Post-Classical Philosophy

Philosophy of Life

This movement emerged and flourished most prominently in the 19th century. It is characterized by a critical stance towards the rationalism of the Enlightenment and the speculative nature of German classical philosophy. Instead, it emphasizes the role of irrational factors, perceiving humanity primarily not as a thinking being, but as a volitional one.

The successes of biology significantly influenced the formation of the philosophy of life, particularly reflected in its central concept: that of life itself. However, life is viewed not so much in a natural scientific sense as in a metaphorical one—seen as a holistic organic process that cannot be confined within the narrow boundaries of rational knowledge. Life manifests not as an embodiment of a rational design or idea but as an irrational impulse, comprehensible primarily through intuition, more so through feelings than through intellect. Thus, the value of direct experiences is emphasized over rational constructions. This is articulated in one of the key ideas of this movement: to understand life from itself.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) is regarded as the founder of the philosophy of life. He departed from Kantian philosophy but reinterpreted it through the lens of irrationalism. In Schopenhauer's view, the essence of the world lies in the will, which serves as the fundamental basis of all existence. The will is interpreted not merely as a psychological formation but as an impulse intrinsic not only to humanity but to all of nature. As for humanity, Schopenhauer posited that intellect is not a foundational attribute but merely a tool of the will. This notion is encapsulated in the title of his work The World as Will and Representation.

Schopenhauer did not share the Enlightenment's optimism; instead, he created a doctrine grounded in pessimism. Suffering is perceived as an inevitable attribute of life: for if one feels desire, it implies a lack, meaning that every desire signifies dissatisfaction and thus is a manifestation of suffering. Here, one can trace the influence of ancient Indian philosophy, particularly Buddhism, to which Schopenhauer expressed considerable interest and respect.

The critical attitude of proponents of the philosophy of life towards rationality can also be observed in their approach to knowledge. Among the most renowned thinkers of this movement, the French philosopher Henri Bergson (1851-1941) devoted significant attention to epistemology. He highlighted the role of intuition while diminishing the importance of rational knowledge. According to Bergson, rational comprehension of reality does not lead to adequate knowledge—life's impulse cannot be captured through rational procedures. Instead, intuition, characterized by self-evidence, allows for the direct perception of reality. Bergson contrasted creativity with rationality.

He largely understood rational intellectual activity as mechanical, one that does not allow for the creation of the new but merely recombines what is already known. In contrast, creativity is characterized by a departure from established frameworks; it is an irrational impulse that leads to the creation of something genuinely novel. Although the subsequent development of epistemology redefined the relationship between logic and intuition, intuition proved not to be as irrational as Bergson posited. Nevertheless, the focus on irrational factors in knowledge was a fruitful idea, as it allowed for a critical reevaluation of the Enlightenment stereotype regarding knowledge as a wholly rational process.

The concept of will also occupied a significant place in the philosophy of the German thinker Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), particularly in his notion of the will to power. The volitional principle is afforded greater significance than the rational, which plays a supportive role. Humanity is perceived not so much as a rational being but as a willing one. At the foundation of life lies will, specifically, the will to power. Nietzsche understands power not in a narrow sense (as political power) but much broader—as self-mastery, self-affirmation, self-improvement, and constant self-development. This meaning can be elucidated through expressions such as "to possess oneself" or "to master a situation," where the notion of "power" is employed in a wider sense. Nietzsche's concept of the will to power corresponds more closely to the image of a volitional person, one who masters oneself. He created the ideal of the overman as a spiritual aristocrat, who has transcended the deficiencies and limitations typical of ordinary individuals. As the overman becomes significantly more perfect than ordinary people, they may disregard the morals of the masses, as their development stands far above them. Nietzsche held a negative view of democracy, believing that it promotes mediocrity and suppresses outstanding individuals, supporting the weak while restraining the strong, thereby contributing to societal degradation. He also sharply criticized Christianity for its role in sustaining the weak and failures. In Nietzsche's concept, there are clear signs of social Darwinism, which was among the popular doctrines of his time. One of the key tenets of social Darwinism was that the strongest, by prevailing in struggle, thereby contribute to evolutionary development.

Such a postulation of natural inequality among people, the fundamental superiority of the overman over those who have not risen to the level of the overman, later resonated with some ideas of the Nazis. They appropriated Nietzsche's concept but significantly simplified it, as the essence of the Nietzschean overman revolves around the idea of continuous self-improvement, not the subjugation of others. Moreover, Nietzsche's contemptuous attitude towards the masses is difficult to reconcile with the collective, even "herd-like" character of Nazism.

The critique of excessive emphasis on rationality, characteristic of European philosophy, is also represented in another aspect of Nietzsche's teaching. Analyzing the development of culture, he distinguished two principles: the Apollonian, which embodies rationality, and the Dionysian, which embodies sensuality. This distinction can already be traced in ancient culture; for these two principles, Nietzsche employed the names of the ancient Greek gods Apollo (who, among other things, was regarded as the patron of the arts and leader of the muses) and Dionysus (the patron of winemaking). While Apollo is associated with order and harmony, Dionysus is linked to euphoria and ecstatic impulse. Initially, in ancient Greek culture, these two principles were balanced, but over time, the Apollonian principle ascended while the Dionysian was devalued. According to Nietzsche, this led to a spiritual crisis in European culture, which developed unilaterally, with an excessive bias towards rationality. To overcome this crisis, one must "rehabilitate" the Dionysian principle and restore the balance between the sensual and the rational.

Other representatives of the philosophy of life, who primarily explored issues related to social philosophy, include the German thinkers Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) and Georg Simmel (1858-1918). Their views on society diverged from the Enlightenment's optimism of the preceding era. In the Enlightenment concept, history was viewed as a linear progress that could temporarily slow down or be obscured, but in the future, advancement was nonetheless inevitable, as the spread of rationality was ultimately bound to lead to a more harmonious and developed society. In contrast, Simmel emphasized the unavoidable role of conflict in social life; this idea reflects the characteristic of the philosophy of life to apply biological theory of evolution to social existence. His concept of culture was also developed in the spirit of the philosophy of life. Culture, in the course of its development, becomes increasingly formalized, distancing itself from the "stream of life," which is marked by the immediacy of experience. The tragedy of culture is that initially, cultural phenomena correspond to life, but in the process of further development, they are doomed to become dead forms incapable of capturing the spontaneity of life.

Spengler, in his socio-philosophical concept, emphasized the discontinuity and cyclicity of societal development. The Enlightenment viewed history as a singular universal process directed towards progress, wherein all societies move along a single path, differing primarily in the degree of advancement, with some nations progressing further than others. In contrast, Spengler portrayed history as a collection of distinct civilizations (Egyptian, Indian, Babylonian, Chinese, "Apollonian" (Greco-Roman), "magical" (Byzantine-Arab), "Faustian" (Western European), and Mayan cultures), each existing as a separate type, rather than as a step in a holistic historical process. The life of culture was likened to the life cycle of an organism: Spengler posited that culture in its development passes through stages analogous to the life cycle of biological beings: birth, childhood, youth, maturity, old age, and death.