Welcome everyone to the newest episode
of the Emigree Humanist
today
I should actually have a broad smile
because we will discuss
happiness
and smiling is associated with happiness
but
I'm not smiling broadly because we are going to discuss
happiness according to Schopenhauer
and as all
who
have read Schopenhauer know
one can summarize his entire philosophy
in the word pessimism
or the concept of radical pessimism
today we will consider the Aphorisms
about a Wise Life
specifically
Pointers and Maxims
and I was thinking that
we will do things a bit differently
than in previous episodes. I will neither
explain
the totality of his system, especially given that
in my opinion, Schopenhauer does not have a system
I have selected
short fragments or
more precisely short maxims
and we will read them consecutively
and think about them
and we shall see where it leads us
and we will begin with this quote from Schopenhaeur:
"a reasonable person...
...aims only to be free from...
...misfortune, not at pleasure."
I should note that this is not a quote by Schopenhauer
it is Schopenhauer quoting Aristotle
and he claims that this quote, which is from
Aristotle's Ethics
is
Aristotle accidentally getting it right
Aristotle's eudaimonology
is somewhat different from Schopenhauer's approach
for those who are wondering
Eudaimonology is from
Eu and Daemon
Eu is Good
in the language of the ancient greeks
and Daemon is a little spirit
so if we literally translated Eudaimonology into Polish
my Daemon is most definitely smiling now
Eudaimonology
if we translated it into Polish literarlly would mean
"having a good heart" but its scientific translation
is The Science of Happiness
and of course in the view of
Aristotle
everyone who knows Aristotle's works knows that
the golden mean is very important
for him
and
there is a certain Aristotelian logic in
defining the reasonable man as
aiming to be free from misfortune
rather than aiming for pleasure
I like it
As does Schopenhauer
which is why Schopenhauer quotes it
except, for Aristotle it is
an accidental point, but for Schopenhauer, the essence
another quote
this time directly from Schopenhauer
"it is completely...
...insanse if someone desires...
...to transform this valley of tears...
...into a land of joy...
...and instead of aiming for the least painful life...
...aims for pleasures and joy."
and now the first question that comes to mind is
how does Schopenhauer know
that our world is a vallery of tears?
that's just an opinion. Maybe he had a bad day?
or an unhappy childhood?
good, laughter in an episode
in which we discuss
Daemons do indeed laugh
very good, it should be like this
it introduces some lightness
but seriously
what is the soure of this opinion? The source is
taken by Schopenhauer
from experience
and in fact, more deeply,
from the philosophy of Kant
we mentioned Kant a bit
in previous episodes
about Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
Kant, to remind everyone was the one who
demonstrated that
there are limits to pure reason
beyond which we cannot go and
Schopenhauer
agrees to a high degree
and he sees the world as
it is
he sees no spirit
because it does not exist - in fact Schopenhauer
prior to deciding to become a
philosopher
studied medicine
which greatly aided him in future
in terms of philosophy because he knew
his natural sciences incredibly well
his biology
and it was hard to fool him
despite all appearances, he had a scientific mind
he did not have much patience for
idealism and idealists
as well as experience, quite simply
and this is not even about some kind of wars or
some
bloody events, but rather
if a person simply
walks down a city street and takes a listen
to what other people are talking about
looks at what people are up to
then it is hard to find
the Idyll there
speaking delicately and
for Schopenhauer
it is completely insane
to
consider this vallery of tears
capable of transformation into
some kind of paradise
heaven
it's insane according to Schopenhauer
and he defines happiness
and joy
as expressions of that insanity
and this is why...oh yes!...because
this is where
in the American Declaration of Independence
it is written that
all men have the right to life
liberty and
the pursuit of happiness
this is the ideal of
the American founders which is very similar to
Aristotle's
this is Aristotle's Eudaimonology
that we
have a certain telos
a teleology
that all things by nature aim for some good
seeds aim to grow into
trees
plants, animals...
man aims to grow happy
and the path
to happiness is virtue and
self-perfection
Schopenhauer completely rejects all of this
completely
and he rejects it on the basis of
eperience which is the lot of all men
which is an inseperable
part of life
and if someone doesn't see it they are either still
very young or very naive or in Schopenhauer's view
totally insane
the next quote:
"that which is better...
...is the enemy of the good."
here Schopenhauer takes this quote
from another, and discusses it in depth
the point is
he often points to
simplicity
that
the desire for joy
leads to suffering
always
and here one ought not
he is very radical about this
he does not teach that excessive desire
for joy or unrealistic
desire for joy - this is not joy
defined as
luxury
as waking up and saying "I aim to be a milionaire!"
it is any kind
of desire for joy
because
this leads us to feel
immediate suffering and pain
and unhappiness in the present moment
because we are missing something since
we say that we wish for happiness then
it means that we do not have it
and the longer and stronger our desire
for this hapiness
the more we experience pain and
suffering, in other words if
we say "I wish things were better"
it will never be better
that is impossible; there is no such thing as
"better"
but what will happen, immediately, is
is "worse"
because we desire to leave what we have
to leave the simplicity of what is
in favor of..........who knows what?
exactly
for now we are trying to, as part of our introduction
to understand what Schopenhauer is getting at
and later
we can discuss it
and I encourage you to
think about it
let's understand and then consider
the next
quote - this time directly from Schopenhauer
in which he shows how seriously he treats
Kant
"after a time, we gain experience...
...and with it, knowledge....
...that joy and happiness are....
...mirages...
...visible only from afar, they dissapear...
...as soon as we approach them."
I like it
I like it
for a very concrete reason
because the whole idea of happiness
presented here sounds like something you chase after
but not catch
because; yes, yes
what you catch is no longer happiness, only
unimportant
we are compelled to pursue further
yes, but Schopenhauer would add that
it is absolutely
categoricaly impossible to
catch happiness
because...because...
by definition - independent of what content
we imbue this happiness with, yes?
but by definition, when we say that
we desire it, then we open
ourselves to the fact that it is beyond us
and we think there is some path
that if I do this or that then I will arrive there
alright, so if my happiness
is, for example, to climb Mt. Everest
it's my dream and I imagine that
when I get to the top of the mountain I will be
the happiest person ever
it only means that two seconds after you come down
you will be the most unhappy person ever
and that's what I mean - it's just constant pursuit
because once I have reached my goal
happiness has expired
it is no longer current happiness
so in reality, your life
in the case of this desire to climb Mt. Everest
will look thus: until you
make it to the top: pain and suffering
once you reach the top: pain and suffering
because surely everything will hurt
well no, because there's nothing left but going down
I mean the physical pain of climbing the mountain
well, physical pain is immaterial here, but as you wish
let's move on
the next quote
to consider
"it would be better...."
and here we really see how radical Schopenheauer is!
that when we say it is pessimism, then it really is
"it would be better...
...not to exist at all...
...and the highest wisdom would be....
...to contradict and reject...
...our entire existence."
it would be better not to exist...better than what?
than to exist. It would be better not to exist
than to exist
so it IS better not to exist, why say it "would be better"?
because we do exist
here let's recal to mind that the better is the enemy of
the good, yes? according to Schopenhauer himself
so he, by putting forth this thesis here
that it would be "better"not to exist
one must immediately
treat this thesis as, in some sense,
an impossible aim
that said, there is in this statement
a certain truth
the second part of this quote...
reveals this truth to us
namely:
"the highest wisdom would be...
...to contradict and reject...
...our entire existence."
and
here, before
we're not going to explain this, but I hope
this will become clear as we
proceed to the next quotes
but
one must ponder the meaning of
"rejecting your own existence"
Schopenhauer of course
for Schopenhauer, happiness
is a kind of facade
which people put on
mainly so that
they can mask their
true face which is
deep suffering and pain
he gives various examples
of very public manifestations of happiness
parades
parties
all sorts of celebrations
holidays
when the proper and polite thing to do
is to pretend we're happy or, if
well, no one wants to pretend to be happy
but in a sense everyone feels
guilty if they are
unhappy
it's the holidays! You ought to be happy!
you can't be unhappy!
the next quote
"where there are many guests...
...there you will find plenty of rabble...
...indeed society...
...which is truly good is always...
...and of necessity very small."
that's us!
that's us...
yes, indeed, Schopenhauer has no mercy
and here one ought to mention that
we recalled the American Declaration of Independence
and how much Schopenhauer considered
the pursuit of happiness
to be a very bad idea
in the Declaration of Independence it is also written that
all Men are created equal
and Schopenhauer believes that certainly that is not so
that by Nature...here he is
this is a man
who is deeply immersed
in the thought and culture
of Hellenism
antiquity, ancient Greece, not only
Plato and Aristotle, but the poets
in contemporary thought as well, he is a very
educated man
who truly
has gone very deep into the world of
thinking
not only Western thinking, which we will
talk about later
and he came to this conclusion
based on experience
that no - people are not
...most philosophers who claim that
all men are created equal; they all admit that
well, of course it is obvious that
one man is taller, the other shorter, but equality means
a kind of abstract equality wherein each man
is essentially human and has the same
rights and duties...
Schopenhauer says
no, no, no - that's not how it is
at one point he even writes that there are three types
of Aristocracy
there is the Aristocracy
of birth and status
the Aristocracy of money
and the Aristocracy of Spirit
the Aristocracy of Spirit
is
here I will save the
American Founding Fathers because
Jefferson wrote about the Natural Aristocracy
in other words: the are some people who
are born
with a higher than average sensitivity
this is not even a matter of intelligence
it is a higher than average sensitivity
and this is
according to Schopenhauer a very small elite
and he
of course
admits that - in a moment when he imagines...
so that
we don't think of him as some sort of
snob
he writes: let's imagine to ourselves
that the world is compossed only of
philosophers, only of
intellectually advanced and spiritual
unique individuals
except
two people
two dolts
and one dolt meets the other dolt
in this world and says "finally!I have met...
....someone reasonable!"
and someone unique! (and someone unique!)
so here
Schopenhauer has a sense of distance
towards himself, and this is also
I believe an important element of his philosophy
of happiness is the pathos of distance
to the world and to his own person
but indeed
small societies...small is beautiful
true and not facade-like friendships
true and not artificial
community
and even if it is a community of two people
if it is authentic
it is better than a community of two million
the next quote from Schopenhauer
"it is the same with the academia and departments...
...of philosophy: they are a facade...
...and external sign of wisdom...
...yet Wisdom for the most part...
...is absent there and can be found...
...completely elsewhere."
so let it be clear that
this Aristocracy of Spirit is not
composed of PhDs in philosophy
in fact Schopenhauer apparantly had a little adventure
that
he resigned from his academic post
because
at some point only 5 students signed up for his lectures
 
were his lectures too difficult? too controvercial?
you mean was Schopenhauer too hard or controvercial?
the lectures!.......(the lectures? I don't know)
were they boring? just comment on it
why did people not want to hear him?
it might have something to do with
the fact that
students are young and young people
lack experience
and Schopenhauer
clarly states that only experience
can lead to wisdom
to the sort of wisdom he wishes to convey, and youths
are lacking in experience and
have very rich imaginations
which is why so many of the
young philsophers of that time period
were
charmed by Hegel
while Schopenhauer, to put it delicately
Schopenhauer was this
he wrote very beautifully but
was quite undimplomtic in how
he described people
and he described Hegel in a manner that was
quite unjust and undiplomatic
they worked in the same university
and Schopenhauer
Hegel was quite popular
while Schopenhauer was less so
and
but I am not well versed in his biography
I do not know it very well
so
the next quote
"a luxurious...
...an lively holiday or celebration...
...always hids some emptiness...
...some false note, if for no other reason than that...
...they collide explicitly with the poverty...
...and sorrow of our lives...
...this contrast underscores the truth."
we spoke of this some time previous
and
thus this aiming for hapiness in social events
which Shopenhauer takes up
rather extensively
he demonstrates why society (parties)
is unhappy
yes, this is
probably not limited to his epoch, but
rather timeless, people who gather
in some
limited space
not necessarily with a view to their own decisions
who have a responsibility to celebrate something
indeed quite often
are far more tired
rather than happy and look at their watch waiting to go
it is somewhat like, recall that once
a friend
told us
that is told myself and my Daemon
"there are some parties...
...where...
...you must learn how to hold...
...your glass."
in the sense of not getting drunk because it won't do
ah, yes yes; to walk with your glass in hand
but God forbid you drink too much and loose control
be very alert
but carry this attribute of your happiness in your hand:
the glass of wine or what have you
yes exactly, and Shopenhauer is quite
disgusted by this
to put it mildly
the next quote
one of the greatest and most
common stupidities
is long preparation for life
independent of how
this is very good!
this is very good
because it is impossible
to examine
and at the same time secure for the future
because by definition the future is
in the future, and therefore not here now
so we don't know what will be and
it's a waste of energy to
build
bomb shelters and other forms of armor
wich are supposed to protect us from something
above all the only thing we have
is the given moment
and Schopenhauer writes that we cannot
yes and it is a waste of the given moment to live in fear
about what will or will not happen
clearly my Daemon has also talked to Schopenhauer
yes, because we have come to like eachother very much
so I see!
this Schopenhauer is a cool guy
the next quote
and here
I wrote here
a comment or thought from myself:
"the character of a man is his fate" - and this is
I like this thought quite a bit
"we act always in accordance with the unchanging...
...qualities of our character...
...influenced by motives and according to our means...
...ergo of necessity and in each....
...moment we do only that which...
...seems to us right and correct...
...which is why...
...in doing the greatest things or creating...
...timeless works...
...we do not even know that this is what we are doing...
...we only recognize their utility for our...
...immediate goals."
Schopenhauer
will was very important to him
so
I do not wish to make it sound as though he simply
thought that some kind of determinism
exists which
pushes us
mercilessly in some direction
only indeed
the direction in which we go
is visible solely in
reflections upon
long experience
and at some moment we realize that
the direction which seemed to us
to be a result of our will and choice
is
far more a result of who we are
of our Nature - again
people are not equal
and this is not simply about
or above all this is not about
of course people are not equal!
because each person is unique
(yes, everyone has their path) equality is
a characteristic of machines in a factory
not even the trees in a forest are equal
everyone is different!
everyone is unique
this stubborn idea of equality
is
robbing each person of
their uniqueness
yes, and this is why in ancient Greece
the goddess told Socrates
Know Thyself
if all men were created equal
this task would be pointless
because I am equally the same as all the rest
here Schopenhauer reminds us that
we are a mystery
for ourselves, a mystery which
is to be discovered, and in this sense
we have no choice, in this sense
what is
our nature - which we have yet to know
at the beginning of our path
this nature chooses this path
for us
the character of a man is his fate
the next quote:"an important thing...
...insofar as wisdom in life is concerned...
...is the correct proportion between...
...the attention given to the present...
...and the future...
...so that neither of them has a negative effect...
...on the other."
this seems to me to be common sense
the next one
"it is total stupidity to...
...push away the happy present moment...
...or spoil the moment willingly...
...through irritation over something which is past...
...or by caring about what will be."
I think this is a self-evident truth
here a problem arises
I will read one more qoute and we will consider it
and my Deamon, who has accompanied me
for my whole life
will no doubt here an echo
of daily life here in this quote
"this is why the maximum of simplicity...
...in our relations, and even...
...a monotonous way of life...
...brings us happiness...
...so long as it does not lead to boredom...
...because it allows us to feel the least...
...of what is simply life and therefore...
...the weight of life...
... it flows like a stream, with no waves...
or whirls."
because boredom is the enemy of humanity
an intelligent person
isn't bored. When a person doesn't use their intelligence
such a person ceases to be human!
I would say more, as would Schopenhauer
for Schopenhauer says that one should
remember that Socrates
despite
the wisest of men
with the best developed intellect
still
it was absolutely
impossible for him to achieve anything
at all
without his Daemon
this means that Schopenhauer
indicates that indeed the intellect
has its boundaries
and each of us ought to from time to time
silence ourselves and listen
or, if we cannot hear our Daemon
then listen for it
to wait
for the Daemon to whisper to us
the next quote
from Schopenhauer
apropos isolation, which was important for him
"isolation is the destiny of all...
...excellent souls...
...from time to time, they lamment over it...
...they will nevertheless choose it as the lesser evil..."
this is no joke
Schopenhauer really
thinks
that
happiness is
a departure from the world
happiness is
being self-sufficient
the closer we are to this isolation
the better
one could even say that
the best friendships are the ones in which
we feel alone
the ones which do not impose themselves
yes?
the best loves are those in which
we can be ourselves
not those which pull us out of
ourselves
the next quote from Schopenhauer
"just as initial poverty...
...so too, following its conquest, boredom...
..brings people together."
so the one reason
why
people go to the amusement park
jmping and screaming
and eating sugar candy
is bordeom! (is bordem.)
and the desperate
desire not to be bored (exactly)
the initial reason people came together
was poverty; people needed
one another in order to survive
however in advanced societies
in which poverty
no longer concerns the general lot of humanity
to the extent it did once
bordem arises
and people come together because
they're bored and don't know what they should do
and they wish to escape their own
shallowness
into amusement
into joy
into happiness
we already discussed a certain gentleman
who discussed
the loss of conscious
yes, indeed
I will not herein
the thing is: philosophers are people too
so when one reads Schopenhauer's
criticism of Hegel
they are
deeply unjust and undiplomatic
on to the next quote from Schopenhauer:
"in this sense, isolation...
...is the natural state...
...of each person...
...it carries him once again....
...like the first Adam...
...into a state of primordial...
...happiness which accords with his nature...
...but Adam did not have...
...a mother or father...
...which is why in a different sense, isolation...
...is not natural to man...
...the love of isolation...
...cannot be an original tendency, but arises...
...on the basis of experience and thought."
this is likewise important because here
as with every philosophy
and every philosopher there is a temptation
to shallowly
understand
what the author was thinking
and I very much
encourage you all
to beware of shallow
interpreations
Schopenhauer, every philosopher
particularly those writing
in shorthand, that is the aphoristic form
becomes very accessible
or so it would seem! (or so it would seem)
because these aphorisms
consolidate years of
study and thought
so here
Schopenhauer is not saying that
if you are 17 years old, for example
and you just stop meeting
with your friends and lock yourself alone in your room
with the internet
that you will discover or reach some happiness
here every word is full of
a depth of thought
and a history
and now we arrive at the last
theme, which I admit is, for me,
the hardest theme
which is why we shall touch upon it only at the surface
I am not about to pretend that I have any idea
on this subject
because this is something distant for me
the question of Buddhism
I have this gutt reaction
whenever I hear "philosophy and
the question of Buddha" I wish to run away
unless the speaker is, let's say
someone from Thailand or China
or someone
of course they can be a European, but
it must be someone who knows what they're talking
about because
or has some long experience or
is well educated in the subject
in any case
the noble principles of Buddhism:
which for Schopenhauer
to some extent
were important
the desire of that which is temporary
or dukkha
unattainable and therefore painful
cause us to get stuck in samsara
now, what is samsara?
the eternal cycle
of the birth and death of desire (that film!)
yes, I was going to mention it - if someone wants to
get a taste of
samsara, go watch the movie Samsara
samsara is
insofar as I know and I don't really know anything here
I underscore here my ignorance
but insofar as I know samsara is
the eternal cycle of birth and death of
desire which leads
to
unhappiness, pain and suffering
it dies
and is reborn and man is
closed in this (that was a very good movie!)
it is a beautiful movie
I encourage you to read
Schopenhauer's aphorisms on wisdom in life
and then go watch this three hour film
it was three hours?( I think so?)
ok - so maybe two?
but a beautiful film
and
without a single word uttered
yes
it was not necessary to speak because the visuals
yes
and of course for Buddhism the way out of
samsara is only one:
Nirvanha
and I will absolutely not go into
what that means because
I have no idea and will not pretend to know
however
it is a matter of debate
to what extent the philosophy
of schopenhauer
was impacted
by Buddhism
so keep in mind that
Schopenhauer
was fascinated by the East
India
Buddhism, hinduism
he sought in them something which
he apparently could not find
in the contemporary world
which he thought to be
an interesting and important addition
to his beloved world
of ancient Greece and Rome
whom he quotes
I have quoted Schopenhauer
because amongst other things the method
of Schopenhauer in his
maxims is to
quote an entire army
of poets and philosophers, both contemporary
and ancient
so
as I repeat in every episode
that which
the form and method of each episode
is not coincidential. I try to reflect
the way of thinking
and the method of attaining truth
of the philosopher who
is our subject
and Schopenhauer's method was to
quote others and consider the quotes
so I quote Schopenhauer and consider him
let me finish with a quote from someone who
who was Schopenhauer's critic and studied his work
that is to say Nietsche
I think Nietzsche
who also wrote aphorisms
this is Aphorism 56
from Beyond Good and Evil, which I consider
the most beautiful consolidation of
the whole of Schopenhauer's philosophy:
so let's listen
and just to be sure:
the grammar errors
you are about to hear in this quote
are not Nietzsche's errors, but my own
because this is written in English, and I am translating
Anyone who, like me, has, with some enigmatic desire or other, made an effort for a long time to think profoundly about pessimism and to rescue it from the half-Christian, half-German restrictions and simple-mindedness with which it has most recently appeared in this century, that is, in the form of Schopenhauer's philosophy; anyone who really has, with an Asian and super-Asiatic eye, looked into and down on the most world-denying of all possible ways of thinking - beyond good and evil and no longer as Buddha and Schopenhauer do, under the spell and delusion of morality -
such a man has perhaps in the process, without really wanting to do so, opened his eyes for the reverse morality: for the ideal of the most high-spirited, most lively, and most world-affirming human being, who has not only learned to come to terms with and accept what was and is but wants to have what was and is come back for all eternity, calling out insatiably da capo [from the beginning] , not only to himself but to the entire play and spectacle, and not only to a spectacle but basically to the man who needs this particular spectacle and who makes the spectacle necessary [ed. Walter Kaufman]
this is Nietzsche's interpretation
of Schopenhauer, I encourage you
to read Schopenhauer
in order to come to your own conclusions
I will allow myself not to have any conclusions
because
Schopenhauer is not seeking for a system
philosophical systems are
prone to error
contrary to our experience
and identical to suffering and
pain, albeit consciously so
this is
insanity according to Schopenhauer
it is obvious that life
is suffering and pain
and a philosophical system is when someone
goes and comes up with a way to
suffer and feel pain
thoughtfully!
Schopenhauer teaches us
to have a sense of distance to all things
if you are a person who
is a part of this aristocracy
of disquieting
morality and sensitivity
maybe it's worthwhile
to read Schopenhauer
and inquire as to how much of his thoughts
will allow you to see your own
experiences in somewhat of a different light
and to finish
Pythagoras
the Pythagoreon theorum
Schopenhauer quite enjoyed mathematics
and mathematicians
as do I
and
we all know
the Pythagorean theorum from elementary school
but we do not know the other Pythagorean theorum!
which Schopenhauer writes about
namely that it is worthwhile
every time a person
goes to bed
so said Pythagoras according to Schopenhauer
to remind oneself
of what you did during any given day
to execute
not an examination of the conscience,
but of your life during that one day
Pythagoras thought one ought to do this
because he who does not do this
floats through life
and in the end
he does not realize that in so floating
life floats through his fingers like water
while he who, at the end of the day simply
recalls to mind what he did with this day
maybe the next day
he will take advantage of the moment
and
of the fact that Fate has gifted him
a new day
and so
so much for that, at least for now
a very different episode from the previous ones
I hope that in future we will now return
to literature, because
we have ignored it
thank you for your attention
I encourage you to subscribe and
we still don't have our first
comment, so if you've reached the end of this
episode, then here's your chance!
comment!
and write in the comment
what philosopher or what author
do you want the Daemon and I
to discuss next?
and the Daemon and I promise
that we shall do it!Just
the first comment where someone writes
and it doesn't matter, it can be a writer
I don't like, or I don't know at all
it could be a philosopher
of whom I know very little
it can be uncomfortable or unpleasant for me, but
this is an opportunity
if something is interesting to you
then throw
up a proposal or even
demand that we do the writer you want
and the first person to write
then
what they demand, we shall fulfill
a little encouragement! thank you
goodbye and see you next time!
 
I don't understand what that means
you shook the table
 
because Schopenhauer talks about this
in a beautiful way, but no? ok...
we won't talk about it
no?
no, you can't talk about that
ok
we're having a great time behind your backs
we're
cutting out all the best parts!
