<<

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Werklund School of Education Werklund School of Education Research & Publications

2019-06-20 Schopenhauer on Fear

Fisher, Robert Michael

Fisher, R. M. (2019). Schopenhauer on Fear. 1-24. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/110516 technical report

Unless otherwise indicated, this material is protected by copyright and has been made available with authorization from the copyright owner. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca

Schopenhauer on Fear

R. Michael Fisher

© 2019

Technical Paper No. 84

In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute

2

Schopenhauer on Fear

Copyright 2019

All reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the pub- lisher/author. No permission is necessary in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews, or educational or research purposes. For and permission address correspond- ence to:

In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute 920A- 5 Ave. N. E., Calgary, AB T2E 0L4

Contact author(s):

[email protected]

First Edition 2019

Cover and layout by R. Michael Fisher ISOF Logo (original 1989) designed by RMF

Printed in Canada

The In Search of Fearlessness Institute is dedicated to research and publishing on fear, fearlessness and emotions and motiva- tional forces, in general, as well as critical reviews of such works. Preference is given to works with an integral theoretical perspective.

2 3

Schopenhauer On Fear

- R. Michael Fisher,1 Ph.D.

©2019

Technical Paper No. 84

Abstract

In continual search for the various roots (and routes) of W. in re- gard to making sense of “fear,” the author pursues a preliminary investiga- tion of the great German Schopenhauer (1788-1860). He concludes that Schophenhauer’s work is a critical : (a) un- derestimated in importance overall in the philosophical canon of W. think- ing, (b) it is largely (mis-)interpreted on some important points, especially the stereotyping of its “” and (c) it is a philosophy ready (with some re-adaptations) for the Anthropocene era of dangerous collapse of ecological and social systems. The author suggests a much larger work of study and writing is still required to bring Schopenhauer’s work alive and in preparation for the 21st century and this technical paper barely touches on the surface of such an exploration.

1 Fisher is an Adjunct Faculty member of the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, AB, Canada. He is fearologist and co-founder of In Search of Fearlessness Project (1989- ) and Research Institute (1991- ) and lead initiator of the Fearlessness Movement ning (2015- ). The Fearology Institute was created by him recently to teach international students about fearology as a legitimate field of studies and profession. He is also founder of the Center for Spiritual Inquiry & Integral Education and is Department Head at CSIIE of Integral & 'Fear' Studies. Fisher is an independent scholar, public intellectual and peda- gogue, lecturer, author, consultant, researcher, coach, artist and principal of his own compa- ny (http://loveandfearsolutions.com). He has four leading-edge books: The ’s Fear- lessness Teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21st century (University Press of America/Rowman & Littlefield), Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue (R. Michael Fisher & Desh Subba) (Xlibris) and Fearless engagement of Four Arrows: The true story of an Indigenous-based social transformer (Peter Lang), Fear, law and criminology: Critical issues in applying the philosophy of fearism (Xlibris), , A Nation of Fear and Prejudice (B. Maria Kumar, R. Michael Fisher, Desh Subba) (Xlibris). Currently, he is developing The Fearology Institute to teach courses. He can be reached at: [email protected]

3 4

Preamble

The philosophy of fear, fearism, fearlessness, all of which have occupied my life for three decades now, are more or less a recent branch (spin-off) from a tradition in W. philosophy called (starting with Kier- kegaard, to Nietzsche to Heiddegger, as a few outstanding figures). It has been intriguing to study ’s work recently to see that he wasn’t recognized as an existential philosopher per se but that he influ- enced the existentialists, more or less. Such influence, or bad, perhaps more neutral in some cases, is diverse. However, I cannot pass over the most interesting influence right at the start of understanding Schopenhauer and existentialism. It is known that “Kierkegaard once called,” the Schopenhauerian philosophy of pessimism (a mistanthropic worldview2) “’the most fearful’ philosophy of all.”3 What? Even the father of existen- tialism, Kierkegaard, cast this gruesome stereotypic label on Schopenhauer and went one step further to scare himself, to scare others, and future gen- erations—in his warning, that this is a philosophy “most fearful” of all phi- losophies. Are we all then to avoid touching this man and his philosophy, forever? It could poison, infect, and taint us? Is that the fear of Schopen- hauer that saturates and provokes Kierkegaard’s critique and his own phi- losophy of faith? Is that the fear that has been passed across boundaries of , cultures, history, since Kierkegaard?

What exactly Kierkegaard means could be interpreted and debated but I ask if it is Kierkegaard’s to say one of two things: (a) Schopen- hauer is filled with fear, thus fearful, as is his philosophy that comes from that fear—in other words, it is a fear-based philosophy or, (b) is Schopen- hauer’s philosophy fear-invoking in those who read it? One could write a long treatise on this, which I not here; because as yet, I have insuffi- cient background to proceed confidently. It is nonetheless a fascinating introduction to Schopenhauer and our topic fear.

2 Wyllie (2016) is analyzing a binary character-opposition in McCarthy’s novel The Sunset Limited” and discussing philosophical dialogue, one is thought (for Wyllie) to be Kierke- gaard and one Schopenhauer (or, at least, their are represented in the novel and two primary characters). Wyllie asserts the one character (“White”) in the novel is the artic- ulation of the Schopenhauerian view, which he calls “misanthropic worldview”—and, Wil- ley citing from McCarthy quotes: “White: cannot avoid bringing intellectual life ultimately to an awareness of one thing above all else and that is futility.... If people saw the world for what it truly is. Saw their lives for what they truly are. Without dreams or illu- sions [i.e., without fear of ]. I don’t believe they could offer the first reason why they should not elect to die as soon as possible” (p. 187). 3 Ibid., p. 186.

4 5

That to me is one good reason to find out why he was (or is) attractive (and/or revulsive) to the existentialists, and explore why he might be attrac- tive to us involved in a philosophy of fear, fearism and fearlessness today.

It is particularly interesting to me, although a topic beyond the scope of this technical paper, that I cannot find any professional or academic educators (but a rare few brief mentions) that have given attention to the and role of Schopenhauer’s philosophy in the field of Education. Is it because educators are so fearful of something so fundamental that Schopenhauer is investigating in his work and proclaiming? What could be so fearful? Anyways, that’s very troubling to me as a professional educator and some- day worth exploring in another technical paper of analysis. I think a big reason is that Education as a field is overly hung-up on trying to be light and positive (optimistic) and glosses over the really important aspects of , , and life that ought to be central in socialization, parenting, curriculum and teaching.

That said, let’s move on...

[Nietzsche] thought [inspirationally] of Schopenhauer as a man who wasn’t content with the superficial view of things but looked underneath and wasn’t afraid to look at the world and history in the face, and didn’t try and gloss over everything....4

I am always interested in the truth—that is, the deeper beneath the tip of the iceberg of consensual truths—that’s what really appeals to me. Small conventional reality is only part of what is important to understand and work with. That alone is inadequate and has to be connected to explorations of big Reality. Our fully human potential depends on this expansion of knowledge, knowing and understand- ing. Our sense of small self, with this expansion, becomes a larger Self, as many psychologists and teachers of wisdom have argued throughout the ages, E-W, N-S. One ought not let fear inhibit this searching and learning because the world in its complexity today needs more than ever people and groups and institutions that can take larger perspectives and see larger and embrace diversity and make better decisions based on more inputs from this diversity. We’ll be a lot more intelligent.

4 Pattison (1898), p. 727.

5 6

It is with those who are not afraid to tread where others do not, and where those who go deep into things, that’s where I am most attract- ed to learn from. It’s in this commitment to not glossing over every- thing and trying to be light and positive all the time because it is comfortable, that I research, write and teach about fear (and fearless- ness) as a central topic of human concern. Universally, I (and a few others) have said that all human inquiry is more or less influenced by and/or tainted from the start because of a fear-based motivation be- hind the knowledge quest. Yes, people are using knowledge to avoid fear in most cases. And that avoidance includes avoidance of deeply researching into the nature and role of fear itself.5 Note, I am not talk- ing about fears (e.g., fear of x, y, z) in this discussion—but rather, of fear itself. Fear itself is equivalent to the iceberg beneath the water surface, and the ice showing (less than 10%) above water is the do- main of “fears.”

It’s well-known that the great philosopher (1844- 1900) was enthralled and influenced by Arthur Schopenhauer. With my respect for Nietzsche’s philosophical and psychological contribu- tion to human knowledge, and his outright critical rebelliousness6

5 I have written much on this Fear Problem and the critique around what constitutes a prop- er (i.e., holistic-integral) of fear. I won’t repeat that here as all that writing is available online. 6 I just had a potent dream last night of in a small rather organic group and it wasn’t clear what it was all about or who I was. Then the dream narrator brought things to a bit of a dramatic closing, you could say—a tension point. Soon, I noticed two people, of what I thought were quite ordinary men in the group, stood out and talked and became teachers as if in a course. I then realized I was supposed to be a student not by but because I was in the . I didn’t seem overtly disturbed by this or anything they were saying, thought I don’t recall anything they said per se; but when the instructors left a few minutes open for questions from us, I was quick to have one and where this came from I do not know as it was spontaneous in the dream: “I have a question, it’s relevant to me and really interests me, it’s my observation that everything is shaped by rebellion—all philosophies, every- thing. What do you think?” I offered this observation, a hypothesis of mine that some uni- versal core motivational dynamic (i.e., rebellion) is there in all human phenomena, includ- ing philosophy. The moment of affect in the dream, where I sensed a subtle againstness and withdrawal from my thinking and me personally was when I uttered the word “everything” (that was like politically incorrect or something)—because I was pointing towards what I had in as a kind of ‘theory of everything’ to explain most everything, at least in the realm of human behavior—and that was that some kind of rebellion drives us. The teachers did not answer me nor anyone else, there was a little silence, and then things filled in and people moved around and I was left completely alone and unacknowledged with my que- ry—I awoke. I knew immediately I wanted to record this dream for the future and it meant something valuable, at least to me. I won’t pursue my long interest in a “rebel theory” to explain human behavior, but suffice it here to record it as there is no doubt the likes of phi-

6 7 that my focus is naturally on someone like Schopenhauer, despite the problematics of studying ‘dead old white men’ thinkers today.7 That alone gives me enough of a boost to investigate the importance of Schopenhauer within philosophy and history—and, right to the rele- vance for our current of cascading crises, called the Anthropo- cene era. The other side-bar of my enthusiasm is that I was once told by a colleague in grad school that I sound an awful like a variant re- incarnation of Nietzsche, and that was a complement. At the time I really knew little of Nietzsche, but then when I found out how Scho- penhauer was a predecessor of Nietzsche’s it struck me that I ought to see what connection I might have with Schopenhauer. Over the years I can see philosophical and temperamental parts of myself close to Nietzsche (perhaps) but when I started reading Schopenhauer I found line after line, description after description (be they from Schopenhauer or those writing about Schopenhauer) that really fit well for much of my thought and way of being in the world. I know that may not sound the most positive of a discovery alright. As Scho- penhauer is well-known for being a harsh and darkly character amongst the philosophical canon—especially so, that he is identified as having created a rather distasteful (to most) philosophy of pessi- mism. Understandably, there is a lot of partial truth in that diagnosis and label, but my own study (with a few others8) so far is showing me the superficiality (and distraction) of that. I wish to reconstruct Schopenhauer and his work in a better light somewhat in the years ahead.

Over the years I have collected some valuable books on fear (and fearlessness) but no doubt the one’s I treasure dearly are the one’s of a single author with the title (or close variant): “X [name of author] on Fear.”9 Sure, there are a plethora of non-fiction books with “Fear” losophers such as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are very unique to the canon of W. philoso- phy. I really appreciate that work they were doing. 7 I acknowledge eight different problematics of taking this path of studying someone like Schopenhauer, and my own approach to philosophy and in the latest ms. Bit- ter/Better Ways to Live, and these are a kind of apologetics but not really, as I know there will be many critics of my approach (and its political incorrectness). I will not repeat those eight issues here but I recommend readers concerned go to that source and I’ll be glad to provide my arguments upon your request. 8 I have found already that , James Hillman, , and Ken Wilber, as examples, do not overly label AS in this typical darker framing and rather celebrate a more nuanced, if not inspirational, understanding of AS’s philosophy and psychology. 9 Off-hand, I am particularly thinking of the following in my collection: Hanh (2012), Krishnamurti (1995), Steiner (2011).

7 8 as the major of the title but they are often not of the caliber I am looking for at times when I hone in and want to read the text of a matured voice—of a ‘real’ (if not contemplative) philosopher on this topic. Such texts are quite rare throughout history, if you haven’t no- ticed, in spite of the numerous titles of fear books marketed in the popular bookshops and libraries of our day.

Arthur Schopenhauer (AS) is one of the great I’m re- cently discovering as part of a larger book project I’m working on.10 This Technical Paper No. 84 is an initial dedication to AS and I will be a modestly useful contribution to Fear Studies overall. Some- day I (or someone else) may write a full-length treatise “Schopen- hauer On Fear” that is due to the of this thinker. For now, I’ll settle with this fragment of an offering but utilize it for my own learning and reflection—and, may it serve to inspire others to study AS.

On this theme of dedication, let me end this Preface by thanking those colleagues in my life who have directed me to Nietzsche and AS in some way. I wish to close off this beginning with three quotes, selected at near-random spontaneity, from my collection of treasured books “on fear.” These may cause a pause, or actions (attention) to activate, turn us to reflect and breath, and bring us closer to under- standing holistically and integrally this great topic “Fear”—which, by necessity is the topic of ourselves.

“Those who look with and fear towards the future may bring them hinder their development and stunt the free unfolding of their forces. Nothing is more obstructive for the free unfolding of soul forces than are fear and anxiety about the unknown which enters the soul out of the stream of the future.” -Rudolf Steiner11

“If you observe violence in yourself, violence brought about through fear, through insecurity, through the sense of loneliness, dependency, the cutting off of your and so on, if you are aware of that, observe it total- ly.... How can the deep-rooted fears given to us by the society in which we live, inherited from the past, all be exposed so that the mind is totally,

10 The working title: Bitter/Better Ways to Live: Philosophy and Psychology Designed for the Anthropocene. 11 Steiner (2011), pp. 36-7.

8 9 completely free of this terrible thing?.... So can one observe the totality of fear, the very root of it, its cause, or only the branches of it? Can the mind observe, be aware of, give total attention to, fear, whether it is hidden, deep in the mind, or in its daily outward expressions.... There are so many forms of fear.... To observe the totality of fear is to give complete attention when any fear arises. You can invite it if you want to, and look at your fear completely, wholly, not as an observer looking at fear.... So can you ob- serve fear without the past? That means not name the fear, not use the word fear at all, but just observe?” - Jiddu Krishnamurti12

“If we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by our fears, we will suffer, and the seed of fear in us will grow stronger. But when we are mindful, we use the energy of mindfulness to embrace our fear. Every time fear is embraced by mindfulness, the energy of fear decreases before going back down to the depths of our as a seed. Our consciousness is like a circle in which the bottom part is our store consciousness and the upper part is our mind consciousness. The fear of aging, the fear of illness, the fear of death, the fear of having to let go, and the fear of the consequences of our karma are all there in our store consciousness. We don’t want to face our fear, so we try to cover it up, keep it down there in the cellar. We don’t like it when somebody or something reminds us of it. We don’t want it showing itself in our mind consciousness.... Just because fear goes away for a little while doesn’t mean we have dissolved it completely.” - Thich Nhat Hanh13

Arthur Schopenhauer: 19th Century

German philosophy in its development from Kant through Nietzsche... truly was; one of the very great chapters in human thought.... Not only does it gather together the deepest themes of the modern age, but it is also prophetic of the problems we are living in now.... – Barrett (1979), p. 214

Later in this study I point to some of AS’s own biography relevant to my aims. Suffice it to say at the moment, as one biographer has, “Schopenhau- er’s relationship with his parents was potent and complex, as befits a man who anticipated many of Freud’s leading .”14 My own European (German) affinity and life-course, so different than AS on certain grounds

12 Krishnamurti (1995), pp. 106-7. 13 Hanh (2012), pp. 38-9. 14 D. Berman, p. xvii (in Schopenhauer (1995/2002).

9 10

(e.g., he grew up with economic privilege as an aristocrat and eventually gained reputation worldwide) but so similar, especially in the affective ten- or and way of writing philosophy (and psychology) largely as an outsider,15 as one biographer summed it up:

One reason Schopenhauer’s work has had this wide personal appeal probably lies in its directness and seriousness. He is not writing for fellow-philosophers; rather, he is confronting the deepest philosophical issues, of life, and death, with an urgency absent from most professional philosophy. He com- bines Germanic seriousness with English lucidity—a distinc- tion that he shares with that other great Anglo-Germanic phi- losopher, Wittgenstein.16

My main interest is that he was confronting fear and doing so quite sys- tematically, before the earliest of existentialists like Kierkegaard and those that followed upon his lead. That said, his famous classic book, written in his early 20s, The World as Will and (1818) “is not the easiest book to read... he gives the impression that he is trying to make things harder [i.e., more demanding on readers to face-up with real courage to his offered crit- icisms and truths].”17

Indeed, so much could be said about AS and his philosophy but I am going to have to be very brief here as this technical paper is more directly focused on his views of fear, which I will only be able to analyze in very limited ways. But let’s begin...

A Few Biographical Notes

You can certainly look up on Wikipedia or anywhere and find the basics of biographical history about AS. I won’t repeat that here. I thought to probe into his biography, as an introduction, it might be interesting to start in a unique way—a way consistent with a fearanalysis. So, I ask the question:

15 More accurately, he was an ‘insider-outsider’ (“non-academic,” as Collins (1998, p. 1006) noted) because he had access to the mainstream as a business entrepreneur via his family connections. However, he chose to reject that life and although he had attained [meagre] stature in official higher education to being a philosopher and potential academic, he also reject that life—“he... remained outside of the straightline of development” profes- sionally as a “private scholar” (Parker, 1928, p.1). 16 Berman, D. p. xxxiii. 17 Ibid., p. xxxiii.

10 11

What did AS fear? Drawing from Zimmerern, one of the earliest biog- raphies of AS, several things come forward of interest. She wrote,

Arthur feared [in his youth], not without reason, that she [Joan- na, his mother] was squandering his patrimony. He had a nerv- ous dread of being left without the means of a comfortable ex- istence, for he discerned his own inability to earn money. [I can relate to that latter point]. This led to violent altercations, so that it became more and more impossible for them to live to- gether.... they parted, with bitter feelings on either side.18

I particularly note “bitter feelings” and this family history origin story of a lasting mark on his personality. Mothers are greatly influential on their children, yet, something more was going on in his youth/college years. AS wrote in his early journals,

My life is a bitter-sweet draught; like my whole being it is a constant gleaning of cognition, an acquisition of knowledge re- garding this actual world and my relation to it. The result of this cognition is sad and depressing; but this state of cognisance, this gain of , this penetration of truth, is thoroughly pleasurable, and strange to say, mixes sweet with bitter.19

The affective side of his life was already well in-grained early. He saw deeply into things and people and it left him sad and depressed for the most part, but that he was able to compensate for with his cognitive genius to think and imagine and yet, the combination of banal reality and ideas un- hinged from reality of the everyday, created a mixture of sweet and bitter; and it is from there I have entitled my newest book on my own philosophy and psychology as Bitter/Better Ways of Living. It is critical to understand his intellectual struggle with the world as well as the emotional one. No doubt he’s always been torn between searching for acceptance and feel re- jection—a see saw that kept him nearly always frustrated and critical—at times developing a complex of victimization, which he had to defend off equally with all his strength and brilliance.

In philosophical and popular circles of culture, his work was largely un- popular, without recognition until the last 10 years of his life. His later sys- tematic philosophy flowed out of the way he experienced the world—and,

18 Zimmerern (1876), n.p. 19 Ibid., n.p.

11 12 one might say, the way he feared the world (i.e., found it typically suffer- ing, rejecting, unbearable, cruel, prickly, hurtful, conflictual, mean, irra- tional, especially because of his affective sensitivity and cognitive geni- us—both well-beyond the ‘normal’ status quo range of people in general but also his philosophical peers). It left him scarred and often withdrawn and isolated, with few redeeming humane characteristics, according to his biographers and critics.20 Zimmerern wrote,

From his first dawn of thought he felt in discord with the world; a feeling that caused him uneasiness in youth, since he feared the majority must be in the right [and he in the wrong].21

[from his early youth journals, AS wrote:] ‘Too intense a life in the present is a source of much vexation to me and all excitable [i.e., sensitive] people.22 [in contrast to himself] Those who are chiefly guided by Reason (more especially as applied to practi- cal ends), those truly reasonable, well-balanced, even tempered characters are far more cheerful minded [stable], though less prone to elation and sudden moods of brilliancy [like himself]; neither have they a spark of originality [unlike himself]....Those in whom Reason is the chief source... the purely rational, can- not endure much solitude [they fear it].’23

Zimmerern rightly proposed that AS’s early discernment and cogni- tive brilliance which caused and/or reflected his darker temperament led to a life where he expected fewer and fewer friends. In fact, “He [AS] did not regard the possession of friends as any proof of worth, rather the reverse.”24 AS wrote in his early journals, “The clear- sighted eye [i.e., his own] soon discovers all faults, and their just per- ception is repelled afresh by the enormity of these failings.”25 So, whether its AS’s articulation of a decided futility of human under the Will he theorizes or an overt at times dramatic pessimism, there is not only this side to the man and his work. I turn to F. Nie-

20 “His one redeeming human feature, it would seem, was his tenderness towards animals, and particularly to dogs” (D. Berman, 1995/2002, p. xviii). 21 Ibid., n.p. 22 This extension beyond only himself, is a first indication to me that he is empathetic (per- haps, even an empath) as he feels and understands, to some extent, the suffering of other sensitives like himself. 23 Ibid., n.p. 24 Ibid., n.p. 25 Ibid., n.p.

12 13 tzsche to tell his view of his first encounter of AS’s book (i.e., WWI) in an old bookstore some five years after AS’s death. Nietzsche him- self was now the new young student-philosopher out to impact the world. Neitzsche wrote:

It was quite unknown to me, but I took it up and began to turn over the leaves. I know not what ‘daemon’ whispered to me, ‘Take this book home with you.’ My doing so, at all events, ran quite counter to my usual habits of caution in the buying of books. When I reached home, I flung myself on the sofa with my treasure, and began to submit myself to the influence of that vigorous and sombre genius. Here every line cried renuncia- tion, denial, resignation; here I saw a mirror in which I per- ceived the world, life, and my own nature in terrible grandeur. Here there met me the full unselfish, sunlit of ; here I saw sickness and healing, exile and a haven of refuge, hell and heaven.’26

I’ll not track out any further those who saw and now see AS in a dif- ferent light than most, but let me rest my case with Nietzsche’s spirit of recognition of a soul who lived “unselfish, sunlit gaze” and one who is truly a great artist. I think to read AS in any other way and overly categorize him or disparage his work is more a statement of the writer and judge who sees not what ‘art’ truly is. As a life-time artist myself, as well as an amateur philosopher and critic, I am glad I can see even the smallest glimpses already of what Nietzsche is refer- ring to. Perhaps, new mysteries are yet to be revealed—and, I’d like to contribute to this re-visioning of AS’s philosophy and psychology for the 21st century.

On Nature

I am deeply a Nature-lover, beyond a doubt, as it has been my sanctuary within my own story. It is still hard to fully understand AS’s full thought on this topic but in many ways it looks like he “feared nature” at some deeper, even unconscious level, but I believe one can see more so he feared human nature (i.e., the human condition)—and, that is very understandable because of how humans too often treat each other and treat the planet Earth herself. Since my late-teens and into my early 20s there was a growing loathing I had for “Industrial society” modern humans and their irreverence

26 Quote from Nietzsche in Pattison (1898), p. 727.

13 14 towards the Nature I loved and saw as sacred. I wrote often then, “Why is my species, Homo sapiens, the only species that spoils its own nest?” And now in the year 2019 there is every likelihood of a near (10 yrs. or less) massive human-caused () destruction fully building to a tipping point of playing out via global warming and climate crisis, mass extinction of spe- cies, and violence of all kinds at an unprecedented global scale—the ig- nore-ance and arrogance of humans. In other works, I have labeled that fear-based living, and “fear of Nature” seems core to the sickness I and so many have seen since the 1960s-70s and the Environmental Movement. I am not happy about any of this and have not been since I ‘awoke’ to the real truth going on. Ignorance is bliss, has not been an option for myself— and likewise for AS. I think something very similar (but different) was go- ing on for him—a ‘great sword was thrust into the heart’27 that never lets up the pain of what we see in the world and under our feet.

Although AS had his own reverent love of Nature (e.g., especially his pets and animals in general), he saw wild primal Nature for what it was instinc- tually and inexorably, in his view, as Will (: driven by the power of the will-to-survive28). Will shapes everything. It is built into the essential fabric of all Life—humans are no different than other creatures, in that sense of his own foundationally naturalistic philosophy and view of evolu- tion (even though ‘evolutionary theory’ was not yet historically discovered by Wallace and then published by Darwin until 1858).

I have always been taken with the enormity of a ‘leap’ in philosophical thinking about fear in contemporary thought, as a ‘shift’ in paradigmatic framing from seeing fear as an emotion (primal feeling or passion) to fear

27 Sensitives, via empathic and cognitive awareness (i.e., ), are tor- mented by what is happening to the World Soul (a la Emerson, Schopenhauer and others). This pain-awareness is pre-personal, personal and trans-personal. This topic is beyond the scope of this technical paper but one worthy to pursue for a better reading of why it is that AS was attract to and committed to Eastern nondualist philosophies () very early in his life—in contrast, to his of Western dualist philosophies (spiritualities –that is, religions) where he lived. In AS’s book four “The Assertion and Denial of the Will” (in the later edition of WWI) one reads his ethical philosophy based on E. nonduality (e.g., and , especially)—a very unique combination of E-W thinking at that time in 19th century Europe—truly, remarkable exploration and a first (in the W.) to do so as systematically as he did. 28 It is not hard to see that AS was likely influenced, for better or for worse, by his reading of (17th century UK political philosopher). Hobbes is thought to be one of the most influential modern W. philosophers on the nature and role of fear in social life of human societies (politics), according to Robin (2004).

14 15 as an idea (a la Corey Robin).29 Arguably, this leap and shift has roots well back into the 19th century (at least). AS focuses on meta-motivations within the sphere of the noumenal that articulate the manifest phenomenal world—in other words, he deals with inner and invisible forces (i.e., Ide- as30)—what I would call meta-motivational forces or drives. His view of Will we can translate as a dialectical31 life-force motivated by/with another death-force as an equally powerful fear of not surviving. Later existential- ists would give great credence to the motivational power re: “fear of death” and its anxiety as the root of shaping (conditioning) most all human exist- ence and thus human nature, the human condition and all human behav- ior—and, not always has that shaping proved to be so positive (it can also be pathological32)—it was just unavoidable as a factor, claimed the existen- tialists. There was no escape from a life of such fear (and trembling, as Kierkegaard was to conclude33).

29 Others, myself included, have also taken this to where fear is a lens, fear is a discourse, fear is a cultural trope etc. We have to expand our fear imaginary in the 21st century if we are ever to catch-up to how best to known and manage fear—that is, the Fear Problem (e.g., see Fisher, 2018). 30 “He [AS] takes from Kant the contrast between (hidden) Thing-in-itself and phenomenal appearance. He takes from the of Ideas as conveying Thing-in-itself (ultimate reality) to the world, and as being models or archetypes of innumerable particular ideas. He does not accept Kant’s intimation of a noumenal (God-like) reality manifesting itself as duty, nor does he picture the work of Ideas as illumined by anything like Plato’s supreme unique Form (Idea) of the Good. Schopenhauer’s Thing-in-itself, the fundamental power which moves and [p. 58] underlies all things, the (ancestor of Nietzsche’s ), is not known to us, it is not an for a subject. Schopenhauer chides Kant for having failed positively to deny the objective existence of his (Kant’s) Thing-in-itself. The world of phenomena, our world, appears as ideas, objectifications of the Will, rendering it as object for subjects. [she notes the older English transl., she is using is “idea” instead of “Representation”] .... Idea should be understood as any object of consciousness” (Murdoch, 1993, pp. 57-8). 31 Rank (1932/89), the great Austrian psychoanalyst, saw this as “fear of death” and “fear of life” operating as deep within the and collective —and, thus, a later philosopher of fearism thinker Subba (2014) posited that at bottom “life is conducted, di- rected and controlled by the fear,” and the sooner humanity (and philosophers) admit this the better we’ll all be for it—we’ll be more healthy, sustainable and sane peoples. 32 Metaphysically, this can be traced to Wilber (1995) and his interpretation of ’ philosophy of the great currents of evolution, growth and development, as in the healthy forms of -Agape (Love) and the pathological forms of Phobos-Thanatos (Fear)—see my summary of this in Fisher (1997). 33 Yes, in Kierkegaard’s existential inevitability of a life of “fear and trembling.” “Kierke- gaard’s Abraham [as journey] is great because of what he suffers in a trial of faith [inevita- ble, in a trial of life, if one leads an authentic life that is, in ‘good faith’ to reality and exist- ence without living in a buffered/shielded and dissociated ‘bad faith’]” (Hannay, 1985, p. 7) in Kierkegaard (1843/1985). My own interpretation of a life of ‘good faith’ (somewhat re- lated to Kierkegaard’s conception but also different) is a life of following the path of fear-

15 16

Of course, not just death is the ultimate fear problem for creatures but also it is any tendency to move in that direction of dissolution/death (recall Freud’s “death wish” instinct or Thanatos)—which includes aging, disease susceptibility and accident injury or worse from natural disasters of weath- er, starvation, volcanoes and earthquakes to name a few. Life is tough and rough in many ways; Nature puts great and essential demands on living things. How we observe this, imagine this, experience this— phenomenologically, without all the entrapments of and faith/belief systems34 about Nature, becomes the crucial role of the philos- opher (and naturalist) to tease out. What is really going on in Nature—in our relationship with Nature—these are very big problems beyond what this technical paper can deal with adequately. They are concerns for AS.

Life is vulnerable and AS made a point to conclude (as did the Buddha): “life is suffering.” The sooner we admit this phenomenological starting point for a philosophy and psychology, says AS, the sooner we will be more realistic and living in reality (with ‘good faith’) not abstracting upon it with dubious and distractive and with notions of immortality (e.g., gods and such). AS was an atheist and the very first philosopher of Europe and the W. world overall to come out and say that and preach35 his philosophy without the appeals to Christianity and/or some other religion. That takes a lot of guts, to put it bluntly, and I admire that. And, of course, his ‘pessimistic’ outlook based on a of the Will was deeply shunned in his life-time, with only some acceptance of significance in the last 10 years of his life—and, that came only because an important scholar set the ‘record’ clear and articulated AS’s philosophy as worthy. AS him- self was not able to convince anyone hardly during his life-time of his work’s worthiness.

lessness (e.g., see Fisher, 2010)—that is, committed and belonging to the Fearlessness Movement (see definitions in Fisher & Subba (2016), p. 158). 34 My critique (complaint) is not that Nature is so hard on us, that it can cause so much fear and trembling, but, rather that Nature is perceived ontologically (projectively) through a pathological psychological and invested ideological Culturalism lens that is itself fear-based itself. Now, that’s the real problem—the basis of the Fear Problem (i.e., ‘Fear’ Project). I’ll attempt to somewhat sort through this issue in AS’s work on Nature. 35 Yes, he was a philosopher and made great arguments but he also at times ‘preached,’ even though he had rejected all religions per se (a point, Murdoch (1993) made in her cri- tique).

16 17

AS links consciousness and fear and knowledge-making in many ways which I also really like,36 but again, his theory of knowledge is too com- plex to go into here. I’ll give two brief angles towards understanding AS on fear (and fearless). First, I want to bring forward his most important more positive sounding philosophy to our ears today. He was very taken with the humanist J-J. Rousseau (18th century) on Nature (and even human nature), a point most critics of AS miss. In his study of compassion, AS utilized both the Eastern philosophies and Rousseau’s philosophy of the “human heart”37 and derived his own combination—arguing that (in his words) “... to awaken that compassion which is shown to be the sole source of disin- terested actions and hence the true basis of ,38 there is no need for abstract knowledge, but only for that of intuitive [feeling-based] percep- tion.”39 His use of only in this passage, unfortunately, can make his philos- ophy sound like it is anti-rationalist, a case some may make but which I refute when more data is gathered and interpreted; albeit, his language use in text often errs to the dramatic and hyperbole to make his points. This focus on intuiting the suffering, feelings, emotions and the less-than- rational aspects of human experience, within a context of compassion, is characteristic (and very radical for the time) of Idealist philosophy of which AS was part of, and some would label him also merging that - ism into .

It was also very shunned at the time and critics to this very day try to blame and Romanticism (especially in 19th century Germany) as the causal roots to the rise of Nazism and the that flooded over and

36 This linkage is also fundamental in Subba’s (2014) text and in Subba (2019), in which he counter-intuitively constructs an (implicit) unique theory of knowledge upon the premise that: the more knowledge, the more fear—as an inevitability and dialectical evolutionary relationship. I tend to agree with this thesis of Subba’s, with some critiques also I have—for e.g., in that Subba does not take into account the accumulation of knowledge to understand- ing and wisdom (e.g., nondual), via consciousness levels (a la a Wilberian of con- sciousness). At the higher levels of knowledge/consciousness, in other words, there is a ‘turn’ and ‘quantum leap’ into second-tier (what I call true Fearlessness). 37 It is not much of a stretch to call this a that Rousseau articulated in the 18th century and in no uncertain terms AS argues his “foundation [philosophically on feel- ings] is supported by the authority of J-J. Rousseau, who was undoubtedly the greatest mor- alist of modern times. He is the profound judge of the human heart, who drew his wisdom not from books but from life, and intended his doctrine not for the professorial chair but for humanity.... he alone was endowed by nature with the gift of the truth and touched the heart” (Schopenhauer (1995), p. 183. This right here is evidence, in part, of how AS was interested in both the rational clarity of mind of the philosopher (via gift of truth seeking) and the affective dimension of reality (via gift of love seeking; the heart). 38 Not insignificant, this is closely interrelated to his theory of /art. 39 Schophenhauer (1995), p. 183.

17 18 created the Holocaust. Which I think is all much too general of a diagnosis and critique, and one loaded with its own fear-based assumptions and per- ceptions and conclusions. AS unfortunately is not respected by most today because of this legacy of history in Germany and what is seen as a regres- sion of progress of civilization—due to excessive emotionalism at the ex- pense of . It is curious why such critics cannot imagine a more moderate integrative gesture (e.g., looking for ‘balance’ of emotional and rational) that lies within AS’s work.40

People thus tend to fear the Schopenhauerian-Nietzschean type philoso- phies—what I call the philosophies of feelings.41 However, if you read AS’s moral philosophy (i.e., his reading of Rousseau and Eastern philoso- phies and spiritualities) it is clear he is not and never was supportive of the kinds of atrocities that a later German history and politics would take. Compassion and love are core to his morality, at least in theory (philoso- phy)—for apparently he surely could not live what he preached, and failed in that regard.42 But that does not mean his philosophical treatise is a fail- ure.

The second angle, thus, it seems safe (albeit, tentatively) to claim here that AS loved Nature—that is, under a particular, and specialized condition— that is, when in his conscious compassionate sageliness (nondual perspec- tive43), practicing the “philosophy of saintliness” (as D. Berman called it44).

40 It’s not a point to argue here, but no doubt in AS’s attempt to ‘correct’ the over- domination of Reason (and rationalism) at the time overall in British and European philoso- phy, surely, he did so with a strategy of emphasis and focus on feelings and the emotional life, the life of hurting or suffering and searched for ways to work with it and not depend alone on the rationalist philosophies in the West—no doubt, that’s part of his early years searching the philosophies of the East for ‘different’ and less rationalist-abstract approach- es. For my philosophy I look for diverse sources, including Indigenous worldviews, to bring forward the arational (which includes feelings) to ‘correct’ the hegemony that AS detected some 200 years ago with amazing perspicacity. 41 Currently my own ms. Bitter/Better Ways to Live is a and reconstruction of a philosophy of feeling I am attempting to bring into the world of the 21st century, under the meta-contextual framework (lens, theory) of Fearlessness. 42 “Schopenhauer, it is clear, was no saint; and yet he put forward a philosophy of saintli- ness. Should he have practised what he preached? Not necessarily, he would say; for just as we do not demand that an artist who paints beautiful pictures should himself be beautiful, so, Schopenhauer holds, we should not require a moral philosopher to be exceptionally moral. For Schopenhauer, philosophy is theoretical, concerned with knowing the truth; there is little connection between it and any practice” (D. Berman, 1995/2002, p. xviii). I tend to half agree with Berman’s conclusion. 43 It is this nondual standpoint (arguably, a fearless standpoint, which I utilize in my work), via his investigations and at times embodiment of Buddhism and Hinduism of the highest levels (i.e., of wisdom and compassion)—even if such insights and he

18 19

How is it he could be called the oxymoron of “misanthropic sage” of ?45 I think there is an explanation for that when we realize his ‘splitting’ of the world into two spheres46—and, the splitting of humans into two types,47 and ultimately his ‘walking’ across from one sphere on one-side to the other, and back and forth, and ideally (as any Idealist phi- losophy would) he’d prefer the one-side of Nature and the noumena over the other-side of Culture and phenomena. He abhorred, for the most part consensual reality and demanded in his philosophy of saintliness to inves- tigate the alternative reality (realities) of a higher, kind of post-humanist, morality—beyond Will.

What is this possibility of beyond Will for AS? It will take a bit of an ex- planation; it’s complicated. I make here a link between Nature and fearless—and interweave AS’s philosophy with his psychology—albeit, with my own spin on it. At times I see in his work this admiration of Nature consisting of apriori (Will) that has an impeccable and integrity of truth—one that AS sees little of in human societies—that is, in Culture. I agree with that basic assessment, as my colleague Four Arrows (from a Nature-based Indigenous worldview) suggests that Nature is free of “deceit” (lies48)—but humans have departed long ago in their history and had (mystical is a fair label) were fragile and temporary, with his more “egoistic” personali- ty returning to dominate (see D. Berman, 1995/2002, p. xviii). 44 Ibid., p. xviii. 45 Ibid., p. xx. 46 The Idealist (Kantian) distinction of phenomenal world (surface, visible) and noumenal (depths, invisible)—the latter, for the Idealists (generally) as the really real (sometimes called the other-worldly, as Wilber (1995) has said). 47 The reasonable human who thinks more than not (and thus is a step beyond being fear- based in every move)—and, the “brute” (AS calls them) who “is determined [completely] by the present impression [sensate, reflex-reaction of the animal nervous system]”—the latter becomes fear-based in its need to “constrain its desires” [i.e., desires like the id, as Freud would call it] (Schopenhauer, 1883, p. 47). It is true “For Schopenhauer, human be- ings are not essentially rational, but are desiring, emotional animals, whose rationality was developed to serve and maximize the will to life” (D. Berman, 1995/2002, p. xxv)—a claim which is a strong precursor to what hundreds of years later become the basis of the “selfish gene” hypothesis in evolutionary (also called , and of late called eco- psychology). More accurately, AS puts both of these two types into one larger type and that he adjoins under the that they “both will” (Schopenhauer, 1883, p. 47). His third type is so rare, sagely, because they deny will (cf. AS’s book four in WWI; p. 175 in Schopen- hauer, 1995/2002) via “self-knowledge” (of a higher, nondual consciousness perspective). Psychologically, this is a focus on the other-worldly reality via transcendence of “ego- ism”—a point I make in the text above. 48 AS argues that general “healthy understanding” for a human is near-equal and/or in co- herence with Nature—he wrote, it is “confirmed by the confidence that Nature never lies any more than she errs, but openly exhibits and naively expresses her action and her nature,

19 20 evolution and now tend to rely on deceit to ‘thrive’ (i.e., to dominate).49 At the same time AS often takes a position of suggesting such a world is one of no peace—a world of evil50—and a good deal of suffering, of which I would add that predator-prey (i.e., and “ecology of fear”) tend to dominate motivational dynamics of all forms of life, more or less, from beginning to end.51 It isn’t a pretty picture as AS says such near condemn- ing things about the world (Nature) in its deterministic, rough and gross, to fragile and suffering aspects.

D. Berman summarizes AS’s philosophy and psychology by claiming “the world is will” and “all nature is will.”52 As I slowly contemplate on AS’s view of world and of Nature, and thus human nature in this worldly- world—I am struck by conflation at times of these conceptual worldspaces he is constructing and it is confusing at times reading his work, no doubt.

I tend to think it best to separate the world, from Nature—and, if at times this is best, AS seems to do so. In his comparison of the world (which I would call mostly Culture, not that AS does so), truly there is no contest of which is ‘good’ and which is largely ‘bad’ in his view. Listen to him make a stunning connection between Nature and fearless in contrast to Culture and fear-based existence:

[Cultural] Dogmas change and our knowledge is deceptive; but Nature never errs, her procedure is sure, and she never conceals it. Everything is entirely in Nature, and Nature is entire in eve- rything.53 She has her centre in every brute.54 It has surely while only we ourselves obscure it by our folly [fear-based ], in order to estab- lish what is agreeable to our limited point of view” (Schopenhauer, 1883, p. 363). 49 See re: critique of “deception” in Fisher (2018a), pp. 125-26. 50 AS wrote in his dualistic-bitterness modality (dramatic and tragic hyperbole): “In my 17th year I was gripped by the misery of life [Nature], as Buddha had been in his youth when he saw sickness, old age, pain and death. The truth was that this world could not have been the work of an all loving being but rather that of a devil, who had brought creatures into exist- ence in order to delight in their suffering” (A. Schopenhauer, excerpt from the Internet). 51 I mentioned “Thanatos” earlier in this regard to dissolution built-in to life-systems, but I have stated this further in a recent teaching video (Fisher, 2019). 52 D. Berman (1995/2002), p. xxvii is paraphrasing AS’s work. 53 I agree with him, if he is positing that the Natural sphere is foundational to all other spheres, Cultural and Spiritual. I also agree with him, if he is positing that the Cultural sphere albeit quite distinct has still the Nature inherent within—but the formational interpre- tation of Natural is vastly (often pathologically) skewed. 54 Here I see grounds for AS’s view of human nature, it is both Cultural (perverted, con- structed and “trained” into us) and it is still inherently Natural—and, thus, the latter point ensures our human nature (beyond Will and the human condition)—as positive and as good

20 21

found its way into existence, and it will surely find its way out of it.55 In the meantime it lives, fearless and without care, in the presence of annihilation, supported by the consciousness that it is Nature herself, and imperishable [eternal] as she is.56

I read this, on first go, as Nature is fearless relative to Culture which is fear-based.57 The latter is where his two human types, driven by Will, are existent in the phenomenal world—and, it is here that begins not only his core practical-motivational philosophy but his unique and pivotal basis of a Schopenhauerian self- psychology of humans. AS wrote,

The chief and fundamental incentive in man as in the animal is egoism, that is, the craving for existence and well-being. The German word Selbstsucht (passion for self) involves a false secondary notion of [self-] disease [and/or dis-ease].58 The word Eigennutz (self-interest), however, denotes egoism as this is under the guidance of the faculty of reason; by means of re- flection, this faculty enables egoism to pursue its purposes sys- tematically. Thus we can call animals egoistic, but not self- interested.59

Fear-based existence is a neurotic-based existence, one that is ‘out-of- touch’ with Nature and reality—and, out-of-touch with the truth of one’s nature—in Nature as foundational—and as eternal in its existence in that

as Nature herself, in metaphysical (at least). Note the distinction I am adding onto AS’s work by pulling out human nature and human condition (and human potential)—see Fisher (1997a), p. 47 for definitions of these three interrelated modes in detail. 55 It is profound he sees (and/or merely argues rationally) that the Natural sphere is itself both incorporated in the Cultural but not restricted to it nor can it be completely distorted and appropriated (pathologically)—so, in that sense, the Natural is ‘free’ at some level from the fear-based Culturalism that is hegemonic in human lives (especially, since modernity, especially in the human condition). Note: fear-based means in my thinking and theorizing that at least 50+% or more of one’s motivation and outcomes of behavior etc. are based on fear (see Fisher, 2013). 56 Schopenhauer (1883), p. 362. 57 This would require a longer explanation why I think this, but for now I recommend sup- portive evidence for this claim from “terror management theory” (see Wikipedia) and its origination in the philosophy and theories of Ernest Becker (cf. Becker, 1973). 58 The original AS footnote on this same spot reads (from Payne’s translation note): “9. [Schopenhauer refers to Sucht, which means ‘sickness’]”—of which, one could call neuro- sis (fear-based) and I think AS would have approved. Typically, from my naturalist obser- vations since childhood, I have never seen a ‘wild’ creature neurotic, only domesticated ones raised (in Culture) by humans who are typically neurotic. 59 Schopenhauer (1839/1995), p. 131.

21 22 sense of Goethe’s conclusion (which AS was informed by to some degree) that “Our spirit is a being of a nature quite indestructible, and its activity continues from eternity to eternity.”60 Therein, implicitly is AS’s embrace, to some degree, of a Spiritual sphere as complementary to, and ‘corrective’ of the Cultural sphere. I would say, when you read the nondual philosophy of AS (e.g., denial of the Will) as moral foundation then it is also fearless like the Natural (like Nature). That is where true peace lies, AS would sug- gest. That is where compassion lies as well.

This completes my initial two-angles on AS’s philosophy and psychology for elucidation via his view of Nature. Of course, to look at AS’s other writing beyond the topic of Nature, would be worthy too. I think especially his view of “egoism” is very important and to link that with “fearism”—a further study down the road.

Brief Summary

Fear and fearless are core to AS’s philosophy and psychology—and, espe- cially with influence from Eastern philosophies, there is an affinity inevita- ble in AS’s work no doubt for fearlessness.

To summarize, my basic take: For AS, sure Nature is tough, vulnerable, will-driven, and are often sacrificed for the continuation of the species (or tribe, or nation) because of a biological-genetic (will-to- survive) imperative and metaphysical ontological basis. There is no escape from the egoism (self-interest and fear of not surviving) that goes with the world and Nature. AS also distinguishes Nature from the world—and, in many ways sees Natural and Spiritual realms as fearless relative to the Cul- tural sphere which dominates most of human existence—much to the cha- grin of AS. Thus much of AS’s bitterness is due to this reality—the Cultur- al reality not of Nature itself. Fear projection from the world onto Nature is a mis-diagnosis, and thus one has to be cautious of doing so, that is of suggesting just how afraid things are in Nature. AS may get caught in that trap of fear-projection at times, unfortunately, but it is correctable in fur- ther interpretations and modifications of his work. There is an important teasing out of human nature from human condition (i.e., “training” in fear)—the latter, as essentially characteristic of Culture. By pursuing a phi- losophy of feelings, fear and fearless come to the foreground and psychol- ogy is crucial in AS’s work. The arationality of his work is not given enough attention so far. I wish to promote that interpretive lens and also to

60 Schopenhauer (1883), p. 362.

22 23 challenge simultaneously that his nondual standpoint (or fearless stand- point) is amazing for a W. philosopher and puts his philosophy of saintli- ness into a closer to the mystical (than the romantics and idealists) of insight and about reality (Reality). His focus on compas- sion as part of this inquiry, especially in his moral philosophy, surely takes him beyond only a tired class of philosophical pessimism he is so often boxed-in to.

I look forward to more work on AS for fear management/education in the 21st century, because so far, I am seeing great signs for applicability of his work to the cascading crises of the Anthropocene era.

References

Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Simon & Schuster. Berman, D. (1995/2002). Introduction. In. Schopenhauer, A., The world as will and idea (pp. xvii-xxxix). London, UK: J. M. Dent. Fisher, R. M. (1997). Thanatos and Phobos: 'Fear' and its role in Ken Wilber's transpersonal theory. Technical Paper No. 4. Calgary, AB: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M. (1997a). A guide to Wilberland: Some common misunderstandings of the critics of Ken Wilber and his work on transpersonal theory prior to 1995. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 37(4), 30-73. Fisher, R. M. (2010). The world’s fearlessness teachings: A critical integral approach to fear management/education for the 21st century. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Fisher, R. M. (2013). The problem of defining the concept of "fear-based." Technical Paper No. 48. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute. Fisher, R. M. (2018). Expanding the fear imaginary: A core course, TFI-118. Calgary, AB: The Fearology Institute. Fisher, R. M. (2018a). Fearless engagement of Four Arrows: The true story of an Indigenous-based social transformer. New York: Peter Lang. Fisher, R. M. (2019). Ken Wilber: Unique philosopher for our times. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPl3-ANv308 Fisher, R. M., & Subba, D. (2016). Philosophy of fearism: A first East-West dialogue. Australia: Xlibris. Hanh, T. N. (2012). Fear: Essential wisdom for getting through the storm. New York: HarperCollins. Hannay, A. (1985). Introduction. In S. Kierkegaard, Fear and trembling: Dialectical lyric by Johannes de silentio (pp. 7-37). [trans. A. Hannay]. London, UK: Penguin. Kierkegaard, S. (1843/1985). Fear and trembling: Dialectical lyric by Johannes de silentio. [trans. A. Hannay]. London, UK: Penguin. Krishnamurti, J. (1995). On fear. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.

23 24

Murdoch, I. (1993). Metaphysics as a guide to morals. London, UK: Penguin. Parker, D. H. (1928). Arthur Schopenhauer, in Introduction to Schopenhauer Selections, ed. DeWitt H. Parker. Retrieved from http://www.ditext.com/parker/schopenhauer.html Pattison, A. S. P. (1898). The opinions of Friedrich Nietzsche. The Contemporary Review, Jan. 1, 727-50. Rank, O. (1932/89). Art and artist: Creative urge and personality development. [trans. C. F. Atkinson]. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Robin, C. (2004). Fear: The history of an idea. New York: Oxford University Press. Schopenhauer, A. (1883). The world as will and idea (Vol. 1). [trans. R. B. Haldane, J. Kemp]. London: Trübner & Co. Schopenhauer, A. (1995). . Trans. E. F. J. Payne. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. [original 1839] Schopenhauer, A. (1995/2002). The world as will and idea [abridged in one volume, Ed. D. Berman and trans. J. Berman]. London: J. M. Dent. [original 1818]. Steiner, R. (2011). On fear: Spiritual perspectives. [compiled and ed. by Taja Gut, trans. J. Collis] Forest Row, UK: Press. Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. Australia: Xlibris. Subba, D. (2019). Knowledge is fear, existence of fear precedes power, is death of fear possible? Retrieved from https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog /knowledge-is-fear-existence-of-fear-precedes-power-is-death-of-fe Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology and : The spirit in evolution (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Shambhala. Wyllie, R. (2016). Kierkegaard talking down Schopenhauer: The Sunset Limited as a philosophical dialogue. The Cormac McCarthy Journal, 14(2), 186-203. Zimmerern, H. (1876). Arthur Schopenhauer: His life and his philosophy. Retrieved from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer,_his_Life_and_Philosop hy

24