A Reading Recommendation: Schopenhauer's The Wisdom Of Life
a short and interesting essay on human happiness
Over the last few months, I have been rereading a short, clever, and interesting work by Arthur Schopenhauer, a fairly systematic essay titled “The Wisdom of Life”. A tutorial client of mine, who for a variety of reasons I particularly enjoy meeting with, asked me if we could work our way through the text together.
The essay was originally published as one of the chapters in volume 1 of Schopenhauer’s late work Parerga and Paralipomena. I first read that work back in college, and more recently about a decade back when as a visiting scholar at the European Graduate School, I had the opportunity to take a course on Schopenhauer with Wolfgang Schirmacher. Reading just this particular essay again in the present, to discuss it with my client, a number of features of the work stood out to me more.
If you have some background knowledge about Arthur Schopenhauer, or you’ve spent time with his other works, particularly his The World As Will And Representation, you will likely - and correctly - associate Schopenhauer with a thoroughgoing and systematically worked through philosophical pessimism. So you might be surprised at my suggesting “The Wisdom Of Life” to you. After all, I’m much more about virtue ethics, philosophy as a way of life, and the pursuit of human happiness, aren’t I?
Well, this particular essay starts out in a very interesting manner:
In these pages I shall speak of “The Wisdom of Life” in the common meaning of the term, as the art, namely, of ordering our lives so as to obtain the greatest possible amount of pleasure and success; an art the theory of which may be called “Eudaemonology”, for it teaches us how to lead a happy existence. . . .
Now whether human life corresponds, or could possibly correspond, to this conception of existence, is a question to which, as is well-known, my philosophical system returns a negative answer. . . . Accordingly, in elaborating the scheme of a happy existence, I have had to make a complete surrender of the higher metaphysical and ethical standpoint to which my own theories lead; and everything I shall say here will to some extent rest upon a compromise; in so far, that is, as I take the common standpoint of everyday, and embrace the error which is at the bottom of it.
Schopenhauer doesn’t think that what he is calling an eudaemonology, or doctrine of happiness, is genuinely possible. And yet, he is willing to set out what, if it were possible, it would have to teach us. He does a pretty thorough job in seeing this project through. So that’s one interesting feature of the work: the author doesn’t believe in the project, but he strives to do a great job in working in out!
A second interesting feature to me - and doubtless to you, if you share some of my philosophical interests and values - is that Schopenhauer is effectively engaging in that broad approach we nowadays call “philosophy as a way of life”. He is setting out considerations, observations, arguments about how we can apply our rational minds and our capacity of will to improve our own lives particularly by making better-informed and thoughtful decisions, prioritizations, and commitments.
When you read through the text, you will see him engaging with many other thinkers who have approached these problems and questions. Quite a few of them are philosophers, including Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, Clement of Alexandria, just to name a few of the ancients. He ranges widely in the sources of wisdom he draws upon and incorporates into the work. Like other great authors before him he both makes his own attempt at making some new contribution beyond what previous thinkers offered, but also at incorporating what useful ideas and advice they provided.
A third particularly interesting feature to me is the lines along which Schopenhauer organizes the work. He starts out by invoking a distinction between three kinds of goods that is a commonplaces of ancient ethical philosophy: goods of the soul, goods of the body, and external goods. Schopenhauer adopts a different breakdown:
Keeping nothing of this division but the number, I observe that the fundamental differences in human lot may be reduced to three distinct classes:
(1) What a man is: that is to say, personality, in the widest sense of the word; under which are included health, strength, beauty, temperament, moral character, intelligence, and education.
(2) What a man has: that is, property and possessions of every kind.
(3) How a man stands in the estimation of others: by which is to be understood, as everybody knows, what a man is in the eyes of his fellowmen, or, more strictly, the light in which they regard him. This is shown by their opinion of him; and their opinion is in its turn manifested by the honor in which he is held, and by his rank and reputation.
You notice that he effectively rolls together goods of the soul (or mind) and the body. And indeed, one fourth interesting feature of this work is the importance Schopenhauer places upon physical health as integral to human happiness. He also breaks down external goods into two main domains, that of property and possessions, and, you might say, all the other stuff, which will effectively encompass our social status, and what we think or assume others think of us.
Why does he separate wealth from honor and reputation, since they are both goods external to our minds and bodies? Schopenhauer argues that while the personality is where the real importance resides for a happy life, we do need to give some attention and space to wealth, in ways that we don’t need to for honor and reputation.
You’ll find the work, interestingly, divided into three main discussions along the lines of these divisions, but the third, and significantly longer division is further subdivided into five parts: Reputation, Pride, Rank, Honor, Fame
Schopenhauer, in my view, is a great stylist, and both enjoyable to read and provocative of thought on the matters he grapples with. That is true for his works in the original German, but I would say that this is also the case for the English translation by Saunders. Some of the examples, of course, may be a bit less relatable for a contemporary audience, and occasionally Schopenhauer’s consistent misogyny will break through, but I expect that most readers will find his thoughts on the matters discussed well-articulated and worth mulling over.
I’ll say this - which gives you a glimpse into some of the temptations I struggle with - rereading and discussing this work with my client produced a desire on my part to take this little text and produce an entire set of core concept videos delving into each of the main ideas and arguments. Since I allowed myself a similar indulgence last month with two works by Plutarch, which delayed producing core concept videos promised on other texts and authors, I’m holding myself back from that reluctantly for now!
But there’s no reason for you to deprive yourself of the opportunity to enjoy and perhaps benefit from Schopenhauer’s witty and systematic reflections on what a genuinely happy life would require, as well as traps, misconceptions, and errors we need to avoid. Because the original text and the English translation have long been in the public domain, you can easily access it in multiple places and formats online. I’ll just mention two of them for the time being (since as I write this, some of the other sites I’d normally link to appear down:
If you have previously read The Wisdom Of Life, or if you come back to this recommendation post after having read it, feel free to leave a comment with your own take on the essay!
I studied TWWR for many years and was able to work out a similar “compromise” from his metaphysical system. So it’s neat to read this for the first time. But I’ve hit a snag. First, I cringe at his notion that intelligence is fixed from birth. Now, I’m seeing where he holds some clearly racist ideas in Ch. 2. I knew about the sexism, but the racism is just as repulsive. I want to continue reading, but it’s leaving a bad taste in my mouth. How do you handle this sort of thing?
Bro, I read this a while back, when Pewdiepie recommended it one time. One thing that stuck out to me was when, I think Schopenhauer wrote that only the intelligent can be happy and reading is a lesser persons activity. It's been a while since I read it and I probably misinterpreted what he said (if he indeed did say something like that (-: ) but it confused me on the topic of philosophy of life and reading. Does that mesh with your interpretation of the text or am I trying to grapple phantoms?