Love Explored

Schopenhauer vs. Spinoza: The Two Faces of Love

Love is a complex concept, with diverse interpretations ranging from neurochemical processes to philosophical viewpoints. Today, I delve into the duality of “will” as perceived by Spinoza and Schopenhauer, shedding light on their contrasting perspectives on emotions and their relationship to love.

Both Spinoza and Schopenhauer discuss the idea of "will," emphasizing that our actions are determined by causality and necessity rather than arbitrary choices. However, their views diverge when it comes to emotions. Spinoza is optimistic, seeing existence as joyful, while Schopenhauer is pessimistic, portraying the will as enslaving us to passions. And thinking about love naturally brings us to contemplate will, passion, and desire.

First, let's discuss Spinoza. We often regard Spinoza as a joyful philosopher. Despite the initial impression of joyfulness in Spinoza's philosophy, his divergence from traditional religious beliefs led to his eventual excommunication, marking a pivotal moment in his intellectual journey. After his death, his bed and all his possessions were sold, just to cover the funeral expenses. Now, what kind of person would you expect Spinoza to be? Pessimistic, unhappy, maybe angry. However, we know from a note left by Spinoza's barber at his funeral that he described himself as "Happy Spinoza."

Spinoza says existence is its own eternal and infinite cause and contains a kind of striving for existence. Here we have a Latin term: "conatus,". Conatus is the innate drive of all things to persist and improve themselves. A stone or a rock also has its conatus. The distinctions we make between a stone, a rock, and a human are artificial distinctions. Existence, fundamentally, should be seen as a changing, evolving, relational, organic whole. And everything is within the striving for existence as what it is.

The reason I delve into the topic of love and then transition to Spinoza's metaphysics is precisely this. Spinoza considers love, passions, emotions through the concept of willing, the conatus, the striving for existence. "Ethics" begins as follows: Everything strives to sustain its own existence as long as it exists. Thus, having a feeling like love, is seen as a quality that enhances our conatus. In other words, love is an emotion that nurtures my existence. It leads to a certain enhancement in my ability to exist. Spinoza regards remaining as a happy and joyful individual favorably. This is one of the aspects I admire most about his philosophy. Because in his philosophy, non-existence is not preferable to existence; existence is joyful.

Love, within any causality, is essentially the increase of joy that comes to us for any reason. When we find ourselves in love, our perception of the world undergoes a transformation. We feel a surge in motivation to embrace life. Everything around us appears different, more vibrant, and melodies start resonating in our minds. Being in love not only brings about an increase in our joy but can also be viewed as a quality that enhances our striving for existence, our conatus. Therefore, to fortify our conatus, what should we do? We should fall in love. However, it's essential to acknowledge that we're only scratching the surface of the topic here. In Spinoza's philosophy, there is a strict causality. You do not choose something willingly.

What we refer to as "will'' is not something we can control, choose, or direct. We navigate our actions and emotions within the chain of causality without making any decisions. We enter into a particular emotional process. Therefore, while some chains of causality may evoke anger in me, others may lead to physical issues like being hit by a car. From this perspective, if certain causal chains bring about the idea of joy within me, we interpret this as love. Nevertheless, we are still subject to causality, but the emotional state it generates within me is what we call love.

Now let's discuss conatus and Schopenhauer's perspective. Schopenhauer also agrees that the will is a fundamental aspect of existence. However, he sees it as the driving force behind existence itself. Unlike Spinoza, in Schopenhauer's philosophy, this ‘will’ is not seen as something positive or bringing joy, but rather as a state of negativity. Why? Because existence is viewed as the source of endless suffering. If we are constantly driven by an uncontrollable blind will, and if this is an eternity, constantly desiring the next move but never reaching an end, then our lives become nothing but a trap, akin to a mouse running endlessly on a wheel. Because along with our will, we cannot plan or design anything. We are trying to suppress our hunger in this game, in this cycle, with small satisfactions. However, this hunger is never fully suppressed. Therefore, in Schopenhauer's philosophy, this will emanate from an unconscious, dark, powerful, and pessimistic perspective.

Eagleton, referring Schopenhauer, suggests that if a God exists, it's probably a malevolent one. He argues that humanity's ultimate understanding is to appeal to such a cruel existence. Schopenhauer believes the world is entirely meaningless, with existence being mainly about pain and suffering, lacking any real purpose. Therefore, if there were a God, it would likely be seen as evil.

Schopenhauer, in his work "Metaphysics of Love," examines the concept of love as a consequence of metaphysics of existence. Love is fundamentally associated with sexuality, and sexual love is an uncontrollable, unrestrained impulse that drives us. The will to sustain existence inherent in being, when combined with sexuality, serves the purpose of ensuring the continuation of the human species. When we fall in love, our primary goal at its core is sexual union and the continuation of our lineage, in other words, the perpetuation of our existence as humanity.

He may have had romantic relationships, but the basis of his depreciating perspective on women and love lies in his metaphysics of existence. If you view existence as fundamentally driven by blind will and perceive it as an endless and eternal torment arising from the uncontrollable nature of this will, then anything that strengthens this will, sustains its persistence, or brings joy to it becomes problematic. Therefore, Schopenhauer does not prefer sexuality, love, or sexual desires towards women; because these elements reinforce the notion that everything existing is a construct that increases suffering and hardship.

Schopenhauer points out that falling in love brings joy and suggests that acting based on the concept of love is a misconception; he emphasizes that the situation will be different when we return to the real foundation of existence. According to Schopenhauer, "Sexual hunger is the desire that constitutes the essence of human beings. Animals and humans resist all kinds of dangers and engage in all kinds of struggles to satisfy this hunger." This situation ironically highlights the fundamental struggle for existence of both humans and animals.

Personally, while I agree with Schopenhauer's ideas about the essence of existence and life, I have a different perspective on the emotions it brings me. Just as Nietzsche criticized Schopenhauer for perceiving existence as suffering and excluding love, I also advocate for reinterpreting my existence by purging it from all external entities.

In conclusion, the perspective on love varies greatly; some see it as enhancing the 'conatus' and contributing positively to existence, while others view it as a source of suffering and misery. What do you think love is about? Would you consider yourself more of a Spinozist or a Schopenhauerian?