Works › Parerga and Paralipomena
Work #318 · Late period

Parerga and Paralipomena

Schopenhauer's 1851 two-volume essay collection — the book that finally made him famous

Arthur Schopenhauer · 1851 · German · Two-volume essay collection

Tradition: German post-Kantian philosophical pessimism

The book that finally made Schopenhauer famous late in life — two volumes of essays on philosophical, religious, practical themes

Parerga and Paralipomena ("supplementary works and remainders") is the two-volume essay collection Schopenhauer published in 1851 at age 63 — the book that finally made him famous. Essays cover philosophical aphorisms, religion (engagement with Buddhism and Hinduism), aesthetic theory, ethics, university philosophy, and notoriously misogynistic observations on women. The accessible essayistic form made Schopenhauer's philosophical pessimism available to a broad readership and shaped subsequent European modernism (Wagner, Nietzsche, Thomas Mann, Borges).

Author

Editions cited

  • Parerga and Paralipomena (E. F. J. Payne, Oxford, 1974, 2 vols.)
  • Parerga and Paralipomena (Sabine Roehr & Christopher Janaway, Cambridge, 2014)
Compare this work

School Embodiments

Kantian Transcendental Idealism · 15%
Nihilism · 15%
Buddhism · 15%
Advaita Vedanta · 15%
Naturalism · 10%
Absurdism · 10%
Idealism · 10%
Stoicism · 5%
Process Philosophy · 5%
Kantian Transcendental Idealism 15%

Framework remains Kantian-post-Kantian.

"Kantian-post-Kantian framework." (Parerga, paraphrasing)
Nihilism 15%

Philosophical pessimism central for subsequent nihilist thought.

"Pessimist analysis of will and suffering." (Parerga, paraphrasing)
Buddhism 15%

Extensive engagement with Buddhism — analysis of suffering and release.

"Engagement with Buddhist analysis of suffering." (Parerga, paraphrasing)
Advaita Vedanta 15%

Engagement with Upanishads shapes the framework.

"Engagement with Upanishadic philosophy." (Parerga, paraphrasing)
Naturalism 10%

World as will as natural-cosmic phenomenon.

"Naturalist framework of will." (Parerga, paraphrasing)
Absurdism 10%

Anticipates absurdist analysis of cosmic meaninglessness.

"Cosmic meaninglessness." (Parerga, paraphrasing)
Idealism 10%

World as representation broadly idealist.

"World as representation." (Parerga, paraphrasing)
Stoicism 5%

Ethical-practical counsels have Stoic affinity.

"Stoic ethical counsels." (Parerga, paraphrasing)
Process Philosophy 5%

Will as dynamic-energetic principle.

"Will as dynamic principle." (Parerga, paraphrasing)

Internal Tensions

Notoriously misogynistic essays (especially "On Women") have been continuously and rightly criticised. Schopenhauer's engagement with Eastern thought was sometimes orientalising.

⧖

I. Time

Temporal structure of suffering and willing.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One
✦

II. Space

Spatial-representational world.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◉

III. Matter

Embodied human suffering.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◎

IV. Observer

Willing subject observing its own suffering.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Partial Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Both Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Cosmic-ordering
⚡

V. Energy

Will as cosmic-energetic principle.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible
⧉

VI. Information

Philosophical-pessimist tradition.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas that cite this work

Arthur Schopenhauer

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

91%
Karl Marx
31/34
91%
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae
30/33
90%
Publius Vergilius Maro
27/30
90%
Thales of Miletus
26/29
88%
David Lewis
30/34
88%
Gottlob Frege
30/34

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

67%
Milesian School
21/26
62%
Lutheranism
21/26
62%
Deism
21/26
62%
Stoicism
19/26
62%
Atomism
21/26
60%
Rationalism
20/26
60%
Spinozist Pantheism
19/26
60%
Philosophical Pessimism
19/26

How Parerga and Paralipomena resolves each dilemma

51 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 6 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 6 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
On this view, the future is determined and you are genuinely choosing. Those aren't contradictory because the determination runs through you rather than around you: your reasoning, deliberation, and assent are the way the determined outcome gets settled. Choice is what it feels like from …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
On this view, the addict is acting within a determined order but is genuinely acting — making decisions, endorsing or resisting urges, seeking or refusing help. Responsibility attaches not because some uncaused choice happened, but because the addict is the kind of agent through which …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
On this view, what makes a being responsible is not indeterminism but the kind of process the being is. An AI that deliberates, considers consequences, can be given reasons, and modifies its behaviour on reflection is doing what responsible agency is, even if its underlying …
Roads not taken An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) · An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers. (10%) · Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
4 mainstream positions
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide? Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible. 15% How much weight do future people deserve? Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much. 47% Is regret rational? The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing. 47% Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them? Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing. 47%
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is the world created from nothing? Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. 55% Is the physical world fully real? Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. 55% Does matter have intrinsic moral standing? Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. 55% What is money? Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. 54% What is a nation? A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. 54% What makes someone male or female? Sex is a real biological kind with given content. 54% Should we edit the human germline? Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. 54%
Observer · 37 dilemmas, all mainstream
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. 44% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. 44% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. 44% What happens to "you" when you die? A soul continues into another mode of being. 37% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for. 37% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence. 37% What makes someone the same person over time? You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. 36% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. 36% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. 36% Are the dead morally present to the living? The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence. 35% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering. 33% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach. 33% Does prayer change God's mind? God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted. 33% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer. 30% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have. 29% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person. 29% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience. 17% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text. 17% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense. 17% Does history have a direction or meaning? — — How is knowledge of reality produced? — — Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? — — Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? — — What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? — — Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? — —
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets? Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone. 51% Does deleting your data online destroy something real? Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys. 51% Could the dead, in principle, be brought back? The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible. 51% Is forgiveness ontologically possible? The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away. 51%
← #317 On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason All Works #319 Provincial Letters →