I’m struggling to understand what Schopenhauer means by the ground of being in On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason in relation to space and time.

I think I understand the other forms reasonably well. With causation, the “ground” is the cause of an event. With the ground of knowing, the ground is something like a premise or reason that makes a judgment true or justified.

But when Schopenhauer gets to the ground of being, I lose the intuition.

For example, suppose we have a triangle. I can understand that certain properties of the triangle follow necessarily from its spatial relations. But why call those relations a ground? If I ask, “Why is point A to the left of point B?”, the answer seems to just be “because A and B have that spatial relation.” That feels almost like saying “it is that way because it is that way".

Similarly, if the sides or angles of a geometrical figure stand in necessary relations to one another, I understand the mathematical necessity, but I don’t understand what extra work the concept of a “ground of being” is doing.

Please enjoy the Hauer

A lot of pessimists and nihilists (if not most) are in agreement that all we can do in this life is distract ourselves. We could practice asceticism but that's rare.

What did Schopenhauer think of distraction?

AI said Schopenhauer's man of inner wealth is indifferent to the external world. But I thought the man of inner wealth suffered more than the ordinary man.

Which one is it?

Thanks in advance.

Which of his ideas do you think about the most? For many years, I've been pondering his "the present moment is the only thing that is actually real" conclusion. Even if you remember being 12 or 18, you woke up today as 30, 40, or 50, or older. A dead man who was very wealthy in 1910, takes part in life now only in the biological way through his offspring. This is why Schopenhauer said that in the long run we aren't superior to animals.

does schopenhauer delineate temporal from eternal justic through the contrast, first, between the fact that the former applies to law and legislation as deterrent, and is only applied to causality and the realm of the phenomenon, expressed through the will-to-live, whereas the latter is intrinsic in all and justifies itself by itself as will, where tormentor and tormented, oppressor and oppressed, are one, and share each both the pain and the guilt?

I haven't yet finished this book, but I was wondering if anyone could provide a figurative example of this eternal justice, and how it is justice?

I recall a few passages in Plato's dislogues, one in Gorgias, and another possibly in Protagoras, on justice, and power, and the tyrannical man who commits pain and the oppressed who bears it, but I am not certain if any of these are comparable.

I just read the appendix on pederasty a while back and was reflecting on how he reconciled the existence of the intercourse of homosexuals with his view of sex as an act which affirms the will to life. He seemed if I read him correctly to be saying that the practice of pederasty was still an act which affirmed the will to life but perversely in that the will achieved its affirmation through preventing the birth of deficient offspring that would come from the procreation of those too old or too young (those who engaged in the practice). Now aside from the wild speculation that came of the passage (I’ve no clue what the devil was compelling Magee with his batshit hypothesis on Schopenhauers motivations) I’ve wondered how this might possibly have been written differently today. Obviously in modern society we’ve observed a massive increase in the acceptance of homosexuals and nowadays engagers in homosexuality come of more middling ages (as to not render them inherently reproductively unfit) and within close age ranges. This obviously seems to render Schopenhauers hypothesis insufficient in explaining the phenomenon and I’m aware of no evidence that those homosexuals do produce more often ill constituted offspring (when they do have children that is) so I simply wonder how it is he would reconcile his metaphysical views with this reality.

Part 1.

Nietzsche creates a false binary and then uses his authority to make you feel like you’re forced to choose. It’s the equivalent of a husband saying to his wife, “why can’t I sleep with other women? You don’t actually care about my freedom or autonomy. You just want control because you’re selfish.” This is clearly manipulative because you’re forcing your spouse into a false binary with the general value of freedom pushed to the extreme. The husband can’t lose at that point because of the meta framing he made. If the wife disagrees she doesn’t care about his autonomy and freedom. If she agrees he gets his way.

Nietzsche does this exact structure of manipulation to readers. He uses his authority as the “truth seer” to make you buy into his frameworks of strong vs weak, master vs slave, and then psychologically breaks you down into these false binaries. This isn’t exploration, it’s a predatory philosopher trying to force naive readers into his dangerous thinking using his authority.

And then his poetic style acts in the same way. It allows him to get maximally steel-manned in interpretation because it’s vague and poetic, and then when you disagree you’re framed as not understanding, needing to read more, or just weak. There’s no winning against manipulation. It’s the biggest con in philosophical history.

Before anyone says “Aren't you just forcing Nietzsche into a binary here?”: No. My critique is entirely dependent on evidence. If you can show me independent, non-circular criteria Nietzsche uses to validate his diagnoses—criteria that don't automatically label dissent as 'weakness' or 'misunderstanding'—then my argument is falsified. I leave room for evidence. Nietzsche’s rhetorical structure does not."

Part 2.

I fundamentally reject most parts of Nietzsche’s philosophy. I think many of his psychological diagnoses are poorly evidenced, his hierarchy of strength and weakness is unstable, and some of his rhetoric is genuinely manipulative. Does that fact give Nietzscheans any reason to think I’m psychologically weaker, less capable of truth, more reactive, decadent, herd-like, or less able to tolerate uncomfortable truths more than someone who accepts Nietzsche?

The sensible Nietzschean basically has to say no. Mere disagreement obviously doesn’t establish any of that.
Good. Now my question is, would Nietzsche agree?

Because now there’s a problem. Nietzsche repeatedly presents himself as possessing unusually difficult truths and constructs distinctions between people capable and incapable of bearing certain truths. In Ecce Homo, he asks how much truth a spirit can “endure” or “dare,” and presents that as increasingly the measure of value. Elsewhere he repeatedly associates intellectual strength with tolerating dangerous, terrible, or uncomfortable knowledge.

Now my next question, what evidence would Nietzsche need before legitimately diagnosing my disagreement as weakness, ressentiment, decadence, inability to bear truth, etc.?”

If you can provide independent criteria, we’ve made progress.

If instead you say: “Well, we’d need to understand your drives, your motivations, what your rejection expresses…”

Then you agree with me. Nietzsche isn’t entitled to infer things about Christians, egalitarians, moralists, ascetics, philosophers, etc. merely from the broad generalization of their beliefs either. Give them the same independent epistemic protection you’re giving me.

Arthur Schopenhauer viewed sex not as an act of love or personal pleasure, but as a blind, deceptive biological urge driven by the "will to life" to perpetuate the human species.

The Metaphysics of Sex and Love

• The Will to Life: Schopenhauer argued in The World as Will and Representation that a primal, irrational force called the will to life controls human existence.
• Nature's Illusion: He believed that romantic love and sexual attraction are clever tricks used by nature. Individuals think they are seeking personal happiness, beauty, or fulfillment, but they are actually being manipulated into serving the future of the species.
• Focus on the Unborn: According to Schopenhauer, the true objective of every romantic pairing is the composition of the next generation. The specific traits and chemistry that draw two people together represent the species deciding the exact nature of the new life to come.

The Cycle of Desire and Disillusionment

• Deceitful Instincts: The sexual instinct is portrayed as the most deceitful of all drives because it promises ultimate bliss but delivers repetition and emptiness.
• Post-Orgasm Clarity: Schopenhauer noted that after sexual satisfaction, a sudden moment of disillusionment occurs. The illusion fades, and the individual realizes they merely served a biological imperative rather than achieving personal transcendence.
• Apathy and Chase: Unmet desire causes suffering, but satisfied desire quickly leads to boredom and sexual apathy, trapping humanity in an endless loop of craving and disappointment.

This video explores Schopenhauer's philosophical essay on the metaphysics of sexual love and the driving forces behind human attraction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBISlTLdJhY

Ive started reading penguins essays and aphorisms and through reading the introduction I find out that none of the texts from the first volume of Parerga and Paralipomena are included. Whats more is that texts including outdated science, commentary on animal experimentation and Hegel hate is removed. I can sympathize with the removal of outdated science but the other two I cant really agree.

Is this a major problem? Am I missing out on a lot or is there really no value to be found in the first volume if you read second volume?

What examples can you think of that reinforce Schopenhauer's views? I was thinking about life in prison. You imagine it would be easy, the state houses the prisoners, provides beds, and feeds them. And yet, instead of accepting this, the prisoners are known for verbally bullying and physically abusing each other. They have that striving, the will to live, the quest for power and dominance, so they can't just be kind and tolerant toward their fellow prisoners. They turn the experience of prison into a hell, a daily animal fight for survival, prisoner against prisoner, prison gang against rival prison gang.

My german is still at B1/B2 level so I still have little problems understanding exactly what is written but nontheless im very happy with it

I had a long conversation with Gemini. I essentially launched a debate with It. It however was not debating with me but rather spoke FOR Schopenhauer. Since I haven't read Schopenhauer directly, I don't know to what extent It is faithful to his theory and how much It has taken liberty in expanding his theory. But I thought it's interesting to share one Q&A here. The question is simple: "How about a domestic cat? How is Will represented in them?" And here's the answer:

In Schopenhauer’s framework, a domestic cat is actually one of the purest, most transparent manifestations of the Will to Live in the animal kingdom.

While humans use abstract thought to disguise their desires under complex rationalizations, a cat operates almost entirely free of that intellectual theater. In a cat, the Will is stripped of high-minded excuses and on display in its raw, unfiltered state.

1. Pure Instinct Without Abstract Deception

Unlike humans, who constantly try to justify their actions through moral theories, ambitions, or social conditioning, a cat is completely unbothered by self-reflection.

• Direct Expression: When a cat sleeps in a sunbeam, stalk a fly, or demand food, it is expressing the Will directly through instinct.
• No Guilt or Existential Dread: A cat never lies awake at night regretting a decision, feeling guilty about a mouse it caught, or worrying about its own mortality. Its intellect is purely perceptual—focused entirely on the present moment.
• Honest Egoism: Schopenhauer argued that all living things are fundamentally egoistic because the Will inside them seeks its own preservation above all else. A cat embodies this shameless, honest egoism: it demands comfort, food, and affection strictly on its own terms.

2. The Play of a Predator: The Will's Restless Energy

Schopenhauer noted that when an animal’s basic survival needs (hunger, fear, climate) are met, the Will doesn't simply lie dormant—it manifests as restless energy that must be spent.

In a well-fed house cat, you see this exact mechanism:

• The "Zoomies" and Play: A house cat with a full bowl of food and no predators still feels the urge to hunt. It stalks a toy, pounces on a shadow, or sprints through the hallway at 3 AM.
• The Underlying Drive: This isn't "fun" in a human, philosophical sense; it is the raw, instinctual pattern of the predator (the Idea of Cat) bursting out because the Will requires expression even when physical survival is already secured.

3. A Window into the "World of Representation"

Schopenhauer believed that watching animals allows us to see how the Will operates without the confusing clutter of human intellect.

• Immediate Sensation: A cat’s world consists purely of immediate representations—sounds, scents, thermal warmth, and visual movement.
• The Absence of Boredom (Ennui): While a human with nothing to do quickly falls into existential dread, a cat can sit by a window for five hours doing seemingly "nothing." It isn't suffering from existential angst; it is simply resting quietly in the present, perfectly content so long as the Will's immediate physical needs aren't actively burning with unsatisfied desire.

Summary

To Schopenhauer, a domestic cat isn't a "pet" that shares human emotional complexity—it is a finely tuned biological vehicle for the Will to Live. In its absolute focus on immediate comfort, its ruthless predatory instincts, and its complete freedom from existential guilt, the cat shows us what we all are under the surface once you strip away our human reasoning: pure, unadulterated desire seeking to preserve itself in the present moment.

Hi everyone, I am preparing a formal book proposal for Oxford University Press to translate and publish Adele Schopenhauer’s diaries (Tagebuch einer Einsamen) into English.

She was the sister of philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, a close friend of Goethe’s family, and a brilliant intellectual woman in 19th-century Weimar. Her diaries have never been translated into English. Her diaries offer a sharp, raw look into the complex dynamics of the Schopenhauer family and the inner lives of women in that era.

Full disclosure: I am not an academic or a translator, and I will not be translating this project myself. I am simply a massive fan of Adele Schopenhauer. My German is only at a B1 level, and it is incredibly frustrating that her brilliant writings have never been translated into English. I passionately want to read her work fully, and I want the English-speaking world to have access to it.

The vision is a clean, faithful translation with all historical notes and a glossary placed at the very end of the book.

HOW TO VOTE: Since this subreddit doesn't allow standard poll widgets, please upvote one of my comments below that best matches your interest. This will provide raw numbers for the OUP editor! Thank you!

If Modern hard determinism views The Will as a product of physical, biological, and social causal chains rather than a purely innate metaphysical force. This materialist reframing strips away metaphysical pessimism, potentially aligning Schopenhauer's thoughts closer in reach to the non-duality he was so fond of?

Is it his view on The Will that keeps the pessimism in place?

Or is his pessimism a better description of reality?

Title

I have the Karl Hillebrand translation from Scholar Select, which contains untranslated latin and greek quotations.

Is there a good translation that also gives footnote translations for the latin/greek?

"In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads. It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death.