It’s not correct to say that Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) embraced a form of metaphysical determinism. His philosophy rests on the assumption that the will (which I translate as “life force”) influences all events, but there is a substantial distance between influencing and determining. The difference between influence and determinism has large consequences. I am not pointing to a trivial linguistic variance. If you want to make good decisions and keep anxiety at bay, it is crucial that you understand the difference. In his major work “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer argued that the will is the fundamental force underlying reality. He described the will as irrational and blind. It’s ceaseless energy that propels all existence. According to Schopenhauer, the will manifests itself in all animal and human actions. It helps shape human desires, goals and decisions, although we experience those as free-chosen. In all cases, Schopenhauer argued, we are subject to the relentless influence of the will. Yet, we are neither helpless nor enslaved. Schopenhauer’s philosophical stance is that it’s hard to slow down or minimize the influence of the will. As individuals, we are convinced that we possess free will, but to a large extent, we are driven by the “life force” that propels the cosmos. I would not use the term “determinism” for describing how the will is influencing human life. We are driven to achieve the goals inherent in the will (pleasure, reproduction, etc.) but we are not blind brutes unable to figure things out. Although Schopenhauer employs the concept of “necessity” to underscore the nature of the will, he does not mean that one is unable to escape or minimize the influence of the life force. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-on-determinism/

You do not need to search long to find philosophers that rate Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) as the ultimate advocate of determinism. Nonetheless, they are wrong; their categorization of Schopenhauer as deterministic is superficial and overlooks a large number of key aspects in Schopenhauer’s philosophy. When analysing a philosopher, one must place his ideas at a certain point in the scale of determinism versus individuality. It is particularly easy to err if you don’t study philosophical ideas in detail. If you reduce Schopenhauer’s lifetime work to a caricature, you will tend to place him at the end of the scale. However, the reality is more nuanced and interesting. When we look into the details of Schopenhauer’s ideas, we must definitely rate him as an individualist, not as deterministic. Let me explain the logic by comparing Schopenhauer to the Ancient Roman Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who lived in the first century AD. Schopenhauer’s two key works “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) and “The world as will and representation” (1818) argue that the cosmos is dominated by the will. Schopenhauer regards the will as a blind life force. Similarly, Stoic philosophers like Epictetus believed that the cosmos is governed by a force called “logos.” This force is to blame for every good and bad occurrence in the world. The definition of the logos had been shaped by Cleanthes (331-232 BC), Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC), and Chrysippus (280-206 BC) of Cilicia, all of them predecessors of Epictetus. Schopenhauer’s definition of the will includes the adjective “irrational,” but strongly resembles the Stoic “logos.” It doesn’t change much that Zeno and Cleanthes had called their logos “rational.” In any case, the Stoic deterministic framework was stronger than Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/individuality-and-determinism-in-schopenhauer/

The reflections of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) are to be found in his work “The world as will and representation.” I consider equally interesting the observations contained in his “Aphorisms on the art of living,” published in 1851. In contrast to Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), Schopenhauer is not a philosopher of history. He didn’t develop an all-inclusive vision of history nor theorized about the end of times. He did not regard the course of history as one unequivocal path pointing into a single direction. There is no single destiny where humanity is headed. History is made by people’s choices every single day. The will (which I translate as “life force”) influences how a man or woman makes decisions; however, the will is not pushing people right or left. It is not exercising overwhelming power to the extent that each person can say “I could not help it.” Schopenhauer declines presenting history as an imposition of destiny. Conversely, he underlines the importance of how a human being behaves over time. Life is essentially temporary. Every success and possession is naturally limited. In his work “The world as will and representation”(1818), Schopenhauer wrote that “each experience of happiness should be regarded as contingent on the passage of time.” There is no guarantee that today’s happiness will be prolonged in the near future. As a result, a wise man will take measures to reduce the risk of total loss, and increase the chances of stable, repeated pleasure. Good health helps prevent pain. Schopenhauer formulated this principle in a beautiful manner: “It is the greatest of follies to sacrifice one’s health for any other type of pleasure.” I must point out that few individuals realize the long-term impact of today’s health dissipation. It requires knowledge and imagination to link today’s smoking and fast-food consumption to illness ensuing ten years down the road. Yet, the capacity to think in these terms will save you lots of unnecessary trouble. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-philosophy-of-time/