Misogyny of the Pessimistic Philosopher

According to Iran Book News Agency (IBNA) – Reza Dastjerdi: “On Women: Wisdom for Men” by the renowned German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, translated by Mehdi Nourimoghaddam, is a new release from Chav Publications. Nourimoghaddam, a lecturer, filmmaker, photographer, director, and producer of cinema and television, who has also translated books such as “The Meaning of Conservatism” and “Modern Culture,” speaks with IBNA about Schopenhauer’s view on women and life, the method of translating the work, how to recreate the ironic tone of the text in Persian, the translator’s ethical concern in dealing with misogynistic concepts, and the value of reading such texts in today’s cultural landscape.

As we know, Schopenhauer’s philosophy is founded on will, suffering, and pessimism. Where does the root of this pessimism lie? Is it purely philosophical, or does it stem from his personal experiences during post-Romantic Germany?

We cannot call everyone a philosopher. A philosopher must have a clear and systematic thought. Schopenhauer is one of those who had a philosophical system. But why such a pessimistic view formed in him is not merely confined to his works; it should also be examined from a psychological perspective. In his personal life, he did not have good relationships with his parents. His father was absent from family life, and he had severe conflicts with his mother. It might not be unfair to say that this influenced his view of women. Such an analysis can even be made from a Freudian psychoanalytic perspective. However, we should not forget that 19th-century Europe itself did not have egalitarian attitudes towards women. The social status of women was not desirable, and the general societal view of women was still within a traditional and limited framework.

Is Schopenhauer’s view of women a logical outcome of his philosophy, or should it be considered more of a personal approach?

Part of this view stems from his philosophy, but not all of it. One must also consider his era. Schopenhauer lived in the Age of Enlightenment and Humanism; a period when humanity considered reason absolute and placed man at the center of everything. They disregarded religious and even moral teachings, considering themselves the lawmakers of the world. In such an environment, it is natural for a philosopher like Schopenhauer to speak of ennui and meaninglessness and to define women within this framework of will and suffering. Personally, he was also a recluse. Sources state that he loved his dog more than people and only occasionally had a relationship with an opera singer. In our terms, he was an isolationist. These traits were also not without influence in shaping his view of women.

Schopenhauer speaks of ‘liberation from will.’ In his view, is ‘woman’ the embodiment of will from which one must escape?

No, this interpretation is a great simplification. The book “The World as Will and Representation,” which was also his doctoral dissertation, is a very profound work. It cannot be summarized in a few sentences. But it can be said that in his philosophy, ‘will’ is a blind and irrational force that drives humans to the continuation of life and suffering. Since woman is the manifestation of birth and the continuation of life, in his intellectual system, she is linked with will. Of course, this view is more cultural than purely philosophical, as in Western civilization, from Ancient Greece to the modern era, woman has always been defined by nature and body, and man by reason and spirit.

If we compare Schopenhauer’s view with Nietzsche, Rousseau, or Kant, what is the fundamental difference?

The only philosopher who somewhat agreed with him in this regard was Nietzsche. The others did not have such frankness in their words. Schopenhauer shouted his views, what others said implicitly. The Age of Enlightenment apparently moved away from sexism, but in practice, still saw women as subordinate beings. Schopenhauer merely revealed this hidden truth.

Why did you choose the title “Wisdom for Men”? Is it educational or ironic?

The original English title of the book is “On Women: Wisdom for Men.” I translated it as “Wisdom for Men.” Schopenhauer himself wrote it with this intention; he wanted to warn, as if telling men that women are like this, so behave accordingly. I conveyed the same meaning, but in Persian, this title also has a kind of humor, meaning men should learn how to deal with such a thought.

Given the misogynistic tone of the book, what considerations did you have in translating it?

I never change the author’s concepts, but I am careful with the vocabulary. If a word is offensive or vulgar, I replace it with a more respectful equivalent, without changing the meaning. For example, when Schopenhauer says, ‘The main flaw in women’s character is a lack of sense of justice,’ I brought it verbatim into Persian but with milder language. The Persian language is a language of respect. We do not have a culture of cursing and humiliation. I have used the same approach in my other translations, for instance, in the translation of Roger Scruton’s “Modern Culture,” I explained that the author’s intention of ‘our culture’ refers to Western culture, not Iranian culture. This fidelity, along with linguistic precision, is important to me.

Some critics say that translating such works might lead to the reproduction of misogynistic thought. What is your response?

I believe that translation should be a mirror, not a filter. The reader should know what Schopenhauer said to be able to judge. In the introduction, I have also written that these thoughts belong to him, not to us. Our duty is to listen and choose the best, as stated in the Quran: ‘So give good tidings to My servants, who listen to the Word and follow the best of it.’ We must read the works of Western philosophers to understand their intellectual roots. Reading does not mean accepting; rather, it means knowing.

Schopenhauer sometimes speaks of women on the border of humor and humiliation. How did you convey this tone into Persian?

I maintained the same tone, but with the cadence of the Persian language. For example, in one sentence, he says: ‘All the power and intelligence that nature has given to men, it has given to women in the form of cunning.’ I brought this verbatim, only with words that are not harsh in Persian. In places where an expression was very strong, I replaced it with a softer equivalent, but the meaning remains the same. If the Persian text has become beautiful and readable, it is due to the richness of the Persian language, not due to changes in Schopenhauer’s content.

Overall, what was your goal in translating this book?

My goal is not to reproduce Schopenhauer’s view, but to introduce him and a part of the history of Western thought. We must know that these philosophers, despite all their greatness, erred in some areas. Studying their works, if accompanied by critique, helps our intellectual growth. In the book’s introduction, I have also stated that the status of women in Iranian and Islamic culture is higher than these views. We are indebted to mothers and educated women who build society. So, it is better to read thoughts, analyze them, and judge for ourselves.