Schopenhauer on THE METAPHYSICS OF LOVE

Join us for a philosophical discussion of the rather pessimistic German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who says "life is suffering". What is his take on love? I am intrigued to find out.

I haven't read Schopenhauer so this is a complete unknown for me. The link to a PDF copy of his essay "The Metaphysics of Love" is here (16 pages long): https://www.gutenberg.org/files/11945/11945-h/11945-h.htm#link2H_4_0014

A video by Alan de Booton on Schopenhauer and love:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSy6mjhJC1k

And the Overthink podcast on Schopenhauer's philosophy of pessimism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbTvaRPkYR8

Hope to see some of you there. Please be sure to bring a lawn chair, and head towards the sheltered area with the bathrooms, we will be sitting behind that structure under a tree.

Cheers,
Colin

*** UPDATED.... SUMMARY AND QUESTION

I read with interest Schopenhauer’s take on love, very interesting read. Plenty of his insights were ahead of his time, and plenty to critique and object to. Below is a summary of some of his central points, along with some lines of questions/critiques we could consider exploring.
His central thesis: “Every kind of love, however ethereal it may seem to be, springs entirely from the instinct of sex; indeed, it is absolutely this instinct, only in a more definite, specialised, and perhaps, strictly speaking, more individualised form”.

It is worth keeping in mind how profound this insight is, published 15 years before Darwin’s Origins of the Species.

A few more passages driving home his central thesis:

"Why is there all this noise? Why all this crowding, blustering, anguish, and want? Why should such a trifle play so important a part and create disturbance and confusion in the well-regulated life of mankind?" But to the earnest investigator the spirit of truth gradually unfolds the answer: it is not a trifle one is dealing with; the importance of love is absolutely in keeping with the seriousness and zeal with which it is prosecuted. The ultimate aim of all love-affairs, whether they be of a tragic or comic nature, is really more important than all other aims in human life, and therefore is perfectly deserving of that profound seriousness with which it is pursued…. love determines nothing less than the establishment of the next generation.”

“Love is of such high import, because it has nothing to do with the weal or woe of the present individual, as every other matter has; it has to secure the existence and special nature of the human race in future times; hence the will of the individual appears in a higher aspect as the will of the species; and this it is that gives a pathetic and sublime import to love-affairs, and makes their raptures and troubles transcendent, emotions which poets for centuries have not tired of depicting in a variety of ways. There is no subject that can rouse the same interest as love, since it concerns both the weal and woe of the species, and is related to every other which only concerns the welfare of the individual as body to surface”.

With the benefit of 175+ years of the scientific study of the biology of love, there is now a more nuanced picture of the different brain systems that evolved for love. For example, Helen Fisher contains (See her book Why we Love?), that the 3 distinct brain systems evolved:
(1) Lust: sex drive (sex hormones testosterone and estrogen)
(2) Attraction: increased energy, obsessive thinking about someone (dopamine)
(3) Attachment: long term relationships of many types (parenting, friendships, marriage, etc.) (oxytocin/vasopressin)
See this video for her discussion of these points:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DYgImG1CKo

QUESTION #1: Do Schopenhauer’s points apply to some (e.g. lust) but not other (e.g. attachment) parts of our brain systems?
Back to Schopenhauer… he argues that nature needs a way to make us accomplish her ends (i.e. reproduction of the species). And so it tricks our egoism to serve non-egotistical ends. We think we love to serve our ends (e.g. fulfill our passion) but really it helps keep the species going. Recall, this is before birth control.

A quote on the egoism point:

“Nature attains her ends by implanting in the individual a certain illusion by which something which is in reality advantageous to the species alone seems to be advantageous to himself; consequently he serves the latter while he imagines he is serving himself. In this process he is carried away by a mere chimera, which floats before him and vanishes again immediately, and as a motive takes the place of reality. This illusion is instinct. In most instances instinct may be regarded as the sense of the species which presents to the will whatever is of service to the species. But because the will has here become individual it must be deceived in such a manner for it to discern by the sense of the individual what the sense of the species has presented to it; in other words, imagine it is pursuing ends concerning the individual, when in reality it is pursuing merely general ends (using the word general in its strictest sense)”.
QUESTION #2: How has the advent of birth control, if at all, altered this landscape of love and romance if, as Schopenhauer maintains, its purpose is procreation. Now there can be plenty of sex with few, if any, offspring produced.

QUESTION #3: What about non-heterosexual love, or love during the post-reproductive phase of the human lifespan? Do these cases undermine his account, or can they be accounted for?
Schopenhauer’s comments on men’s obsession with physical beauty could be a projection of his own personal preferences, but he might responds that signs of fertility are what attract men most. He contends that the top factor influencing a man’s feelings for a woman is her age (e.g. proxy for fertility), followed by her health. A quote:
“The ecstasy with which a man is filled at the sight of a beautiful woman, making him imagine that union with her will be the greatest happiness, is simply the sense of the species. The preservation of the type of the species rests on this distinct preference for beauty, and this is why beauty has such power”.
In contrast to men’s fixation on physical beauty and fertility, Schopenhauer contends that, for women:

“ In general, women pay little attention to beauty, that is, to beauty of face; they seem to take it upon themselves alone to endow the child with beauty. It is chiefly the strength of a man and the courage that goes with it that attract them, for both of these promise the generation of robust children and at the same time a brave protector for them.”

Question #4: For the heterosexual women in the group, do you agree with Schopenhauer’s claim? Is a man’s strength and courage the most important qualities of attraction?

Many of Schopenhauer’s claims reflect the sexism of his time, especially his claim about certain traits or qualities of character being inherited from the mother or father. An example:

“… a woman universally is attracted by the qualities of a man's heart or character, both of which are inherited from the father. It is mainly firmness of will, determination and courage, and may be honesty and goodness of heart too, that win a woman over; while intellectual qualifications exercise no direct or instinctive power over her, for the simple reason that these are not inherited from the father. A lack of intelligence carries no weight with her; in fact, a superabundance of mental power or even genius, as abnormities, might have an unfavourable effect. And so we frequently find a woman preferring a stupid, ugly, and ill-mannered man to one who is well-educated, intellectual, and agreeable. Hence, people of extremely different temperament frequently marry for love—that is to say, he is coarse, strong, and narrow-minded, while she is very sensitive, refined, cultured, and aesthetic, and so on; or he is genial and clever, and she is a goose.”

According to Schopenhauer, women do not care at all how educated or intellectual a man is, and can prefer stupid and ill-mannered men because their determination and courage.

He contends that marriage is not to be regarded as a means for intellectual entertainment, but for the generation of children - “a union of hearts and not of minds”
Question #5: Do you agree this statement? Consider his comments below, which I really do not like (ha ha!) and strongly disagree with…
“When a woman says that she has fallen in love with a man's mind, it is either a vain and ridiculous pretence on her part or the exaggeration of a degenerate being. A man, on the other hand, is not controlled in instinctive love by the qualities of the woman's character; this is why so many a Socrates has found his Xantippe, as for instance, Shakespeare, Albrecht Dürer, Byron, and others. But here we have the influence of intellectual qualities, because they are inherited from the mother; nevertheless their influence is easily overpowered by physical beauty, which concerns more essential points, and therefore has a more direct effect”.

Schopenhauer also contends that opposite attract:

“The weaker a man is in muscular power, the more will he desire a woman who is muscular; and the same thing applies to a woman”
He argues that every man tries to find the corrective of his own defects and aberrations in the particular parts of his body, and the more conspicuous the defect is the greater is his determination to correct it.

Question #6: Do you agree with the conjecture that opposites attract?
Look forward to our discussion.
Cheers,
Colin