Schopenhauer's Shares in Spinoza E-Book

Ortrun Schulz

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019

Beschreibung

Schopenhauer dealt intensively with Spinoza throughout his whole life. This includes not only enthusiastic agreement, but also harsh rejection. Spinoza's peculiar use of words caused some misunderstandings, which are clarified here. In the course of this, it turns out that Schopenhauer's fundamental view is the same as Spinoza's, which he does not even acknowledge. According to Schopenhauer, Spinoza fails to solve the problem of all ethics, and he provides a fix by borrowing some of Spinoza's own ideas and giving his metaphysics a twist.

Leseprobe

DR. ORTRUN SCHULZ, born 1960 in Hannover, Germany. Master of Arts in Philosophy and English Linguistics 1986, 1993 doctoral degree in Philosophy. From 1992 to 2005 associate editor of Schopenhauer-Jahrbuch. Private research and various publications.

Schopenhauer dealt intensively with Spinoza throughout his whole life. This includes not only enthusiastic agreement, but also harsh rejection. Spinoza’s peculiar use of words caused some misunderstandings, which are clarified here. In the course of this, it turns out that Schopenhauer’s fundamental view is the same as Spinoza’s, which he does not even acknowledge.

According to Schopenhauer, Spinoza fails to solve the problem of all ethics, and he provides a fix by borrowing some of Spinoza’s own ideas and giving his metaphysics a twist.

»The only Metaphysic which really and immediately supports Ethics, is that one which is itself primarily ethical and constituted out of the material of Ethics. Therefore I had a far greater right to call my Metaphysic Ethics, than Spinoza, with whom the word sounds almost like irony, and whose Ethics might be said to bear the name like lucus a non lucendo and it is only by means of sophistry that he has been able to tack his morality on to a system, from which it would never logically proceed. In general, moreover, he disavows it downright with revolting assurance.«

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Will_in_Nature/Reference_to_Ethics, On the Will in Nature by Arthur Schopenhauer, transl. Mme Karl Hillebrand, p. 374.

Front Cover Collage by Ortrun Schulz, using:

„Spinoza“ by unknown author. Public domain, Wikimedia Commons,http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spinoza.jpg#mediaviewer/Datei: - Spinoza.jpg.

http://de.freepik.com/psd-kostenlos/bankgebaude-icon--psd_567769.htm.

“Schopenhauer 1852” by Jacob Seib - Eberhard Mayer-Wegelin, Frühe Photographie in Frankfurt am Main 1839-1870, 1982, Nr. 10. Public domain, Wikimedia Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: Schopenhauer_1852. jpg-#mediaviewer/Datei:Schopenhauer_1852.jpg

Contents

Preface

Introduction

Schopenhauer’s Spinoza-Reception

Spinoza’s Terminology:The Conspiracy of Kamtschatka

Metaphysics

3.1 Reason or Cause

3.2 The Münchhausen-Dilemma

3.3 The Line of Intersection between the Ideal and the Real

3.4 Parallelisms

3.5 Either Catechism or Barber’s-Apprentice-Philosophy

Theory of Knowledge

4.1 Kinds of Knowledge

4.2 The Flying Rock

4.3 The Constellation ‘Dog’ does not Bark

4.4 Schopenhauer’s Fundamental View and Spinoza

Ethics

5.1 The Knowledge of Interest

5.2. The Mind’s Struggle against Suffering

5.3 The Case of Job

5.4 The Necessary Evil of Hope

5.5 Right of Might

5.6 Instrumental Reason

5.7 The Status of Individuals

5.8 Schopenhauer’s Ethics as an Answer to Spinoza’s Metaphysics

Summary

Bibliography

Citation Conventions for Schopenhauer’s Works

Citation Conventions for Spinoza’s Works

Index of Names

Preface

Spinoza has long since been rediscovered by disciplines such as sociology, psychology, jurisprudence and political science as a fundamental theorist. Rational explanations can be found in him, recited without mystification. With him, theology finally becomes subordinated to philosophy. His critique of prejudice heads in the same direction as Nietzsche’s psychology of unmasking the idols.

Schopenhauer was and still is the favorite philosopher among artists and physicians, anthropologists and biologists. His critique of bribed reason historically stands between Spinoza and Nietzsche. While for Spinoza the theo-teleological base prejudice derives from the human point of view of utility, Schopenhauer reveals the imperfection of the intellect as an instrument born of the will to live. Therefore, the powers of the mind are inherently and also for the most part ideologically biased, which means they focus on personal advantage and benefit at the cost of truth. Both thinkers therefore can be regarded as representatives of a criticism of ideology.

The old question of the meaning of suffering also recurs, along with the search for its possible remedy. Both, Spinoza and Schopenhauer try to develop a post-theological doctrine of salvation, emphasizing knowledge as an indispensable precondition for freedom.

While Schopenhauer seems to fall back behind Spinoza in some ways by evoking metaphysical explanations for phenomena, which might be sufficiently explained by physical causes, he can also be seen as a profound critic of Spinoza’s praise of instrumental reason. Horkheimer and Adorno point out that Spinoza is the pioneer of a “chatty” glorification of the “joy of toughness”,1 which has afterwards been prevailing in Enlightenment and also in its later manifestations up to the present. By reshaping Spinoza’s idea of unity, Schopenhauer provides a foundation for morality with compassion at its root and counterbalances Spinoza’s reduction of ethical motivation to self-interest.

As this book was originally written in German and I’m not a native speaker of English, my translation may be a little awkward at times.

Ortrun Schulz, 2019

1 Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialektik der Aufklärung: Philosophische Fragmente, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer TB, 1992, p. 109, 111.

Introduction

The subject of the present philosophical-historical work is to show the presence of Spinozan ideas in Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer himself did not seem to care much for such endeavors, especially since he usually liked to call himself a “self-thinker”. On the other hand, he nonetheless relentlessly invoked important thought leaders and made no secret of his reading. The mere “book-philosopher” reports “what somebody said and what another meant and then what someone else objected to,” and then he begins to “investigate whether Leibniz was at any time or for a while a Spinozist.”2 We will therefore try to transcend the question of the philosophy of books, whether and to what extent Schopenhauer was a Spinozist. Instead, we are mainly concerned with the examination of their arguments, to get to the truth of the matter.

Schopenhauer himself often emphasized the influence of Plato and Kant on his mental education. What would have happened to Spinoza if he had known Kant, he wondered.3 Schopenhauer’s blatant admiration becomes evident in Dresden 1815 when he says that Spinoza’s time was unfavorable, so that the circumstances did not make his genius stand out - “how different he would be today!”

Spinoza is rarely mentioned alone by Schopenhauer, who did not seem to rank him as an independent thinker, but often mentions him together with Bruno or Descartes, sometimes also with Hobbes or Malebranche. Yet there are quite a few statements in Schopenhauer’s writings, in which he expresses his relationship just with Spinoza. He has high esteem for him because he devoted himself to philosophy. Since he did not make money from it and even declined a professorship in favor of the freedom to philosophize, he is assigned a place among the “true” philosophers, to whom no intention, but insight was the highest goal.4

Similarities between the two thinkers are:

Critique of religion by appeal to reason;

A unified and immanent world principle;

Rejection of an end goal of history;

Design in nature without a designer;

The consciousness-independent pursuit of self-preservation (Spinoza) or the blind will to live (Schopenhauer) as the essence of all things;

Salvation function of the highest type of knowledge.

Schopenhauer’s engagement with Spinoza takes place not only in the form of explicit affirmation or latent influence, but also in the form of modified imitation or vigorous rejection. His criticism of Spinoza is directed against:

The misleading use of words;

Deductive metaphysics from empty concepts;

The leveling of logical and physical conditions;

The realism of causality, space and time;

The rejection of all natural teleology;

The will as a mode of thinking;

The doctrine of selfish virtue;

The positive evaluation of the factual.

Schopenhauer’s critical comments serve this study as a structural framework. They are arranged according to the fields of metaphysics, theory of knowledge, and ethics. However, the choice of category was not always easy, since Spinoza treats some problems as epistemological, which in Schopenhauer are of a metaphysical nature or vice versa.

2 Chap. 22, “On Thinking for Oneself”, P II, §263, Payne p. 495.

3 §490, HN I, p. 327.

4 “On Philosophy at the Universities”, P I, Payne p. 194.

1. Schopenhauer’s Spinoza-Reception

Schopenhauer’s Spinoza reception took place at a time when, on many levels, a New Spinozism flourished. In the reaction to the “great destroyer Kant” the call “Back to Spinoza” was already heard in early German Romanticism (1793-1880: Schleiermacher, Schlegel, Novalis) and the Pantheism Dispute of the 1780s. Spinoza’s doctrine seemed to offer an alternative to both transcendental idealism and to the ailing orthodoxy.

The rediscovered Spinoza of early romanticism and romanticism differed from his original doctrine and intention, above all through Goethe’s whitewashing of the world. Through him also the Spinozan concept of perfection assumed the meaning of artistic perfection. Schopenhauer associated the “wicked optimism” with Spinoza, probably through the interpretation by Goethe, with whom he was personally acquainted, and Schelling.5 In the philosophy of Schelling, the imperfect is only a precursor to the perfected. In this context, Spinoza was interpreted in a religious fashion, citing the conclusion of his ethics, in which human freedom and love of God coincide. This romantic aestheticism contrasted with the emphasis on morality of the Enlightenment, which was closer to Schopenhauer.

German Idealism, against whose main representatives Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel Schopenhauer was raging, was strongly influenced by Spinoza.6 For about 40 years, the Spinozistic pantheism, according to which the word God is a synonym of the world, was quite prevalent among scholars and even general fashion. Hegel’s teachings were extremely popular and well funded by the government, because he considered „the state as a perfectly ethical organism“. And Hegel, according to Schopenhauer, tried to conceal the absence of thought by big words and confusing claims, so that since then the English-speaking world refers to something totally unintelligible by saying, “It is like German metaphysics.”

Schopenhauer enrolled at the University of Göttingen on October 9, 1809, where he first studied medicine, but soon switched to philosophy. There he heard the lectures of G.E. Schulze, who recommended the study of Plato and Kant and advised against a premature study of Aristotle and Spinoza, whereby Schopenhauer was at least indirectly made aware of Spinoza. The fact that Schopenhauer was confronted with at least some of Spinoza’s ideas in Schulze’s lectures is documented in his colleagues’ notebooks from that period. Further influence took place by his teacher Bouterweck, who described himself as a “negative Spinozist”.

In the winter term of 1811/12 Schopenhauer went to Berlin, where he heard among others Schleiermacher. He mentioned Spinoza in his lecture “History of Modern Philosophy” and Schopenhauer says in his transcript, “Spinoza is completely abstract yet admirably clear.”7

Even with Goethe, Schopenhauer would have conversed about Spinoza in those days, both of whom were inspired by Jacobi’s writing Of the Divine Things.8

Schopenhauer owned Spinoza’s works in the Paulus edition of 1802/03, Opera quae supersunt omnia. He may have acquired it in 1811-13.9 In his dissertation On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason in 1813 he discusses him already.

In Schopenhauer’s thought, the transition from the multiplicity of ideas as things in themselves (his synthesis of Plato and Kant) to the one principle of will occurs in 1814, and he says, “Compare the unity of the world shown here as the appearance of a will with the substantia aeterna of Spinoza.”10 After connecting the world will with Spinoza’s natura naturans, he does not change this concept anymore.11

His main work, The World as Will and Representation, appears in Leipzig at Brockhaus in 1818 with the year 1819. Schopenhauer now regards compassion as the only truly moral motive and seeks to justify the phenomenon of identification with the sufferer by recourse to the metaphysical knowledge of the oneness of the different individuals in the will. The metaphysical foundation of compassion is not possible on the assumption of real different and separate beings as in Spinoza.

The drafting of the second edition of his main work was preceded by a renewed intensive study of Spinoza; even in the late Parerga and Paralipomena there are still a number of Spinoza quotes, which show that he has dealt with this thinker all his life. The scope of Schopenhauer’s marginal notes (pencil and ink)12 in Spinoza’s books is only surpassed by that of his notes in Kant’s and Fichte’s books.

5 Rudolf Lehmann, Schopenhauer und die Entwicklung der monistischen Weltan-schauung, Berlin: Gaertner, 1892, p. 6ff.

6 “On Philosophy at the Universities”, P I, Payne p. 142ff, 146ff.

7 Thomas Regehly, „Der ‚Atheist’ und der ‚Theologe’: Schopenhauer als Hörer Schleiermachers.“ In: Schopenhauer-Jahrbuch 71 (1990), p. 10.

8 Arthur Hübscher, Denker gegen den Strom. Schopenhauer: gestern - heute - morgen, Bonn: Bouvier, 1973, p. 67.