A. Schopenhauer and Ralph W. Emerson deserve to be read together. I remember reading these two at roughly the same time and they blew my mind open, splattering it on whatever was behind me. Schopenhauer writes beautifully, with great wit, humor and massive quantities of vitrol all at once. R. J. Hollingdale, famous for his superlative translations of Friedrich Nietzsche's writings, does justice to this collection; it's only a shame that he never translated the rest of his writings, or at least the World as Will and Representation.

A brief passage for those who might be otherwise daunted:

"Dilettantes! Dilettantes! -- this is the derogatory cry those who apply themselves to art or science for the sake of gain raise against those who pursue it for love of it and pleasure in it. THis derogation rests on their vulgar conviction that no one would take up a thing seriously unless prompted to it by want, hunger, or some other kind of greediness. The public has the same outlook and consequently holds the same opinion, which is the origin of its universal respect for 'the professional' and its mistrust of the dilettante. the truth, however, is that to the dilettante the thing is the end, while to the professional as such it is the means; and only he who is directly interested in a thing, and occupies himself with it form love of it, will pursue it with entire seriousness. It is from such as these, and not from wage earners, that the greatest things have always come." pg. 227

My copy is showing age and serious wear; I'd recommend picking up two, you'll be reading this into the dust.
If you enjoy the 'gallant' misogeny and self-sure egoism in passages like those from his essay "On Women" I'd reccomend Max Stirner's "Ego and its Own"--a must for rampant individualists. Another plus: caustic enough to rile the ire of a young K. Marx. Thoreau minus patience.

I came to Schopenhauer's work reluctantly, having been put off by two things: first, his well-known belligerent attitude towards women (misogyny is an understatement); and second by Nietzsche, who - despite an early infatuation with Schopenhauer - later turned against his "mentor" (of sorts), claiming his work lacked any ethical applicability.

Yet, as an avid reader of philosophy in general, I found myself repeatedly drawn towards Schopenhauer through various resources. After putting my prejudices aside, then, I have to say that I consumed this volume with great enthusiasm and found Schopenhauer to be one of the clearest, most articulate philosophers in the Western tradition. He was, in a word, a genius.

Sure, the "Buddha of Frankfurt" (his nickname) was not saint, but Schopenhauer himself would have been the first to admit it. That said, I think the chapter on women and Nietzsche's complaints should be kept in mind, but not used to disallow the rest of his brilliant methaphysical writing.

I want to mention here, too, that the introduction by R.J. Hollingdale is outstanding and helpful. I have read Kant, but I still found his summary of philosophy leading up to Schopenhauer to be a refreshing and lively review (compared, say, with the dull, unhelpful introduction by Dave Berman in Everyman's edition of The World as Will and Idea). It is hard to sum up Kant's thought in a few pages, but Hollingdale does a great job, I think.

Finally, I don't think you need to have read Kant to understand most of the ideas presented in this text. Also, I have to concur with Schopenhauer's university philosophy professor, G.E. Schulze, who told the young thinker to stick with ONLY Plato and Kant - but to that small list I would now add the name Schopenhauer.

I highly recommend this text for both beginners and experts in the field -it is THAT good...and it just might change your whole perspective, if not your way of life. Amazing!

What shall I say of Schopenhauer? I've read much of his "The World as Will and Idea," but I like his "Essays and Aphorisms" better. The "Essays" state all of his major ideas but in a more enjoyable and palatable form. His magnum opus explicates his philosophy more completely, but I was bogged down by his incessant treatment of Kantian transcendentalism, which contextualized his work and gave it legitimacy within his time period.

But I would argue that Schopenhauer is known for his pessimistic interpretation of existence, and his intellectual and artistic reworkings of Vedantic and Buddhistic philosophy. He was able to enmesh Kantian and Eastern idealism within a conernful way of life within the world.

One delights in Schopenhauer's verbal abuse of life, Christian metaphysics (not Christianity itself), and optimisms of every kind. He has a way of reducing cherished sentiments and ideals to the absurd mechanisms of control and torture: the systems of human existence.

Read the "Essays" if you want to be challenged, if you want to have some wicked fun, and if you wish to consider your own existence within a definite and different (but not necessarily definitive) framework.

This is a brief compendium and collection of Schopenhauer's expository writing, suitable for a quick introduction to many of his ideas and most famous sayings. Few philosophers were as clear and concise in their writing as he was, and this little book contains many of most quotable and trenchant passages. The Schopenhauer neophyte as well as the more experienced reader will find much to reflect on and to entertain here.

Personally, I like Schopenhauer despite his overall downer message, although his philosophy and metaphysics, which is which is called absolute voluntaristic idealism, hasn't faired that well in the last 100 years, although when I was in college 30 years ago he seemed to be popular among the students I knew who were studying philosophy.

There are several reasons why Schopenhauer's thought is still important. An idealist like Kant, he kept Kant's distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal, between the mental and external representations of reality. Kant's defense of idealism, that some ideas or at least mental processes are innate, is still relevant in modern brain science and neurobiology and in Chomsky's theories in linguistics, especially in regard to Chomsky's ideas about language learning and acquisition, in which there is support from brain science for a built-in facility in humans for language, and possibly an innate syntactical generator component to language ability.

Although innate ideas probably don't exist in the way that Kant envisioned them, modern brain science has supported his theory that the mind or brain is actively involved in the organizing and structuring of the data from the senses, and that we couldn't make sense of reality if we didn't have inborn aptitudes and capabilities to do that.

Schopenhauer emphasized the importance of Eastern philosophy and the validity of its introspective methods, while maintaining his overall empirical approach. His moral and ethical philosophy is based on compassion rather than on practical and reasonable considerations like Kant's. He was probably the first important western philosopher to give credit to Zen and Buddhist thought, while remaining faithful to the empirical principles of science.

Outside of philosophy his thoughts have had a major impact on psychology and the arts. He was the most important influence on both Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, and he also had a great influence on Freud and Jung, and on writers and composers from Wagner to Tolstoy. During the 20th century, Schopenhauer's reputation faded and the importance of his work has been to a great extent overlooked, but recent books show that his importance is being rediscovered and reappraised.

I have to include this brief passage on his thought, since it's excellent, which I obtained from the biographies section of Bluepete website.

"Schopenhauer's system of philosophy, as previously mentioned, was based on that of Kant's. Schopenhauer did not believe that people had individual wills but were rather simply part of a vast and single will that pervades the universe: that the feeling of separateness that each of has is but an illusion. So far this sounds much like the Spinozistic view or the Naturalistic School of philosophy. The problem with Schopenhauer, and certainly unlike Spinoza, is that, in his view, "the cosmic will is wicked ... and the source of all endless suffering."

I have a personal anecdote to recount. My college roommates and I used to read Schopenhauer at night to each other over a couple of beers, and we found his acerbic, trenchant style and sharp wit a delight to read, and this book is perhaps the best example of his prose in that regard. One Schopenhauer quote I still remember after 30 years is: "Intellect comes from the mother; character from the father," which might say a lot about his family life and how he grew up.

Schopenhauer is also famous for quotes such as:

"The two foes of human happiness are pain and boredom."
(from his Essays, Personality; or What a Man Is).

"I have long held the opinion that the amount of noise that anyone can bear undisturbed stands in inverse proportion to his mental capacity and therefore be regarded as pretty fair measure of it."

"To marry is to halve your rights and double your duties."

I have to include my favorite quote on marriage here, although it isn't Schopenhauer's, and I don't know where it came from, although it echoes his sentiments: "Marriage is the institution where the woman loses her the name and the man his solvency."

His dyspeptic view of life might have been fostered by his delicate digestive system. He would spent many minutes poring over the menu before ordering his food in the cafes where he usually dined, because a wrong choice "could send his nerves ringing for days," according to one comment I read about him. Whatever the source of his pessimism, Schopenhauer seemed almost embarrassed and ashamed to be in a human body, because he did not seem to find much good in humans or human society. No doubt he would have preferred to be a higher, more intelligent species than humans, if such exists somewhere else in the universe. But Schopenauer didn't seem to think that intelligent life existed here. :-)

Whatever the current fate of his reputation, Schopenhauer was a uniquely gloomy intellect who contributed much to several areas of philosophy. And not the least of his virtues is that he was a true cynic and pessimist--surely the most accurate view of life, after all. :-)

Schopenhauer's father committed suicide. Son Arthur had been very devoted to his father Heinrich Floris. The high-sensitive son could not deal with the fact, that his mother Johanna had preferred to talk with Goethe in her Weimar Literary Salon instead of helping her husband, getting more and more depressed as a salesman in Hamburg. A typical, later on dialogue between mother (at that time a famous novelist) and son, fresh university lecturer: "One still will read my writings, at a time, when your books are out of stock and only one copy can be found in a lumber-room." Mother thereupon sneering: "The whole, complete edition of your writings, my son, still will be waiting to get an order to be shipped..." (the reviewer fears that his own frizztext-book might have to suffer the same fate). "The World as Will", as too much inconsiderate will-to-live - in such a way Schopenhauer (February 22, 1788 - September 21, 1860) experienced the whole human being. With persistance and arrogance, with brain and bile, suffering and bitterly, but with sensitivity and empathy as well he wrote - trying not to get overwhelmed by disgust. He had a deep neurotic aversion against women (surely involved by his mother). Once he pushed in anger his charwoman down the stairs backwards. But this female individual offered resistance very intellectually: She successful called a judge and Schopenhauer was sentenced, to pay a pension to her - all her life long. But exactly this evil bile encouraged him, on the other hand, to fight against mother Johanna and Goethe, against Hegel and diverse money-lenders. However just opposite to his choleric, hot-tempered way of life, his philosophical theory proclaimed to be calm as a Buddha. He adored Eastern Vedic (Buddhist) Scriptures. He adored enjoying art as a way out of the more mediocre and less passionate masses. The summary of his philosophy finally is the reference to the noblesse to demand nothing; this German philosopher's hope is, that "willing" might be silenced. 150 years and some wars later we all should agree. "To be vulgar is nothing else than giving the leading role in our consciousness to the will and not to the cognition." This tiny book is still able to help today's readers to climb not a meditative, but a thoughtful level. And still it is not out of stock in the most nations ...