Letter to the Editor about Arthur Schopenhauer Essay

Dear Sir,Your editorial on the correctness and practicality of Arthur Schopenhauers philosophy in our everyday lives was well very well-written. In it, you set out made clear the main elements of Schopenhauers philosophy that existence, far from harmonious, is in truth full of conflict, that the depart the innermost essence of every man is ill-judged and nothing besides a blind impulse toward existence, and that gaiety cannot be attained by human good-natured because the volition necessitates wretched (Pfeffer, 1972, p. 42).To solve the conundrum of existence, you proposed what Schopenhauer himself suggested, and that is the negation of the will as much as possible. This is similar to what Buddhists do in their denial of mans desires. Thus, like Schopenhauer, you propose everyone should try to release themselves of their will to attain Nirvana.Sir, as much as I intellectually enjoyed your exposition of Schopenhauers philosophy, I would have to disagree with you both. I re collect that the will should not be denied because it does not necessarily fail to suffering. Instead, suffering moldiness be overcome by changing those who ar willing. These refutations are found on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, whose thought I think has much practical applications in deportment than Schopenhauers.Nietzsche spectacularly admired Schopenhauer because of the wisdom that allowed him to nail with the optimism of the Western philosophical tradition which honored Friedrich Hegel. However, Nietzsches philosophy developed into a complete and utter refutation of Schopenhauers, which he checked wrong and I deem wrong. For Nietzsche, pessimism was good, as long as it is not the weak pessimism that Schopenhauer adopted (Pfeffer, 1972, p. 44).This kind of pessimism is uncreative and negative and would simply subscribe to men to living lives based on nothingness. What Schopenhauer did was merely to replace Kants transcendental earthly concern of power with the will only the basic approach did not change (Strong, 1988, p. 227). I would even venture to verbalize that Schopenhauers suggestion when it comes to living life is far more absurd than that of Kant. For while Kant instructed us to use close in everything we do, Schopenhauer would rather us erase our will something which is virtually unrealistic since the will cannot be completely destroyed.It is easy to point out what Schopenhauers biggest mistake was in terms of Nietzsches philosophy. Nietzsches concept of the keep in line and slave morality draws a line between self-affirming values and renunciant values. The master morality consisting of self-affirming values of selfishness and absolute individualism will lead to the creation of the ideal Superman who will be perfect in mind and body (Mencken, 2003, p. 64-65). On the other hand, self-denying values, which are generally perpetuated by Christianity, will lead to mans ruin.Schopenhauer, with his belief that the will shou ld be negated because it necessarily leads to suffering, clearly adopted a slavish lieu toward life. The danger with following Schopenhauer is that his philosophy was a direct result of his induce slavish nature, and thus, men would suffer more and perish if they followed it. Schopenhauer took his own idea and prescribed it to everyone without thinking that his will was not shared by the whole world. Thus, said Nietzsche, people should not be forced to say that the world is Schopenhauer writ large (Strong, 1988, p. 227).Schopenhauer is also wrong when he said that enjoyment is impossible for it is nothing but a form of pain and a brief cessation of desire (Nietzsche, 2006, p.11). From my own experience, I could definitely say that I have experienced felicity and though it did not at long last forever, the feeling was not a negative one.It also doesnt cite sense to me why a person would want to move out-of-door from blessedness simply because it is fleeting. Again, Nietzsch e has a better opinion on happiness because to him, happiness is a function of power. Whatever increases power is good and feels good. Therefore, happiness is power and to attain happiness, men should strive to be powerful. The path to happiness is not denying the will but to change those who are willing.Instead of negating the will or curbing our desires, men must alship canal act for the gain ground of the generations to be born after him, according to Nietzsche. By practicing life-affirming values, the instinct to put one across the will to power becomes sharper. Generations of putting the master morality into practice and getting rid of slavish beliefs would eventually lead to the formation of a naked society of supermen with perfected instincts (Mencken, 2003, p. 67). For me, this goal is clearly far superior, more affirmative and beneficial to humankind than what Schopenhauer proposed.Schopenhauers philosophy is basically that of resignation and negation. His ways to achi eve the abolishment of the will should inspire revulsion in mortal who loves life. Schopenhauer said that the will could be destroyed through timeless expression such as what artists do, and by living a life of an ascetical (Nietzsche, 2006, p.11). Nirvana is the ultimate goal of these lifestyles, which is supposed to be a verbalize of perfect nothingness and peace. Schopenhauer defended his view by saying that this state of heaven might be nothing to a man who still desires, but to a man who has denied his will, the current world were living in with all its suns and milky way is nothing (Pfeffer, 1972, p. 45).While Schopenhauer was right when he said there will always be suffering, it does not follow that we should adopt his attitude of resignation and negation. It also does not follow that we must abolish our desires and live as hermits and artists devoid of passion. As Nietzsche said, suffering is not something to destroy for it is a productive power. Instead of escaping suf fering and struggle, men must overcome these to cancel out their weaknesses and preserve their strengths (Pfeffer, 1972, p. 45).Clearly, Nietzsche was correct again in this aspect as Schopenhauer was wrong. The answer to creating more powerful, happier selves and society is not to obviate our desires. Instead, we must assert our individualism and selfishness more strongly, not to create chaos, but to build a better future for the generations after us. Schopenhauer was a great thinker but he allowed his slavish nature took control of his ideas. I have no doubt that following his philosophy would only lead to our ruin.ReferencesMencken, H.L. (2003). The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Tuczon See Sharp Press.Nietzsche, F. W. (2006). The Nietzsche reader, Volume 10. Oxford Wiley-Blackwell.Pfeffer, R. (1972). Nietzsche disciple of Dionysus. Lewisburg Bucknell University Press.Strong, T.B. (1988). Friedrich Nietzsche and the politics of transfiguration. Berkeley University of atomic number 20 Press.