Simone De Beauvoir Vs Schopenhauer Analysis

1501 Words7 Pages
Many philosophers try to come up with an answer to the question; ‘what is the meaning of life?’ Life can be objective or subjective, it can be something that passes time between birth and death, or it can be some type of punishment used against human. Furthermore, philosophers Simone de Beauvoir and Schopenhauer propose their own personal theories, of the purpose of life and whether it is meaningful or meaningless. This paper compares and evaluates both theories as well as relates them to the modern world and attempts to prove Schopenhauer’s theory of punishment being more superior, when looking at national issues and individual experiences.
The first philosopher was a French existentialist in the 20th century; her name was Simone de Beauvoir.
…show more content…
He was grounded on the idea that life was simply not worth living and it was better for human beings to just not exist at all. Schopenhauer believed that life was simply a form of punishment and was full of suffering from beginning to end. However, his one optimistic argument, was that if individuals accepted their lives were just meant to be punishment they will be able to cope better with their lives.
Schopenhauer’s argument derives from historical evidence that continues in the negative side of things. He explains that “history shows us the life of nations and finds nothing to narrate but wars and tumults; the peaceful years appear only as occasional brief pauses and interludes,” (Schopenhauer 42). He claims that the world is full of suffering and expands on the idea that everyone struggles throughout life, within themselves and with others, thus there is constant conflict and enemies (Enns
…show more content…
This is evident in intensified feelings. Human beings will intensify their needs to intensify pleasure. “Everything is powerfully intensified by thinking about absent and future things, and this is in face the origin of care, fear and hope,” (Schopenhauer 44). Humans tend to reflect on their past as well as think about their future and choose to dwell on intense moments of their lives that should not be worried about (e.g. death).
Schopenhauer argues that, because humans will never get what they want in life they should just give up and stop trying. Even more so, he states that life is meaningless so there is no point in striving towards anything. No one is genuinely happy, so that desire and constant search that we are on for happiness is just a strive for an illusion (Enns 2018).
When taking a step back, the two philosophers, Simone de Beauvoir and Schopenhauer share a similar concept. Beauvoir talks about tragic ambiguity – where we are free, but not free due to external factors – and Schopenhauer talks about how life is full of punishment. Both authors seem to strongly consider that negative things can happen in the outside world. However, where Beauvoir would think that, “it is okay, it is meant to happen this way, but at least I have my sanity,” Schopenhauer would think “it is okay, it happened, but I should get used to
Open Document