ABSTRACT
Although many of the problems addressed by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche could not themselves be considered typically Kantian problems, they are nonetheless problems initially confronted from within a broadly Kantian framework, which remains true even if subsequent argumentation on the part of either philosopher significantly deforms that framework. An example: although Schopenhauer clearly owes a massive debt to Kant’s understanding of, and arguments for, the ideality of space and time, he nevertheless suspected an incompatibility between this transcendental ideality and the notion of a possibly pluralistic world of the thing in itself and in the ensuing attempt to resolve this metaphysical issue with phenomenological considerations, he transformed Kant’s critical philosophy into a vast and horrific metaphysical vision partly concerned in its normative mode with the quietism of aesthetico-ethical asceticism. Another instance: when Nietzsche encountered Schopenhauer’s philosophical pessimism, although a prominent feature of his eventual response would turn out to be a vicious rejection of that pessimism, this would be a rejection that did not rigorously question all aspects of the Schopenhauerian universe. What this might be taken to suggest is that Schopenhauer’s arguments can best be understood through their opposition to those of Kant and that Nietzsche’s arguments can similarly best be understood through their opposition to those of both Kant and Schopenhauer. Accordingly, Schopenhauer was not criticised for his initial acceptance of transcendental idealism here, nor was Nietzsche censured unduly for himself criticising what might be regarded to be essentially a Kantian God at the expense of the living Christian God. Rather, what was provided here might be said to be an account and criticism of the internal development of a certain Kantian tradition, certainly not the only one to be initiated by Kant, nor one whose continuities are wholly free from links with other traditions, but nonetheless
one whose arguments at certain key points of internal conflict were both intriguing enough and powerful enough to merit study.
