I've certainly wept for myself in the way Schopenhauer is talking about, and I think he describes it really well there. But since people don't only weep for themselves, I have the impression that he's describing a particular example of weeping and mistakenly treating it like a description of all weeping in general.

I agree with the last comment. In this passage I find everything I love and hate in Schopenhauer, whose metaphysics I would caricature (but I hope my caricature is of something there) thus: 1) reality, Being, the world is necessarily human constructions of reality, and our constructions (re-presentations) necessarily cannot reach their objects; we are cut off from any knowledge or true understanding of Being; 2) with one exception: we know our acts of willing directly; they are least are not constructed, no matter how constructed the objects are to which are will is directed; 3) thus, ultimate reality is will; the objects of will are phenomena; 4) the will expresses itself only in the self-assertion of the individual existent in the battle to survive, to expand, to increase its power (the range of willing); 5) there is no other meaning or purpose to existence; 6) knowing this is sublime, a negative sublime, a kind of disgust or horror; 7) the point is to escape this prison of the will – art allows temporary escape, especially music; above all, pity, compassion negates the will; 8) pity and compassion can ultimately only be for the self, the only reality any of us can know, the only reality any of our acts can be directed to; 9) thus when we pity the suffering of others, we negate our own will, we become objects of our own pity.
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.

More charitably, apart from any reading of his metaphysics, I guess one could see in this passage the recognition of a common humanity in a community of suffering, a kind of ‘ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee’ thought.

He tries to connect this emotion with "suffering and pain" instead of weakness. — javi2541997

If one suffers and one is in pain, one is weak. How could it be otherwise?

@EugeneW

Schopenhauer's theory about suffering and emotions between humans and animals:

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

Schopenhauer has an interesting interpretation in his essays about weeping. He tries to connect this emotion with "suffering and pain" instead of weakness — javi2541997

@EugeneW

Anyways, check the beginning of this old thread if you are interested.

Schopenhauer has an interesting interpretation in his essays about weeping. He tries to connect this emotion with "suffering and pain" instead of weakness — javi2541997

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.

If one suffers and one is in pain, one is weak. How could it be otherwise? — baker

Indeed. That's why some people don't wanna show tears.

Though when I hear certain music which makes me weep I dont feel weak. It's more something of "damned, it could all be so great, and look what a mess we made of it".

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.

certain music which makes me weep I dont feel weak — EugeneW

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.

Full on weeping...

If my wife dies.
If my kid dies.
If my dog dies.

Outside of those, not a chance.