The key difference between Schopenhauer and existentialism

Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) would have been amused to see philosophers like Jean-Paul #sartre (1905-1980) theorise about #anxiety and personal authenticity. Sartre didn’t regard as self-evident that individuals are aware of their freedom and the need to make constant choices. In contrast to Sartre and other existentialists, Schopenhauer considered self-evident that #happiness is the #purpose of life; he had taken that idea from #aristotle (384-322 BC) and viewed it as obviously true. Schopenhauer didn’t spend a minute worrying about anxiety and personal authenticity because he viewed them as non-issues in the quest for personal happiness. He considered it healthy, reasonable and proper that people want to improve their lives. The objective of #philosophy is to help individuals make better choices and attain happiness, not to worry about non-issues. This point marks a major difference between Schopenhauer and existentialism. Existentialism is the product of a particular historical period that drove the world into collective trauma. It started at the end of World War I and reached its apex after World War II. People were facing massive physical destruction and couldn’t come up with any justification other than absurdity. If existentialism was a philosophical response to feelings of absurdity, I must first point out that the concept of #absurdity in life was foreign to Schopenhauer. It does not appear even once in his writings, in the sense employed by existentialism. Schopenhauer’s main works “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818) and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) acknowledge that life can be harsh at times, but not absurd. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-key-difference-between-schopenhauer-and-existentialism/