On Schopenhauer's interpretation of weeping.
Weeping is an interesting human emotion. The Japanese writer, Haruki Murakami, once said that weeping is the most pure condition of the persons because they reflect their truest image.
Schopenhauer has an interesting interpretation in his essays about weeping. He tries to connect this emotion with "suffering and pain" instead of weakness. I think it is important this argument because there are some people who think that weeping is an act of weaknesses.
Schopenhauer wrote:
Are you agree with Schopenhauer? How do you interpret the act of weeping?
Schopenhauer has an interesting interpretation in his essays about weeping. He tries to connect this emotion with "suffering and pain" instead of weakness. I think it is important this argument because there are some people who think that weeping is an act of weaknesses.
Schopenhauer wrote:
This is also the place to discuss one of the most striking peculiarities of human nature, weeping, which, like laughter, belongs to the manifestations that distinguish man from the animal. Weeping is by no means a positive manifestation of pain, for it occurs where pains are least. In my opinion, we never weep directly over pain that is felt, but always only over its repetition in reflection. Thus we pass from the felt pain, even when it is physical, to a mere mental picture or representation of it; we then find our own state so deserving of sympathy that, if another were the sufferer, we are firmly and sincerely convinced that we would be full of sympathy and love to help him. Now we ourselves are the object of our own sincere sympathy; with the most charitable disposition, we ourselves are most in need of help. We feel that we endure more than we could see another endure, and in this peculiarly involved frame of mind, in which the directly felt suffering comes to perception only in a doubly indirect way, pictured as the suffering of another and sympathized with as such, and then suddenly perceived again as directly our own; in such a frame of mind nature finds relief through that curious physical convulsion.
Are you agree with Schopenhauer? How do you interpret the act of weeping?
Comments (14)
This weird conclusion follows only if it is true that our compassion reveals nothing about its object – another human being, an animal, or whatever. But other human beings, in Schopenhauer’s system, can be nothing other than constructs, re-presentations – they are never fully real. But to love another human being, without sentimentality or false pathos, is just a response to something deeply real – no less that response to the beauty of a sunrise is a response to something real in nature and not just a construction of nature, though of course it can be that, too, and often is (a travel brochure enticing paying tourists to the beach with a picture of a sunrise). To me the problem with so many philosophers, metaphysicians like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche – they take a common perversion, mistake the perversion for some a priori truth about whatever they are writing about, and then draw metaphysical conclusions about the reality of nature or humanity. I still love this passage though! Thanks for sharing.
If one suffers and one is in pain, one is weak. How could it be otherwise?
Schopenhauer's theory about suffering and emotions between humans and animals:
[quote]This is also the place to discuss one of the most striking peculiarities of human nature, weeping, which, like laughter, belongs to the manifestations that distinguish man from the animal[/quote
Quoting javi2541997
Anyways, check the beginning of this old thread if you are interested.
Weeping is the accompanying physical body state of suffering. Humans have accompanying tears also. Why? It's an expression. There can be tears of luck or laughter too. The tears contain different chemicals. The emotion somehow has to express. Maybe wolves kept from howling start weeping. Shouting while weeping helps.
Indeed. That's why some people don't wanna show tears.
But I guess Schopenhauer's work goes further than just the act of weep. I think this is all about existentialism. We the humans tend to suffer about uncertainty and the search of ourselves. This is why we make question as "Who am I?" "what the future holds?" "What would be after death?"
Yes, animals suffer too of course. But agreeing with Schopenhauer, I don't think they are able to be existentialist at all
Dunno. I know pretty well who I am. Maybe that's exactly the cause of existential weeping (so not the because the loss of a lost one, or because of physical pain). Well, not the fact that I know, but that being oneself is pretty difficult in a world that's not yours.
Good post. I can't judge if it's an accurate representation of Schopenhauer's positions, but it's clear and well-written. I've never been able to figure out what he was saying, but then again, I never tried too hard.
Welcome to the forum.
Are you teary when you hear the music or weeping? Huge difference. Maybe a tear wells up, your eyes get misty. I understand that. But full on weeping? That is some serious music.
If my wife dies.
If my kid dies.
If my dog dies.
Outside of those, not a chance.