s still in need of overcoming. Our greatest reproachagainst existence, he writes, was the existence of God, and he believes, ourgreatest relief is found in the elimination of this idea.But in rejecting the Christian formulation the role and importance of existenceis left an open question. The question turns now on the significance ofexistence. Despite the overt and honest atheism both Schopenhauer and Nietzscheprofess to share, the Schopenhauer formulation of the significance of existencewill appear, at least, if not more life denying to Nietzsche than the Christian.SchopenhauerIf one understood a fundamental project of Nietzsche as a will to affirm lifeeven in the face of great tragedy, Schopenhauer stands in stark contrast. It isbeyond the scope of this paper to determine where exactly Nietzsche would besiuated with respect to his cosmology, and the notion of eternal return. But toillustrate the contrast of Nietzsche with Schopenhauer a delving into will bringsome of this difference into relief. Nietzsche asks how might one respond if ademon were to reveal that all of a life, every moment, would be forever repeated.This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once moreand innumerable times more, with nothing new but to repeat every pain and everyjoy. Would a reponse be to praise and exalt the demon for that , or is one morelikely to throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the who spokethus?(GS, 341).For the purpose of this paper it matters not if the demon speaks truly, for theidea serves a function; could one affirm life and live as if one had toeternally repeat it? The challenge then is to live joyfully, in the sensuousworld. Could one face optimistically the ambiguities, uncertainties and chaosthat is the world, in a spirit of affirmation? Nietzsche imagines no greateraffirmation of life can be concieved than this test of willing. For Schopenhauer,this is unlikely, in his the World as Will and ...
