Schopenhauer and Nietzsche on Compassion
Many different interpretations of the word compassion exist. For me, compassion involves a deep feeling of sympathy and sorrow for another human being or animal who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a wish to help them. Although it is strongly related to altruism and empathy, compassion is something different - it is an immense feeling of ‘suffering’ together and then doing something about it. However, in the history of philosophy, compassion was often related to pity. Mariette Willemsen wrote that compassion is a “neutral term for a feeling that is often called pity in the English tradition [...] and Mitleid by German philosophers” (Schopenhauer and Nietzsche) (p.182). However, the term pity …show more content…
The aim of this essay is to compare Schopenhauer and Nietzsche’s interpretation of ‘Mitleid’. I will argue that their use of the term refers to different phenomena, Schopenhauer’s conception of ‘Mitleid’ is best understood as compassion (and something positive), while Nietzsche’s as pity - the latter notion having more negative connotations than the former. Moreover, I believe that Schopenhauer is positive about ‘Mitleid’ whereas Nietzsche seems to reject it.
Before analyzing both philosopher’s view on compassion, we must first look at their understanding of morals. In his philosophy, one of the things that Schopenhauer was concerned with was answering the question “What moves individuals to perform actions of a particular moral value?” (Cartwright, 1988). With that question in mind he claimed to have brought “the foundations of morality” to live (p. 151). Schopenhauer believed that humans acts are based (or come forth from) on three particular moral values: morally indifferent, morally reprehensible, or possess moral worth (p. 171-172). Moreover, he argues that all human actions are intentional and directed to …show more content…
154). However he argues that in higher civilizations and in people these moralities are mixed. While the master morality weighs its actions and its consequences on a scale good (what is useful) or bad, the slave morality weighs it on a scale of good or evil (Nietzsche, p. 154-155). Master morality is developed by the superior; those who value pride, strength and nobility. They live completely actualized lives with a sense of fullness. Nietzsche wrote that this type of “noble man, too, helps the unfortunate, but not from compassion, or almost not, but more from an urge produced by the abundance of power” (Nietzsche, p.155). Those who are weak, enslaved and unhealthy are seen as ‘bad’, because their weakness is undesirable (not useful). While the ‘weak’ referred to the ‘masters’ as ‘evil’ and called themselves by contrast
Many different interpretations of the word compassion exist. For me, compassion involves a deep feeling of sympathy and sorrow for another human being or animal who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a wish to help them. Although it is strongly related to altruism and empathy, compassion is something different - it is an immense feeling of ‘suffering’ together and then doing something about it. However, in the history of philosophy, compassion was often related to pity. Mariette Willemsen wrote that compassion is a “neutral term for a feeling that is often called pity in the English tradition [...] and Mitleid by German philosophers” (Schopenhauer and Nietzsche) (p.182). However, the term pity …show more content…
The aim of this essay is to compare Schopenhauer and Nietzsche’s interpretation of ‘Mitleid’. I will argue that their use of the term refers to different phenomena, Schopenhauer’s conception of ‘Mitleid’ is best understood as compassion (and something positive), while Nietzsche’s as pity - the latter notion having more negative connotations than the former. Moreover, I believe that Schopenhauer is positive about ‘Mitleid’ whereas Nietzsche seems to reject it.
Before analyzing both philosopher’s view on compassion, we must first look at their understanding of morals. In his philosophy, one of the things that Schopenhauer was concerned with was answering the question “What moves individuals to perform actions of a particular moral value?” (Cartwright, 1988). With that question in mind he claimed to have brought “the foundations of morality” to live (p. 151). Schopenhauer believed that humans acts are based (or come forth from) on three particular moral values: morally indifferent, morally reprehensible, or possess moral worth (p. 171-172). Moreover, he argues that all human actions are intentional and directed to …show more content…
154). However he argues that in higher civilizations and in people these moralities are mixed. While the master morality weighs its actions and its consequences on a scale good (what is useful) or bad, the slave morality weighs it on a scale of good or evil (Nietzsche, p. 154-155). Master morality is developed by the superior; those who value pride, strength and nobility. They live completely actualized lives with a sense of fullness. Nietzsche wrote that this type of “noble man, too, helps the unfortunate, but not from compassion, or almost not, but more from an urge produced by the abundance of power” (Nietzsche, p.155). Those who are weak, enslaved and unhealthy are seen as ‘bad’, because their weakness is undesirable (not useful). While the ‘weak’ referred to the ‘masters’ as ‘evil’ and called themselves by contrast