'Letter to the Editor about Arthur Schopenhauer Essay\r'

' honest Sir, Your editorial on the correctness and practicality of Arthur Schopenhauer’s doctrine in our everyday lives was well very well-written. In it, you affirm made clear the main elework forcets of Schopenhauer’s doctrine: that existence, cold from harmonious, is actually full of conflict, that the impart †the innermost essence of every man †is blind and nothing but a blind caprice toward existence, and that cheer cannot be carry throughed by universe beca routine the go forth necessitates suffering (Pfeffer, 1972, p. 42).\r\nTo solve the problem of existence, you proposed what Schopenhauer himself suggested, and that is the negation of the get out as much as possible. This is similar to what Buddhists do in their denial of man’s desires. Thus, the like Schopenhauer, you propose everyone should try to rid themselves of their will to micturate Nirvana.\r\nSir, as much as I intellectually enjoyed your exposition of Schopenhauerâ€⠄¢s philosophy, I would have to differ with you both. I think that the will should not be denied because it does not necessarily rails to suffering. preferably, suffering must(prenominal) be overcome by changing those who be willing. These defending teams argon based on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, whose fancy I think has more(prenominal) practical applications in life than Schopenhauer’s.\r\nNietzsche greatly admired Schopenhauer because of the wisdom that allowed him to intermit with the optimism of the Western philosophical tradition which followed Friedrich Hegel. However, Nietzsche’s philosophy developed into a complete and utter refutation of Schopenhauer’s, which he deemed wrong and I deem wrong. For Nietzsche, pessimism was good, as long as it is not the â€Å"weak pessimism” that Schopenhauer adopt (Pfeffer, 1972, p. 44).\r\nThis kind of pessimism is uncreative and negative and would simply consider men to living lives based o n nothingness. What Schopenhauer did was precisely to replace Kant’s transcendental field of motive with the will but the basic approach did not change (Strong, 1988, p. 227). I would even venture to tell apart that Schopenhauer’s suggestion when it comes to living life is cold more absurd than that of Kant. For while Kant instructed us to use reason in everything we do, Schopenhauer would rather us wipe away our will †something which is virtually unacceptable since the will cannot be completely destroy.\r\nIt is easy to point out what Schopenhauer’s biggest mistake was in terms of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Nietzsche’s concept of the reach and slave morality draws a line between self-affirming values and self-denying values. The compass morality consisting of self-affirming values of selfishness and absolute personal identity will lead to the creation of the ideal Superman who will be perfect in mind and personate (Mencken, 2003, p. 64-65). On the other hand, self-denying values, which are principally perpetuated by Christianity, will lead to man’s ruin.\r\nSchopenhauer, with his belief that the will should be negated because it necessarily leads to suffering, intelligibly adopted a instrumental attitude toward life. The danger with following Schopenhauer is that his philosophy was a direct resoluteness of his experience slavish nature, and thus, men would suffer more and perish if they followed it. Schopenhauer took his own psyche and prescribed it to everyone without persuasion that his will was not shared by the unblemished world. Thus, said Nietzsche, people should not be obligate to say that â€Å"the world is Schopenhauer writ large (Strong, 1988, p. 227).”\r\n Schopenhauer is similarly wrong when he said that happiness is impossible for it is nothing but a form of perturb and a brief cessation of desire (Nietzsche, 2006, p.11). From my own experience, I could definitely say that I have experienced happiness and though it did not drop dead forever, the feeling was not a negative one.\r\nIt alike doesn’t make sense to me why a person would want to move away from happiness simply because it is fleeting. Again, Nietzsche has a better opinion on happiness because to him, happiness is a function of power. whatsoever 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.\r\nInstead of negating the will or curbing our desires, men must always act for the benefit of the generations to be born after him, according to Nietzsche. By practicing life-affirming values, the intelligence to apply 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 bare-assed golf club of supermen with perfe cted instincts (Mencken, 2003, p. 67). For me, this goal is clearly far superior, more positive and beneficial to humankind than what Schopenhauer proposed.\r\nSchopenhauer’s philosophy is basically that of forbearance and negation. His ways to extend to the abolishment of the will should inspire revulsion in someone who loves life. Schopenhauer said that the will could be destroyed through timeless contemplation such as what artists do, and by living a life of an ascetic (Nietzsche, 2006, p.11). Nirvana is the ultimate goal of these lifestyles, which is supposed to be a state of perfect nothingness and peace. Schopenhauer defended his trip up by saying that this state of nirvana aptitude be nothing to a man who shut away desires, but to a man who has denied his will, the current world we’re living in â€Å"with all its suns and milklike way is nothing (Pfeffer, 1972, p. 45).”\r\nWhile 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 suffering and struggle, men must overcome these to trigger off out their weaknesses and preserve their strengths (Pfeffer, 1972, p. 45).\r\nClearly, Nietzsche was correct again in this aspect as Schopenhauer was wrong. The answer to creating more powerful, happier selves and society is not to eradicate our desires. Instead, we must assert our individualism and selfishness more strongly, not to create chaos, but to mannikin 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.\r\nReferences\r\nMencken, H.L. (2003). The Philosophy of Fr iedrich Nietzsche. Tuczon: See Sharp Press.\r\nNietzsche, F. W. (2006). The Nietzsche reader, Volume 10. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.\r\nPfeffer, R. (1972). Nietzsche: follower of Dionysus. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.\r\nStrong, T.B. (1988). Friedrich Nietzsche and the politics of transfiguration. Berkeley: University of California Press.\r\n'