In our societies and in human history war and the military aren't just simple acts or actors of violence. I think there's this very naive idea that war is somehow of multiplication or escalation from one individual hurting some other individual to group or a whole people inflicting violence on other people in similar way. I think it's different when you come to the societal level. Or wouldn't then all general then monsters? Usually higher ranking military officers are very rational, calm and aren't violent brawlers. Our societies have made them a fundamental part of the society and their role has been molded by centuries or millennia.

With Napoleon, the question I would have is how much Revolutionary France needed a saviour-general like Napoleon after the horrors and the extremism of the French Revolution? In this way it's easy to understand how a revolution that deposed and killed the King then ended up with a general crowning himself Emperor. Sounds at first illogical, but it isn't.

Yet I think that perhaps Schopenhauer remains at a more theoretical or philosophical level and doesn't ponder much about the Napoleon's or other politicians of his time.

Hegel saw Napoleon as well. Here's what he wrote about the experience:

“I saw the Emperor – this world-soul – riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it.”

Goethe said of Napoleon that he was as intelligent as a man can be without wisdom, and as great as a man can be without virtue.

He was remarkable, in any case. I doubt I'll go to see this movie. If I see it, it will be from a comfy chair in my living room whenever it appears before me. I wish Kubrick had completed the movie of Napoleon he wanted to make.

In our societies and in human history war and the military aren't just simple acts or actors of violence. I think there's this very naive idea that war is somehow of multiplication or escalation from one individual hurting some other individual to group or a whole people inflicting violence on other people in similar way. I think it's different when you come to the societal level. Or wouldn't then all general then monsters? Usually higher ranking military officers are very rational, calm and aren't violent brawlers. Our societies have made them a fundamental part of the society and their role has been molded by centuries or millennia. — ssu

Indeed, and isn't that the debate you are having here in multiple thread?.. To what extent is one justified for military action. How many casualties are too much in the name of defense, etc.? But the argument at hand here is in the next paragraph so I will respond there...

With Napoleon, the question I would have is how much Revolutionary France needed a saviour-general like Napoleon after the horrors and the extremism of the French Revolution? In this way it's easy to understand how a revolution that deposed and killed the King then ended up with a general crowning himself Emperor. Sounds at first illogical, but it isn't.

Yet I think that perhaps Schopenhauer remains at a more theoretical or philosophical level and doesn't ponder much about the Napoleon's or other politicians of his time. — ssu

So yes, I don't think Schopenhauer much cared for current events or history. Rather, he used it as a platform to explain the idea that "It's all the same". Meaning, human nature doesn't change over history. Contra Hegel, technology gets better, but human psyche is nothing different. It's all the Will playing itself out in the playground that it makes for itself.

As for Napoleon's need to conquer the rest of Europe, as if Revolutionary France couldn't contain itself, so needed to burst from the seems, it's an interesting image. How much was it vanity? How much was it idealism?

“I saw the Emperor – this world-soul – riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it.”

Goethe said of Napoleon that he was as intelligent as a man can be without wisdom, and as great as a man can be without virtue.

He was remarkable, in any case. I doubt I'll go to see this movie. If I see it, it will be from a comfy chair in my living room whenever it appears before me. I wish Kubrick had completed the movie of Napoleon he wanted to make. — Ciceronianus

I agree on Kubrick. Would like to have seen that.

Schopenhauer famously disliked and repudiated Hegel wherever he could. Here, there is a substantive difference. Hegel thought the human-geist was moving towards some Ideal. Schopenhauer scoffed and put people like Napoleon in his place as another vain conqueror. No ideal is to be reached. Rather, to Schopenhauer it isn't society that will save us, because our psychology would prevent us from anything more than the aimless willful creatures we are. Bored when we get what we want, and going headlong into various death drives (to put a Freudian angle on it).

So yes, I don't think Schopenhauer much cared for current events or history. Rather, he used it as a platform to explain the idea that "It's all the same". Meaning, human nature doesn't change over history. Contra Hegel, technology gets better, but human psyche is nothing different. It's all the Will playing itself out in the playground that it makes for itself. — schopenhauer1

I agree with this.

Yet perhaps in the end it's a generalization with what we don't make more sense of the World, it simply isn't so useful. "It's all the same" sounds like a cynical remark, something like "Oh well..."

As for Napoleon's need to conquer the rest of Europe, as if Revolutionary France couldn't contain itself, so needed to burst from the seems, it's an interesting image. How much was it vanity? How much was it idealism? — schopenhauer1

And how much was it about France being the first nation that turned the whole society into war machine and had universal conscription where other nations had basically professional armies? When you have all those men, the capability to control them in huge formations (thanks to the optical telegraph) and a society molded to support them, why not use the forces you have? But yes, there was the idealism also. It wasn't just a French revolution for French people, the revolution was about universal values. ‘Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!’ is a slogan you don't mean just for France.

The Revolutionary legacy for Napoleon consisted above all in the abolition of the ancien régime’s most archaic features—“feudalism,” seigneurialism, legal privileges, and provincial liberties. No matter how aristocratic his style became, he had no use for the ineffective institutions and abuses of the ancien régime. Napoleon was “modern” in temperament as well as destructively aggressive.

Hence there is this zeal of creating a new World and off with the old with Napoleon. And naturally his remarkable victories captured the French people and got the support of his generals and soldiers. Just like, well, one Mr. Hitler got after conquering Central Europe in less than year.

Hence when you're so awesome, why not go and invade Russia!

He certainly wasn't the "World Spirit" incarnate, whatever that's supposed to mean. He was a great hero to the Romantics. He was enormously talented and intelligent in some respects. Perhaps if he remained First Counsel and limited himself to putting France's affairs in order after the Revolution he'd be remember as more than just a conqueror. Though it seems none of the European great powers were willing to tolerate a France ruled by anyone but a Bourbon.

I think (but I'm not certain) that painting is supposed to be of Napoleon at the head of his army during the 1814 campaign, before his exile to Elba.

Uh, could be! :yikes:

Well, this painting surely is about the Russian campaign. With Cossacks and snow and all.

Herr Arthur Schopenhauer had such a pessimistic view of humanity; did he consider himself as wretched a case as he apparently thought everybody else was?

The bigger question is why did he take to wearing his bicorne to match his shoulders? Was this to assert his yet to be articulated status as a Nietzsche's superman?

Yet perhaps in the end it's a generalization with what we don't make more sense of the World, it simply isn't so useful. "It's all the same" sounds like a cynical remark, something like "Oh well..." — ssu

It's definitely cynical, but I don't think that means it's wrong. He simply thinks this is how humans Will function(s). And also he is being instructive that Napoleon is really no different than any one else, he just manifests it more starkly.

And how much was it about France being the first nation that turned the whole society into war machine and had universal conscription where other nations had basically professional armies? When you have all those men, the capability to control them in huge formations (thanks to the optical telegraph) and a society molded to support them, why not use the forces you have? But yes, there was the idealism also. It wasn't just a French revolution for French people, the revolution was about universal values. ‘Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!’ is a slogan you don't mean just for France. — ssu

Indeed, he was liberating everyone to be under his rule :). But there is something different of a Napoleon from a Hitler. There is something genuinely better about the values of "liberty, equality, and fraternity" of course. So I see it as often a matter of means and ends. You can have good ends and bad means. You can have good means but bad ends. You can have bad means and bad ends.

Some people are of the idea that the ends justifies the means. Some believe that both means and ends have to align as proper, otherwise all the good in one is negated in the bad of the other. On the other end, some people think that all political conflict is really borne out of violence to some end, and then Schopenhauer would have a point about the inevitibility of humanity.

You can see a microcosm of politics by simply walking! You are walking on a sidewalk alone, a couple is is walking side-by-side coming at you the other direction. In fact, if they don't move, you will walk into them. You wait for one of them to be polite and follow your preconceived rules- that is to say, one should get behind the other to be considerate. They don't. You end up moving as you don't want to hit the person and make it more awkward. You glare at them from behind.. There is state relations in a stroll in the park! Two entities want the same space. You can start an argument, bump into the person, lecture them about what the rules of walking etiquette are, or you just cave in and let it go. It wasn't that important afterall. But the feeling of resentment might still be there! And that was just from walking in an everyday situation!

Goethe said of Napoleon that he was as intelligent as a man can be without wisdom, and as great as a man can be without virtue. — Ciceronianus

Damned with faint praise?

I am reminded of the famous (maybe apocryphal) encounter between Alexander the Great and Diogenes of Sinope. He approached the philosopher and declared himself as the great Commander of the Empire, master of the known world, and asked what he could do for the sage, who replied ‘Just stand to one side, you’re blocking my sun.’

There is something genuinely better about the values of "liberty, equality, and fraternity" of course. — schopenhauer1

That is putting it mildly. :grin:

And of course the French aren't ashamed of Napoleon: the remains of the guy are in a temple like mausoleum surrounded with other important generals. If you have seen it in Paris, it's quite impressive, something similar that we usually make for religious purposes. Having a painting of Napoleon isn't offensive, not at least in France.

Something that is rather telling, especially compared to Napoleon, is that it's speculated that the remains of one Mr Hitler were finally destroyed and dumped in a river by the KGB. A similar fate what you gave your worst enemies in Antiquity (besides demolishing every statue of them, which again has been done). Again something that the Will doesn't change...

You can see a microcosm of politics by simply walking! — schopenhauer1

Yet interactions with total strangers are different when you know the people. What if it's not a couple, but your grandchildren age 5 and 3 on a collision course towards you. Would you behave the same way? Perhaps, if you're playing with them, but many would stop and give them a hug. Yet you would give a huge to the adult couple! Hugging complete strangers would usually called to be an assault. Yet it's even more different when it's political actors, organizations or nations. I was taught in the university that it's wrong and lousy history writing to use nations as individuals like with "France disagreed with this" or "The US was angry about it". Far better to say whom representing the nation acted how. In the same way there is a huge and nearly illogical leap from a theory of how people act with each other to how the Emperor of France acted with other people. The generalizations that you can make don't answer much, especially if you are interested the politics that certain general Napoleon did.

But then again, Schopenhauer didn't talk much about Napoleon.

One of my favorite stories of Diogenes. The other is the one where he held up a plucked chicken and said "Behold Plato's Man!"

I think Goethe, and other admirers of the Emperor, became inclined, after he fell from power, to acknowledge that he was extraordinary but also flawed. I suppose that's consistent with being a Romantic Hero. Even many of Napoleon's enemies respected his abilities, such as Talleyrand, who said of him that it was a pity such a great man had such bad manners.

That sure looks Russian to me.

https://www.thoughtco.com/vice-admiral-horatio-nelson-2361155

The bigger question is why did he take to wearing his bicorne to match his shoulders? Was this to assert his yet to be articulated status as a Nietzsche's superman? — Tom Storm

The "side to side" bicorne hat was actually quite popular at the time. Here's Admiral Nelson wearing his version. The new-fangled "for and aft" bicorne hat eventually became more popular.

:up: