The World Is Hell, and We Are Both Devils and Damned

“If the immediate and direct purpose of our life is not suffering then our existence is the most ill-adapted to its purpose in the world”

Arthur Schopenhauer, one of the greatest philosophers of the nineteenth century, was the first to discuss the suffering inherent in the world. This suffering surrounds and engulfs us, yet we often overlook its significance in shaping the core of our existence.

Suffering as Life’s Primary Purpose

Arthur argued that the purpose of every form of life on this earth is to suffer, and misfortune in general is the rule. Positing that the affliction which surrounds everyone in every form as purposeless and purely accidental is absurd and intellectually irrational.

Just as a stream flows smoothly as long as it encounters no obstruction, so too does the nature of man and animal never become noticeable unless it is provoked. To notice something, our Will- the blind, irrational force underlying all existence, beyond just human desire, has to have been thwarted, has to have experienced shock of some kind. All that opposes, frustrates, and resists our will, that is to say, all that is unpleasant and painful, impresses itself upon us instantly, directly, and with great clarity.

We need obstacles to see the world at all. Imagine I dream of climbing a mountain. Along the journey, I face avalanches, heavy snowfalls, wild animals, landslides — countless hurdles. Eventually, I reach the summit, but what then? Will I feel content simply for having climbed the mountain, or will I reflect on the challenges overcome? Without any difficulty, the journey would be dull, and the reward hollow. The misfortunes I faced made me feel the journey; they are what make us alive

The Good, the Evil & the Nature of Desire

Schopenhauer rejected the moral characterization of all metaphysical systems as absurd.

“Evil is precisely that which is positive, that which makes itself palpable; and Good (i.e happiness and gratification), on the other is hand is that which is negative, the mere abolition of desire and extinction of a pain” .

This profound statement contradicts our view, which considers evil to be something negative. Yet I cannot think of any one reason to prove him wrong. For if Evil is the cause of suffering, then nothing is more malicious than our desires and wants.

It is also consistent with the fact that, as a rule, we find pleasure much less pleasurable, and pain much more painful than we expected. A quick test of this assertion would be to compare the feelings of the master and the slave, or in general, the oppressor and the oppressed.

Thus, Happiness of a given life is not measured according to joys and pleasures, but the absence of positive elements, i.e., suffering.

The Animals vs. the Human: Thought as a double-edged sword

Owing to the scientific reasoning of his era, which holds mostly true even today, Schopenhauer laid down a reasonable difference between the pleasures & sufferings of a Man & an Animal.

Humans have the most complex neurological system, with the human brain containing over 85 billion neurons. And one thing that we do more than animals is to think. A mere addition of thought, which animals lack, intensifies our experiences of pleasures and sufferings. With a man, everything is much more intensified by thinking about the absent and the future, which in fact is the origin of care, hope, and fear, which, once they have aroused, make a far longer impression than present pleasures and sufferings, to which animal is limited. Animals tend to feel only the sufferings or pleasures of the present. They ought not to worry about the future, or dwell on their past. The pain or pleasure in an animal, even if repeated countless times, remains the same. They instinctively flee away from death, without actually knowing it. Men, on the other hand, know death.

“ The enviable composure and unconcern characterizes the animals ”

The intensification of a man’s sensation of happiness or misery can lead to momentary transports which may sometimes prove fatal, or suicidal despair. Man deliberately intensifies his needs to intensify his pleasure. Hence came luxury, alcohol, opium, confectionery, finery, and all that pertains to them. To these is then added, as a result of reflection, a source of pleasure, and consequently of suffering, which preoccupies him more than all the rest put together: ambition, sense of honor and shame. In other words, what he thinks others think about him.

This mere addition of thought is both a blessing and a curse. Man can enjoy intellectual pleasures which are available to him in varying degrees, from the simplest conversation to the highest form of the mind. But as a counterweight to this, on the side of suffering stands boredom, which is unknown to animals at least in the state of nature, and is very slightly perceptible in the cleverest domestic animals only.

“Want and Boredom are the twin poles of human life”

Finally, the remaining yet necessary mention is that of sexual pleasures. With humans, sexual gratification is tied to a very obstinate selectivity which intensifies to more or less passionate love. Thus, sexuality becomes for a man a source of brief pleasure and protracted suffering. Animals primarily focus on the physical aspect of sexual activity, driven by innate instincts and reproductive needs. It is much simpler than the facade we put on.

It can be concluded that Animals are more content with life than us, plants are wholly so, and a man is so according to how dull and insensitive he is.

“Its (animal’s) obvious composure often puts to shame our own frequently restless and discontented condition”

Want, Boredom, the Ballast of Sorrow & the Ship of Life

Schopenhauer wrote:

“We require at all times a certain quantity of sorrow or care or want, as ship requires ballast, in order to keep on a straight course”

History itself is a witness to this, mostly wars, with peaceful years as only brief interludes. Life is a constant struggle — not only against want or boredom but against other people. Leisure moments are fleeting, like intermissions in a film.

He also discusses the pressure of Time, which plagues our existence. We are in constant hurry to complete the smallest of tasks, achieve the biggest of dreams, because we are taught the value of Time, and Time is rushing. For an individual to transcend the burdens imposed upon him by Time, he must first engage in a profound act of denial of Will. He wrote :

“It ceases to persecute only him it has delivered over to boredom”

Imagine the horror if every kind of attractive force is removed from this universe. We would vanish in the blink of an eye. Just like the pressure of these forces, without the pressure of want, calamity, and frustration, the ego of man would expand to the point of madness. If every desire were fulfilled the moment it arose, how would we occupy our lives? Imagine crops that grow already cooked, sheep that yield ready-made clothes, and petroleum emerging from the soil in refined form. How would we pass time in such a world? Many men will die out of boredom or hang themselves, some would fight and kill one another. Thus, they would cause more suffering than nature inflicts upon them as it is.

“For a race like ours, no form of existence is suitable other than the one it already possesses”

The Hell

“We can look upon life as an episode unprofitably disturbing the blessed calm of nothingness”

According to Schopenhauer, even if a man found life as a bearable Will, the longer he lives, feel more clearly that it is, on the whole, a disappointment, nay, a cheat. The Will to Live, an inherent and insatiable drive to exist, is the root cause of all suffering. The apparent happiness is for a small, fleeting moment, a byproduct of our desire. The Will to live creates a constant state of striving and dissatisfaction, as desires are endlessly pursued but never fully satisfied. This leads to a sense of disappointment as life fails to meet the expectations and promises of the Will.

If the act of procreation were neither the outcome of desire nor accompanied by feelings of pleasure, but decided based on rational consideration, the human race would cease to exist. If so, then each of us would feel much pity for the coming generation as we to prefer to spare it the burden of existence.

”For the world is hell, and men are on one end the tormented souls and on the other the devils in it.”

The Creator’s punishment

Schopenhauer was highly influenced by the eastern philosophies, especially Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism resonated with his idea of Will.

Schopenhauer was fascinated by the concept of Brahman, which in Hindu philosophy refers to the ultimate reality, the fundamental principle of the universe, and the source of all existence. He discusses how Brahman (the Absolute) became Brahma (the Creator) through a kind of fall into illusion (Maya). Hence, creation itself is not a triumphant act, but a terrible mistake, a moral lapse, a loss of unity. And for this act, he has to atone for his sins by living in it until he redeems himself out of it (Moksha). He praised this interpretation as it aligned with his own metaphysics.

Schopenhauer then further weighs up the Buddhist interpretation, which sees the world as not as divinely willed but as arising from ignorance (avidya) and craving (tanha). The world comes into being when beings fall from the clarity and stillness of Nirvana into the illusion of individual selfhood and becoming. Again, Schopenhauer agrees with the proclamation, which suggests the world (samsara) is a moral deviation from the true, peaceful state.

The Greeks — especially the pre-Socratics and tragedians — saw the cosmos as governed by Ananke (Necessity), a blind, impersonal force. The gods themselves are often subject to this Necessity. Schopenhauer accepts this statement provisionally, as it does not glorify the creation. It sees it as inevitable, not celebratory. Ormuzd is continually at war with Ahriman. It symbolizes the world as a battlefield between the good and the bad. Schopenhauer finds this worth considering because it acknowledges the conflict and suffering inherent in existence, rather than portraying it as “good.”

But now he attacks the Biblical creation myth in Genesis. He mocks the idea that Jehovah not only created this deeply flawed and suffering-filled world out of joy or for fun, but also has the audacity to say “It's very good !”. He finds this morally offensive and intellectually dishonest. How can a god create a world filled with misery, injustice, suffering, and pain and then claim it is good? For Schopenhauer, this is the most absurd and unacceptable explanation. Though he concedes the idea of the Fall in the Old Testament, because it aligns with his view that our existence is the result of a primal misstep.

He further goes on to dismiss Liebniz’s demonstration that this world being the best possible world that god could create is true, even then it does not prove divine providence. He argues that this way, god not only created the world, but the possibility itself. And he should have created a possibility of a better world.

If we consider the world as a successful work of an infinitely wise, good, and powerful being, then 2 things cry out :

• The misery that fills this void
• The imperfections of the most highly developed organism, Man, which is indeed a grotesque caricature.

On the contrary, the above two points support and provide evidence for the conception of the world as the product of our own sin, which had better not have been. The world first came into being as a result of the bitter indictment of the Creator, which supplied materials for cynicism, and then, under our conception, they appear as an indictment of our own nature and Will, and one calculated to teach us humility.

“Our existence resembles nothing much so much as the consequence of misdeed, punishment for a forbidden desire”

Der Zweck

Schopenhauer, however pessimist he may seem, viewed suffering not as something to be escaped, but to be endured.

To orient ourselves in life, we must accustom ourselves to regarding this world as a place of atonement, a sort of penal colony. By doing this, sufferings and calamities won’t appear irregular, but entirely in order, and we are being punished for existing, each in our own way. We shall bear in mind where we are and regard every man first and foremost as a being who exists as a consequence of his own culpability, whose life is an expiation of the crime of being born. The conviction that existence is a mistake is meant to make us more humane towards each other. Everyone is suffering and atoning for their sins. Instead of Monsieur (sir), we must address each other as compagnon de misères (Companions in affliction). The most necessary of all things: tolerance, patience, forbearance, and charity, which each of us needs and which each of us therefore owes

The Conclusion

I don’t see Schopenhauer’s philosophy as mere pessimism anymore. It doesn’t depress me — it frees me. In a world constantly selling happiness like a drug, where optimism is a currency and manifestation is treated like science, his brutal honesty feels like a breath of cold, necessary air. It cuts through the noise. It hurts, yes — but only because it’s true.

He doesn’t offer escape, nor does he promise redemption. He just tells you: “This is what it is. Now open your eyes.” And once you do, you can’t unsee it. You start noticing how deeply intertwined suffering is with everything — your desires, your ambition, your love, your boredom. You begin to see how we chase after pleasures not for their sake, but to silence the gnawing discomfort underneath. You see that even the happiest faces around you are carrying invisible weights. And that changes you.

I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to deny the Will completely. Maybe I’ll keep chasing things — success, love, meaning — knowing full well they might never be enough. But at least I won’t lie to myself. At least I won’t cover my wounds with fairy tales.

And maybe that’s all we can do. If life is suffering — and I’m beginning to believe it is — then the only thing that makes it bearable is knowing we’re not suffering alone. We’re all in the same burning ship, trying to smile through the smoke.

So if you’re reading this, and you’ve suffered — and I know you have — I hope you feel seen. I hope you know that in this hell, we’re not just the damned. We’re also the devils. But maybe, just maybe, we can also be something else.

Fellow travelers. Companions in affliction. A small warmth in the cold.
And that, to me, feels like a start.

What do you make of Schopenhauer’s vision — that suffering is not a defect of life, but its very essence? Do you reject it, accept it, or find yourself somewhere in between?