Where do the ideas of Schopenhauer and Freud meet and

divide?

The theories and ideologies of the psychoanalyst, Sigmund Frued has

been constantly compared with those of the philosopher, Arthur
Schopenhauer by critics of the last century. The similarities between the
theories on the Will and the Id are too striking to ignore, as are other ideas on
subjects such as intellect/consciousness, repression and views on mankind,
to name but a few. This coupled with certain similarities in their characters,
motivations and they’re cast iron determination, are worth further study.
Despite this evidence, Freud famously wrote,

‘I have carefully avoided any contact with philosophy proper. The large
extent to which psycho-analysis coincides with the philosophy of
Schopenhauer - not only did he assert the dominance of the emotions and the
supreme importance of sexuality but he was even aware of the mechanism of
repression – is not to be traced to my acquaintance with his teaching. I read
Schopenhauer very late in my life.’ (Janaway, 2002)

My aim during this essay is not only to explore where these ideas meet
and depart, but perhaps more importantly, try and discover what propelled
these great thinkers into their own, individual line of thought and the reasons
why they’re characters differed so strongly, as these factors were influential in
they’re thinking.

Although intellectual comparisons can be made between Schopenhauer

and Freud, their views and approach to life couldn’t be more different.
Schopenhauer’s ideas on pessimism wasn’t only contained in his theories, but
roamed freely in his life. Whether this could be attributed to the suicide of his
father, his poor relations with his mother or the period of war and misery in
which he lived in, they were all contributors to his somber outlook on life. His
incapacity to love restricted any hope for emotional happiness - for he who
does not love is rarely loved himself.

‘He was egotistical, childish, suspicious, morbidly timorous, passionate…he

was not or magnanimous. Cosmopolitan by temper and training, he was
lacking in all patriotic and civil feeling. He felt keenly the misery of humankind,
but took no interest in any effort to alleviate it.’ (DeWitt H. Parker, 1928)

With this in mind, it is no surprise that Schopenhauer consorted with only his
most intimate friends. He considered marriage, but fear of losing his
independence, he abandoned the idea, choosing to live as a bachelor for the
rest of his years. Though professing to despise women, he wasn’t immune to
their charms, leaving a string of romances – some poetic, others sordid.

Not until the later years of his life, did Schopenhauer receive the
recognition he so craved. He was received with a luke-warm response;
whereas more established thinkers such as Hegal were famous among the
German academia. This spurred him on to continue his studies and refine his
philosophy, at the same time permitting himself to spend much energy
aggressively attacking other established thinkers, among them, Hegal,
Newton and notably Fichte, when he submitted the essay ‘Source and
Foundation of Morality’ to the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences, at
Drontheim in 1840.

Compared with Schopenhauer, Freud’s character and outlook on life

couldn’t differ more. Sigmund Freud was born on 6 may 1856 in Freiburg. The
eighty years of his life were on the whole uneventful, brought up in a middle
class Jewish family, enrolling as a medical student in 1873, then eventually
moving to the Physiological Laboratory under Brucke, whom he studied under
for 6 years. He took his medical degree 1881 and after a year, reluctantly left
Brucke to begin work in the Vienna General Hospital.

‘There is something very English about the Freud that lives and dies so
equably, in England, land of his inner affinity. All that antinomian imagination
is hedged off neatly by an unimpeachable private life; all that passion
countered by stoic calm; all that friendship muted by reserve; all that desire to
lead tempered by encouragement to epigones striking out on there own – if
not too far. No doubt Jones’ interpretation is the true one. Freud must have
been a giant of common sense and a character in perfect equilibrium to have
led, amicably and for so long, such erratic and scheming followers in a highly
moral intelligence of western culture. On the other hand, he must have felt the
need for disciples desperately. The Freud that has emerged into popular
consciousness, because of the Jones volumes, is in fact the ideal product of
psychoanalytic therapy, the long-sought physician who, if he has not cured
himself, arriving at peace of mind, has achieved a truce within himself.’
(Rieff,1979)

This paragraph taken from the preface in Philip Rieff’s ‘Freud: The Mind of
the Moralist’ elegantly and efficiently sums up the way Freud conducted
himself and was perceived by those around him throughout his life.

Schopenhauer and Freud shared many similarities in they’re theories and

ideas on the mind, knowledge and the nature of the human species as a
whole. Both were influenced by the ideas of Kant, such as concepts on ‘the a
priori or transcendental way.’ This way of establishing objective validity of
concepts can be explained thus:

‘Thoughts [i.e. concepts} without content {i.e. intuitions} are empty. A concept
can apply to what we experience even if it cannot be defined in terms of what
we experience; it may do so by being a necessary condition for the possibility
of experiencing things and of using concepts to describe what we
experience.’ (Politis, 1993)

This concept freed both the minds of Schopenhauer and Freud from the
chains of empirical thought. It is important to note that Plato’s concept on
‘Forms’ was also an influential factor in the cultivation of both their theories.
 But where the two strike uncanny comparisons lies in they’re fundamental
theories on human motivations - the will and the unconscious Id, and they’re
corresponding partners, the intellect and the ego.

Schopenhauer’s concept of the intellect is the ‘knowing’ part of our mind,

it’s function ‘designed for comprehending those ends on the attainment of
which depends on the individual life and it’s propagation.’ (Janaway,2002) His
metaphor for the relationship between the intellect and the will is likened to
that of a crippled old man being carried on the back of a strong, blind man.

‘The method of considering the intellect which is opposed to this is the

objective, which starts from without, takes as it’s object not our own
consciousness, but the being’s given in outward experience, conscious of
themselves and of the world, and now investigates the relation of their
intellect to their other qualities, how it has become possible, how it has
become necessary, and what it accomplishes for them. The standpoint of this
method of consideration is empirical.’

Freud (1940) described the Id as the psychical apparatus as the oldest part of
our minds. It contains everything that is inherited at birth, which can be
attributed to the instincts, which originates from the ‘somatic organization’
unknown to us. The ego is the evolved cortical layer in our brains, whose
function it is to receive and organize external stimuli, to ‘bring expedient
changes in the external world,’ and ultimately, for self-preservation. The
relationship between the two areas are that the Ego exerts control over the
demands of the instincts by deciding when or when it will not be satisfied,
depending on the circumstances of the external world, the ego strives after
pleasure and seeks to avoid unpleasure.’

Schopenhauer attributed many psychological functions and manifestations

to the will, these including:

‘all desiring, striving, wishing, demanding, longing, hoping, loving, rejoicing,

jubilation, and the like, no less than not willing or resisting, all abhorring,
fleeing, fearing, being angry, hating, mourning, suffering, pains – in short, all
the emotions and passions. For these emotions and passions are weaker or
stronger, violent and stormy or else quiet impulsions of one’s own will, which
is either restricted or restrained or unleashed, satisfied or unsatisfied. In their
many variations they relate to the successful or frustrated attainment of that
which is willed, to the endurance or the overcoming of that which is abhorred.
Consequently, they are explicit affections of the same will which is active in
decisions and actions.’ (Schopenhauer, 1985)

This, inevitably, leads onto the significance of sexuality, which is the

driving force behind the theories on the Will and the unconscious Id.
According to Schopenhauer, sex is the externalization of the ‘will to life’ it’s
function based on reproduction. This constantly makes itself relevant in our
lives
 ‘It is the ultimate goal of almost all human effort; it has an unfavourable
influence on the most important affairs, interrupts every hour the most serious
occupations, and sometimes perplexes for a while even the greatest minds…
the public secret which must never be distinctly mentioned anywhere, but is
always and everywhere understood to be the main thing as a matter of
course, and is therefor always present in the minds of all.’ (Schopenhauer,
1958)

The sexual impulse, common in all human beings, is believed to be the very
essence of our being, the driving force of the Will/Id is to ‘to bring one’s own
genitals into contact with those of someone of the opposite sex,’ not only for
the sake of reproduction. Freud (1920) went on to say that the sexual drives
are pleasure orientated and therefore the basic motivator of life – Eros. He
also attributed the repression of sexual drives as the reason for certain
neuroses and psychoses. Abnormalities in mental functioning can manifest
themselves as physical symptoms, e.g. paralysis in conversion hysteria in the
case of Anna O.

The comparisons, with regards to the cause of some forms of madness,

are also worth mentioning. Taken from the chapter ‘On Madness’ contained in
volume 2 of ‘The World as Will and Representation,’ this paragraph rounds
up Schopenhaurer’s ideas on the effects of the Intellect imposed on the Will.

‘Every new adverse event must be assimilated by the intellect…but this

operation itself is often very painful, and in most cases takes place only slowly
and with reluctance. But soundness of mind can continue only in so far as this
operation has been correctly carried out each time. On the other hand, if, in a
particular case, the resistance and opposition of the will to the assimilation of
some knowledge reaches such a degree that…certain events or
circumstances are wholly suppressed for the intellect, because the will cannot
bear the sight of them; and then, if the resultant gaps are arbitrarily filled up
for the sake of the necessary connection; we then have madness.’
(Schopenhauer, 1958)

This is similar to Freud’s interpretation of psychosis, though Freud points the

blame at the Id/Will, opposed to the Ego/Intellect. Freud believed that
psychosis is brought about by the Ego/Intellect not being capable of handling
certain knowledge, resulting in a cathexes in the Id/Will, thus weakening the
Ego’s/Intellect’s control.

It is worth mentioning the shared respect for art and literature. Both men
were very cultured individuals and were enthusiastic of the connection
between Art/literature and the unconscious. They were both well read in all
forms of literature and they both wrote essays on they’re particular interests,
Schopenhauer on the importance of aesthetics and art (essay ‘On vision and
Colors); Freud on the significance of literature and mythology (symbolism in
dream interpretation). An interesting point should be made here on the
comparisons of the two men. According to Dewitt H. Parker,
 ‘…his apartment on the Schone Aussicht, unpretentious yet comfortable,
where he lived in the company of his dog, surrounded by the likeness of his
favorite philosophers, including a bronze Buddha…’

Freud, too, had ceramics and bronzes which are still laid out in his Vienna
study. He also had a Buddha, but on his desk was a bronze ‘Lao-Tzu,’ the
writer of the ‘Tao te Ching.’ And as I am sure, both were aware of they’re
symbolic meaning.

Although it can be argued that there are various correlation’s to be made

between Schopenhauer’s and Freud’s theories, it is the similarities and
differences in their characters and personal lives that are to be attributed to
the defining force of their ideas, because it is due to these areas that
ultimately shape them as individuals. This leads to what is most strikingly
different about the two men. Schopenhauer and Freud were both prone to
fears and anxieties (Schopenhauer suffering from huge bouts of depression),
as we all are. These neurosis were allowed to plague the best part
Schopenhauer’s life, though he somehow remained defiant in his battle;
Freud, on the other, was aware that ultimately humans were social creatures
and felt he was saved from the “worst fate” of loneliness by his beloved wife,
Martha.

There are hints of Freud being a very intimate and passionate man. Phillip
Rieff talks of a man so intense that Ernest Jones’ celebrated biography fails to
penetrate and is ‘…almost Byzantine in it’s flatness.’ This compared to
Schopenhauer’s lack of intimacy with those around him, is a direct
contradiction in their approach. Schopenhauer pushed away those that got
too close and revered in his independence - as he no doubt would have
phrased this acute fear of intimacy. This coupled with his defiant and
aggressive approach to those who opposed him and his theories cemented
the loneliness he experienced throughout his life. An analogy with the ‘lone
gunman’ comes to mind here. Freud too has comparisons to this form of
‘independence,’ being in youth and old age, a lonely man.

‘…gratitude permits him to unbend with her (Martha Bernays); otherwise he is

never deprived of his pride in being alone…not a half-gentile of the real
Jewish world but a fantasy Moses, lonely and estranged as he leads the the
large remainder of himself, resisting, through the “magic world of intellect and
unhappiness,” from one small oasis of rational insight to another, with no
promises of a promised land this time around. Such a powerfully useful self-
image, once deeply buried, is not easily given up’ (Rieff, 1979)

This self-image is similar to that of Schopenhauer, though perhaps

distinctively more modest. Interestingly, ‘he confidently expected to be hailed
as a prophet,’ according to Dewitt H. Parker’s account of him, though this is
likely to be due to his inflated ego (and rightly so).

No doubt both men were extremely strong characters, they just drew their
strength from different sources – interestingly, a Freudian interpretation of
Eros and Thanatos might be attributed here. As I explored Freud’s personal
life, it has become clear to me that despite his firm independence, Freud no
doubt received earlier recognition, gaining disciples, resulting in the Vienna
Circle and pushed further by the political influence Ernest Jones had in
England. This along with his loyal and devoted wife Martha, allowed Freud an
outlet for his ‘Eros’ to be expressed.
Schopenhauer believed he inherited his independence of mind and high
spirits from his father i.e. his temperament and character, which follows his
theory that our intellect follows that of our mothers and the will from our
fathers. It can be said that Schopenhauer needed his ravishing ‘Eros’ to be
assuaged; he created something he believed to be substantial, this needs to
be received by others, if this is not acknowledged, if the expression of ’Eros’ is
frustrated and isn’t given an outlet, this turns into the destructive energy
known as ‘Thanatos’ i.e. aggression, paranoia and cynicism – an outward
expression; Depression and pessimism, an expression of ‘Thanatos’ turned
inwards, towards the self. And to reinforce this supposition, when
Schopenhauer eventually received the recognition he so craved, it had a
cathartic effect on his character. All that built up Thanatic energy finally found
an outlet. This supposition is confirmed by Schopenhauer’s last ten years in
life

‘…no longer as a mere eccentric, but as a great man. And no item of attention
was lost; he drank it all in with a naïve, childish delight. In the best of health
almost to the very end, the turbulence of passion gone, the dream of his
young manhood attained, his personality vibrated a mellower, quieter tone.
After a brief illness, he died peacefully and alone, September 21, 1860.’
(DeWitt H. Parker, 1928)

This verse taken from Parerga and Paralipomena clearly sums up the
defining characteristic of the enduring self-belief associated with both
Schopenhauer and Freud.

1856

Finale

I now stand weary at the end of the road;

The jaded brow can hardly bear the laurel.
And yet I gladly see what I have done,
Ever undaunted by what others say.
References
Schopenhauer, Arthur (1958) The World as Will and Representation Vol. 2.
Dover Books
Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Idea Vol.2. Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd, London
Janaway, Christopher (2002) Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction.
Oxford University Press
Freud, Sigmund (1986) Historical and Expository Works on
Psychoanalysis. Penguin Freud Library
DeWitt H. Parker (1928) Schopenhauer Selections. Charles Scribner’s Sons
Rieff, Philip (1979) Freud: The Mind of a Moralist. The University of Chicago
Press
Kant, Immanuel Edited by Vasilis Politis (1993) Critique of Pure Reason.
Everyman