The distinctive contribution of Patrick L. Gardiner’s Schopenhauer resides in its patient reconstruction of a whole philosophical economy—source, method, scope, and limit—through which Schopenhauer’s scattered themes merge into a single, exacting proposal about what metaphysical inquiry can mean after Kant. Gardiner’s stake is twofold: to recover a disciplined, non-romantic Schopenhauer whose system grows from problems rather than temperaments, and to test that system by following its inner displacements—from epistemology into ontology, from ontology into aesthetic experience, from aesthetics into ethics, and from ethics toward the book’s terminal concern with the mystical horizon—all under an outer framing that keeps distinct what is textually secured from what must remain inferential. In doing so, Gardiner exposes conceptual tensions (between idea and will, intellect and motive, science and art, individuality and negation) and shows how they are not dissolved but worked through as the argument advances and is constantly reframed.
Gardiner begins by clearing the ground of three common misplacements: that Schopenhauer is essentially a belletristic aphorist; that he bequeaths an ideology of power; and that he imports an alien, “Oriental” metaphysic into European philosophy. These portraits wither under textual pressure. The book’s outer frame insists that Schopenhauer addresses central European problems—knowledge, causality, subject–object structure, the claims of science, the normative reach of ethics—by way of a method that is deliberately cautious about what kind of result philosophy may claim. The shared starting point is a standing perplexity about the world as a whole, a perplexity sharpened (Gardiner stresses) by two human certainties—mortality and suffering—which motivate metaphysical need while simultaneously tempting religious short-cuts that confuse sensu proprio truth with sensu allegorico instruction. Hence Gardiner’s early distinction: philosophy’s evidence lies “in itself,” its conclusions must be intelligible as conclusions; confounding it with revelation is a category error that breeds spurious warrants and obscures method.
As Gardiner re-threads the Kantian setting, he identifies the target that animates Schopenhauer’s early effort: “transcendent metaphysics” in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century sense is blocked in principle once one has learned Kant’s lesson about the conditions of possible experience. That is not a practical limitation but a structural one; it prohibits inferences beyond experience (for instance, from causal order to a supersensible cause). This negative delimitation, however, is not the end of metaphysics but its re-inauguration at a different register: the world as idea names the only field in which objects are present to a subject at all, while the world as will—and this phrase designates neither a concept nor a theological postulate—names what is immediately disclosed in a different access, the self’s awareness of its body as action inseparable from act of will. Gardiner’s crucial warrant runs through the twofold self-knowledge to which Schopenhauer returns: I am object (spatio-temporal body among bodies) and I am will (the inward fact of agency for which the body is expression), and these are not two things bound by causality but the same event from two irreducible sides. That dual disclosure becomes the hinge by which Gardiner reinterprets the “thing-in-itself”: not a hidden substrate hypothetically posited beneath appearances, but what is given (only here) without mediation, thereby supplying a disciplined analogy for the rest of nature without collapsing into theoretical egoism.
The first displacement of the book thus runs from a polemical boundary-setting (against theology by proof, against dogmatic metaphysics, against the “faculty” of supra-rational insight) to a constructive program in which Kant’s great restriction is accepted and worked through: the bound of cognition remains, yet within the field delimited by that bound we acquire a privileged point where the same reality is accessible otherwise than as representation. Gardiner shows how this grants Schopenhauer both less and more than the “transcendence” of earlier systems: less, because there is no licit route from concepts to supersensible objects; more, because immediacy of will is not, for Schopenhauer, a conceptual result at all, and therefore does not violate the critique. The positive upshot is a double aspect theory that can be generalized by parity of reason without asserting that others are mere projections of my consciousness. The inference—weak where it must remain weak, strong where it can be anchored—is marked as analogical, and Gardiner is explicit about the boundary between textual assertion and the place where a “sophistical” solipsism is refused less by formal refutation than by the practical incoherence it would impose on a philosophy that will shortly require compassion.
From this point the argument condenses around the principle of sufficient reason and the structural forms of experience—space, time, causality—through which “objective reality” is constituted for us. Gardiner’s account is rigorous at the joints: the principle is not a single rule but a family that authorizes different kinds of “reason” in different contexts (logical ground, causal ground, mathematical ground, and so on). He then interlaces this with Schopenhauer’s equally strict division between perceptual cognition (sensibility and understanding) and abstract cognition (concepts, reason). The result is a two-tier story about knowledge: at the base, the world is gathered under those forms; at the second tier, we manipulate concepts whose proper use is subordinated to, not ruling over, the structure of perception. The illicit temptation—one Gardiner sees and names whenever it arises—is to treat reason as a little window opening onto what lies beyond possible experience and then smuggling theology through it. Against this error, Schopenhauer’s re-specification of metaphysical scope holds: thought may repeat the world’s essence only in very general concepts and only where it remains tethered to what experience, broadly construed, permits.
At exactly this juncture Gardiner executes the second displacement: from epistemology to aesthetics. The transition is not a change of subject but a methodological pivot necessitated by the very limitation he has established. If scientific explanation remains the obedient “slave of the will,” born of practical need and content to manage surfaces, where could one secure a perception uncoerced by appetite? The answer, for Schopenhauer and for Gardiner’s exposition, is the aesthetic attitude: a punctuated suspension in which the subject’s practical vectoring loosens and the object is seized in its exemplary character as Idea—not an abstract universal, but a non-discursive apprehension of essence. Gardiner safeguards this point from romantic inflation by showing that the aesthetic stance is neither a soft “ineffable” nor a mystical short-cut; it is a stringent change in cognitive comportment that makes possible a mode of “standing back” comparable to the frame around a painting. What it excludes is not clarity but instrumentality. This is why, in Gardiner’s narrative, aesthetic cognition can do philosophical work: it discloses content the concept can only later repeat as generality, and it does so under an attitude that tempers the will’s dominion.
The discussion of the arts is therefore not decorative. Gardiner shows how the hierarchy of arts mirrors the metaphysical gradation of objectifications of will. Architecture exhibits in matter’s resistance and in the load-bearing solution a stripped dialogue of forces; sculpture and painting gather the Ideas of organic form and human expressivity; tragedy, in an exemplary argument that Gardiner lingers over, concentrates the terrible side of life—the undoing of the just, the reign of chance, the mutual entrapment of well-intentioned agents whose positions force injury—precisely because its law is to show the world as it is, rather than tidy it with “poetic justice.” This is not an aesthetic of cruelty; it is a philosophical aesthetics in which the stage becomes the most compressed mirror of the will’s structure, awakening the spectator to a comprehension that is at once cognitive and de-willing.
Gardiner’s most intricate pages in this middle movement are devoted to music, which Schopenhauer singles out as standing “quite apart.” Here the argument thickens: music neither depicts phenomena nor represents Ideas in another medium. It is nonetheless “about” something in a sense that cannot be reduced to imitation or to suggestive association. Gardiner devotes careful labor to separating the temptations that crowd this topic. “Imitative” music mistakes its vocation; so, in another way, does a song subordinated to its words or an opera that makes plot the chief thing, drowning music in spectacle and appetite. The reason is principled: to prosecute its end, music must remain receptive to its own inward language, that is, to the structured unfolding of tones in which the will’s inner rhythms—striving, repose, renewed striving—are sounded rather than pictured. Hence the doctrine, as exacting as it is daring, that melody is the “quintessence” of innumerable strivings; hence also the claim that the terms by which we intelligibly describe music are borrowed from the vocabulary of moods and passions, not from picturable objects. Gardiner does not spare us the difficulties: calling music a “language” risks metaphor, and the ontological status of what is “expressed” requires care. His solution is to keep the line tight between textual warrant and philosophical extrapolation: what is secured is that music delivers, without concept and without imitation, an immediate presentation of the will’s interior articulation; what is inferential is the broader claim that, if philosophy could translate this content into concepts without remainder, it would be the complete metaphysics it cannot otherwise be. That counterfactual marks the limit both of music and of thought, and Gardiner does not pretend to surpass it.
The third displacement carries the argument into ethics. Gardiner’s staging here is diagnostic before it becomes doctrinal. If the long route through knowledge and art has been designed to loosen the will’s hold and reveal its structure, ethics must speak to the same will as character, as the fixed kernel from which deeds flow. The decisive reversal is Schopenhauer’s insistence that philosophy since Descartes has mis-located our essence in knowing consciousness, and that the attempt to make intellect sovereign—free, directive, the master of motives—misdescribes experience and makes moral theory hostage to an illusory anthropology. On Gardiner’s telling, the point is not a polemical devaluation of intellect; it is a re-allocation of roles: intellect serves the will in everyday life and in science; it may temporarily quiet the will in aesthetic contemplation; but it does not generate our maxims, still less our character. The upshot is an ethics whose center is motive as manifestation of will, and whose positive core is compassion—the immediate cognition of another’s inner life as like one’s own, grounded ultimately in the same double aspect thesis that underwrote Schopenhauer’s resistance to theoretical egoism. Gardiner marks the textual security of this path (from anthropology to motive to compassion) while acknowledging where the inferences reach beyond explicit proof.
This does not end the ethical arc. For Gardiner, the treatment of tragedy has already prepared the decisive ethical thought: the insight that the world’s structure, once seen clearly, inclines the will to a turning. The lexicon is ancient—resignation, denial of the will to live—but Gardiner’s exposition keeps it within the discipline established from the start. There is no appeal to a special cognitive faculty; there is no theological prop. The argument proceeds from the phenomenology of willing, through the failures of eudaemonist projects, to the practical recognition that the only “salvation” available within the bounds of possible experience is the weakening of the will’s claim upon us—first aesthetically, then ethically in compassion, and finally in the ascetic’s radical diminution of willing as such. To that sequence Gardiner adds two clarifications. First, the denial of the will is neither a suicide nor a metaphysical annihilation; the text treats literal self-destruction as a refusal to face the will’s structure at all. Second, the ethical consummation is not reached by theoretical demonstration but by transformation of comportment, hence the inner continuity with aesthetic beholding. These clarifications are secured across Gardiner’s long reconstruction of Schopenhauer’s middle and late writings and show how the system’s parts bear the weight of its end.
At the outer edge stands the book’s final topic, “the mystical.” Gardiner frames it with circumspection. On the one hand, the earlier exclusions still bind: where concepts cannot licitly go, no “faculty” may be invented to carry them. On the other hand, the text cannot be honest and pretend that nothing more is at stake than an ethic of quietude. There are states in which the usual articulation of subject and object loosens to the point where the very grammar of inner and outer feels suspended. Gardiner neither inflates these reports into doctrine nor evacuates them into mere metaphor. He treats them as the unsurpassable boundary phenomenon of a philosophy that has already turned its critical lesson into a positive program: here the effort to “say” will only point, and the discipline lies in refusing to purchase extra clarity with bad metaphysics. If there is a terminus ad quem, it is a practical one: a life in which willing has been reduced, compassion expanded, and the measurable remainder of suffering diminished. That is not a theory of salvation; it is a rigorously circumscribed orientation, and Gardiner keeps the line visible between what Schopenhauer claims and what late-nineteenth-century disciples and detractors projected upon him.
Throughout, Gardiner continuously re-anchors the exposition in textual warrants while acknowledging when an inference is being made on Schopenhauer’s behalf. Two instances may serve as exemplars of this editorial conscience. First, in the reworking of the thing-in-itself, Gardiner highlights the text’s explicit anchorage in the twofold self-awareness and then flags as inferential the move to a global ontology of will by analogy. The result is a distinction between what the book secures (the immediate givenness of will here) and what it responsible-hypothesizes (the extension of that structure to nature at large). Second, in the aesthetics of music, Gardiner carefully labels as textual the claim that music does not imitate and that its terms are affective rather than pictorial, while marking as philosophical ambition the suggestion that a complete conceptual transcription of musical content would, if possible, be tantamount to a finished metaphysics. These discriminations are not hedges; they are the very practice of philosophy that the book wants to model.
The composition sequence and outer framing matter for the unity Gardiner defends. The life-and-introduction material is not anecdote; it locates the genesis of problems (education in sciences, Kantian tutelage, impatience with theological encroachment on philosophy, an early preoccupation with mortality and suffering) and the polemical environment in which the main work was composed and then supplemented. The scaffolding of Gardiner’s own volume rehearses that trajectory: “The Possibility of Metaphysics” sets the critical terms and their Kantian inheritance; “Knowledge and Thought” secures the cognitive architecture; “The Essence of the World” introduces the will’s ontological role via the twofold self-knowledge; “The Nature of Art” shows why aesthetics is not ornament but a functional station in the system; “Ethics and the Individual Will” transposes insight into practice; “The Mystical” marks the limit where saying can only gesture; and the “Conclusion” gathers, without triumph, the cumulative bearings of the route. Each part thus displaces and re-grounds the prior, not by contradiction, but by accommodation: what begins as an epistemic delimitation ends as a practical orientation, with aesthetics serving as the mediating attitude and compassion as the ethical analogue of aesthetic detachment.
A further strength of Gardiner’s treatment is its continuous resistance to the easy enlargement of “reason” that nineteenth-century university discourse often practiced. He is sharp where the text is sharp about the dishonesty of invoking a fictive “Reason” to validate pre-given dogmas; he is equally sharp about philosophies of perception that separate “real bodies” behind ideas from what we actually perceive. The latter argument, which recalls anti-representational lines familiar from Berkeley, reappears here with a different intent: not to deny the external world, but to keep the vocabulary of “hidden causes” from re-installing precisely the metaphysics Kant disqualified. Gardiner’s insistence on this anti-representationalist moment is not scholastic; it is structurally necessary for the rest of the system to do its work.
Because Gardiner’s Schopenhauer is consistently historical without being historicist, the book also clarifies relations that later readers have obscured. Thus the famous influence on Wagner is noted without allowing it to dictate the philosophy; Gardiner even preserves Schopenhauer’s tart judgments about grand opera and spectacle as philosophically motivated critiques of distraction. Similarly, Gardiner honors the editorial foreword’s suggestion (A.J. Ayer) that admirers of Wittgenstein may be surprised by the Schopenhauerian antecedents without turning that genealogical fact into a thesis about identity of doctrines; what matters is that a certain rigor about what can be said—and how—is common to both, and Gardiner’s method models that rigor rather than only reporting it.
Two final tensions, which Gardiner neither suppresses nor sensationalizes, deserve emphasis because they reveal the book’s argumentative virtue. First, the tension between the generality of concepts and the singularity of aesthetic insight: if philosophy must speak in very general concepts, and if the essence is shown first in a singular beholding, there is a standing risk of flattening. Gardiner does not claim to eliminate it; instead, he treats the risk as a structural feature of any attempt to “repeat” the world’s essence in thought. Second, the tension between an ethics oriented to compassion and a metaphysics that culminates in the denial of willing: does compassion only prepare an ascetic that withdraws from the very field in which compassion operates? Gardiner’s answer, as I read him, is a sober both-and borne out by the texts: compassion is the ethical disclosure of the non-singularity of inward life; ascetic renunciation is the practical extremity of the same insight under conditions where action’s economy can no longer promise relief. That they sit uneasily together is part of their truth within a philosophy that keeps suffering, rather than system-completion, before it.
In closing, it is the method—problem first, scope second, inference marked, and limits obeyed—that gives Gardiner’s Schopenhauer its durable clarity. The book neither domesticates its subject into a set of edifying aphorisms nor exaggerates him into a prophet of willful force. It reads him as a philosopher whose system stands or falls with a disciplined answer to three questions: what can we know given the forms of our cognition; what is shown when the same world is encountered aesthetically; and how must we live once the structure of willing is understood from within. The result is an argument-shaped narrative in which every major section generates and then displaces the last: critique of metaphysics yields a restricted metaphysics; restricted metaphysics requires an aesthetic access; aesthetic access grounds an ethics; ethics leans into an ascesis; ascesis touches the mystical limit where saying gives way to orientation. That sequence is Gardiner’s principal achievement: a demonstration that the reach of Schopenhauer’s influence—across philosophy, art, and music—is a consequence of the internal architecture of his thought, and not the cause of it.
Simon Gros 
Leave a comment