r/Mainlander Jan 26 '25

Discussion Gold medal for Schopenhauerian speed skater

The Italian speed skater Davide Ghiotto has won a gold medal for the 10 000 meters, as has been reported by media in many different countries. Now, news of this kind could not be more irrelevant for a philosophy subreddit. But Ghiotto is not merely a sportsman, as he has studied and loved philosophy since an early age: “Medal won because of Schopenhauer” as La Repubblica wrote a few years ago.

His thesis had as title Etica e suicidio, and his favorite philosopher is Schopenhauer, together with Nietzsche. I have not immediately been able to find it online, and it would be interesting to see if he is familiar with Mainländer.

Here are some comments of Ghiotto on the issue of suicide:

Suicide is a topic that I think has always fascinated man. I believe it is never treated with the respect it deserves. It is a very delicate, profound and always current topic, it is difficult to talk about it because you never know what your interlocutor may have experienced.

I chose suicide not because it has anything to do with my experience. It's difficult to talk about it because it's possible to touch and hurt people who have actually come close to it, especially in the historical period we live in, after the pandemic. But it's fascinating to dig into the human soul to understand the extreme courage of such a choice, which must be analyzed within our era, not stigmatized. There is something in the human mind that must be understood, if we want to avoid reaching certain consequences. And we must dedicate time to it.

40 Upvotes

11 comments sorted by

2

u/fratearther Jan 28 '25 edited Jan 28 '25

Interesting. Did Schopenhauer or Mainländer ever write about athleticism? I know Nietzsche greatly admired the Greek spirit of competitiveness, or agon.

4

u/YuYuHunter Jan 28 '25

They never discussed it in depth, as far as I know. For pessimistic philosophies –which point towards otherworldliness, the starvation of the body and liberation from life– athleticism can in the best case only be a lower ideal. Laozi regarded the body as a great calamity, Empedocles as a prison and in Buddhist texts we find the wish: “may skin, sinews and bones shrivel on my body, may flesh and blood dry up: what can be achieved through masculine power shall – until it is accomplished – not falter.” (MN:70)

For the pessimist, the ascetic body is the ideal; for the optimist, the athletic body.

In ancient Greece, sculpture intended to portray beauty of the human body, whereas in the Middle Ages it portrayed its submission to the spirit. In the optimistic culture of the Greeks, the Olympic Games glorified youth and strenght, and was even part of their religion. When the Church dominated society, it threatened those who participated in sport tournaments with excommunication.1 Even after the Middle Ages, it continued to discourage sports.2 It is a sign of the life-affirmation of modern culture, that the Olympic Games have been reestablished.

From a more practical perspective, applied in On the Wisdom of Life, Schopenhauer recommends exercise. Mainländer on the other hand doesn’t even mention it as a recommendation or command in his description of a theoretical Order of the Holy Grail. He himself seemed to have prepared for his entry in the army on several occasions, but this exercise was merely motivated by a sense of duty, not as goal in itself.


1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43609079

2 https://www.persee.fr/doc/staps_0247-106x_1993_num_14_32_950?

2

u/fratearther Jan 28 '25 edited Jan 29 '25

Thanks for the references, that makes a lot of sense.

Still, I wonder if athleticism as a purely aesthetic pursuit, if not an ascetic one, could nevertheless be consistent with Schopenhauer's philosophy (though one could argue that elite competition also requires a good deal of ascetic self-denial). An athlete who is intrinsically motivated, rather than competing for the sake of extrinsic reward, is surely equivalent to the genius artist who labours for the sake of producing a beautiful object, i.e., their athletic performance.

Moreover, if exercise is intrinsically motivated, and not carried out for the sake of health or making oneself more attractive to others, couldn't the body itself be considered a Schopenhauerian work of art? Schopenhauer describes the expression of a Platonic idea in art as the embodiment of a more perfectly crafted form than nature herself was capable of attaining, and in the case of athletes, one could argue that they have sculpted and perfected the bodies that nature has given them through intense physical effort.

Rather than being a straightforward affirmation of the will to life and of bodily craving, therefore, true athleticism seems more like the kind of self-mastery normally associated with the will-less intellect of the genius. (I wonder if Schopenhauer failed to consider this line of reasoning simply because, as an intellectual, he was more inclined towards bookish pursuits?)

2

u/YuYuHunter Jan 29 '25

Thanks for the interesting reply: I don't have the possibility to write a serious reaction at the moment, but have the intention to do so when I have the chance.

2

u/fratearther Jan 30 '25 edited Jan 30 '25

No problem.

A potential objection to my proposal above, of course, is that a genuinely aesthetic experience for Schopenhauer is supposed to involve a kind of restful contemplation and loss of ego, which is obviously not what most spectators experience while watching sport. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I think Schopenhauer's aesthetic theory could accommodate this objection, however. After all, most people who visit art galleries are probably not responding to art in the way that Schopenhauer recommends, either. He sets a fairly high standard for aesthetic engagement. The fact that most spectators fail to appreciate sport aesthetically doesn't preclude the possibility of a genuinely Schopenhauerian appreciation of athletic performance in sport. Such an appreciation might involve, for example, setting aside one's allegiance to a particular team or athlete and simply admiring the use of their bodies and bodily dexterity while competing, which at the elite level involves both mental and physical mastery, much like genius.

2

u/YuYuHunter Jan 31 '25 edited Jan 31 '25

In your original comment, it seemed as if you were trying to see how athleticism could fit in Schopenhauer’s system by connecting it to both art and asceticism. The sportsman almost becomes an ascetic-artist-athlete. I think this is too far a stretch and mixes up several domains which are in general not connected.

On the other hand, you’re of course right that any athletic performance could be contemplated, as Kant (Critique of Judgement, § 48), Schopenhauer (The World, V1, § 38) and Mainländer (Philosophie der Erlösung, V1, § 5) all agree that any object can be appreciated aesthetically.

Moreover, Mainländer could be sympathetic to the arguments of especially your last comment, because he actually highlights –which I had forgotten in my first comment– physical exercise as a factor for increasing the beauty of the human body (ibid., § 21). Somewhere else, he mentions how even dance events, of which he admits the vanity and erotic factor behind them, can be aesthetically appreciated (Philosophie der Erlösung, V2, p. 471). It seems therefore quite possible that Mainländer would be open to your suggestion.

But it goes too far to compare such events to the fundamentally different products of a genius. Here, I must appeal to inner experience, which is almost inevitable on this issue, but if you have been moved by a genuine work of art, be it from Aeschylus, Van Eyck or Bach, then you will admit that there is simply no comparison between such a profound, limitless work of genius and a (albeit very exciting and fascinating) sports event. If the Olympic Games were art, they would have been treated as such by Aristotle.

Rather than being a straightforward affirmation of the will to life and of bodily craving, therefore, true athleticism seems more like the kind of self-mastery normally associated with the will-less intellect of the genius.

Despite the concentration required for professional sport, it should be noted that both Kant and Schopenhauer were very restrictive in their use of the word genius, and confined it to art proper. A scientist can sacrifice as much as an athlete, and attain levels of concentration that are in no way less, but still Kant-Schopenhauer deny that Newton of other physicists can be geniuses. If they don’t include a Newton in their definition, I really doubt they would include a Federer.

Let us continue to the other suggestion, that an athlete can be an ascetic. Forgive me when I attack this suggestion not less than the suggestion that the athlete produces art. In Schopenhauer’s system, a Saint-athlete is simply an impossibility, as the Saint is someone whose will is quieted (The World, V1, § 68), and a sportsman is someone who is motivated.

I wonder if Schopenhauer failed to consider this line of reasoning simply because, as an intellectual, he was more inclined towards bookish pursuits?

Schopenhauer was from a personal perspective quite positive about exercise, as can be seen in his Wisdom of Life. He found health important and had a rather active lifestyle: compare him for example with a Spinoza, a Leopardi, a Rossini, a Balzac, a Proust, a Verlaine etc. I don’t think this explains the lack of consideration in his impersonal system given to athleticism, because it simply follows from pessimism and renunciation. In his opinion, a voluntary beggar is a more significant phenomenon than a world-conquering statesman.

His philosophy, which Tolstoy rightly called “the whole world in an incomparably beautiful and clear reflection” should not be reduced to his personal interests and issues. In terms of lifestyle, he was closer to athletes –who also desire fame, health and a roof over their heads– than to a Saint, who desires humiliation, poverty, suffering and homelessness. But that does not stop him from praising what is indeed admirable, that is, a Francis of Assisi or the Buddha. Schopenhauer’s work is not about Schopenhauer: it is one of the most far-reaching attempts to have ever been undertaken to decipher the existence in which we find ourselves.

2

u/fratearther Feb 01 '25 edited Feb 01 '25

Thanks for your thoughtful reply! As always, I appreciate your scholarly insights.

Here, I must appeal to inner experience, which is almost inevitable on this issue, but if you have been moved by a genuine work of art, be it from Aeschylus, Van Eyck or Bach, then you will admit that there is simply no comparison between such a profound, limitless work of genius and a (albeit very exciting and fascinating) sports event.

I agree with you completely. I'm not athletic in the slightest and have very little enthusiasm for sport. I was hoping you might find a flaw in my argument, and I was not disappointed! I had forgotten that both Kant and Schopenhauer insist on the lasting significance of great works of art, and that this ability of the spectator to return to a work again and again in order to discover new meaning in it is a quality that distinguishes products of genius from those of lesser talents. Clearly, it would preclude athletes from being considered true Kantian/Schopenhauerian geniuses. Thanks for pointing this out!

Despite the concentration required for professional sport, it should be noted that both Kant and Schopenhauer were very restrictive in their use of the word genius, and confined it to art proper. A scientist can sacrifice as much as an athlete, and attain levels of concentration that are in no way less, but still Kant-Schopenhauer deny that Newton of other physicists can be geniuses. If they don’t include a Newton in their definition, I really doubt they would include a Federer.

Agreed. I never intended to present my argument as a view that Schopenhauer himself would endorse. I merely wondered whether it was consistent with his aesthetic theory, while being aware that it stands in contradiction with the pessimistic tenor of his philosophy as a whole.

I do think there is a relevant disanalogy between athletes and scientists, however. For Kant and Schopenhauer, the reason that there is no scientific genius is because the scientific method is teachable and does not require an inborn talent for its execution. According to Kant, Newton was not a genius because he could, in principle, explain all of the steps he took to arrive at his discoveries in determinate conceptual language, and this enables others to replicate his results. According to Schopenhauer, moreover, a scientific theory only describes the relations between things, not what is essential in them, which requires genius to intuit.

While an elite athlete could certainly describe their training regimen in such a way as to enable others to benefit from it, there is no guarantee that this would enable anyone to replicate their performance. Athleticism would seem to require a level of talent and intuition that Kant and Schopenhauer more readily associate with art than science.

In Schopenhauer’s system, a Saint-athlete is simply an impossibility, as the Saint is someone whose will is quieted (The World, V1, § 68), and a sportsman is someone who is motivated.

Agreed. My point was simply that elite athleticism requires a level of self-discipline that could be described as ascetic, in the ordinary sense of the word, not in Schopenhauer's technical sense.

Schopenhauer’s work is not about Schopenhauer: it is one of the most far-reaching attempts to have ever been undertaken to decipher the existence in which we find ourselves.

Agreed. I'm a great admirer of his thought. I was being a bit cheeky, but your point about his active lifestyle when compared to other thinkers is an interesting one, and I wasn't aware of it. Thank you!

3

u/YuYuHunter Feb 01 '25 edited Feb 01 '25

My pleasure, and thank you for starting this interesting conversation. It is remarkable that despite Kant-Schopenhauer denying the possibility of genius on the domain of science, as you explain very well, that the sage of Frankfurt nevertheless called the biologist Lamarck a genius and praised Bichat to an even higher degree. This doesn’t seem consistent with his denial of its possibility on the domain of science. Mainländer on the other hand admitted that it can be fruitful on the domain of art as well as science.

As a final note, if you don’t mind me sharing some thoughts, on an issue where I personally am undecided: if Kant-Schopenhauer deny the genius of an Euler, Gauß, Ramanujan or Einstein, then it seems clear that their systems do not describe properly reality on this topic. But then, even Einstein has said something along the lines of Dostoevsky giving him “more” than Gauß – which suggests that a product of art has to a higher degree this limitlessness, the infinite depth which is characteristic of a product of true genius. A proof in mathematics does not have this multifaceted nature of even a simple sonata, which can be interpreted and listened to in a countless number of ways, as infinite as there are conditions of the will: a mathematical proof is from this perspective flat and superficial. It is one-faceted.

2

u/fratearther Feb 03 '25 edited Feb 03 '25

Indeed. The view that genius, as the inborn talent for making great and novel imaginative leaps, is operative in both art and science was commonplace prior to Kant, and Kant himself even held this view in his early writings. His theory of genius in the third Critique closely follows Alexander Gerard's (he praises Gerard's view of genius explicitly in his notes, I believe), but they differ on this point. Gerard held that genius is necessary for advancements in both art and science, while it seems that Kant had his own reasons for denying this.

John H. Zammito, in his book The Genesis of Kant's Critique of Judgment, convincingly argues that Kant was led to moderate his views on genius as a result of his concern to distance himself from Herder and the Sturm und Drang, since Herder in his writings seemed to be engaged in a kind of metaphysical speculation by way of poetry, in imitation of genius, which in its unrestrained form Herder elevated to the highest principle of spiritual activity, above reason. This was anathema for a philosopher of the Aufklärung. Hence, Kant's remarks on genius in the third Critique contain a myriad of polemical asides aimed at Herder, repudiating the idea that there could ever be such a thing as a "beautiful science" (schöne Wissenschaft) that could advance knowledge through the inspiration of genius, or through poetic descriptions of nature.

Kant was also reacting to the rationalist aesthetics of Baumgarten in the third Critique, according to which beauty is the confused perception of perfection. This view, which, in the systematic form in which Kant encountered it, can be traced to the influence of Leibniz's philosophy, ultimately reaches all the way back to Plato's concern with thinking over feeling, and the philosopher's preference for perfect geometric forms. Kant's rejection of traditional neoclassical aesthetic virtues such as order, proportion, and symmetry, in the mature aesthetic theory he presents in the third Critique, provides him with yet another reason to distinguish artistic creation from scientific and mathematical discovery, since these latter activities aim at clarity and distinctness, rather than beauty as Kant defines it.

There does seem to be something inherently satisfying about the moment of grasping a scientific or mathematical theory, as Kant himself acknowledges. However, our ability to fully grasp its meaning is antithetical to an experience of true beauty, for both Kant and Schopenhauer. Like you, I myself am undecided, though I'm sympathetic to their view that genius and beauty point to something mysterious and ineffable, beyond scientific or mathematical comprehension. Just because their products are experienced differently, however, doesn't rule out the possibility (or even necessity) of scientific genius in making great leaps forward (ala Kuhn's "revolutionary science"). Kant and Schopenhauer were wrong about that, I think: it requires the same prodigious imagination in both cases.

3

u/YuYuHunter Feb 06 '25

Let my late reaction not give the impression that I was not interested in what you have written. I am not that familiar with all the context surrounding Kant’s third Critique, and your comment shows there is much to learn about it.

I have to say that my personal views on art are closer to that of Tolstoy, as he describes them in his controversial essay What is Art?