In class this week, I enjoyed delving more into Schopenhauer. I found his support for the denial of the will to life quite interesting, even if I do not completely agree with it. Essentially, Schopenhauer claims that all suffering is a manifestation of the will to life pushing all living beings forward. Schopenhauer argues that we cannot completely get rid of this suffering, as likely the only way to do that would be to eliminate the will entirely- thus extinguishing life itself. However, Schopenhauer does not argue for suicide, but rather for an asceticism characterized by passive compassion. In this worldview, compassionate identification with another being's suffering is that which motivates moral action. Becoming indifferent towards one's own egoistic desires and instead looking outwards towards the experiences of others is a grand Schopenhauerian feat.
While I agree with the Schopenhauer's advocation for compassionate understanding and turning away from self, I think something is missing in his philosophy that prevents true human flourishing. Simone Weil, a known follower of Schopenhauerian ethics, died at age 34 following complications from a hunger strike in solidarity with victims of the Nazi regime. I have admired Weil and her writing for a while, but, truthfully, I cannot say I would have taken her same course of action. Obviously, Weil took Schopenhauer's ethics to an extreme, but even still- there seems to be something very wrong with destroying something healthy, whole, and complete. One could argue that this "wrongness" is merely a symptom of the suffering brought on by my will to life, but I would still disagree with Schopenhauer's life denial. I don't think it's possible to affirm the life of another without affirming your own, and I think you can affirm your own life while still practicing compassion and looking outside the ego.