EntranceLife habits of Arthur Schopenhauer. Arthur Schopenhauer: “the great pessimist” with a sense of humor
Hello, Dear Readers. In today's article we will talk about works of Schopenhauer , more precisely, about the ideas of the sperm principle set forth in these works.
Attention! To stay up to date with the latest updates, I recommend that you Subscribe to my Main YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC78TufDQpkKUTgcrG8WqONQ , since I now create all new materials in video format. Also, just recently I opened my second channel entitled " World of Psychology
", where short videos are published on a variety of topics, covered through the prism of psychology, psychotherapy and clinical psychiatry.
Check out my services(prices and rules for online psychological counseling) You can in the article “”.
As usual, I give the floor to the author of the book “The Spermatozoon Principle” Mikhail Litvak:
Schopenhauer advises “to restrain our imagination in everything that concerns our happiness or unhappiness; First of all, do not build castles in the air: they are too expensive, since you have to quickly and sadly destroy them. But we must be even more careful about imagining possible misfortunes... It is more difficult for us to shake off such thoughts than rosy dreams... Therefore, what concerns our happiness or unhappiness must be considered through the prism of reason, reason, calm, cold reflection and through abstract concepts alone. The imagination should not participate in this, because it does not reason, but only draws pictures that are fruitless and often painfully disturbing us. This should be observed especially strictly in the evening... The evening is unsuitable for serious, much less unpleasant, thoughts. For this, as for all activities in general, without exception, both mental and physical, the best time is morning. Morning is the youth of the day - everything is joyful, cheerful and easy; we feel strong and in full control of our abilities. You should not shorten it by getting up late, waste it on vulgar activities or chatter, but see in it the Quintessence of life, something sacred. Evening is the eldership of the day; in the evening we are tired, talkative and frivolous. Every day is life in miniature: waking up and getting up is birth, every fresh morning is youth, and falling asleep is death.
While curbing our imagination, it is also necessary to prohibit it from restoring and coloring once experienced injustices, losses, insults, humiliations, resentments, etc.; by doing this we will only awaken the frustration, anger and other low passions that have long dormant in us, and thereby pollute our soul... (I do not agree with Schopenhauer - from my point of view, on the contrary, one should not suppress negative emotions: one should let them come out - suffer them ( from the position of the Child according to transactional analysis) and rethink (by Adults). Then it will become easier. - The past will cease to dominate us. Otherwise, it will inevitably drag us down to the bottom; I consider “prohibiting restoration” as driving away, suppressing and, ultimately , Repress. And this is already a form that inhibits or even prevents personal growth; Yu.L.). Just as in every city every rabble lives next to the noblest and most outstanding people, so everyone, even the best, noblest person, from birth has the low and vulgar properties of human, or even bestial, nature. These elements should not be stirred up to revolt, nor even allowed to stick out at all... Moreover, the slightest trouble caused by people or things, if constantly chewed on and painted in bright colors and on an enlarged scale, can grow to monstrous proportions and deprive us of all self-control... Just as small objects limit the field of vision and cover everything if they are placed close to the eye, so people and objects that are closest to us, no matter how significant and interesting they may be, overly occupy our imagination and thoughts, causing nothing but trouble and distracting from important thoughts. This needs to be fought."
Absolutely right! But Schopenhauer does not provide the technique for such a struggle. It was developed by modern psychotherapeutic trends.
And the following advice helps get rid of envy. "When we see something that doesn't belong to us, we often think, 'What if it were mine?' And this thought gives monstrous deprivation. Instead, you should think more often: “What if all this wasn’t mine?”; in other words, we must sometimes try to look at what we have as if we had recently lost it, because only after the loss do we learn the value of anything - property, health, friends, lover, child, horse, dogs, etc. If we take into account the point of view I propose, then, firstly, the possession of these things will give us more immediate joy than before, and, secondly, it will force us to take all measures to avoid losses ... "(Good advice. That's when we begin appreciate what we have; Yu.L.).
Ideas for a future existential analysis that emphasizes activity can be seen in the call to always be busy to the best of one's ability. “How harmful the lack of planned activity can be is shown by long pleasure trips, during which you often feel extremely unhappy, since, being deprived of real activities, a person is, as it were, taken out of his native element. Working, struggling with obstacles is the same need for a person as rummaging in the ground is for a mole...
His main pleasure is to overcome obstacles, whether they are material obstacles, as in physical labor and in everyday affairs, or spiritual, as in science and research, it doesn’t matter - the struggle with them and victory give happiness. It is difficult to find peace during idleness.” (Those who are afraid of obstacles and difficulties, re-read the last 2 paragraphs again. Without struggle, our life will turn into boredom, because only after overcoming an obstacle is a person able to feel the emotion of joy and a feeling of happiness due to the awareness of his personal growth; Yu.L.).
Schopenhauer repeatedly emphasizes the role of reason and thinking in human life. Freud later called reason his god. “...We must always dominate the impressions of the present and, in general, of everything that really exists. These impressions are disproportionately stronger than thoughts and knowledge... due to their reality and spontaneity... It is not difficult to notice that everything that really exists affects us immediately with all its force, while thoughts and arguments are thought out in parts. As a result, pleasures that we have given up on reflection continue to tease us as long as we see them; in the same way, ten arguments against the existence of danger are outweighed by its apparent presence. Women especially often fall under the influence of impressions, and few men will have such a preponderance of reason that would protect them from this influence.” A stronger impression allows one to not be impressed. One Italian endured torture because he kept seeing the gallows in front of him, where he would end up if a confession were extracted from him.
Schopenhauer also touches on problems of communication. He advises to be careful and forgiving. Caution protects from harm and loss, forbearance protects from disputes and quarrels “Living with people, we must recognize everyone, take into account his individuality, whatever it may be, and think only about how to use it in accordance with its properties and character , without at all hoping for her to change and without condemning her for being like that. In general, it would be wise to tell yourself more often: “I can’t change this, I just have to take advantage of it.” Subsequently, F. Perls formulated two signs of a psychologically mature person: the ability to adapt to circumstances and the ability to change oneself, while a psychologically immature person tries to change circumstances and other people. He advised learning to tolerate people on inanimate objects. I suggest that in conflicting relationships with people with whom circumstances force you to communicate, look at them as machines whose programs should be studied, and not press the buttons that lead to undesirable behavior. I called this technique “objectification.”
In the following passage, Schopenhauer describes the rule of projection. “No one can see above himself. By this I want to say that a person can see in another only as much as he himself possesses, and he can understand another only in proportion to his own mind. If his latter is very small, then even the greatest spiritual gifts will not have any effect on him, and in their bearer he will notice only low qualities, i.e. weaknesses and shortcomings of character and temperament. For him, this person will consist only of shortcomings; all his highest spiritual abilities are just as non-existent for him as colors are for the blind. Any intelligence goes unnoticed by those who do not have it themselves; any respect for something is the product of the merits of the valued, multiplied by the sphere of understanding of the connoisseur.”
Schopenhauer noted that “most people are so subjective that, in essence, they are not interested in anyone except themselves. From this it turns out that no matter what they are talking about, they think about themselves; any topic, if it has even a casual, very distant relation to their personality, captures their attention to such an extent that they are unable to understand and judge the objective side of the matter... Apart from their “I,” everything else does not concern them; not understanding the truthfulness, accuracy, beauty, subtlety or wit of someone else’s speech, they express a refined sensitivity to everything that, even in the most distant, indirect way, can offend their petty vanity, and generally expose their precious “I” in an unfavorable light. With this touchiness, they are like small dogs, which are so easy to accidentally step on a paw, causing them to squeal desperately... For others, it comes to the point that expressing, or even simply failing to hide, their merits and their intelligence means injuring them insult: true, at first they hide the insult, and only later will their inexperienced interlocutor rack his brains in vain, trying to understand how he could incur their anger and offend him.” (Therefore, I strongly do not recommend showing your intellectual superiority in a society for which your demonstrated intellectual superiority will feel like a lump in the throat. For example, I do not play smart with my parents, academic advisor, members of the department, guys from the basketball court, random interlocutors, etc. ". There, my knowledge and skills in the field of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as my views on life, are absolutely of no use to anyone. To demonstrate them means to automatically put yourself above your interlocutors - in the position of a Parent. Therefore, as Schopenhauer correctly noted, the demonstrated virtues and intelligence can harm the interlocutor resentment. But when consulting clients, I boldly express to them my views on life. Moreover, I receive both money and gratitude for this. If you want to show off your intellect (be smarter), find your audience. But in order to capture their attention for a long period of time, you need to be both interesting and useful for her - that is, to be a professional in his field, who is constantly forced (or even Must) to polish and hone his intellect, without wasting time on nonsense; after all, if you stop in development, others may not immediately notice it, but one person will immediately feel a stop in spiritual growth. And this person is You Yourself. No matter how much you run, you cannot escape the stagnation of your intellect; YU. L.).
I remember how at one of the meetings one employee who was working very productively was criticized harshly and for trifles. Justifying himself, he simply listed what he had done. His opponent accused him of boasting. You already guessed that he had nothing in his heart in terms of work.
Schopenhauer knew human nature well: “People are like children in that they become disobedient if they are spoiled: therefore, you should not be too compliant or too kind with anyone, if you see them and have frequent frank conversations, they begin to think that they have some rights over you, and are trying to expand the boundaries of politeness... If a person imagines that I need him much more than he needs me, then he feels as if I stole something from him; he will try to return what was stolen. In life, superiority can only be acquired by not needing others in any way and openly showing it. To this end, we should from time to time make it clear to everyone, whether man or woman, that we can do very well without them; it strengthens the friendship.”
I have developed a technique that corresponds to this rule. I tell my patients, listeners and students that if they have doubts, they can leave me at any time. I want their souls, not their bodies. Of course, this will be my defeat, but the main thing is the good of my partner. If he refuses to communicate with me, this will be a reason for reflection, and next time I will not miss such a person. You know, it's more binding.
But I do not completely agree with Schopenhauer that we should “occasionally mix in a little bit of contempt in our attitude towards people: the more dear our friendship will become to them.” (In my opinion, you shouldn’t mix “a little bit of contempt” not only into friendship, but also into any other relationship. By doing this, I humiliate myself first of all - after all, I’m wasting time communicating with the person I despise. So who am I after this ? And am I better than the one I despise?; Yu.L.).
Schopenhauer warns that one should not rely on their manners and speech to judge people. “They all seem very reasonable, honest and frank, virtuous, if not reasonable and intelligent. But this should not be misleading: the reason for this is that nature acts differently than bad writers who, wanting to portray a swindler or a fool, paint him with deliberately crude features... Nature acts differently. Anyone who believes that devils walk around the world with horns, and fools with bells, will certainly become their prey or plaything. It should be added that people in the hostel imitate the moon and the hunchbacks, who always turn to one side; each person has an innate talent, through facial expressions, to turn his face into a mask, very accurately depicting what he should really be.<…>It is worn when you need to flatter someone. But you should trust it no more than an ordinary linen mask, remembering the magnificent Italian proverb: “No matter how angry a dog is, it always wags its tail” (Dear Readers, this is why I created a section on the blog “Scams and Non-Scams”, with which I recommend familiarize yourself with everyone who does not want to become a victim of scammers, whose portraits are described in detail in works of Schopenhauer
; Yu.L.). But the philosopher did not say that the opposite rule is also true: often good and smart people are seen as evil and stupid.
You see! Social psychology also uses these concepts - “roles” and “masks”. Schopenhauer was wise. And now it’s worth listening to his opinion.
“In any case, we must beware of forming a very good opinion about a person with whom we have just met; otherwise we are likely to be disappointed, to our own shame and detriment.” Due to his pessimism, the philosopher did not formulate the opposite rule: we must beware of forming a very bad opinion about a person with whom we have just met. You can also suffer damage. It is human nature to trust crooks who speak with aplomb, and to doubt an honest person who, proposing a business, expresses all doubts about its outcome and warns that a certain risk is possible, as E. Fromm later aptly noted. That this is so can be seen in the following example; millions of our people fell for the bait of companies like MMM.
The following remark by Schopenhauer is also not outdated: “... the true character of a person is revealed precisely in the little things, when he stops taking care of himself; Here, in various small matters, one can conveniently observe, at least in one manner, that boundless, irrespective of egoism, which, if not absent, is at least hidden in large and important matters.” It is in the ability to see the essence of the matter behind the reservations, typos, gestures, glances, and construction of phrases that lies the core of modern psychotherapeutic techniques - from Freud's psychoanalysis to the neurolinguistic reprogramming of Grinder and Bandler.
And in my work I try to show deceived lovers and businessmen that, if they had psychological preparation, from the very first words they would recognize a charming lover as a womanizer, and a charming businessman as a rogue. Listen to just two phrases: “I searched for a long time and finally found the woman I need!” and “You can have absolutely no doubt: we will pay you back on time!” After all, it is immediately clear that the woman is dealing with a Don Juan, and the poor businessman is dealing with a deceiver.
It is very useful to apply in practice the following reasoning of the philosopher.
“If a person more or less close to us does something unpleasant or annoying to us, then we should ask ourselves whether he is so dear to us that we could and wanted to endure the same thing from him, even something more, moreover, more than once and two, and much more often - or not? If the answer is yes, there is no need to say much; but if we decide to forget this act... then we must understand that by doing this we voluntarily expose ourselves to a repetition of the same thing. If the answer is negative, we should immediately and forever break with a dear, perhaps friend, but if he is a servant, then we should remove him. For, if the opportunity arises, he will certainly repeat the same thing or something similar, even if now he would ardently and sincerely assure us of the opposite. A person can forget absolutely everything, but not himself, not his being. The character of a person is incorrigible, for all his actions flow from a certain internal principle, due to which, under the same conditions, he must always act in the same way and cannot do otherwise... Therefore, reconciliation with a friend with whom everything was broken is a weakness that will be redeemed then, when, at the first opportunity, he does to us exactly the same thing that led to the break, only with greater impudence in view of the consciousness that we cannot do without him.” In addition, to forget something is to throw the acquired experience out the window. (I wrote more about this in the article “”; Yu.L.).
And now a case from practice.
The Eternal Prince, with the help of psychological training, became the King, and Cinderella, whom he once married, no longer suited him. He found himself a Princess and the Pea, and they began to live together. All that remains is to complete some legal formalities. To do this, it was necessary to wait for the right moment. Princess and the Pea, also a patient of mine, seemed to be sympathetic to this. They were happy, at least the Eternal Prince. Suddenly one day she made a scandal with him right on public transport, without choosing any expression. This is where he should just take it and leave. But he endured it all. More and more grandiose scandals and for more and more petty reasons followed one after another, and after two months of living together, he left her. But he was still drawn to her, and she asked for forgiveness.
And he took her with him on a business trip, which was supposed to last about three weeks. He decided to see how their relationship would develop if there were no obstacles.
And here we have his story.
“What happened in Rostov turned out to be a pale shadow compared to what happened there. She found fault with every word and gesture (“Why did you say that?”, “What does that mean?”, etc.). I turned out to be a cheater, a traitor, a miser, a womanizer, and generally a bearer of all sins. Maybe my wife, whom I betrayed, had the right to make such statements, but not her. To the detriment of the family, I shoed and dressed her, and even took her to resorts and business trips. And if he hadn’t been a womanizer, he wouldn’t have gotten involved with her. So it’s not her fault!
But I finally sobered up when I heard that all my successes were connected with her help. Many people helped me in my affairs, and I willingly accepted this help, trying to somehow respond in kind, and perhaps to a greater extent. But as soon as I heard the reproach of ingratitude, I immediately asked how much I owed, for every service has a price, I paid, and had no further dealings with this person. I've been following this rule for a long time. In this case, I rather suffered damage, because the connection with her discredited me, a person with an unblemished reputation. Some business partners stopped contacting me, while others did not even start, because, in their opinion, it is impossible to deal with an immoral type. True, I learned about this later.
And I decided to use the shock absorption technique and watch my every word and gesture. Seeing such obedience, she gradually calmed down, and the last week passed tolerably. When we returned to Rostov, each to our own apartment, I left for a month without any explanation. She quit her job, or maybe she was fired. But I left her the means to survive. I was surprised why she was in such a hurry to formalize the marriage. She said she wanted triumph. For there to be a wedding, guests, etc.
I told her that I also wanted triumph. By this time I was already a prominent figure in my circles. She grew quite quickly personally, but still it was a misalliance. This, however, did not stop me. I saw great abilities in her. But her words infuriated me, and I said that I also wanted triumph. Then the following dialogue took place between us:
She: What other triumph do you need?!
Me: The same as you. You are marrying a prominent person, and I want to marry an accomplished woman.
She: But when I become like this, I won’t need you!
Me: That's great! I will help you become like this, and then, if you still have love for me, we will get married. In the meantime, we will live apart!
Naturally, I also refused intimate relationships.”
I will not describe all the torments of the Eternal Prince, because they are already outlined in my book “If you want to be happy” (1995). In this case I am simply illustrating Schopenhauer's points. In addition, based on the above, I have developed three rules.
If there was one conflict, then there will be a second, and if there were two conflicts, then there will inevitably be a third.
After a quarrel, break off the (personal) relationship. There is no need to loudly announce this to everyone. Just use the shock absorption technique.
Never have sexual relations with a partner who is economically or professionally dependent on you. This is understandable, because if a partner depends on me, I will never know whether he loves me or not. And if he is independent, then I can be sure that he is with me only because he loves me. The rule should be used by both men and women.
But let's return to Schopenhauer.
Since all a person’s actions follow from his character, he advises considering the phenomenal stupidity or baseness inherent in people, which has slipped into their activities or literary works, only as an addition to the characteristics of the human race.” V. Hugo recommended considering the shortcomings of great people not as shortcomings, but as features. We don’t blame a rose for its thorns, a lion for its bad smell, or an elephant for its thick skin. Schopenhauer suggests looking at people's shortcomings as material for knowledge.
Schopenhauer also helps me with the following reasoning.
“Drive nature away - it will still return.” He emphasizes the importance of innate properties in a person’s life and calls for upbringing to be conducted in such a way that it does not contradict nature. “Any behavior resulting from an abstract rule relates to behavior resulting from primary, innate inclinations, just as an artificial product, for example a watch, in which forms and movements unusual for it are imposed on matter, relates to a living organism in which both form and matter penetrate one another and make one.” As Napoleon said: “Everything that is unnatural is imperfect.”
After all, both legal laws and moral requirements are willingly fulfilled by people if they correspond to their nature. Perhaps this is why we often fail because the requirements of our laws do not correspond to our internal structure. Solon also said that written laws, like a web, only hold back the weak. In my work with patients, I try to help them realize their abilities in such a way as not to conflict with the requirements of morality and law and at the same time satisfy their natural needs. For example, the shackles of monogamy are overcome by the fact that married couples learn to diversify their sex, and psychologically they constantly grow and change. Therefore, from the point of view of morality and law, a person lives with one partner, but from the point of view of nature, with different ones.
Schopenhauer advises to be yourself and warns us against any affectation, because then “a person tries to appear not to be himself, but to be something else, and, consequently, he considers this other thing better than himself. Affecting any quality, boasting about it, is admitting to yourself that you do not possess it. Whether a person boasts of courage, learning, intelligence, wit, success with women, wealth, nobility of birth, or anything else, all this testifies that this is precisely what he lacks; whoever really has any dignity will not even think of expressing it or affecting it - he is completely calm about this. This is precisely the meaning of the Spanish proverb: “If a horseshoe rattles, it means it is missing a nail.” But trying to hide your qualities will not lead to success. “The mask will fall someday. No one can pretend for long; everyone who pretends will soon reveal his true nature.”
Good advice! And well justified. And for us, a rule follows from it: if a person brags about something, it means he doesn’t have it.
Schopenhauer discovers the laws of projection, which were subsequently described by psychoanalysts, and G. Jung even used his metaphor. “Just as we carry the weight of our own body without feeling it, and feel the weight of a foreign weightless body, so we do not notice our own mistakes and vices, but see those of others. But each has in the face of the other a mirror in which his own vices, mistakes and shortcomings of various kinds are visible. But a person usually acts like a dog barking at a mirror, not knowing that he himself is reflected in it, and believing that there is another dog there.” G. Jung wrote that a person has a “shadow” that he does not see and casts on another. By communicating with the latter, he actually communicates with himself.
Schopenhauer very subtly and bitterly notes that “a person is valued by his position, occupation, nationality, by his family... On the contrary, what kind of person he is in himself, according to his personal qualities, is looked at only when it is necessary.” What to do! That is life! Let's not grieve, but take note. Yes, I am Litvak, Mikhail Efimovich, with my personal experiences no one needs. But if someone needs my knowledge, skills and abilities, they will tolerate me and will even treat me well. In general, acquire knowledge, skills and abilities, and you will never be alone.
Or perhaps you support Schopenhauer’s view that “true friendship is one of those things which, like sea serpents, we do not know whether they are imaginary or real. However, sometimes there are relationships that, although they rest mainly on various kinds of hidden egoistic motives, still contain a grain of true genuine friendship, which ennobles them so much that in a world of imperfections they can with some right be called friendship. They stand out sharply above everyday relationships, which are usually such that we would stop talking to most of our good acquaintances if we heard them speak about us behind our backs.”
Have you read the article about works of Schopenhauer . In the next note entitled “” you can read the final article dedicated to his work.
One of the most famous thinkers of irrationalism, misanthrope. He gravitated toward German romanticism, was fond of mysticism, highly appreciated the main works of Immanuel Kant, calling them “the most important phenomenon that philosophy has known for two millennia,” valued the philosophical ideas of Buddhism (in his office there was a bust of Kant and a bronze statuette of Buddha), Upanishads, as well as Epictetus, Cicero and others. He criticized his contemporaries Hegel and Fichte. He called the existing world, in contrast to the sophistic, as he put it, Leibniz’s fabrications, “the worst of all possible worlds,” for which he received the nickname “philosopher of pessimism.”
The main philosophical work is “The World as Will and Representation” (German. Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, 1818), which Schopenhauer was commenting on and popularizing until his death.
Schopenhauer's metaphysical analysis of the will, his views on human motivation (it was he who first used this term) and desires, and his aphoristic writing style influenced many famous thinkers, including Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Wagner, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Albert Einstein, Sigmund F. raid , Otto Rank, Carl Jung, Leo Tolstoy and Jorge Luis Borges.
Encyclopedic YouTube
1 / 1
✪ Arthur SCHOPENHAUER Favorites 1 2
Subtitles
Biography
The philosopher's father, Heinrich Floris Schopenhauer, was an educated man and a connoisseur of European culture. He often traveled on trade business to England and France. His favorite writer was Voltaire. Arthur's mother, Johanna, was 20 years younger than her husband. She was a writer and the owner of a literary salon.
At the age of 9, his father took Arthur to France and left him in Le Havre for 2 years, in the family of a friend. Also in 1797, Arthur's sister, Louise Adelaide Lavinia, or Adele, was born.
In 1799, Arthur entered the private Runge gymnasium, where the sons of the most distinguished citizens studied, preparing for commerce.
In 1803, he studied at Wimbledon (Great Britain) for about six months.
In January 1805 he began working in the office of a trading company in Hamburg. In the spring of that year, Arthur's father died under mysterious circumstances.
In 1809 (after two years of preparation) he entered the University of Göttingen at the Faculty of Medicine, and then switched to philosophy. He lived in Göttingen from 1809 to 1811. Then he moved to Berlin, where he attended lectures by Fichte and Schleiermacher.
In 1839 he received a prize from the Royal Norwegian Scientific Society for his competition work “On the Freedom of Human Will.”
In the 1840s, Schopenhauer became one of the pioneers of the first animal protection organizations that were then emerging in Germany.
On September 21, 1860, Schopenhauer died of pneumonia. On the philosopher’s gravestone there are only two words: “Arthur Schopenhauer.”
Character traits and lifestyle
He was an old bachelor, famous for his inner, spiritual freedom, neglected the basic blessings of life, put health first, and was distinguished by harsh judgments. He was extremely ambitious and suspicious. He was distinguished by his distrust of people and extreme suspicion. At times he was seized with fear for various reasons: he fled from Naples for fear of smallpox; sometimes he leaves Verona for fear that he has been given poisoned snuff; sometimes he sleeps with weapons in his hands and hides valuables in secret corners for fear of robbers.
Fluent in German, Latin, English, French, Italian and Spanish. He spent most of his time in the study of his two-room apartment, where he was surrounded by a bust of Kant, portraits of Goethe, Descartes and Shakespeare, a bronze gilded Tibetan statue of Buddha, and sixteen engravings on the walls depicting dogs.
Schopenhauer, like many other philosophers, spent a lot of time reading books: “If there were no books in the world, I would have long ago fallen into despair...” [ ] His library contained 1375 books. However, Schopenhauer was very critical of reading - in his work “Parerga und Paralipomena” he wrote that excessive reading is not only useless, since the reader in the process of reading borrows other people’s thoughts and assimilates them worse than if he had thought of them himself, but also is harmful to the mind, because it weakens it and teaches it to draw ideas from external sources, and not from its own head. Schopenhauer was disdainful of “philosophers” and “scientists” whose activities mainly consist of quoting and studying books (for which, for example, scholastic philosophy is known) - he advocates independent thinking.
Of Schopenhauer's books, the Upanishads, translated from Sanskrit into Latin, enjoyed the greatest love.
Philosophy
Schopenhauer's aesthetic mysticism
If the world is “an arena strewn with burning coals” that we must pass through, if Dante’s “Hell” is the truest image of it, then the reason for this is that the “will to live” constantly gives rise to unrealizable desires in us; being active participants in life, we become martyrs; the only oasis in the desert of life is aesthetic contemplation: it anesthetizes, dulls for a while the volitional impulses that oppress us, we, plunging into it, seem to free ourselves from the yoke of the passions oppressing us and gain insight into the innermost essence of phenomena... This insight is intuitive, irrational (super-rational), that is, mystical, but it finds expression and is communicated to other people in the form of an artistic artistic concept of the world, which is given by a genius. In this sense, Schopenhauer, recognizing the value of scientific evidence in the field of the theory of knowledge, at the same time sees in the aesthetic intuition of a genius the highest form of philosophical creativity: “Philosophy is a work of art from concepts. Philosophy was sought in vain for so long because it was sought on the road of science instead of on the road of art.”
Theory of knowledge
The theory of knowledge is set forth by Schopenhauer in his dissertation: “On the fourfold root of sufficient reason.” In knowledge there can be two one-sided aspirations - to reduce the number of self-evident truths to an excessive minimum or to excessively multiply them. Both of these aspirations must balance each other: the second should be opposed by the principle homogeneity: ["Entia praeter necessitatem non esse multiplicanda"], the first is the principle specifications: "Entium varietates non temere esse minuendas". Only by taking both principles into account at once will we avoid the one-sidedness of rationalism, which seeks to extract all knowledge from some A=A, and empiricism, which stops at particular points and does not reach the highest levels of generalization. Based on this consideration, Schopenhauer proceeds to analyze the “law of sufficient reason” in order to clarify the nature and number of self-evident truths. A historical review of those interpretations that previously gave the law of sufficient reason reveals many ambiguities, of which the most important, noticed among the rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza), is the confusion of logical reason (ratio) with actual reason (causa). To eliminate these ambiguities, we must first of all point out that fundamental feature of our consciousness, which determines the main varieties of the law of sufficient reason. This property of consciousness, which forms the “root of the law of sufficient reason,” is the inseparability of the subject from the object and the object from the subject: “all our representations are objects of the subject and all objects of the subject are our representations. It follows from this that all our ideas are in a natural connection with each other, which can be determined a priori with regard to form; due to this connection, nothing isolated and independent, alone, standing apart, can become our object” (in these words, Schopenhauer almost literally reproduces the formula of idealism that Fichte gives in the three theoretical propositions of the “Science”). From the “root” four types of the law of sufficient reason branch out.
- The law of sufficient reason for "being"(principium rationis sufficientis fiendi) or law of causality.
- Law of sufficient reason for knowledge(principium rationis sufficientis cognoscendi). All animals have a mind, that is, they instinctively organize sensations in space and time and are guided by the law of causality, but none of them, with the exception of humans, have mind, that is, the ability to develop concepts from specific individual ideas - representations abstracted from representations, conceivable and symbolically denoted by words. Animals are unreasonable - lacking the ability to develop general ideas, they do not speak or laugh. The ability to form concepts is very useful: concepts are poorer in content than individual representations; they are in our minds substitutes for entire classes, underlying species concepts and individual objects. Such an ability, with the help of one concept, to embrace in thought the essential features of objects, not only directly given, but also belonging to both the past and the future, elevates a person above the random conditions of a given place and time and gives him the opportunity ponder, while the mind of an animal is almost entirely chained to the needs of a given moment, its spiritual horizon in both the spatial and temporal sense is extremely narrow, while a person in reflection can even “think away” from space itself.
- The Law of Sufficient Reason for Being(pr. rationis sufficientis essendi).
- Law of Motivation(princ. rationis sufficientis agendi). Our volitions precede our actions, and the influence of the motive on the action is not known from the outside in an indirect way, like other causes, but directly and from the inside, therefore motivation is causality viewed from within.
According to the four types of law, there are four types of necessity: physical, logical, mathematical And moral(that is, psychological).
The indicated division of the law of sufficient reason into four types can be used as a basis classifications Sciences:
Metaphysics
Although the world will is one, in the world-representation its embodiments form a series stages of objectification. The lowest level of objectification is inert matter: gravity, push, movement, etc. represent analogue to drives- at their basis, as the inner core of the so-called material phenomena, lies the will, the single essence of the world. Organic forms of plants and animals arose from lower types of matter, but their origin is not reducible to physical and chemical processes: all of nature forms a stable hierarchy of entities; corresponds to these stages of embodiment of the will world of still images to implement the will, world of Ideas in the Platonic sense of the word. Describing the stages of objectification of will in nature, Schopenhauer notes in it the amazing expediency, manifested in the correspondence of the structure of the organism to the environment, the correspondence of the organs of animals and plants to their purpose, in amazing usefulness instincts and finally, in the phenomenon symbiosis. To this it should be added, however, that the useful products of nature are useful only in in a very conditional and limited sense words: in the plant and animal world (including as the highest level of objectification of the will - man) occurs the fiercest struggle of all against all- the will, breaking up into a multiplicity of individuals, seems to come into conflict in its parts for the possession of matter. Consequently, in the end, the organized world, despite all the relative compliance of its structure with the conditions of existence, is doomed to the most severe struggle taking place between individuals and groups for the possession of material wealth, which is the source of the greatest suffering.
Schopenhauer was a transformist, that is, he assumed the origin of higher animal forms from lower ones, and the latter from inert matter by generatio aequivoca. The question arises: how to combine idealism with evolutionism? After all, consciousness appeared in the world only with the appearance of animals. Minerals do not have it; plants have only quasi-consciousness, devoid of knowledge. How can we explain these existences prior to conscious existence? Schopenhauer replies: “The geological revolutions that preceded all life on earth did not exist in anyone’s consciousness, neither in their own, which they did not have, nor in someone else’s, for it did not exist then. Consequently, in the absence of any subject, they did not have an objective existence at all, that is, they did not exist at all, or what should their past existence mean after this? “It (that is, objective existence) is essentially hypothetically, that is, if consciousness existed at that initial time, then such processes would have been depicted in it. This leads to causal regression phenomena, therefore, the thing in itself contained the need to be depicted in such processes.” "Thus, the entire evolution of the preconscious world has empirical reality, as a perspective of the past world regressively constructed by my scientific imagination, while embedded in the thing in itself the possibility of precisely these, and not other forms of this illusory, but strictly natural objectification of nature in a number of stages. Plants, which have quasi-consciousness without cognition, are followed, as the highest level of objectification, by animals, as beings possessing intelligence, and from the latter (in all likelihood, from the orangutan or chimpanzee) arose Human, possessing mind. In human individuals the will finds its final and complete embodiment: not in humanity as a race, but every person corresponds to special Idea or potency in the world will; Consequently, in man the will is individualized in a multiplicity of individuals. intelligible characters» .
In the psychological teachings of Schopenhauer, a contradiction was often noted between his idealistic theory of knowledge and the materialistic description of the interaction of the physical and mental (thinking is for the brain what digestion is for the stomach; in Kant’s philosophy, “cognitive ability” must be replaced by “brain”, etc. .). These reproaches made to the philosopher are hardly founded if we assume the concept of will as psychomatter. The most primary, primordial, radical thing in a person is what characterizes his essence, this is - will(Schopenhauer includes feelings and passions in the concept of will, as opposed to cognitive processes). Intelligence - another basic mental ability - plays a service role in relation to the will. We are constantly guided by the will - it influences the intellect in every possible way when it diverges from its aspirations. Schopenhauer does not find bright enough colors to show how often passion falsifies the evidence of the arguments of reason (see his article “Eristics”). “A healthy blind man carrying a weak sighted man on his shoulders” is a symbol of the relationship of the will to knowledge. The dominance of the will over the intellect and its eternal dissatisfaction is the source of the fact that human life is a continuous series of suffering: the discord between the mind and the insatiable will is the root of Schopenhauer’s pessimistic view of life. Schopenhauer, as E. Hartmann noted, does not subject the problem of pessimism to methodical research, but gives a number of vivid pictures of the misfortunes of mankind, pictures that are often striking in the power of image, but one-sided in the sense of an impartial assessment of life. His most important arguments boil down to pointing out fragility, the fleetingness of pleasures and on them illusory character. Dissatisfaction is the main lining of pleasure. As soon as we achieve what we want, dissatisfaction arises again, and we forever move from suffering To boredom and back again through short periods of incomplete satisfaction. But this is not enough, pleasure itself is not real - suffering is something positive, but pleasure comes down to simple contrast with past suffering, that is, to a short absence of suffering. Lovely youth, health And freedom, the best gifts of life, begins to be felt by us only after losing them. To this should be added the whole mass of evil that brings into the world accident, human selfishness, stupidity And anger. Honest, smart and kind people are a rare exception. A beautiful soul is like a “four-leaf clover”: it feels in life like “a noble political criminal in hard labor among ordinary criminals.” If there cannot be true happiness in individual life, then even less can one expect it for all humanity. Story there is a kaleidoscope of accidents: there is no progress, no plan, humanity is motionless. Even mental progress, not to mention moral, is strongly questioned by Schopenhauer. The few oases in earthly existence are philosophy, science and art, as well as compassion for other living beings. According to Schopenhauer, the disintegration of the will into a multiplicity of individual existences - the affirmation of the will to life is guilt, And redemption it must consist in the reverse process - in denial of the will to live. While treating the Jewish religion with contempt, Schopenhauer, however, highly values the legend of fall from grace(this is the "brilliant point"). In connection with this view, one can find in Schopenhauer a unique view of sexual love. In this phenomenon the metaphysical basis of life shines through. Love is an uncontrollable instinct, a powerful spontaneous attraction to procreation. The lover has no equal in his madness in idealizing the beloved being, and yet all this is a “stratagem” of the genius of the race, in whose hands the lover is a blind instrument, a toy. The attractiveness of one creature in the eyes of another is based on favorable data for producing good offspring. When this goal is achieved by nature, the illusion instantly dissipates. This view of love between the sexes naturally makes woman the main culprit of evil in the world, for through her there is a constant new and new affirmation of the will to live. Nature, when creating a woman, resorted to what in theatrical jargon is called the “crackling effect.” The “narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, short sex” is devoid of any true originality of spirit, women have not created anything truly great, they are frivolous and immoral. Women, like children, should be wards of the state.
So, confirmation of the will to live leads humanity only to disasters. Philosophical knowledge, as well as aesthetic contemplation, the morality of compassion and the ascetic “quietivity of the will” soften the burden of existence and help facilitate the process of redemption.
Aesthetics
From early childhood, Schopenhauer, having the opportunity to travel, was able to develop his aesthetic taste, and the sense of beauty awakened in him with particular force when meeting the classical world. Schopenhauer had a good classicist as his Greek teacher in Weimar; under his leadership, Schopenhauer studied Homer, and his immense admiration for the ancient genius was expressed in the curious paraphrase “Our Father” (“Our Father, Homer, ...”). In aesthetic pleasure, Schopenhauer subsequently found great relief from everyday hardships: it is an oasis in the desert of life. The essence of art comes down to the pleasure of weak-willed contemplation of eternally perfect Archetypes-Ideas and world will; ideas, since the latter find expression in images of sensual beauty. The ideas themselves are timeless and spaceless, but art, awakening in us a sense of beauty in beautiful images, gives us the opportunity to glimpse the innermost essence of the world in a super-intelligent mystical way. Individual arts and their types correspond primarily to the reflection of a certain stage of objectification of the world will. So, for example, architecture and hydraulics, used for artistic purposes (artificial waterfalls, fountains), reflect the lower stages of objectification of will in the world - in them the idea of gravity is manifested in an aesthetic shell. Fine gardening and landscape painting symbolize the plant world. Animal sculpture (Schopenhauer recalls the Vatican collection) is the next stage of objectification. Finally, the human spirit, in addition to sculpture and painting, finds its most complete expression in poetry, especially in drama and tragedy, which reveal to us the true content and meaning of human life. Tragedies are the true opposite of all philistinism. So-called poetic justice invented by the philistines, “so that virtue would at least in the end give some profit.” The Greek tragedians, Goethe's Faust, Shakespeare, Byron with his Cain, Dante's Inferno are cited by Schopenhauer as the highest examples of poetry. But there is another art, the highest among all others, this is music. Music is not an expression of any stage of objectification of the will, it is a “snapshot of the will itself,” it is the most complete mystical expression of its deepest essence. Therefore, connecting music with text, making it a tool for expressing special feelings (for example, in opera) means narrowing its meaning: it embodies (for example, in Mozart’s symphony) the will in its entirety. Highly appreciating the tragic in art, Schopenhauer gives a proper place to the comic, offering a special theory of the funny. The funny should have attracted Schopenhauer's attention as an aesthetic illumination of world disharmony. The essence of funny lies in the unexpected summary of a known concrete fact, a known intuition under inappropriate concept(concept). Everything funny can be expressed in the form of a syllogism, where the major premise is undeniable, and the minor one is unexpected and slips into the argument, so to speak, in an illegal way. So, for example, once, when the singing of “La Marseillaise” was prohibited in Paris, the theater audience began to demand that the actors perform it. A gendarme appeared on stage and told the noisy crowd that nothing should appear on stage that was not on the playbill. “And you yourself are on the poster?!” - someone shouted from the audience, which caused laughter in the theater. In his aesthetics, Schopenhauer limits himself primarily to pointing out metaphysical content art, comparatively less he dwells on formal conditions of beauty; Schopenhauer does not dwell at all on the historical evolution of beauty.
Ethics
In addition to artistic insight into the essence of the world, there is another way to free oneself from suffering, this is a deepening into the moral meaning of existence. Kant's Πρώτον ψευδος - unfounded acceptance of the absolute mandatory moral law, in fact, the moral law is hypothetical and not categorical: it imperative Kant's character was secretly borrowed from Moses; in fact, the categorical imperative is a fetish. “Morality has to deal with the actual actions of a person, and not with the aprioristic construction of houses of cards...” In addition to meaningless formalism, Kant’s ethics also suffers, according to Schopenhauer, in that it is limited to the study of only moral relations between people, completely forgetting about animals.
Schopenhauer closely connects the moral problem with the question of free will. The will is one, but, as said, it mystically includes a multiplicity of potentialities of objectification in the form of Ideas and, by the way, a certain multiplicity of “intelligible characters”, numerically equal to the number of human individuals in experience. This “intelligible character” of each person, hidden in a single will, recalls Kant’s “homo no ü menon”. The character of each person in experience is strictly subject to the laws of sufficient reason, strictly determined. He is characterized by the following features: 1) he born, we are born inheriting a strictly defined character from father, mental properties from mothers. Cowards give birth to cowards, scoundrels - scoundrels. 2) He empirical, that is, as we develop, we gradually recognize it and sometimes, against our own expectations, we discover in ourselves some character traits inherent in us. 3) He permanent. In its essential features, character invariably accompanies a person from the cradle to the grave; the great connoisseur of the human heart, Shakespeare portrays his heroes this way. Therefore, moral education from Schopenhauer’s point of view is, strictly speaking, impossible; American penitentiary The system of imprisonment, which consists in the desire not to morally correct the criminal, but to force him to be useful to society, is the only correct one. The will of man, as an empirical personality, is strictly determined. When it seems to us that in a certain case we can do as we please, that is, we have absolutely free choice, then in this case we can be likened to water, which would reason as follows: “I can rise with high waves (yes, but in the sea and during a storm!), I can flow rapidly (yes, in the riverbed!), I can fall with foam and noise (yes, in a waterfall!), I can rise in the air with a free stream (yes, in a fountain!), I can, finally boil and evaporate (yes, at the appropriate temperature!); however, now I do nothing, but remain voluntarily calm and clear in the mirror pond.” So, each link in the chain of actions that form the life of an individual person is strictly conditioned and predetermined by a causal relationship, its entire empirical character is determined. But that side of the will, which lies in the “intelligible character” of a person, and, therefore, belongs to the will, as a thing in itself, is extra-causal, free, inherent in it aseitas. The embodiment of an intelligible character into an empirical one, representing a pre-temporal free act of the will, is that initial guilt of it, which, according to Schopenhauer, is successfully expressed by Christianity in the doctrine of the Fall. That is why the feeling of free will and moral responsibility is sought in every person; it has a metaphysical basis in the timeless affirmation of the will to live in an intelligible character. The affirmation of the will to live is the original guilt of every individual; the denial of the will to live is the only path to redemption. This doctrine of free will contains contradictions: will in itself timeless, meanwhile she commits Act free choice; it is one, and yet it contains a multiplicity of intelligible characters, etc. But, noting this fact, we should not forget that Schopenhauer himself took it into account. In a letter to Becker (see Volkelt’s book “Arthur Schopenhauer, his personality and teaching,” Russian translation, p. 332) he writes: “Freedom is a thought that, although we express it and give it a certain place, on in fact cannot be clearly thought of by us. Therefore, the doctrine of freedom is mystical."
Human activity is guided by three main motives: anger, selfishness And compassion. Of these, only the last is the motive moral. Let's imagine two young people A And B, of which each wants and can kill a rival in love with impunity, but then both refuse to kill; A motivates his refusal with the instructions of the ethics of Kant, Fichte, Hutcheson, Adam Smith, Spinoza, B simply because he felt sorry for the enemy. According to Schopenhauer, motives were more moral and pure IN. Schopenhauer justifies the recognition of compassion as the only motive of moral activity psychologically And metaphysically. Since happiness is a chimera, then egoism, as the desire for an illusory good, coupled with the affirmation of the will to live, cannot be a moral engine. Since the world lies in evil, and human life is filled with suffering, all that remains is to strive to alleviate this suffering by compassion. But even from a metaphysical point of view, compassion is the only moral motive of behavior. In active compassion, which leads us to self-denial, to forgetting about ourselves and our well-being in the name of someone else’s good, we seem to remove the empirical boundaries between our own and someone else’s “I”. Looking at another, we seem to say: “After all, it’s you.” In an act of compassion, we mystically gain insight into the unified essence of the world, in one the will underlying the illusory plurality consciousnesses. Regarding Schopenhauer's first point, it should be noted that, speaking of compassion as a moral principle, he rejects rejoicing as a psychological impossibility: if joy is illusory, it is natural that rejoicing is unthinkable. Therefore, when speaking about active love, Schopenhauer always means love in the one-sided form of compassion, whereas in fact it is a much more complex phenomenon. Schopenhauer connects the preaching of asceticism with the indication of compassion as the path to the denial of the will to live. Asceticism, that is, disregard for everything that binds us to the carnal, earthly, leads a person to holiness. Christianity is true insofar as it is a doctrine of renunciation of the world. Protestantism is “degenerate Christianity”, it is “the religion of comfort-loving married and enlightened Lutheran pastors.” Holiness prepares us for complete destruction as carnal individuality. According to Schopenhauer, however, simple suicide is not yet a true moral negation of the will to live. Very often, on the contrary, suicide is a convulsive expression of a greedy, but not satisfied assertion of the will to live. In this sense, it is not enough to prepare us for the bliss of immersion in nothingness. The end point of Schopenhauer's system is the doctrine of
He preached asceticism and vegetarianism, but allowed himself meat, loved wine, women, and adored art and travel. Such was this outstanding German philosopher, whose followers included Leo Tolstoy.
Portrait of 29-year-old Arthur Schopenhauer by L. Ruhl
Mr. Schopenhauer, what is life?
"Mr. Schopenhauer, let's turn to existential questions. Tell me, what is life? - Everyone's life, in general, is a tragedy, but in its details it has the character of a comedy. - So, all our struggle to achieve high goals is ridiculous? - The world is like hell, in which people, on the one hand, are tormented souls, and on the other, devils. - Is it really that bad? - Man, in essence, is a wild, terrible animal. We know him only in a tamed and tamed state, which is called civilization."
This is the dialogue a certain journalist is having with Arthur Schopenhauer. This conversation is voiced in an audiobook released by Munich philosopher Andreas Belwe. The journalist is fictional. And as “answers” to Schopenhauer, Andreas Belve presented authentic quotes from the philosopher.
“Do you think that man will never change? - Man, in his ferocity and mercilessness, will not yield to any tiger or hyena. - It is quite likely that this is so. When you look into history and see what man is capable of, you lose all faith into it... - Things can go so far that to others, perhaps especially in moments of hypochondriacal mood, the world will seem from the aesthetic side to be a museum of caricatures, from the intellectual side - a yellow house, and from the moral side - a fraudulent den."
"Our salvation lies in the ability to be compassionate"
According to Schopenhauer, life is like a pendulum, swinging between suffering and idleness. The philosopher saw one of the ways to escape from pain in the ability to have compassion for others, not only for people, but also for plants and animals. According to Schopenhauer, “compassion for animals is so closely connected with kindness of character that it can be confidently asserted that one who is cruel to animals cannot be a kind person.”
Schopenhauer with a poodle (caricature by Wilhelm Busch)
He began speaking out against scientific experiments on animals while still a student. By the way, even then, during his studies, he appeared almost everywhere, accompanied by a charming poodle. His last dog (also a poodle) was named Butz. Schopenhauer loved her so much that he bequeathed quite a large sum of money for her maintenance.
Schopenhauer was convinced that only compassion can overcome egoism, that it is precisely this that is the basis of any ethics. And in this sense, his life philosophy is close to Buddhism. He was even often called the “Frankfurt Buddha”.
Asceticism "a la Schopenhauer"
However, Schopenhauer often contradicted himself. Thus, he preached asceticism and vegetarianism, but sometimes he allowed himself meat and was very fond of wine.
He made contemptuous remarks about women. "The only man who cannot live without women is a gynecologist", - for example, the philosopher liked to say, who, by the way, was never married. However, in addition to his will, made a year and a half before his death, Schopenhauer indicated that he leaves five thousand thalers (that is, one sixth of his fortune, and for that time it was a very significant amount) as an inheritance to a certain Mrs. Caroline Meadon (Caroline Medon).
Schopenhauer met Caroline Meudon in 1830 in Berlin. She had already been married and had two sons. Caroline sang in the choir of the Berlin Opera. Schopenhauer even thought about getting married, but when he suspected his beloved of infidelity, he ended his relationship with her. Communication was resumed only many years later. Caroline was the most famous, but not the only woman in Schopenhauer's life. His biographers mention other connections, including with the beautiful Flora Weiß, the daughter of a Berlin sculptor. The girl was 22 years younger than Schopenhauer.
But what Schopenhauer absolutely did not deny himself was traveling to different countries and enjoying art. He simply adored painting and music. He identified beauty as the central category of aesthetics. The philosopher idolized beauty.
The path of the great pessimist
The “ascetic” Schopenhauer could afford a lot. He was born in 1788 in Danzig (now Gdansk) into the family of a wealthy businessman and never needed money. Schopenhauer's father was a disciplined pedant, but also a very educated man and a great connoisseur of culture. Her mother was a cheerful, art-loving and talented poet and writer. Her salon was always full of interesting people. The great Goethe also loved to go there.
At the age of 15, Arthur Schopenhauer entered a private commercial gymnasium. He then began his studies at the medical faculty of the University of Göttingen, but later switched to philosophy. After graduation, he taught philosophy in Berlin and Frankfurt am Main. He was fluent in Latin, English, French, Italian and Spanish. Schopenhauer's main philosophical work is “The World as Will and Representation.” The philosopher commented on it until his death.
Arthur Schopenhauer died on September 21, 1860 in Frankfurt am Main. Nine years later, one of his ardent followers, the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, wrote: “Reading him, it is incomprehensible to me how his name can remain unknown. There is only one explanation - the same one that he so often repeats that, except for idiots, there is almost no one in the world."
Quotes from the “philosopher of pessimism” Arthur Schopenhauer
- He who does not like loneliness does not like freedom.
- Smart people do not so much seek solitude as they avoid the fuss created by fools.
- There is only one innate error - this is the belief that we are born for happiness.
- For every person, his neighbor is a mirror from which his own vices look at him; but a person acts like a dog that barks at a mirror on the assumption that it sees not itself, but another dog.
- Independence of judgment is the privilege of a few: the rest are guided by authority and example.
- When people come into close contact with each other, their behavior is reminiscent of porcupines trying to stay warm on a cold winter night. They are cold, they press against each other, but the more they do this, the more painfully they prick each other with their long needles. Forced to separate because of the pain of the injections, they come together again because of the cold, and so on all night long.
- What conclusion did Voltaire, Hume and Kant ultimately come to? - Because the world is a hospital for the incurable.
- Politeness is the fig leaf of selfishness.
- There is something in us that is wiser than the head. It is precisely at important moments, in the main steps of our lives, that we are guided not so much by a clear understanding of what needs to be done, but by an internal impulse that comes from the very depths of our being.
- Inner emptiness serves as the true source of boredom, forever pushing the subject in pursuit of external stimulation in order to at least somehow stir up the mind and soul.
- A person’s true character is revealed precisely in the little things, when he stops taking care of himself.
- The similarity between a genius and a madman is that both live in a completely different world than all other people.
- A person's face expresses more and more interesting things than his mouth: the mouth expresses only the thought of a person, the face expresses his nature.
- Everyone is closed in his own consciousness, as in his own skin, and only lives directly in it.
- It would be wise to tell yourself more often: “I can’t change this, I just have to take advantage of it.”
- You can't do anything about the stupidity that surrounds you! But don’t worry in vain, because a stone thrown into a swamp does not create circles.
- People are a thousand times more concerned about acquiring wealth for themselves than about educating their minds and hearts, although for our happiness what is in a person is undoubtedly more important than what is in a person.
- Mediocrity is concerned with how to kill time, and talent is concerned with how to use time.
- Don't tell your friend what your enemy shouldn't know.
- One of the significant obstacles to the development of the human race should be considered that people listen not to the one who is smarter than others, but to the one who speaks the loudest.
- Every person can be listened to, but not everyone is worth talking to.
- Every child is to some extent a genius, and every genius is to some extent a child.
- The sociability of people is based not on the love of society, but on the fear of loneliness.
- Forgiving and forgetting means throwing the precious experiments you have made out of the window.
- Death is the inspiring muse of philosophy: without it, philosophy would hardly even exist.
- There is no doubt that a reproach is offensive only insofar as it is fair: the slightest hint that hits the mark is much more offensive than the most serious accusation, since it has no basis.
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher. In his main work, “The World as Will and Idea,” he developed an original idealist doctrine.
Arthur Schopenhauer was one of the wittiest people of his time. His pen includes not only works on academic philosophy, but also hundreds of life aphorisms. According to contemporaries, in conversations he shone with inimitable resourcefulness. Schopenhauer loved to start arguments and always emerged victorious.
The essence of the dispute
Although Schopenhauer mainly wrote about fundamental philosophical problems, he was also occupied with everyday issues of a practical nature. Thus, in his work “Eristics, or the Art of Winning in Arguments,” he carefully studies the process of argument and gives many cunning tricks, the correct use of which significantly increases the chances of winning.
But what do we mean by a dispute and victory in it? Schopenhauer immediately separates the field of research aimed at obtaining objective knowledge from the field of ordinary verbal debate. Victory in an argument does not mean the victory of truth. In an argument, you can defend a completely wrong point of view, but if your arguments sound convincing, you can easily win.
Any dispute comes down to refuting the opponent’s thesis. There are two ways to destroy a thesis: point out its inconsistency with the real state of affairs or other statements of the opponent.
Tricks to help you win an argument
1. Place your opponent's statements into a broader context that contradicts the statement.
A: “Donald Trump’s victory will do us a lot of good.”
B: “No, because Trump is a successful politician. But everyone knows that only deceitful scoundrels achieve success in politics. What benefit can be expected from such a person?
Opponent B expanded the concept of “president” to the concept of “politician,” into which he included a sign of bad faith.
2. Use the same word with different meanings
A: “I won’t work because work makes me unhappy.”
B: “A man must earn good money and be successful. You are a man, so go to the office.”
Opponent B gave the concept “man” the meaning he needed and applied it to this case. He replaced the word “man” with social expectations of a man.
3. Use relative judgments as absolute ones.
A: “I don’t like uneducated people. I like rock musicians."
B: “But many uneducated people compose good rock music.”
Opponent B tried to use a particular attribute as an absolute one. You should answer him like this: “I don’t like uneducated people, because there’s nothing to talk about with them. And I love rock musicians based on my love for this musical genre. There is no contradiction here."
4. Ask as many questions as possible to confuse your opponent.
And if you defend your point of view, argue your position as quickly as possible.
The enemy will concentrate on your speech, so he will not have time to evaluate the correctness of logical conclusions.
5. Try to irritate your opponent
If he is angry, he will not be able to reason correctly.
6. Disguise the true purpose of your questions.
B: “So there are benefits from coffee?”
B: “But numerous studies say that coffee is bad for your health.”
As a result, opponent B disputes the thesis “coffee is good for you”, rather than the original statement “you should drink coffee in the morning.”
14. Anger your opponent
If one of your arguments angers your opponent, repeat it as often as possible.
15. Use humor
If the listeners' knowledge about the subject of the dispute is small, you can present the opponent's correct conclusion in an absurd light with the help of jokes. For example:
A: “Friends, Charles Darwin claims that man descended from apes. Honestly speaking, looking at the shape of Charles’s skull, the abundance of facial hair and the wretchedness of the products of his thinking, it is difficult to deny him such ancestors. But you and I are people!”
16. Refer to famous people
Even if you prove that the Earth is the center of the world, you have such great minds on your team as Plato, Pythagoras, Confucius, King Solomon. Confidently remind us that all these people placed the Earth at the center. Perhaps the thought will slip into your opponent’s head: “Hmm, there’s something in this position.”
17. In a difficult situation, admit your incompetence.
For example: “What you say is inaccessible to my weak mind. Maybe you’re right, but I’m a stupid layman and I don’t understand this, so I refuse to express any opinion.” This trick will work if you have more authority than your opponent.
18. Reduce your opponent’s thesis to some universally despised position
You need to exclaim: “Dear fellow, you’re a racist!”, “Yes, you draw conclusions like fortune tellers and astrologers.”
19. If your opponent tries to change the topic, do not allow him to do so.
When you have found your opponent's weak point, continue to hit him.
20. Baffle and confuse your opponent with a meaningless set of words and phrases
The main thing is to keep a serious expression on your face.
We have given the most interesting tricks that Schopenhauer wrote about. You can find some more tips in his book. Their knowledge is useful not only for attacks, but also for self-defense, because many of the techniques are used by people intuitively.
Schopenhauer's metaphysical analysis of the will, his views on human motivation (he was the first to use this term) and desires, and his aphoristic writing style influenced many famous thinkers, including Friedrich Nietzsche, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung , Leo Tolstoy and Jorge Luis Borges. Here are a few thoughts from the philosopher whom Leo Tolstoy
The cheapest pride is national pride. She discovers in the subject infected by her a lack of individual qualities of which he could be proud; because otherwise he would not have addressed what is shared by many millions of people besides him. He who has great personal merits will, constantly observing his nation, first of all notice its shortcomings. But a poor man, who has nothing of which he can be proud, grabs the only thing possible and is proud of the nation to which he belongs; he is ready with a feeling of tenderness to defend all her shortcomings and stupidities.
There is something in us that is wiser than the head. It is precisely at important moments, in the main steps of our lives, that we are guided not so much by a clear understanding of what needs to be done, but by an internal impulse that comes from the very depths of our being.
Inner emptiness serves as the true source of boredom, forever pushing the subject in pursuit of external stimulation in order to at least somehow stir up the mind and soul.
Nine-tenths of our happiness depends on health.
For our happiness, what we are - our personality - is the first and most important condition, if only because it is always preserved and under all circumstances.
Sincere friends only call themselves friends; the enemies are sincere and in practice; therefore, their blasphemy should be used for the purpose of self-knowledge, since we are taking a bitter medicine.
For every person, his neighbor is a mirror from which his own vices look at him; but a person acts like a dog that barks at a mirror on the assumption that it sees not itself, but another dog.
Wealth is like salt water, the more you drink, the more thirsty you become. This also applies to fame.
No money can be placed more advantageously than that which we have allowed ourselves to be taken away by fraud, for with it we directly acquire prudence.
My philosophy gave me absolutely no income, but it saved me from a lot of expenses.
The wise men of all times have always said the same thing, and the fools, who have always constituted the vast majority, have always done the same thing - just the opposite; This will continue in the future.
One of the significant obstacles to the development of the human race should be considered that people listen not to the one who is smarter than others, but to the one who speaks the loudest.
The thoughts of outstanding minds cannot be filtered through an ordinary head.
Talent reaches a goal that no one can achieve; genius is the one that no one can see.
Whoever does not like loneliness does not like freedom.
Don't tell your friend what your enemy shouldn't know.
It would be wise to tell yourself more often: “I can’t change this, all I have to do is benefit from it.”
Man is the only animal that causes suffering to others without any further purpose other than that.
What makes us happy and unhappy is not what objects really are, but what we transform them into through perception.
What we really are means much more to our happiness than what we have.