Arthur Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer on suffering

 

In a powerful passage in the third volume of his The World as Will and Idea, Schopenhauer argues that suffering expresses itself as the true destiny of the whole of human existence. Life is deeply sunk in suffering, and cannot escape from it; our entrance into it takes place amid tears, its course is at bottom always tragic, and its end still more so. There is an unmistakable appearance of intention in this. As a rule humanity’s destiny passes through one’s mind in a striking manner, at the very summit of our desires and efforts, and thus our life receives a tragic tendency by virtue of which it is fitted to liberate us from the passionate desire of which every individual existence is an example, and bring us into such a condition that be parts with life without retaining a single desire for it and its pleasures. Suffering is, in fact, he argues, the purifying process through which alone, in most cases, a person is sanctified, i.e., is led back from the path of error of the will to live. So closely did Schopenhauer identity holiness with suffering that he concluded that we cannot help regarding every sorrow that exists as at least a potential advance towards holiness, and, on the contrary, pleasures and worldly satisfactions as a retrogression from them.

It seems to me that Schopenhauer’s instinct is right to identify that there is – or can be – a relation between suffering and holiness, though his seeming failure to distinguish between different reasons for suffering seems to undermine his blanket statements. What do you think?

Bring back the verve!

In his On the Basis of Morality Schopenhauer is scathing on Hegel:

‘If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right. Further, if I were to say that this summus philosophus … scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal before him, so that whoever could read his most eulogized work, the so-called Phenomenology of the Mind, without feeling as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less right.’ – Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Basis of Morality, 15-16.

I like thinkers who don’t mince words; it’s one of the many reasons why reading Luther is such a refreshing experience. Of course, one need not be as undisciplined and as bad-mannered as a Hauwerwas – or even a Luther at times – in doing so. Anyway, the point of all this is simply to say that just when I was feeling tempted to say that contemporary theology has lost its verve, I came across these fighting words by Hunsinger on Postliberalism:

‘If postliberal theology depends on the existence of something called the “Yale School,” then postliberal theology is in trouble. It is in trouble, because he so-called Yale School enjoys little basis in reality, being largely the invention of theological journalism. At best it represents a loose coalition of interests, united more by what it opposes or envisions than by any common theological program’. – George Hunsinger, ‘Postliberal theology’, in The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology (ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 42.

Now I’m just feeling tempted to say that most contemporary theology (and politics for that matter) has lost its verve. Is this because it has no verve-creating Gospel?