On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and On the Will in N
- Language:
- English
- Status:
- Complete work
- Authorship:
- Written by the author
- Condition of the text:
- Clean text
- Extent:
- ~150,000 words · 725 passages
Cite this work
- APAArthur Schopenhauer. (n.d.). On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and On the Will in N. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/schopenhauer/on-the-fourfold-root-of-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-and-on-the-will-in-n
- MLAArthur Schopenhauer. "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and On the Will in N." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/en/works/schopenhauer/on-the-fourfold-root-of-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-and-on-the-will-in-n.
- ChicagoArthur Schopenhauer. On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and On the Will in N. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/schopenhauer/on-the-fourfold-root-of-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-and-on-the-will-in-n.
What it is about
Schopenhauer's doctoral dissertation, of 1813, which he himself regarded as the obligatory door to understanding him, paired here with his later essay on the will in nature.
Context and history
The dissertation argues that the principle of sufficient reason — everything has a why — is not one thing but four distinct things that philosophy has run together: the cause of a physical event, the ground of a logical conclusion, the why of a mathematical truth, and the motive of an action. Confusing them produces most of the misunderstandings of metaphysics. Schopenhauer always insisted that anyone reading 'The World as Will and Representation' without having read this first would not understand it. 'On the Will in Nature', of 1836, is a much later book on a different subject: there he looks in the sciences of his day for confirmations of his metaphysics. It is worth knowing that these are two separate works, far apart in date.
Editorial context, not a citable source: unlike the passages of the work itself, these statements cannot be checked against the corpus.
knowledge to be the indispensable condition for a right comprehension of his meaning. So far as I am aware, neither the "Fourfold Root" nor the "Will in Nature" have as yet found a translator; therefore, considering the dawning interest which has begun to make itself felt for Schopenhauer's philosophy in England and in America, and the fact that no more competent scholar has come forward to do the work, it may not seem presumptuous to suppose that this version may be acceptable to those who wish to acquire a more than superficial knowledge of this remarkable thinker, yet whose acquaintance with German does not permit them to read his works in the original. Now although some portions of both the Essays published in the present volume have of course become antiquated, owing to the subsequent development of the empirical sciences, while others--such as, for instance, Schopenhauer's denunciation of plagiarism in the cases of Brandis and Rosas in the beginning of Physiology and Pathology[2]--can have no interest for the reader of the present day, I have nevertheless given them just as he left them and refrained from all suppression or alteration. And if, on the whole, the "Will in Nature" may be less indispensable for a right understanding of our philosopher's views than the "Fourfold Root," being merely a record of the confirmations which had been contributed during his lifetime by the various branches would thus be more readily understood. As however he uses the word '_idea_' everywhere else exclusively in its original (Platonic) sense, I have preferred to avoid needless confusion by adhering to his own declaration and definition. Besides, many English writers of note have protested against any other sense being given to it, and modern German philosophers have more and more returned to the original meaning of the term. [4] See p. 113, § 34 of the original, and p. 133 of the present translation. Some readers may take exception at such e