Continental Philosophy

Schopenhauer's Theory of Art and Aesthetic Experience

Primary Sources:

Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation I (WWR I), book 3
Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation II (WWR II), chapters 29, 30, 31
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, section 220

Secondary Sources:

D.W. Hamlyn, Schopenhauer, chapter 6
B. Magee, The Philosophy of Schopenhauer, chapters 8 and 10
J.P Young, "The Standpoint of Eternity: Schopenhauer on Art," in Kant-Studien, 78, 1987, pp. 424 - 441
E. Bullough, "Psychical Distance," in Dickie and Sclafani (eds.), Aesthetics
Diffey, "Schopenhauer's Account of Aesthetic Experience," in British Journal of Aesthetics, 1990
P. Gardiner, Schopenhauer, chapter 5

Questions:

What is art according to Schopenhauer? What constitutes the beautiful (in the subject and the object)? How does he explain the different forms of art? Is his account plausible? Is there any value in his account if one does not agree with his metaphysical system?
What are Schopenhauer's Ideas? What is their ontological status (do they constitute a "third realm" of things [cf. Magee])? What is the difference between Ideas and concepts (cf. WWR I 49)? How can Ideas be universal and intuitable? In WWR I, book 2, section 27 Schopenhauer declares that chemical as well as biological or psychological phenomenon cannot be explained by basic physically ones and that if they could, the organism of an animal would not be the presentation of an Idea in its own right. Does this mean that modern sciences have shown that there are less Ideas in Schopenhauer's sense than he thought? Does modern science refute Schopenhauer's theory of art? Is there room for Schopenhauer's Ideas even if a particular plant is nothing but an appearance of physical and chemical processes?
What is the "pure subject of knowledge"? Is there only one? How is it related to the individual human being? Is such a will-less thing consistent with the claim that the intellect is just another appearance of the will (cf. Hamlyn's objection)?
What distinguishes aesthetic experiences from others according to Schopenhauer? Is it true that it provides knowledge? In what sense do we "forget" our will in such experiences? Is it true that science looks at the world only in so far as it is related to our will; are there not other than aesthetic experiences which are also will-less (cf. Young, pp. 438ff)? Why is aesthetic experience pleasant; how can it be pleasant (particularly as music), if its subject is the blind will which brings about permanent suffering (cf. Magee)?

I love Apache! So should you!