Epicurus vs Schopenhauer - Orientation Discussion

The topic of Schopenhauer is of some interest in comparison with Epicurus. Clearly Schopenhauer had some things to say of which Epicurus would approve, but it is arguable that Schopenhauer said much more of which Epicurus would disapprove. Our forum is targeted to those who are not professional philosophers, so to kick off the discussion I found two basic videos which I viewed and found to be extremely informative. Of course everyone should ask "Are they accurate?" so to the extent group members are familiar with these issues please comment if you think the videos are inaccurate. I found them extremely helpful, and presuming they are true, overwhelmingly clear about many basic differences between Epicurus and Schopenhauer, starting with basic assessments of the value of human life.

This first video is focused exclusively on Schopenhauer, and the narrator speaks such good German that it would be a pity to find out that it's not accurate. As far as I can tell, it's balanced and right on point. I'll state this caveat about both videos in this post: This is not an Anti-Schopenhauer forum, and our purpose here is not to condemn Schopenhauer but to use the information we learn in better understanding Epicurus:

After watching this first issues the good parts and the bad parts are pretty clear. The next video expands on these issues by explaining Nietzsche's criticisms of Schopenhauer. This is not a Nietzsche forum and our purpose here is not to become Nietzscheans - only to take from Nietzsche what we find supportive of our understanding of Epicurus. I find it starkly revealing compelling, but let us know in the thread if you think it's inaccurate:

I'm glad this topic has come up because in the space of these two relatively short videos I think we find a dramatic illustration of many of the issues we all have to decide in how we interepret Epicurus. To repeat here, our purpose in this forum is not to become experts on other philosophies, but to use the controversies they explore to deepen our understanding of Epicurus.

And in the case of these two videos here, I find that they tremendously deepen my understanding of numerous very key issues that were already inherent in what Epicurus was teaching.

Thanks Raphael.

Quote from Raphael Raul

Schopenhauer is a philosopher who intrigues me with his main idea of the blind force of "The Will", a force that is outside of the phenomenal world of matter, a noumenal realm outside of our understanding.

What you mentioned is featured in the videos - especially in the second one where Nietzsche identifies this as a variation of Platonic idealism or contention that there is a "true world" or "real world" beyond this one, and to that extent it's hard to see that as compatible in any way with the Epicurean view.

What has confused me for so long is that apparently Nietzsche started out a big fan of Schopenhauer but hen reversed his position by the end of his life. In long years past I did not read much of Nietzsche other than "Thus Spake Zarathustra." At that time other than a few bits here and there that stood on their own, I hardly understood a thing he was saying. I had no clue whether the "last man" was supposed to be good or bad!

To the extent that the second video is correct lots if not all of the dispute comes down to the dispute as to whether we should affirm THIS world and THIS life as of supreme value to us, of go with Schopenhauer and see this life as a sickness or disease. It would seem that Nietzsche saw that "disease" point of view as a thread going all the way back at least to Socrates and Plato, continuing to today and leading to nihilism. I think I would pretty strongly share that view, but I would of course exempt Epicurus from that criticism. I would say that it is clear that Epicurus affirms this life and shares most of Nietzsche's attitude about making the most of this life as the only one we have. I have never much cared for the terminology of "will to power," but I can see parallels between that and Epicurus' extended view of the nature of "pleasure."

I think you will find those videos to be very well done. It's unfortunate that the second on contains some low-key advertising but I think it has the more valuable content of the two because of the way it frames the issues.

If anyone thinks they have time for only one of the two videos I would strongly suggest the second on on the Nietzsche criticisms. The strong parallels between Nietzsche's criticisms of Socrates and Plato will jump out at you as very similar to what most of us see Epicurus doing. The second video is helpful to us on its own, even without considering its relationship to Schopenhauer.

A LOT of issues come down to one's basic attitude toward life: Should we affirm life or deny life? I think the answer is clear but these videos help define the question by showing how two philosophers can disagree so starkly.