Critique of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of history

Posterity showed vast disagreements with the philosophy of history put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). His individualist view of society came to be rejected by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in the first place. Schopenhauer had argued that the will (“life force”) exerts a large influence on individual and society choices, but not to the extent of obliterating personal liberty; the will can drive you in a certain direction (pleasure, reproduction, etc.) but you decide whether to give in or go a different way. According to Schopenhauer, history is the result of a million individual decisions, which are neither coordinated nor aligned in any meaningful way. Each man and woman is chasing goals that he considers advantageous, rarely caring about long-term consequences. Friedrich Nietzsche embraced a philosophy of history that departs significantly from Schopenhauer’s individualism. For Nietzsche, history doesn’t follow a linear evolution, nor does it correspond to any Judaic-Christian sense of destiny. According to Nietzsche, the force that drives history and the world at large is the “will to power.” Schopenhauer’s definition of the will had been more attentive to individual choices; that’s not the case in Nietzsche’s philosophy. Nietzsche viewed the “will to power” as a dynamic, creative force that prompts individuals to overcome their hesitations, and seek to achieve greatness. Nietzsche argued that the “will to power” provides a continual push for individual and societal advancement. Nonetheless, Nietzsche’s philosophy of history took a weird turn as of 1883, when he wrote the first part of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” He comes up with the idea of eternal recurrence, implying that the universe and all events are eternally recurring in an infinite loop. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-history/