You may not realize it, but hidden in his collection of essays, Arthur Schopenhauer has worked out a more or less systematic philosophy of religion. This is the first part in a series of videos that will cover Schopenhauer’s unique outlook on religion. If you want to be notified when the other parts come out, please consider subscribing and clicking the bell button.
Schopenhauer’s main gripe with religion is with the distinction they make between meaning in sensu proprio versus in sensu allegorico.
“Sensu proprio” is the Latin term he uses which basically means “in a literal sense.” Sensu allegorico, of course, means “in an allegorical sense.”
What happens with religion, is they present some kind of dogma, which might be true in an allegorical sense, but they have to pretend to mean it in a literal sense. Religion cannot pretend its main tenets are merely allegorical because doing so would mean to undermine their own credibility.
In the second part, we will zoom in on Schopenhauer’s criticism and evaluation of Christianity and the theological problem of reconciling the Old with the New Testament.
The main religious text in Christianity, the Bible, is composed of the Old and the New Testament. The problem is that Schopenhauer sees an optimistic worldview in the Old and a pessimistic worldview in the New Testament.
It is pretty well-known that Schopenhauer greatly admired both Buddhism and Hinduism. It’s said he read the Upanishads every night before bed, and at the end of his life he even taught himself Sanskrit. Let’s take a closer look at his thought on these Eastern religions.
Recall how in the previous parts we saw how Schopenhauer calls religions pessimistic or optimistic depending on how they interpret the nature of the material world. According to this classification, Judaism was optimistic while Christianity was pessimistic.
Buddhism and Hinduism of course, are both pessimistic with regards to the material world.
The Buddhistic acknowledgement that life is suffering, that earthly happiness cannot be found, the strict ascetic lifestyle of Buddhists and Brahmans, these factors are, in Schopenhauer’s lexicon, signs of a pessimistic religion: a religion that regards with contempt the material world and seeks to turn away from it through fasting, meditation, and abstinence.
The question is, where does this pessimism come from? Ultimately, the pessimistic outlook must stem from an epistemic scepticism regarding the material world. What this means is that there must be a conviction that the material world is not the world of supreme importance, that something exists beyond mere matter, that the material world is an illusion.
We see how Buddhism and Brahmanism (or Hinduism) are in fundamental agreement (even if there are some particular differences) with Schopenhauer’s metaphysical as well as moral teachings. While New Testament Christianity is certainly in agreement with Schopenhauer’s moral teachings, it is lacking on the metaphysical front. Buddhism and Hinduism, on the other hand, score well on both fronts. For this reason, Schopenhauer ranks the Eastern religions as the most perfect expressions of truth to be found in religion.
