Exploring Monism in Kantian Philosophy and Schopenhauer’s Will Through Advaita Vedanta

 

  This blog post explores monism within Kantian philosophy and Schopenhauer’s concept of the “Will” through drawing parallels with Advaita Vedanta, a school of thought in Hinduism, as the title suggests. In Kant's philosophy, the noumena, or the “thing-in-itself” represents the ultimate reality of objects independent of our perceptions. Kant argued that we can never have direct knowledge of the noumenal realm because our knowledge is necessarily mediated by the structure of our minds and senses. This is explored much more in-depth in my other blog posts on the basics of Kant. While we can perceive and understand phenomena—how things appear to us—the nature of the noumena remains inaccessible. Kant posited that our experiences are shaped by the 12 categories of the understanding and the forms of intuition, and these mental structures impose limitations on what we can know about the underlying reality.

  In Kant’s framework, both apples and oranges, for example, have a dual existence. They are phenomena that we can perceive and yet remain beyond cognitive reach. This raises the question, are there 2 noumena? One for the true nature of the apple and the orange or is there one noumena for both that is manifested as two different things in the phenomenological world? In Kant’s philosophy, there is a single noumenal realm that underlies all phenomena. It is not the case that each object has its own separate noumenon and the differences we perceive between apples and oranges are a result of how our senses and cognitive faculty structures and interprets the underlying noumena. This raises a further question…is this a type of monism?

Monism asserts that there is a fundamental singular substance or reality underlying all things whether it be a material monism as in Stoicism explored elsewhere on my blog or a metaphysical monism. Given these points, one could interpret Kant’s philosophy in a way that aligns with a form of monism, at least in the sense that there is a singular, underlying noumena shared by everything in existence despite the diversity of the phenomena.

Arthur Schopenhauer, a 19th-century German philosopher who was influenced by Kant and Eastern philosophies, developed his own philosophical system that included a reinterpretation of the noumenal realm. Schopenhauer identified the noumenal reality as the “Will”. While Kant did not speak upon the nature of the noumena as he believed it was beyond our epistemological capacity, Schopenhauer argued that the Will is a single, undivided, and blind force that gives multiplicity to phenomena. The world of appearances is, according to Schopenhauer, a representation of the underlying Will and hence that is the name of his magnum opus, “The World as Will and Representation”. This representation is shaped by the cognitive structures of the human mind as expressed in Kant. In Schopenhauer’s system, everything in existence, whether living or nonliving, is an expression or manifestation of the same fundamental Will and this shares similarities with monism. However, I do not see why Kant’s noumena cannot be considered monism if Schopenhauer’s is. It seems to me that Schopenhauer is expanding upon the entailment of Kant. In equating the Will with the noumena, Schopenhauer was engaging in metaphysical speculation beyond what Kant explicitly claimed or rather did not claim. Schopenhauer attempted to go beyond Kant’s cautious stance and offer a more detailed account of what the noumenal realm might be. Furthermore, there are indeed notable similarities between Schopenhauer’s philosophy and certain aspects of Advaita Vedanta, a school of Hindu philosophy, particularly in their monistic claims.

Both Schopenhauer and Advaita Vedanta assert an ultimate unity or reality behind the phenomena of the world. In Schopenhauer’s case, the Will, while in Advaita Vedanta, it is referred to as Brahman. Therefore, both suggest that the diversity perceived in the world is an illusion or Maya in Sanskrit, it is the representation of the Will or the manifestation of Brahman. Schopenhauer further argues that the individual wills are manifestations of the universal Will, and Advaita Vedanta holds that individual identities are ultimately unreal, with the true self being identical to Brahman. However, while both philosophies posit a grounding monism, they differ vastly in their descriptions of it. Schopenhauer identifies the Will with a blind, striving force with an insatiable desire, while Advaita Vedanta describes Brahman as infinite, blissful, and conscious that manifests as many Gods such as Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma. Schopenhauer’s description of the Will in this way played a crucial role in his pessimistic outlook of life. The constant striving and unsatisfied nature of the Will to affirm itself leads to suffering and frustration, contributing to a negative view of life. Human existence is plagued by struggle which is reflected in our wicked nature and this extends even to plants which contest with one another over sunlight. Had he identified the Will more closely with a life-affirming conception, akin to the Hindu notion of Brahman or God, it would have led to a more optimistic interpretation of his monistic philosophy. Instead, he inadvertently reinterpreted Buddhism but without what people admire about Buddhism.

Can Kant’s transcendental idealism explained earlier be expanded to the self? Just as we know things from experience and cannot know them truly how they are, the noumena, we cannot know our true selves but only our consciousness? Kant would argue in the affirmative. Our knowledge of the self is limited to what appears within our consciousness, which includes our thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. We do not have direct access to the true nature of the self, which remains beyond our cognitive reach as a noumenal reality. Our consciousness serves as the medium through which we apprehend ourselves. Just as external objects are shaped by the structures of our perception, our self-awareness is shaped by the structures of our consciousness. The true nature of the self, existing independently of our cognitive processes, is considered noumenal and inaccessible. This is also found in Advaita Vedanta where even the self is an illusion as it is truly a manifestation of Brahman along with everything else in existence.

In conclusion, the exploration of monism in Kantian philosophy and Schopenhauer’s Will, juxtaposed with the tenets of Advaita Vedanta, reveals striking parallels in their conceptualizations of ultimate reality. While Kant’s epistemic limitations confines our knowledge to the phenomenal realm, Schopenhauer ventures into metaphysical speculation, identifying the Will as the noumena. However, I do see monism in both their philosophies even if Kant does not want to take that step. Furthermore, the comparison with Advaita Vedanta highlights these shared monistic principles.