Schopenhauer Tells It Like It Is

Perhaps my favorite philosopher is Arthur Schopenhauer, the crotchety German who in the 19th century expanded on Immanuel Kant's dichotomy between what is seen (the phenomenon) and the thing-in-itself that remains unseen (the noumenon).  Schopenhauer earned his fame by identifying the noumenon as "the will," describing at length how all energy and striving in the universe are driven by this blind urge.  When it came to mankind, Schopenhauer explained how this blind urge is the master of the intellect rather than the servant for most, leading to the sad and repetitive cycle in which what is good and true endlessly yields to what is gratifying and false.  "Man can do as he will, but he cannot will as he will."  

At the same time, though, Schopenhauer devoted attention to a subset of humanity who are capable of escaping the clutches of the will and allowing their intellect to roam freely.  His numerous reflections on this are informative and entertaining.  For now, I will share just one and parcel out others later:

But while Nature sets very wide differences between man and man in respect both of morality and of intellect, society disregards and effaces them; or, rather, it sets up artificial differences in their stead -- gradations of rank and position, which are very often diametrically opposed to those which Nature establishes.  The result of this arrangement is to elevate those whom Nature has placed low, and to depress the few who stand high.  These latter, then, usually withdraw from society, where, as soon as it is at all numerous, vulgarity reigns supreme.

What offends a great intellect in society is the equality of rights, leading to equality of pretensions, which everyone enjoys; while at the same time, inequality of capacity means a corresponding disparity of social power.  So-called good society recognizes every kind of claim but that of intellect, which is a contraband article; and people are expected to exhibit an unlimited amount of patience towards every form of folly and stupidity, perversity, and dullness; whilst personal merit has to beg pardon, as it were, for being present, or else conceal itself altogether.  Intellectual superiority offends by its very existence, without any desire to do so.

The worst of what is called good society is not only that it offers us the companionship of people who are unable to win either our praise or our affection but that it does not allow of our being that which we naturally are; it compels us, for the sake of harmony, to shrivel up, or even alter our shape altogether.  Intellectual conversation, whether grave or humorous, is only fit for intellectual society; it is downright abhorrent to ordinary people, to please whom it is absolutely necessary to be commonplace and dull.        

If you doubt Schopenhauer's stinging insight, just try posting about an intellectual topic (philosophy, political science, mathematics, literature) on Facebook and see what happens.