Critiquing Schopenhauer’s Will: A Nietzschean Lens on a Fatalistic Universe
Arthur Schopenhauer’s philosophy often reads like a dirge for humanity, an ode to suffering woven into the fabric of existence. At its core lies his concept of the "Will", a blind, purposeless, and insatiable force driving all life. According to Schopenhauer, this Will is the root of human misery—an unending cycle of desire, dissatisfaction, and fleeting reprieve. While his worldview resonates with those weary of life’s relentless struggles, it is precisely this grim determinism that invites critique, especially from thinkers who dared to dream beyond despair.
ALSO READ: Opinion | The Jugaru Footpaths of Guwahati
Schopenhauer’s Will reduces human existence to a Sisyphean ordeal. We are condemned, he argues, to chase desires that, once fulfilled, leave us as empty as before. The only escape, he suggests, lies in denying the Will altogether—through asceticism, art, or even the obliteration of individuality. But can such negation truly elevate the human spirit? Does surrendering to the futility of existence serve as a genuine solution, or does it merely perpetuate the nihilism it seeks to overcome?
Nietzsche: From the Abyss to the Heights
Friedrich Nietzsche, once deeply influenced by Schopenhauer, later shattered his predecessor’s worldview with the audacity of his ideas. Where Schopenhauer saw resignation, Nietzsche saw a challenge: to affirm life in its chaos and cruelty, to embrace existence not despite its suffering but because of it.
Schopenhauer’s vision, Nietzsche argued, was one of decadence—an abdication of the will to live. Instead of denying the Will, Nietzsche called for its transformation. He introduced the concept of the "Will to Power", a force not of blind craving but of creation, growth, and self-overcoming.
Imagine a phoenix, Nietzsche might say, rising not just from its ashes but from the very flames that consumed it. This, to him, was the essence of human potential: to transmute suffering into strength, to rise above despair and become the Übermensch—the “overman” who carves meaning from the void.
Kierkegaard and the Leap of Faith
Even Søren Kierkegaard, the melancholic Dane, might find Schopenhauer’s fatalism overly rigid. Kierkegaard acknowledged life’s absurdity but proposed a different response: the "leap of faith". For Kierkegaard, despair was not a terminal condition but a prelude to transcendence. Faith, though irrational, offered a way to reconcile human longing with the absurdity of existence.
While Kierkegaard placed this faith in God, his existential defiance resonates with Nietzsche’s call for individual empowerment. Both thinkers, in their own ways, rejected the passive acceptance of suffering. Schopenhauer’s negation, by contrast, seems static—a retreat rather than a leap.
The Modern Critique: Science and the Human Spirit
Schopenhauer’s deterministic Will also clashes with contemporary views of human agency. Neuroscience and psychology, while acknowledging biological drives, increasingly highlight the brain’s plasticity and the transformative power of mindset. Studies on resilience show that individuals can adapt and thrive even in adversity—a concept alien to Schopenhauer’s grim fatalism.
Consider Viktor Frankl, the Holocaust survivor and psychiatrist who found meaning in suffering through his concept of logotherapy. Frankl’s work exemplifies the antithesis of Schopenhauer’s resignation: the belief that even in the direst circumstances, humans can choose their attitude and find purpose.
The Overreach of Pessimism
Schopenhauer’s philosophy may comfort those seeking to rationalize their suffering, but it risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. By framing life as inherently miserable, it discourages the very actions that might alleviate suffering.
Nietzsche criticized this defeatism, arguing that “to live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering.” Where Schopenhauer sees chains, Nietzsche sees a crucible—a place where raw potential is forged into greatness.
This divergence underscores the danger of universalizing despair. While Schopenhauer’s insights into human suffering are profound, his solution—a wholesale renunciation of the Will—leaves little room for hope, joy, or transformation.
Nietzsche’s Triumph: Beyond Good and Evil
In rejecting Schopenhauer, Nietzsche didn’t deny the reality of suffering. Instead, he reframed it as an integral part of life’s dynamism. His philosophy challenges us to ask:
- What if pain and pleasure are not opposites but intertwined forces?
- What if the very struggles we seek to avoid are the ones that define us?
Nietzsche’s amor fati—the love of fate—calls for a radical embrace of life in its entirety. It is not enough to endure suffering; we must learn to affirm it, to see it as necessary and even beautiful.
Where Schopenhauer’s Will seeks escape, Nietzsche’s Will to Power seeks expression. The Übermensch does not flee from life’s chaos; he dances with it, creating meaning where none exists.
A New Dawn for Humanity
Schopenhauer’s fatalism may resonate in moments of despair, but it cannot sustain a life worth living. Nietzsche offers a path forward—not by denying suffering but by transmuting it into a source of strength.
As Nietzsche wrote: “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” It is a call to arms for the human spirit, a reminder that within each of us lies the power to rise, to overcome, and to create anew.
In the end, the Übermensch triumphs not because he avoids suffering, but because he masters it. Nietzsche’s legacy, in stark contrast to Schopenhauer’s resignation, is one of boundless possibility—a philosophy that dares us to dream, to strive, and to become.
At the very beginning of this year 2025: will you accept Schopenhauer’s chains, or will you join Nietzsche in breaking them?
(All views and opinions expressed are author’s own)