Schopenhauer: Studies in Pessimism Objection

On his pessimistic view of reality and the transcendental philosophy

Firstly Schopenhauer sets his negative view by the premise that life is full of suffering which he comes to by his observations. Yet such knowledge can truly be known for Schopenhauer if one has the transcendental view of reality. Since he says “Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world … this explains … the fact that everyone measures us with his own standard.” Here he says that the average man judges the world from his own limits, and Schopenhauer would say that he is not the average man as he has the transcendental view of reality. Yet, I believe for him to truly know that he has the transcendental view of reality; he must first know the pessimistic view of life being full of suffering which brings the argument into circularity. As for him to know that life is full of suffering he has to know that he is not the average man and rather holds the transcendental view of reality. Yet for him to have the transcendental view of reality exists he must first know that life is full of suffering as it is a bi-product of his pessimistic view. Thus for Schopenhauer, he can never truly know the nature of life to be full of suffering.

So do I have something here or am I just rambling? (Oh by the way, I have only read his “Studies in Pessism” so if you are using another point of his to refute my objection, the source would be much appreciated.

Schopenhauer answers this in the very last pages of “The World as Will and Representation” volume 1, and in volume 2 of the book with the same title in the chapter “On the Doctrine of the Denial of the Will to Live” (I think that’s the name of it). He claims philosophers, as opposed to mystics, can only understand the pessimism of the world through theoretical knowledge or abstract conceptions, whereas mystics, (Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian ascetics) intuitively know that the world is a place of suffering. Mystics, through their God or asectic practices, know that the world is suffering and that the only solution is the path to ‘nothingness’. Whereas for Schoponhauer, and all other philosophers like him, they can only understand the pessimism of the world through experience. Schopenhauer then proceeds to ‘metaphysicalize’ his personal journey by explaining the insatiability of the will.

Does this help?

well I understand what your saying, but that doesn’t say anything against my argument that Schopenhauer can’t know the true state of life, being the Philosopher that he is.

While under the influence of ‘the will’, Schopenhauer cannot know the ‘true state of life’, but once he supresses ‘the will’ to the point of non-existence, he sees or knows the ‘true state of life’.