Schopenhauer in 90 Minutes (Philosophers in 90 Minutes Series)

Schopenhauer was explained very well in these tapes. By the way, the Giants of Philosophy was narrated by Charlton Heston and he did a great job with this series. His presentations were a lot more interesting then most of my philosophy professors and my professors were, on the whole, great! By the way, Schopenhauer was a lot bigger deal then some people think as he influenced Nietzsche, Freud, Einstein, and a whole slew of other high power propeller heads.

Great!

A breezy read, definitely. And if you're new to this philosopher, not a bad place to start. Although there are a couple of errors (Wagner didn't read S until years after the Dresden uprising; Wagner & Nietzsche were converted to S via The World as Will and Representation, not his popular essays), and some questionable judgments (Parerga & Paralipomena isn't a philosophical curio at all), Schopenhauer In 90 Minutes is a great place to get the big picture.The author is obviously sympathetic to Schopenhauer's brilliant insights (his metaphysical placement of the Will, as well as his system of aesthetics), and rightly critical of Schopenhauer's failings (the overbaked misogyny and occasional callousness). Still, as a previous reviewer remarked, calling Schopenhauer a "nasty piece of work" would be a definite overstatement. He was merely a very brilliant, solitary man who, through neglect and loneliness, inevitably went the way of the misanthrope.

I speak here not to the quality of this individual book, but the Strathern's "In 90 Minutes" series on intellectuals from history.My Credentials:Mixed. I'm not a college professor, but I use the Strathern series to accompany my reading of Copleston's nine-volume History of Philosophy, so I have a general grounding in the figures covered before I approach Strathern. I have read about twenty of his works.Review:To put it affectionately, Strathern is soaked in personality. His writing is definitely his own, and has a universal flavor that carries from his writings on Plato to Derrida. The man is witty and sarcastic, and always, always, always psychoanalyzes his subjects. This often leads to him to conclude more than is necessary or possible from the lives of famous philosophers.Strathern shows a definite bias against metaphysics. His writings on the Scholastics and German Idealists are almost painfully unfair.The set up of each work is simple: open with a biography of the philosopher's early life (usually creating a psychological theme to carry one throughout the book) and then continue writing until the time when the philosopher begins pubilcation. Here, Strathern interludes to descripe the philosopher's basic theories. The biography then continues until death, and is followed with a collection of quotes.I would not recommend Strathern as an introduction, but as a tolerable and accessible aside. His biographies are extensive and insightful, and much of his series can be found at your (or at least my) local library.

I learned of Schopenhauer listening to Joseph Campbell. Campbell credited him with being pivotal in his thinking of mythology so I wanted to know more. I first had to figure out how to spell "Schopenhauer," and once that was accomplished I found this book on tape. I would definately recommend listening to this, not reading it. It is a bit dry, but it does what it is supposed to do; gives you the basics of the philosopher who said that "Life is a thing that should not have been." What it didn't do is spend enough time on the entire philosophy of this man. I could have done with less life story and more philosophical structure.

I started reading this book with skepticism. I mean, how could anyone condense the core of Schopenhauers's life's work into a 90 minute (75 actually) read? I mean the _World as Will and Representation_ alone is a mammoth four volumes. And yet Strathern did it.... I don't know if he succeeded with the other volumes of this series, but by god, he did it with Schopenhauer- and managed to throw in all sorts of interesting, insightful tid-bits of his personal life (as well as placing it in the overall context of western philosophy.)For those unfamiliar with Schopenhauer's core ideas they are just this: will is the cause of all things in the universe. Will is the thing-in-itself. There is blind will in "inanimate" matter and intelligent will in Man. In fact, in man is the will supreme. All nature is an expression of will- and man is a pattern of the universe, greatly reduced. Yet, will to be, will to create, is the cause of all evil and suffering and is therefore to be denied, if not extinguished. In this way, Schopenhauer always reminded me of a "cold-enlightened" Buddhist of the Theravadan school. However, Schopenhauer did hold that we would be reabsorbed into the great universal will at death- stripped of lesser animal consciousness.By the way, it should be noted that this is all very different from Nietzsche's Will to Power- Nietzsche essentially turned Schopenhauer's idea of will on its head- and then went insane.Oh, by the way, I do not agree with the author that Schopenhauer was a nasty piece of work. He was simply, totally, an original- this creates friction. He was also a completely confident authority that trusted his own intellect and intuition at all times- instead of diluting his ideas will appeals to authority and footnotes. He was also correct that Hegel was a fraud- and that Kant was pure genius.

Strathern also wrote, "By far the most brilliant and profound thinker to be affected by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche simply turned Schopenhauer's idea of Will on it head. Instead of the world being driven by a blind evil Will, which could be combated only by ascetic withdrawal, Nietzsche advocated the Will to Power. Here lay the driving force of all human nature, and the greatest men of history had been its finest manifestation." Here I agree with Nietzsche over Schopenhauer. Christopher Bek

Disappointing in that Schopenhauer's philosophy was not clearly explained. Sarcastic remarks about Eastern philosophy pointed to an author with a very narrow outlook.