign’s law and refraining from what the law

prohibits19. The function of a civil society could be

18 S. E. Stumpf, op. cit., p. 21719 Edward Craig, Routledge Ency. Op. cit., p.471

achieved through reason which is also a way of bringing

human suffering to an end. It was through reason that

natural law came to existence, which helped in

organizing the civil society since it forbids man to do

anything that is destructive of his life or omit

anything that is necessary for its preservation20.

For Hobbes the first and most fundamental of the laws

of nature is that every man should endeavor as much as

it is in his power to ensure peace21. The way of reason

or knowledge mentioned by Hobbes must be similar to the

Aesthetic contemplation in Schopenhauer’s philosophy

whereby one is detached from material world and becomes

subjected to knowledge. It therefore means that in both

Hobbes and Schopenhauerian philosophy, the way out is

resorting once more to knowledge.

20 S. E. Stumpf, of. Cit., p. 21821 Ibid., p.218

1.4 COMTEMPORARY PERIOD

For proper investigation on the conception of human

suffering in this era, we should focus on the

existentialists who held that the individual man has an

infinite capacity to grow, develop, and overcome all

odds and shackles of nature. This group includes some

philosophers like Heidegger, Jaspers, Jean Paul Sartre,

Gabriel Marcel etc. for them, man is transcendent

because of his capacity to use his reason. They saw man

as an embodiment of potentialities.

Existentialists could be viewing the sufferings in the

world from the optimistic dimension because they are

already away of the inescapability of the troubles in

nature. As a result they try to develop a right

attitude and disposition to surmount and conquer them.

They only agreed with Schopenhauer on the fact of the

existence of suffering but difference comes on

disposition and attitude the two parties present. The

standpoint of the existentialist as concerning human

suffering is seen clearly in the words of Heidegger

when he said;

Man in his present life finds himself in a

precarious alienated decadent, unauthentic

situation full of deficiencies and miseries.

But there exists in man the tension to free

himself from the slavery of ignorance, error,

fear and passion22

22 B.Mondin, philosophical Anthropology, Rome, UrbanianaUniversity Press, 1985. P.198.

C

HAPTER TWO

2.0 SCHOPENHAUER’S PHILOSOPHICAL INSIGHT

Having abandoned medical studies in his early days,

Schopenhauer was advised by one of his lecturers to

study platonic and Kantian thoughts due to serious

influence of Kant on him, he accorded himself the

immediate successor of Kant instead of Hegel.

Schopenhauer no doubt drew his philosophical insight

from Kantian philosophy. Like Kant, Schopenhauer

distinguished between the noumina world and the

phenomenal world and between things in themselves and

things as they appear to us whereas Kant speaks of the

noumina world, the things in themselves as

transcendental and metaphysical, above the framework of

causality, space and time and therefore above human

knowledge23

Schopenhauer on the other maintained that there can be

no plurality in the noumina world. Plurality or

multiplicity is only found in the phenomenal world,

that is the world of appearance24 he claimed knowledge

of the noumina reality, the thing in itself. And for

him, it is “the will to live”25. Accordingly;

The act of will is indeed only the

nearest and clearest phenomenon of

the thing in itself; yet it follows

from this that if all other

phenomena could be known by us just23 A. Schopenhauer, World as Will and Representation, vol. 2, opp. Cit., p. 582.24 Omoregbe, opp. Cit., p. 14625 A. Schopenhauer, op. cit., vil.2, p. 197

as precisely as that which the will

is in us. Therefore, in this sense I

teach that the inner nature of

everything is the will and I call

the will the thing in itself26.

How does Schopenhauer arrive at the knowledge of the

thing in itself is a question that one may likely ask.

He claimed that one could arrive at this through self-

consciousness of one’s knowledge of his own willing.

Accordingly:

Infact our willing is the only

opportunity we have of understanding

simultaneously from within any event

that outwardly manifest itself.

Consequently, it is the one thing

26 Ibid., p. 197

known to us immediately and not

given to us merely in the

representation as all else is.27

According to him, this is the only narrow gateway to

the truth. Our whole body is nothing but objectified

will. Will as a representation of consciousness. He

argues that any person is opportuned to understand this

by entering into oneself by the help of intuition,

which he believed is the key to reality.28

2.1 THE NATURE OF WILL IN SCHOPONHAUER’S PHILOSOPHY

Arthur Schopenhauer developed a philosophy of pessimism

that focused on the nature of the “will”. This term

‘will’ was the central theme of his philosophy.

27 Ibid. p. 19628 Ibid., p.196

Ordinarily, the term “will” indicates “a conscious and

deliberate choice to behave in a certain way”,29 but

Schopenhauer used the term to mean both a person’s

individual desires as well as the overall essence of

being alive.30 He began his ‘magna carta’ with: “the

world is my representation… a truth valid with

reference to every living and knowing being… this

truth”, he said, “is nevertheless one-sided”. He

continued by saying that, “the separation of what is

different and the combination of what is identical can

lead us to this truth. This truth, which must be very

serious and gave if not terrible to everyone os that a

man can say and must say; “the world is my will”.31 In a

29 S. E. Stumpf, Philosophy History and Problems. P. 32730 Microsoft Encarta Premium 2006 Trans. And Ed. By Hollingale, K.J. Penguin Books.31 A. Schopenhauer, opp. cit., p. 162

nutshell, then, the world is for Schopenhauer “my

representation” as well as “my will”.

Meanwhile, according to Stumpf, “Schopenhauer’s concept

of the will represents his major disagreement with

Kant’s theory of the thing-in-itself.”32 Kant as we know

taught that the thing-in-itself (the noumena reality)

is and can only be one reality and it is the will-to-

live. The phenomenal world therefore is a reflection, a

self manifestation or self unfolding of the will.33

Elaborating on this his concept of the will, he said:

…this world in which we live and

have our being is, by its whole

nature, through and through will,

and at the same time through and

through representation…. Everyone32 S. E. Stumpf, opp. cit., p.32733 J. Omoregbe, opp. cit., p.143-144

finds himself to be this will, in

which the inner nature of the world

consists, and he also finds himself

to be the whole world…34

Therefore, Schopenhauer believes that, this “will” is

the ultimate reality. According to him “The will

considered purely in itself, is devoid of knowledge,

and is only a blind irresistible urge. The will is the

thing-in-itself, the inner content, the essence of the

world, but life, the visible world, the phenomenon, is

only the mirror of the will, this world will accompany

the will as inseparably as a body is accompanied by its

shadow.”35

Moreover, to say “the will” and to say “the will-to-

live are one and the same thing, for according to him,34 A. Schopenhauer opp. cit., p. 3-4.35 Ibid p.275

“it is immaterial and a mere pleonasm if instead of

simply saying ‘the will’ we say ‘the will-to-live”36

Again Schopenhauer believes that this will-to-live is

the cause to all struggles, suffering and evil in the

world. To buttress his point he said that “the striving

of matter can always be impeded only, never fulfilled

or satisfied. Every attained end is at the same time

the beginning of a new curse and so on ‘ad infinitum”37

This shall however be discussed and analysed later

after we must have looked into his biography briefly

and the influence he had from other philosophers.

2.2 THE WORLD AS MANIFESTATION OF THE WILL-TO-LIVE

36 Ibid p.27537 Ibid p.164

Having come to the conclusion that the will is the

thing-in-itself, Schopenhauer went on to describe the

operation and manifestation of the will-to-live in

nature. He maintained that the whole world is willing,

Striving and mostly unconscious force with a

multiplicity of manifestation. Schopenhauer advances

this as a metaphysical account of the world as it is in

itself, but believes it is also supported by empirical

evidence. Humans as part of the world are fundamentally

willing beings. Their behavior shaped by an unchosen

will to life which manifests itself in organism38

Schopenhauer sees the manifestation of the will in

everything; he sees it in the impulse by which the

magnet turns to the North Pole, in the phenomena of

attraction and repulsion in gravitation, in normal

38 Edward Craig, Routledge Encyclo., opp. Cit., p. 545

instinct in human desire and likewise in organic and

inorganic spheres39

Describing once more the operation of the will to live,

Schopenhauer maintains that the will itself is without

knowledge and merely a rational blind impulse an

endless striving.

The will considered purely in itself

is devoid of knowledge and is only a

blind irresistible urge as we see it

appear in inorganic and vegetable

nature and in their laws and also in

vegetable past of our life40

Considering the fact that the will is blind, one may

ask why Schopenhauer gave it the name as will, since

39 Copleston, op. cit., p. 3740 A. Schopenhauer, opp. cit., vol. 1, p. 275

will imply rationality and seems not to be suitable for

describing a blind incessant impulse. Why not force?

However, Schopenhauer buttresses his reasons by saying

that we ought to take our descriptive term conscious

from our volition. It is also better to describe the

less well known in terms of the better known than the

other way round.41 So for him, the term will is well

situated

Furthermore, the will is in everything and makes use of

everything in varying degrees of intensity. It is

lesser in the inorganic maters than as in animals with

their instinct. In man, it is very complex and this

accounts for rationality but all still pointing to the

dame reality. Man thinks himself as being conscious of

what he does. He thinks that he is the one who takes

41 Copleston, op. cit., p.37

absolute charge over his actions, without knowing that

it is the will which serves as the brain behind this.

The will is never tired but remains in constant strife

until its end is achieved.

2.3 THE PHILOSOPHY OF PESSIMISM

From the epistemological point of view, Schopenhauer’s

ideas belong to the school of phenomenology. He

believes that the “phenomena world is therefore a

reflection, a self manifestation or self unfolding of

the will”.42 In other word the conflict we find in the

world is as a result of restless urge, struggles in

life in various ways and among various ways and among

various things.

42 C. Janaway, “Arthur Schopehauer” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward Craig (Gen. Ed.). Vol. 8 London : Routledge, 1998. P.548

Therefore, Schopenhauer’s views of life are “grim and

pessimistic.”43 it is on this vantage that he sees the

world of man as full of misery and suffering. In the

same way, the life of an individual is at constant

struggle and not merely the individual which is at

constant struggle and not merely a metamorphoric one

against want or boredom but also an actual struggle

against other people. He discovers adversaries

everywhere because life is in continual conflict and

dies with sword in hand. At most man’s restless quest

for happiness is also a manifestation of the will. In

which the will as a restless impulse manifests itself

in all conflicts in all struggles and in all evils in

the world. Hence, the will inevitably leads a person to

pain, suffering and death. In the same vein, to have

43 J.I, Omoregbe; A Simplified History of Western philosophy vol. 2. Lagos.

desires unsatisfied is to suffer; to have needs is

vulnerable to deprivation and to be without needs

usually invites a “state of empty boredom waiting to be

filed by a further cycle of desires”44 Since life in the

world is suffering by its very nature, hence life

itself is a crime and existence is an evil which bears

the penalty of suffering. Consequently, there can be no

true happiness because happiness is simply a temporary

cessation of human pain because pain is caused by

desire and human need can never be fulfilled.

44 R. H. Popkin “Schopenhauer, Arthur” in Essay and Aphorisms, p.43

CHAPT

ER THREE

3.0 SCHOPENHAUER’S PHILOSOPHY ON HUMAN SUFFERING

Schopenhauer having viewed the world in its fullness

and observing the pessimistic phase of the universe

declares that this world if full of conflict. He also

unleashed some solution to overcome this world of

pessimism. But one cannot arrive to the ultimate

solution to suffering without trying to x-ray the

nature of man and its feeling within his milieu. In

view of this, he characterized human action into two

perspectives which are individualism and collectivism,

however, he also under rate the evil in the world as

having its root in man because man is a microcosm on

which all that is fundamental to reality as a whole may

be plainly discerned. This is the main point of his

notion of the will as evil. Having witnessed in himself

of how the world looked like. He then wants to justify

it in religious sense pertaining the effect of worldly

evil as a contributor to human suffering. Moreover, he

lamented that this problem of evil has been central

concern of philosophers and of all the major religion.

Therefore, he mostly tailored his line of thought

chiefly to the religious views. His focus was not only

on Christianity and Hindu; he also extended his hand to

the Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism. In his

philosophical approach which has also gone far as in

moral attitude of human life. It is on this aspect that

he realized that moral evil is as a cause of man’s

misuse of the free will.

Furthermore, suffering is something pertinent to human

nature and man cannot avoid it as far as he still

exists. therefore, man is ever attached to suffering

because there is continuous cycle of life, following

the belief of the Buddha, hence, he holds that every

suffering has its particular characteristics either

morally hood or morally bad, and for this suffering to

end is as result of bringing rebirth to an end, this is

according to Buddha belief.

3.1THE WORLD AS WILL

It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one

looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not

only one's own essence, but also the essence of the

universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is

everything else, the basic energies of the universe

flow through oneself, as they flow through everything

else. So it is thought that one can come into contact

with the nature of the universe if one comes into

substantial contact with one's ultimate inner being.45

Among the most frequently-identified principles that

are introspectively brought forth and one that was the

standard for German Idealist philosophers such as

Fichte, Schelling and Hegel who were philosophizing

45 R. Dircks, essays of Schopenhauer, A pan Series publication, 2005. P 28

within the Cartesian tradition is the principle of

self-consciousness46. With the belief that acts of self-

consciousness exemplify a self-creative process akin to

divine creation, and developing a logic that reflects

the structure of self-consciousness, namely, the

dialectical logic of position, opposition and

reconciliation (sometimes described as the logic of

thesis, antithesis and synthesis), the German Idealists

maintained that dialectical logic mirrors the structure

not only of human productions, both individual and

social, but the structure of reality as a whole,

conceived of as a thinking substance.

As much as he opposes the traditional German Idealists

in their metaphysical elevation of self-consciousness

(which he regards as too intellectualistic),

46 Copleston opp. cit., p.48

Schopenhauer stands within the spirit of this

tradition,

For he believes that

The supreme principle of the

universe is likewise apprehensible

through introspection, and that we

can philosophically understand the

world as various manifestations of

this general principle. For

Schopenhauer, this is not the

principle of self-consciousness and

rationally-infused will, but is

rather what he simply calls “Will” —

a mindless, aimless, non-rational

urge at the foundation of our

instinctual drives, and at the

foundational being of everything47.

Schopenhauer's originality does not reside in his

characterization of the world as Will, or as act for we

encounter this position in Fichte's philosophy but in

the conception of Will as being devoid of rationality

or intellect.

Having rejected the Kantian position that our

sensations are caused by an unknowable object that

exists independently of us, Schopenhauer notes

importantly that our body which is just one among the

many objects in the world is given to us in two

different ways: we perceive our body as a physical

object among other physical objects, subject to the

natural laws that govern the movements of all physical

47 R. Dircks, opp cit. p.31

objects, and we are aware of our body through our

immediate awareness, as we each consciously inhabit our

body, intentionally move it, and feel directly our

pleasures, pains, and emotional states. We can

objectively perceive our hand as an external object, as

a surgeon might perceive it during a medical operation,

and we can also be subjectively aware of our hand as

something we inhabit, as something we willfully move,

and of which we can feel its inner muscular workings.

From this observation, Schopenhauer asserts that among

all the objects in the universe, there is only one

object, relative to each of us namely, our physical

body that is given in two entirely different ways. It

is given as representation (i.e., objectively;

externally) and as Will (i.e., subjectively;

internally)48. One of his intriguing conclusions is that

when we move our hand, this is not to be comprehended

as a motivational act that first happens, and then

causes the movement of our hand as an effect. He

maintains that the movement of our hand is but a single

act again, like the two sides of a coin that has a

subjective feeling of willing as one of its aspects,

and the movement of the hand as the other. More

generally, he adds that the action of the body is

nothing but the act of Will objectified, that is,

translated into perception.

At this point in his argumentation, Schopenhauer has

established only that among his many ideas, or

representations, only one of them (the representation

of his body) has this special double-aspected quality.

48A. Schopenhauer, opp. cit., vol.2, p.53

When he perceives the moon or a mountain, he does not

under ordinary circumstances have any direct access to

the metaphysical inside of such objects; they remain as

representations that reveal to him only their objective

side. Schopenhauer rejects Descartes’ causal

interactionism, where thinking substance is said to

cause changes in an independent material substance and

vice-versa.

This precipitates a position that characterizes the

inner aspect of things, as far as we can describe it,

as Will. Hence, Schopenhauer regards the world as a

whole as having two sides: the world is Will and the

world is representation. The world as Will (“for us”,

as he sometimes qualifies it) is the world as it is in

itself, and the world as representation is the world of

appearances, of our ideas, or of objects. An

alternative title for Schopenhauer's main book, The

World as Will and Representation, might well have been, The

World as Reality and Appearance. Similarly, his book might

have been entitled, The Inner and Outer Nature of Reality.

Despite its general precedents within the philosophical

family of double-aspect theories, Schopenhauer's

particular characterization of the world as will is

nonetheless novel and daring. It is also frightening

and pandemonic: he maintains that the world as it is in

itself (again, sometimes adding “for us”) is an endless

striving and blind impulse with no end in view, devoid

of knowledge, lawless, absolutely free, entirely self-

determining and almighty. Within Schopenhauer's vision

of the world as Will, there is no God to be

comprehended, and the world is conceived of as being

meaningless. When anthropomorphically considered, the

world is represented as being in a condition of eternal

frustration, as it endlessly strives for nothing in

particular, and as it goes essentially nowhere. It is a

world beyond any ascriptions of good and evil.

Schopenhauer's denial of meaning to the world differs

radically from the views of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel

all of whom fostered a distinct hope that everything is

moving towards a harmonious and just end. Like these

German Idealists, however, Schopenhauer also tries to

explain how the world that we experience daily is the

result of the activity of the central principle of

things. As the German Idealists tried to account for

the great chain of being — the rocks, trees, animals,

and human beings as the increasingly complicated and

detailed expressions of self-consciousness,

Schopenhauer attempts to do the same by explaining the

world as gradations of Will's manifestation.

According to Schopenhauer, corresponding to the level

of the universal subject-object distinction, Will is

immediately objectified into a set of universal objects

or Platonic Ideas. These constitute the timeless

patterns for each of the individual things that we

experience in space and time. There are different

Platonic Ideas, and although this multiplicity of Ideas

implies that some measure of individuation is present

within this realm, each Idea nonetheless contains no

plurality within itself and is said to be “one.” The

Platonic Ideas are in neither space nor time, and they

therefore lack the qualities of individuation that

would follow from the introduction of spatial and

temporal qualifications. In these respects, the

Platonic Ideas are independent of the specific fourfold

root of the principle of sufficient reason, even though

it would be misleading to say that there is no

individuation whatsoever at this universal level, for

there are many different Platonic Ideas that are

individuated from one another. Schopenhauer refers to

the Platonic Ideas as the direct objectifications of

Will, and as the immediate objectivity of Will.

Will's indirect objectifications appear when our minds

continue to apply the principle of sufficient reason

beyond its general root such as to introduce the forms

of time, space and causality, not to mention logic,

mathematics, geometry and moral reasoning. When Will is

objectified at this level of determination, the world

of everyday life emerges, whose objects are, in effect,

kaleidoscopically multiplied manifestations of the

Platonic forms, endlessly dispersed throughout space

and time.

Since the principle of sufficient reason is (given

Schopenhauer's inspiration from Kant) the

epistemological form of the human mind, the spatio-

temporal world is the world of our own reflection. To

that extent, Schopenhauer says that life is like a

dream. As a condition of our knowledge, Schopenhauer

believes that the laws of nature, along with the sets

of objects that we experience, we ourselves create in

way that is not unlike the way the constitution of our

tongues invokes the taste of sugar.

At this point, what Schopenhauer has developed

philosophically is surely interesting, but we have not

yet mentioned its more remarkable and memorable aspect.

If we combine his claim that the world is Will with his

Kantian view that we are responsible for the

individuated world of appearances, we arrive at a novel

outlook — an outlook that depends heavily upon

Schopenhauer's characterization of the thing-in-itself

as Will, understood to be an aimless, blind striving.

Before the human being comes onto the scene with its

principle of sufficient reason (or principle of

individuation) there are no individuals. It is the

human being that, in its very effort to know anything,

objectifies an appearance for itself that involves the

fragmentation of Will and its breakup into a

comprehensible set of individuals. The result of this

fragmentation, given the nature of Will, is terrible:

it is a world of constant struggle, where each

individual thing strives against every other individual

thing; the result is a permanent “war of all against

all” akin to what Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679)

characterized as the state of nature.

Kant concludes in the Critique of Pure Reason that we create

the laws of nature. Adding to this, Schopenhauer

concludes in The World as Will and Representation that we

create the violent state of nature, for he maintains

that;

The individuation that we impose

upon things, is imposed upon a blind

striving energy that, once it

becomes individuated and

objectified, turns against itself,

consumes itself, and does violence

to itself. His paradigm image is of

the bulldog-ant of Australia, which

when cut in half, struggles in a

battle to the death between its head

and tail.49

Our very quest for scientific and practical knowledge

creates a world that feasts upon itself.

This marks the origin of Schopenhauer's renowned

pessimism: he claims that as individuals, we are the

unfortunate products of our own epistemological making,

and that within the world of appearances that we

structure, we are fated to fight with other

individuals, and to want more than we can ever have50.

On Schopenhauer's view, the world of daily life is

essentially violent and frustrating; it is a world

49 A. Schopenhauer, opp. cit., vol.2 p.5850 Ibid. p.53

that, as long as our consciousness remains at that

level where the principle of sufficient reason applies

in its fourfold root, will never resolve itself into a

condition of greater tranquility.

3.1 The world as evil.

Schopenhauer sees the basic aim of existence as

suffering. This is obvious as the blind incessant

“Will” which never cease to objectify itself in nature.

Hence existence is a compliment of suffering. This was

why he said; if we wish to measure the degree of guilt

with which our existence itself is a burden, let us

look at the suffering commented with it51 thus,

existence exists for evil.

According to him:

This world is the battleground of

tormented and agonized being only by

each devouring the other. Therefore,

every beast of prey is the self

maintenance is a chain of torturing

deaths52

The fact that human life is evil is an implication of

the evilness of existence. Suffering is the reward that

existence obtains. Life Schopenhauer believes is evil

because pain and suffering are its stimulus and that

51 Schopenhauer, Vol. 2, op. cit., p. 58052 Ibid., p. 581

pleasure and desire are merely a negative cessation of

pain. Hence he said;

If life in itself were a precious

blessing decidedly preferable to non-

existence, the exit from it would not

need to be guarded by such fearful

watchmen as death and terrors. But who

would go on living as it is, if death

were less terrible? And who could bear

even the mere thought of death, if life

were a pleasure? But the former still

always has the good point of being the

end of life, and we console ourselves

with death in regard to sufferings of

life.53

53 A. Schopenhauer, vol. 2, op. cit., p. 578.

However, Schopenhauer could not assimilate the thought

of some philosophers like Leibniz for example who held

to the view that this is the best possible world ever

created. He buttressed this fact saying that God who is

the creator could not give the creature all without

allowing himself as God. Therefore there must be

limitation. The source of evil for him is not God

rather the very nature of things God creates for these

things are finite or limited in perfection.54 Hence he

further maintains that evil is not something

substantial but a mere absence of perfection. It is a

privation.55 In the same vein St. Augustine holds that;

Nothing is evil…… that which appears

evil from our finite perspective is

not evil at all but either good in

54 A. Schopenhauer, vol,2, op. cit., p.57855 Copleston, op. cit., p.84

itself or else part of some totality

in which its appearance evil is

subsumed by a greater good.56

This is the metaphysical optimism of Leibniz which

excited the ridicule of Schopenhauer, for whom this

world so far from being the best is rather the worst of

all possible worlds and standing objection to existence

of a beneficent creator. So far we have seen that

existence is suffering and the world is evil according

to Schopenhauer. The question still remains; is there

no way out to alleviate suffering? How can the question

of human suffering in the world be solved?

3.2 THE NATURE OF MAN IN EXISTING WORLD

56 Ibid., p.259

Man as a concrete being is so complicated and is

mystical that man as he is cannot give a clear answer

to himself. Man in the other hand is “the supreme

questions for man in the sense that man lacks a perfect

understanding of himself.57 For man to give a clear

account of what he is, what his origin is, what his

destiny is and what consistency his life and internal

dimension has. Naturally, “man is a physical substance

which has a unity of body and soul, without the soul,

the body would have no form”58 therefore, man functions

as a person only when the body and soul are unified

most importantly it is the soul that accounts for

sensation and power of intellect and will of which man

57 B. Mondin. Philosophical Anthropology. Rome: Urban University Press…58 H.J. Blacham, Reality, man and existence, Canada; Bantam Book, Inc. 1965 p.229

highest capacity is located at the intellect which

makes him a rational animal.

The nature of man can be seen in two different ways

that is individualism and collectivism. Individualism

sees man only in relation to himself and collectivism

sees only the society of man.”59 Both view of life

expresses the same human condition, but in different

reflection such that the human person feels himself to

be a man exposed by nature.

Schopenhauer sees man as an object of pity hence he

said How shall a man be proud when his conception is a

crime his birth a penalty, his life a labour and death

a necessity. He went further saying that when you come

in contact with a man, no matter whom, do not attempt

an objective appreciation of him according to his worth59 H.J. Blacham, Reality, man and existence, Canada; Bantam Book, Inc. 1965. p.229.

and dignity. Do not consider his bad will or his narrow

understanding and perverse ideas; as the former may

easily lead you to hate and the later to despise him

but fix your attention only upon his sufferings, his

needs, his anxieties, his pains. Then you will always

feel your kingship with him; you will sympathize with

him and instead of hatred or contempt you will

experience the commiseration that …… is the peace to

which the Gospel call us

Sequel to this, man’s nature in the community is to

relate with one another for natural understanding. To

achieve this goal, therefore, therefore, the science of

man entails a communal interaction in sharing

togetherness and unity in a society.

3.3HUMAN SUFFERING AND VANITY OF EXISTENCE

This vanity finds expression in the whole way in which

things exist in the infinite nature of time and space

as opposed to the finite nature of the individual in

both in the ever-passing present moment as the only

mode of actual existence in the interdependency and

relativity of all things, in continual becoming without

ever Being in constant wishing and never being

satisfied. In the long battle which forms the history

of life where every effort is checked by difficulties

and stopped until they are overcome. Time is that in

which all things pass away is merely the form under

which the will to live, the thing in itself and

therefore the imperishable has revealed to it that its

efforts are in vain. It is that agent by which at every

moment all things in our hands become as nothing and

lose any real value they possess. That which has been

exists no more it exists as little as that which has

never been. But of everything that exists, you must

say, in the nest moment that it has been hence

something of great importance now past is inferior to

something of little importance now present in that the

letter is a reality and related to the former as

something to nothing.

Furthermore, Schopenhauer lamented over mankind due to

the fact that despite the situation of our present

existence, man is still determine to pursue labour and

hope aimlessly60 for him, one can be happy but every

person strives his whole life long for some fancied

happiness which he seldom reaches and if he does, it is

60 A. Schopenhauer, vol.2 op. cit., p.575

only to find illusion.61 In expanding the extent of the

vanity of existence, Schopenhauer asserts that:

“of every event in our life, we can say only for one

moment that it is, forever after be how rapidly our

short span of time ebbs away; if it were not that in

the furthest depths of our being, we are secretly

conscious of our share in the exhaustible spring of

eternity so that we can always hope to find life in it

again”62 human suffering on the same mote is a fatal

reality which is global, nobody can escape or is

exempted from it unlike some philosophers like the

existentialists who were not comfortable with the

assertion that man’s labour in the world is in vain

since they believed that man is responsible for his

61 A.Schopenhauer, Pererrga, University Press, 1976, p.32362 A Schopenhauer, Studies in pessimism. P……

existence , Schopenhauer refused to accept their line

of thought less his metaphysical pessimism could not

have been part of his thoughts. Schopenhauer further

supported his stand with the story of Thracians myth

who were believed to be welcoming, the new born child

with lamentation during which they do recount all

evils, that inevitably face the child. On the other

hand, they buy the dead with mirth and merriment

because they have escaped from so many great

sufferings63

3.4 THE WILL AS THE AUTHOR OF HUMAN SUFFERING

As already noted the will is a blind and endless

striving urge or impulse and cannot find satisfaction

or reach a state of tranquility. It is always striving

63 A. Schopenhauer, Vol2. Op. cit.,p.575

and never attaining. This essential feature of the will

is reflected in itself objection of manifestat5ion

above all in human life (actions or activities). He

further writes;

The will is free; it is almighty,

the will appears in everything

precisely as it determines itself in

itself and outside time. The world

is the mirror of this willing and

all fitness, all suffering, all

miseries that it contains belong to

the expression in what the will

wills64

By this it implies that the will is the ruler of the

world and the ultimate core of suffering because

64 A. Schopenhauer, vol. 1 op. cit., p.351

according to Schopenhauer, willing and striving are the

whole essence of the world. Human beings are

perpetually in search of happiness or enjoyment or

pleasure but cannot find it. What we called happiness

is a temporary cessation of desire.65

That fact that human being can never escape suffering

is an implication of the capture of the will which is

the ultimate reality. Life or existence is even a

problem for Schopenhauer. As every particular thing or

each individual thing, is an objectification of the

will. Each strives to assert its own existence at the

expense of other things thereby introducing conflict in

the world. Thus the world is a field of conflicts which

manifests the nature of the will.66

65 Ibid., p.31266 Copleston, op. cit., p.39

Suffering however is a fact that cannot be denied.

Heraclitus did notice that way back in the ancient

times when he said that in this world, war is the

father of all and the king of all.67 Though he did not

go into detail in order to determined the cause of

suffering, the fact remains that suffering is

indispensable to human life which is as a result of

human nature as willing being.

3.5 SUFFERING AS THE BASIC AIM OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

Suffering as the basic aim of human existence exposes

the fact that pleasure is not pleasant as we expect it.

The pleasure in life brings misfortune and pain because

human bodily frame would be relived of all need,

67 A. Schopenhauer, vol.1 op. cit., p.312

hardship and adversity; if everything man took in hand

were successful, they would so swollen with arrogance

or go mad.68

It has been free from suffering from positive evil. As

such human happiness cannot be measured because he

engage himself on thought with his power of reflection

on the past and the future and this occupies him out of

all proportion to its value, which is rooted in

physical pleasure and pain.

Then our world of happiness will be attained through

ascetic life as the Buddhist will have it. It is the

ascetic life that the Buddhist proposed to give man

necessary happiness in the sense that pain and

suffering should be accepted as something good where as

physical happiness becomes had and evil.68 S.M CAHN, Ethics History and Theory, New York; OxfordUni. Press, 1974. P.323

3.6 THE SOLUTION TO HUMAN SUFFERING

According to Schopenhauer’s view the world of daily

life as we have seen already is essentially violence

and frustration. It is a world that as long as our

consciousness remains at that level where the principle

of sufficient reason applies in its four fold root,

will never resolves itself into a condition of greater

tranquility, as he explicitly stated that life is

suffering.69

In cognizance of the above fact Schopenhauer still

presents us with true main ways by which one can

temporally get rid of suffering. The two ways are; the

69 A. Schopenhauer,vol.1 op. cit., p.313

way of aesthetic contemplation and the way of

asceticism and denial of the will to live.70

The way of Aesthetic contemplation

Accordingly, Encyclopedic dictionary has “Aesthetics”

as an experience of an escape from the horrors of this

world when the Will is kept in a condition of pure-

Willesness.71

This implies that our faculty of knowledge normally

only an instrument to the Will’s satisfaction gains

certain independence as pure Will-less contemplation

for its own sake, freeing us briefly from our misery,

while the veil which hides the true particularly rent.72

70 Copleston, op.cit., 4571 Honderish, the Oxford University Companion to Philosophy (ed.) Oxford University Press, 1995, p.80272 Ibid. p.803

Schopenhauer discovers more peaceful states of mind by

directing his everyday, practically oriented

consciousness towards more extra-ordinary universal and

less-individuated states of mind. He believes that with

less individuation and objectification, there is less

conflict, less pain and more peace. Hence he said;

We can withdraw from all suffering

just as well through present as

through distant objects whenever we

raise ourselves to put a pure

objective Contemplation of them and

are thus able to produce the

illusion that only those objects are

present not ourselves. Then as pure

object of knowing, delivered from

the miserable self, we became

entirely one with those objects and

foreign as our want is to them it is

at such moment just as foreign to

us. Then the world as representation

alone remains the world as will has

disappeared.73

In other words he is saying that in aesthetic

contemplation, we lose ourselves in the object we

forget about our individuality and become the clear

mirror of the object in this way, we become will-less

and painless.

Schopenhauer speaks of aesthetic contemplation as a

momentary cessation of the will and more to that only

few people have the capacity to remain for long in such

aesthetic state of mind and that most people are denied

73 A. Schopenhauer, Vol. 1 op. cit.,p.199

the tranquility of aesthetic genius has the capacity to

remain in the state of pure perception

ASCETICISM OR THE WAY OF SALVATION AND MORAL GOODNESS

Schopenhauer believes that a person who experiences the

truth of human nature from a moral perspective, who

appreciates how it’s spatial and temporal forms of

knowledge generates a constant passing away. Continual

suffering vain striving and inner tension will be

profoundly repulsed by the human scene in any of its

manifestation.

The result is an attitude of the denial of the Will-to-

live which Schopenhauer identifies with ascetic

attitude of renunciation, resignation and willesness

but also composure and tranquility. Hence:

Moral virtues are a means of advance

self-renunciation and accordingly of

denying the will-to-live. For true

righteousness, inviolable justice,

that form the bottom of his heart

has to make sacrifices which soon

deprive life of the sweetness

required to make it enjoyable,

thereby twin will from it and thus

lead to resignation.74

By this, Schopenhauer acknowledge that the devil of

one’s Will to live entails a terrible struggle with

one’s instinctual energies as one avoids the

temptations of bodily pleasures and resists the mere

animal force to endure and flourish.75 So before one can

74 A, Schopenhauer, vol.2, opp. Cit., p. 60675 Ibid. p. 606

enter transcendental consciousness of heavenly

tranquility, one must pass through the fires of hell

and experience a dark night of the soul as one’s

universal self fight against one’s individuated and

physical self, as pure knowledge struggles against

animalistic will and as freedom struggles against

nature76

CHAPTE

R FOUR

4.0 A CRITIQUE ON SCHOPENHAUER’S PHILOSOPHY

Schopenhauer’s philosophy could be said to have

subjected man to perpetual laxity as well as causing

defeat to man’s psychology. His deterministic approach

76 A. Schopenhauer essays on pessimism p. 68

to human existence abruptly denies the existentialists’

belief in man’s Essence. Kierkegaard who possessed most

of Schopenhauer’s writings including Die Welt als Wille und

Vorstellung, parenga and paralipomena and Die beiden Grund Probleme

der Ethik praises Schopenhauer as indisputably “a very

significant author.77 Happily remarking that his life

and career are a deep wound inflicted on professor

philosophy. What Kierkegaard finds must attractive in

Schopenhauer’s philosophy is his pessimism and his

critique of philosophy professors78 who do not live in

what they profess. But what attracts Schopenhauer here

is what in another sense repels him. Schopenhauer is at

once too pessimistic and yet not pessimistic enough.

Schopenhauer represents all of life as suffering

(rather than ethico-religious voluntary suffering, that77 S. Kierkegaard. Journals and papers. Hongs trans. Vol.4, p.23.78 Ibid. p.25

of the self-denying Christian paradox existence)79 and

proposed Indian ascetism as the proper response to this

pessimistic view of reality, an asceticism that amounts

to denial of will to live a kind of non-existence as it

were. But this universal pessimism easily becomes an

inverted optimism for “if to exist is to suffer, then

to exist in such a way that it is as if one did not

exist is clearly endaemonism if to exist is to suffer,

endaemonism of course cannot be sought in the direction

of existing it must be sought in the direction of not

existing.80

Kierkegaard leveled another criticism at Schopenhauer,

chiding him for his rejection of the deontological side

of the ethical. He wondered if it is actually possible

79 Ibid.80 Ibid

to be an ascetic without the divine or at least some

motif of eternity.

A closer look at Schopenhauer’s philosophy one will

observe that he gave up Christianity and always praises

Indian Brahminism (the traditional social and religious

system of verdict Hinduism).81 He has to admit himself

that those ascetics are after all determined by a

consideration of eternity are qualified religiously not

by (philosophical) genius and the eternal confronts

them as a religious duty

On another note, Schopenhauer’s intermittently

encountered claim that Will is the thing-in-itself only

to us provides philosophical space for him to assert

consistently that mystical experience provides a

positive insight. It also relativizes to the human

81 Encarta dictionary

condition, Schopenhauer’s famous position that the

world is Will. This entails that his outlook on daily

life is as a cruel and violence- filled world- a world

generated by the application of the principle of

sufficient reason is based on a human-conditioned

intuition, namely, the direct double knowledge of one’s

body as both subject and object. So along these lines,

Schopenhauer’s pessimistic vision of the world can

itself be seen to be grounded upon the subject-object

distinction that is the general root of the principle

of sufficient reason

On the other hand, Schopenhauer’s philosophy serves a

pointer to our mission on earth when considered

theologically though he went to the extreme end. From

his philosophy, one can deduce that man’s primary motif

in life is to reach an end where happiness rules,

there, man strive to gain this bounteous gift of nature

by putting of all that gives bodily pleasure to the

mere mortal body.

4.1 APPRECIATIOON OF SCHOPENHAUER’S GROUND OF PESSIMISM

Here we come upon the reason for Schopenhauer’s

pessimism. His concept of the will portrays the whole

system of nature as moving in response to the driving

force in all things. All things are like puppets “set

in motion by internal clockwork.”82 The lowliest being

for example the amoeba, or the highest that is, a human

being is driven by the same force, the will. The blind

will which produces human behavior is the same which

makes the plants grow. Every individual bears the stamp

of a forced condition. Schopenhauer thus rejects the

82 S. E. Stumpf opp. cit., p. 328

assumption that human beings are superior to animals

because animals are controlled only by instincts

whereas humans are rational beings. The intellect, he

says is itself fashioned by the universal will so that

the human intellect is on the same level as the

instincts of animals. Moreover intellect and will in

human beings are not to be thought of as to separate

faculties. Instead the intellect is for Schopenhauer an

attribute of the will; it is secondary or in a

philosophical sense, accidental. He can sustain

intellectual effort only for short periods of time; it

declines in strength and requires rest, and is finally

a function of the body. By contrast, the will continues

without interruption to sustain and support life.

During dreamless sleep the intellect does not function,

whereas all the organic functions of the body continue.

These organic functions are manifestations of the will,

while other thinkers spoke of the freedom of he will.

Schopenhauer says “I prove its omnipotence.”

The omnipotence of the will in all of nature has

pessimistic implications for human beings. As

Schopenhauer says, “men are only apparently drawn from

in front; really they are pushed from behind; it is not

life that tempts them on, but necessity that drives

them forward”83 the primal drive in all of nature is to

produce life. The will to live has no other purpose

than to continue the cycle of life Schopenhauer

portrays the realm of nature as a fierce struggle where

the will to live inevitably produces constant conflict

and destruction of other elements. No purpose of aim is

violated during this conflict; the underlying drive of

83 I9bid. P.329

the will leaves no alternative outcome. Schopenhauer

tells of a report of a place in Java where, for as far

as the eye can see, the land is covered with skeletons,

which gives the impression of a battlefield. These are

skeletons or large turtles. Five feet long, ten feet

wide and twelve feet high. They come out of the sea to

lay their eggs and are then attacked by wild long that

lay them on their back step off their armor and eat

them alive. Now Schopenhauer says; this misery repeats

itself thousands and thousands of times year in year

in. for this those turtles were born …it is thus the

will to live objectify itself”84

If we move from the animal world to the human race,

Schopenhauer admits that the mater becomes more

complicated, but the fundamental character remains

84 Ibid. p.329

unaltered. It is not the individual but only the

species that nature cares for. Human life turns out to

be by no means a gift for enjoyment but as a task, a

drudgery to be performed. Millions of people are united

into nations striving for the common good, but

thousands fall as a sacrifice for it “now senseless

delusions, not intriguing politics, incite them to wars

with each other….in peace industries, and trse are

active, inventions work miracles, sins are navigated,

delicacies are collected from all ends of the world”

but asks Schopenhauer, what is the aim of all these

striving? His answer is “to sustain ephemeral; and

tormented individuals though a short span of time.”85

Life, Schopenhauer says is a bad bargain. The

disproportion between human trouble, on the one hand

85 Ibid p.329

and reward on the other means that life involves the

exertion of all our strength for something that is of

no value there is nothing to look forward to except

the satisfaction of hunger and the sexual instinct or

in any case a little momentary comfort. His conclusion

is that “life is a business , the process of which are

very far from covering the cost of it.”86

There can be no true happiness because happiness is

simply a temporary cessation of need or want, most of

which can never be fulfilled. Finally, human life is a

striving without aim. And the life of every individual

is always a tragedy but gone thought in detail it has

the character of a comedy.

4.1 THE ODD AND GAINS IN HUMAN SUFFERING

86 Ibid. p.329

Schopenhauer made it clear that a life without trial

and tribulations is not worth living. The essence of

suffering in human existence determines his necessity

towards the life of happiness. Suffering has chiefly

both positive and negative effects on human existence.

Schopenhauer rejects Hedonist idea of pleasure as

something that brings happiness to the soul. He sees it

as something evil in the sight of men. Such he

considers as insatiable desire in man that brings pain

to man. For Schopenhauer, it is only through trial and

suffering that a positive end is made. In technological

aspect, many inventories in this world are produced at

the cause of human suffering to give justification to

their intellectual ability

On the negative aspect of it, suffering sometimes put

man in a state of chaos with respect to moral and

physical evil. Man can also inflict suffering on the

other because man is wolf to man (homo lupus homini)

according to Schopenhauer, in the physical evil,

diseases and natural disasters man encounters

discomforts him and even anxiety makes man to lose his

happiness in the world. Not to talk of the political

instability that tramples on the poor masses and denies

him his freedom of happiness. Some are sitting in the

streets begging for their daily bread but it seems that

there is no hope for survival. Why then is such

suffering and ascetic life not enough to provide

happiness for them.

From this perspective, Schopenhauer’s does not render

any help to humanity rather it continues to put the

world in a chaotic state, in other words good is quite

distinct from evil.

4.2 KINDS OF SUFFERING

Traditionally, suffering is classified as: moral,

mental, psychological, physical, social and so on.

According to Nnajike, c., this classification has only

descriptive values to enable caregivers attend more

effectively to the afflicted. We shall look into some

of them.

PHYSICAL SUFFERING

Physical suffering can be attributed as suffering men

undergoes as a result of the laws of nature which

affects man in his material physical stuff – the

corporeal aspect of man.87 A manifestation of some

suffering appears to be physical when the body is

87 Nnajike, C., Making sense of Human suffering p. 9

hurting. Instances of such physical suffering includes

those resulting from a hurt in the body, bodily

sickness, a congenital and accidental disfigure of

parts of the body etc. it can also be experienced in

such other forms as a breakdown of the bodily organ and

also in hunger and thirst even though they are linked

to economic poverty.

Psychological suffering

Psychological suffering could also be described as

mental suffering. It refers to and explains “the

general affliction caused by sickness, poverty,

misfortune and any kind of suffering”88 this shows that

human being also suffers at the level of psyche.

However, this psychical level of suffering is also

connected to the physical level already considered88 Ibid., p.10

above. In order not to dichotomize human being into

two- body and soul as in the philosophy of Rene

Descartes, we wish to state that suffering involves the

whole being of the sufferer.89 The suffering of one part

involves the others. Hence, “what we designate as

physical suffering can also affect the human

psychological make-up mental and emotional and vice

versa

Though there are still other forms of economic

suffering and so on, we are not going to treat them in

details because the generally accepted forms are only

physical and mental suffering.

4.3 Necessity of suffering as a means to an end.

89 Ibid., p.3

Schopenhauer held that suffering is the basic aim of

our existence on earth. He believes that unless

suffering is the direct and immediate object of life,

our existence must entirely fail of its aim.90

He disagrees with the view that pleasure in the world

outweighs the pain, buttressing this point, he brought

in the quotation in the letter of St. Peter (1pet. 5:3-

9). Your brothers all over the world are suffering the

same thing.91

Again, could it be that St. Paul understood in some

manner the necessity of the suffering in the world

hence, declaring the saving power of suffering he said;

in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s

afflictions for the sake of his body that is the church

90 A. Schopenhauer, op, cit,. p. 61691 A. Schopenhauer’s Parerga and Paralipomena

In the like manner, Cecil Mcgary, in his text ‘ the

Christian meaning of human suffering’ sees suffering as

a phenomenon that unavoidably co-habits with man in the

existence and this he believes must always be in man’s

awareness;

The theme of suffering is a

universal theme that accompanies man

at every point of earth; in a

certain sense, it co-exists with him

in the world and thus demands to be

constantly reconsidered

nevertheless, in whatever form,

suffering seems to be and is almost

inseparable from man’s earthly

existence92

92 C. Mcgarry, the Christian meaning of Human suffering. Nairobi; Pauline publ., 2000, p.8

There is need for human suffering just as a ship

without ballast is unstable and will not go straight so

also man cannot be focused in the absence of suffering.

It is that work, worry, labour and trouble that are the

chief source of living for all men. The happiness of

any given life is to be measured not by its joys or

pleasures but by the extent to which it has been free

from suffering from positive evil.

4.4 THE FINAL END OF MAN

The concept of the final end of man has generated a lot

of philosophical thought. Man as a supreme being takes

cognizance of his being and his final end. As such

without this aim in life, human life would have been

barbaric. But Aristotle intervened by saying that all

action aims towards an end, but the question is what

the end of man is? And in what state of nature does it

manifest itself?

Schopenhauer in the light of this had it that the end

of man is happiness within the universe with special

attitude to aesthetic contemplation, moral and

asceticism such that man is availed to happy life only

if he is able to escape from the will to live. This

“Will” that always ignite the human desire also meets

suffering and pain on the way. In other words,

Aristotle also maintained that ‘happiness is the final

end of man. Therefore, he said:

Pleasure, wealth and honour cannot

occupy the lace of the chief good

for which people should aim. To be

an ultimate end an act must be self

sufficient and final, that which is

always desirable in it and never for

the sake of something else and it

must be attainable by people.93

However, Aristotle was on the ground of what will give

tranquility of the soul. He, found his happiness not in

worldly pleasure, wealth and honour, but rather in the

working of the soul in the way of excellence of

virtue.94

Moreover, Aristotle held his philosophical proposal

within the ambiance of rationality. He rightly stated:

“the general rule of morality is to act in accordance

with “Right Reason” what this means is that the

93 S. E. Stumpf, op. cit., p.10094 Ibid., p.92

rational part of the soul should control the irrational

part”95

It is obvious that the irrational part requires

guidance when we consider what it consists of and what

its mechanism is. When looking at our appetites, we

discover first that they are affected or influenced by

things outside of the self, such as objects and people.

For Aristotle, there are two basic ways on which the

appetitive part of the soul reacts to these external

factors. These ways being love (or concupiscent

passions) and hate (or the irascible passion).96 Love

leads us to desire things and persons, whereas hate

leads us to avoid or destroy them. It becomes quickly

apparent that these passions for love and hate could

easily “go wild” when taken by themselves.

95 Ibid., p.9296 Ibid., p.93

CHAP

TER FIVE

5.0 GENERAL EVALUATION

The philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer made some

positive impacts despite his pessimistic attitude

especially after the death of Hegel and the failure of

the revolution of 1848. The climate of opinion was more

prepared for a favorable reconsideration of

Schopenhauer’s anti-rationalist and pessimistic system.

It became more widely known and as such, won some

adherents.97

Hence, “Schopenhauer’s writing helped to stimulate in

German as interest in oriental thought and religion.”98

Moreover, his view that an irrational force lies at the

center of life subsequently influenced voluntalistic

psychology, a school of psychology that emphasized the

causes for our choices, sociological studies that

examine nominational factors affecting people; and

97 Copleston, A history of philosophy,vol.7, p.288.98 Ibid

cultural attitudes that play down the value of reason

in life.99 Meanwhile, Schopenhauer did not only engage

on drawing the attention of people to the empirical

fact that there is much evil and suffering in the world

he also indicated what he believed to be the cause of

this empirical fact.100 This is attributed to the thing

in itself - the will.

Though he was one sided, his one-sidedness and

exaggeration as copleston pointed out, serve as an

effective counter-balance or anti-thesis to a system

such as that of Hegel in which attention is so focused

on the triumphant match of reason through history that

the evil and suffering in the world are obscured from

view by high-sounding phrases.101

99 Ibid100 Ibid101 Ibid

On the negative perspective, one fact remains

outstanding in the philosophy of Schopenhauer, which s

earlier on pointed out, is his total pessimism. He

extolled the dark side of human existence and landed

himself in fatalism and nihilism.102 In an instance, he

opposed procreation. For him, to procreate is to create

more suffering in the world. This implies that man is

faced to suffer, and to stop this suffering, humanity

must stop generating off-spring which leads to total

extinction of all living things. What an agony!

Philosophically, Schopenhauer’s pessimistic vision of

the world did not create any hope for man, if it does,

he would have agreed with the existentialists that

suffering is part of existence which man must surmount.

102 A. Schopenhauer opp. Cit., p.412

Although Schopenhauer is regarded as the prince of

pessimism, his philosophy also gave hope to humanity.

His greatest contributions on the moral goodness and

salvation, especially when he highlighted the means of

aesthetic contemplation and asceticism is magnificent

with this way of denial of the will, he taught us how

to escape the horrors of this world.

5.1 CONCLUSION

Among 19th century philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer was

among the first to contend that at its core, the

universe is not a rational place. Inspired by Plato and

Kant, both of whom regarded the world as being more

amenable to reason, Schopenhauer developed their

philosophies into an instinct-recognizing and

ultimately ascetic outlook, emphasizing that in the

face of a world filled with endless strife, we ought to

minimize our natural desires for the sake of achieving

a more tranquil frame of mind and a disposition towards

universal beneficence. Often considered to be a

thoroughgoing pessimist, Schopenhauer in fact advocated

ways — via artistic, moral and ascetic forms of

awareness — to overcome a frustration-filled and

fundamentally painful human condition. Since his death

in 1860, his philosophy has had a special attraction

for those who wonder about life's meaning, along with

those engaged in music, literature, and the visual

arts.

Nevertheless, if Schopenhauer’s philosophy of suffering

in the world is given a right attitude and disposition,

his outlook about the world would be the guide for the

children of men. Really, he understood the world and it

scourges but the problem is actually on his attitude

and disposition toward suffering. He forgot that even

the scripture is not pessimistic or scandalized about

the suffering on the world. Instead like

existentialists, it opted for a way to live above it.

Nevertheless, despite Schopenhauer’s attitude and

disposition, his concept suffering teaches us to

distinguish between real and apparent promotions of

human happiness. How neither riches nor honors nor

scholarship can raise the individual … of the

discouragement over the worthlessness of his existence.

If humanity could appreciate and dispose themselves to

Schopenhauer’s methods of asceticism, self-renunciation

and resignation, the human predicament would take a new

face, and the rate of human suffering would be reduced

to the minimum.