Arthur Schopenhauer

1. Introduction

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) was a German philosopher whose work combines a rigorously Kantian starting point with an uncompromisingly pessimistic metaphysics. Best known for Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Representation), he proposes that reality has two inseparable aspects: representation (Vorstellung), the world as it appears to a subject in space, time, and causality; and will (Wille), a blind, restless striving he identifies with the inner nature of all things.

Within this framework he develops interconnected doctrines in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. Human existence, on his account, is structurally marked by suffering because desire can never be finally satisfied. Yet he also argues for partial forms of liberation—from everyday egoism in compassion, from restless striving in aesthetic contemplation, and, in rare cases, from willing altogether in asceticism.

Schopenhauer’s system emerged in critical engagement with Immanuel Kant and in polemical opposition to G. W. F. Hegel and academic idealism. It also drew on then-available translations of Hindu and Buddhist texts, which he interpreted as converging with his own view of the world’s inner essence and of will-denial. His writing style, unusually vivid and often caustic for a systematic philosopher, contributed to his later popularity.

His immediate impact in professional philosophy was limited, but from the mid‑19th century onward his ideas influenced a wide range of thinkers, artists, and disciplines, from Nietzsche, Wagner, and Freud to theories of the unconscious and cultural pessimism. Contemporary scholarship examines both his historical role as a post-Kantian critic of idealism and his continuing relevance to questions about consciousness, suffering, desire, and cross-cultural philosophy.

This entry surveys his life, historical context, main writings, and the central doctrines of his philosophical system, along with their reception and contested legacy.

2. Life and Historical Context

Schopenhauer’s life unfolded against the backdrop of significant political, intellectual, and cultural transformations in Europe. Born in 1788 in Danzig—then a semi-autonomous trading city within the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth—he came of age during the upheavals of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, events that shaped his skepticism toward political optimism and nationalist enthusiasm.

His father, a cosmopolitan merchant, relocated the family to Hamburg after Prussia annexed Danzig in 1793. This commercial background placed Schopenhauer in the emerging bourgeois milieu of late Enlightenment Europe, even as he later rejected its values of progress, material success, and social conformity. His mother, Johanna, became a successful author and salonnière in Weimar, situating him near the literary culture of Goethe, Schiller, and German Romanticism.

The broader philosophical landscape of his formative years was dominated by German Idealism—especially Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and later Hegel. While Schopenhauer adopted Kant’s transcendental idealism, he sharply opposed the historical and rationalist optimism he associated with post-Kantian systems. Many historians see his work as both a continuation and a systematic critique of this tradition.

Key contextual features include:

His later years (especially after settling in Frankfurt in 1833) were comparatively quiet and financially secure. From the 1850s, amid growing disillusionment with Hegelianism and the political disappointments of 1848, readers turned to his more skeptical, individual-focused philosophy. This belated fame situates him within a broader 19th‑century transition from systematic idealism toward cultural and psychological critiques of modern life.

3. Family Background and Early Education

Schopenhauer’s family background combined commercial wealth, cosmopolitan outlook, and literary culture. His father, Heinrich Floris Schopenhauer, was a successful merchant with international connections, oriented toward Enlightenment values and free trade. He reportedly intended his son for a business career and ensured early exposure to foreign languages and travel. His mother, Johanna Schopenhauer, became a well-known novelist and hosted a prominent literary salon in Weimar, bringing the young Arthur into indirect contact with figures such as Goethe.

Scholars often emphasize how this environment shaped his intellectual predispositions while also setting up deep personal tensions. Heinrich’s insistence on commercial training led to Arthur’s apprenticeship in Hamburg and subsequent business travels—experiences he later described as alienating, but which acquainted him with contemporary European societies. Johanna’s salon, by contrast, introduced him to literary and artistic circles, though their relationship became strained; some biographers suggest that conflicts over her social ambitions and his own solitary temperament contributed to his later disdain for fashionable culture.

His early education followed a relatively standard bourgeois pattern with a strong practical orientation. He attended private schools and commercial academies rather than classical Gymnasien, receiving training in:

• Modern languages (French and English),
• Arithmetic and bookkeeping,
• Basic geography and history.

The following table summarizes key early formative influences:

Only after his father’s death in 1805 did Schopenhauer obtain greater freedom to pursue scholarly interests. Biographical accounts differ on how directly this event prompted his turn toward philosophy, but most agree that it facilitated his eventual decision to enroll at university and abandon a commercial career.

4. University Years and Kantian Influence

Schopenhauer’s university studies began at Göttingen in 1809, initially in medicine. Under the influence of lectures by G. E. Schulze (often identified as “Aenesidemus”), he soon redirected his focus toward philosophy. Schulze, a critic of dogmatic metaphysics, introduced him to Kant’s Critiques and to skepticism about speculative claims beyond experience. This encounter decisively shaped Schopenhauer’s conviction that philosophy must start from an analysis of the conditions of representation and knowledge.

He later enrolled at the University of Berlin (1811–1812), where he attended lectures by Fichte, Schleiermacher, and others. Contemporary reports and his own retrospective comments suggest that he reacted negatively to what he perceived as rhetorical and system-building excesses, particularly in Fichte. Scholars debate how accurately his polemical descriptions capture these figures’ views, but there is broad agreement that this period reinforced both his appreciation of Kant and his hostility toward post-Kantian idealism.

Kant’s influence operated on several levels:

During this period he drafted early versions of what became Über die vierfache Wurzel des Satzes vom zureichenden Grunde (On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason), eventually submitted as a doctoral dissertation to Jena in 1813. The work systematizes the logical and epistemic forms of the principle of sufficient reason, which he saw as the key to understanding how phenomena are ordered in experience.

Commentators often regard his university years as the transition from a broadly Kantian disciple to an independent system builder. He adopted Kant’s basic epistemological project while preparing, even then, to depart from Kant’s agnosticism about the thing-in-itself and to propose will as its positive characterization.

5. Intellectual Development and System Building

Following his doctoral dissertation (1813), Schopenhauer entered a period of intensive system building, largely outside formal academic structures. He lived successively in Weimar, Dresden, and other German cities, supporting himself with family funds and small stipends. During this time he conceived and drafted the first volume of Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, completed by 1818.

His intellectual development during this phase involved the synthesis of several strands:

He aimed to construct a single, architectonic system that would integrate metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics. Early manuscripts and notebooks—some published posthumously—show him experimenting with the terminology of will, Idea, and representation, and seeking a bridge between inner experience (the feeling of willing in one’s own body) and a comprehensive ontology of nature.

By the late 1820s and 1830s, after the initial commercial failure of the first edition of The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer entered a second major phase of development. Residing chiefly in Frankfurt, he worked on:

• Elaborating and clarifying his earlier doctrines,
• Responding to scientific developments (physiology, physics) in Über den Willen in der Natur (On the Will in Nature),
• Extending his ethical reflections in essays later collected as Die beiden Grundprobleme der Ethik (The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics).

Volume II of The World as Will and Representation (published 1844) presents “supplements” that refine central concepts and address misunderstandings. Scholars disagree whether these later writings merely expound his original ideas or constitute significant revisions. Some argue that his account of asceticism and the denial of the will becomes more radical; others emphasize continuity with the 1818 groundwork.

Across these phases, his intellectual trajectory is marked by increasing systematization combined with an equally intensifying polemic against academic contemporaries, especially Hegel and his followers.

6. Major Works and Their Composition

Schopenhauer’s philosophical output centers on a few major books, composed over several decades, often revised and republished. Their composition history is closely tied to shifts in his intellectual focus and public reception.

Principal Works and Contexts

Compositional Aims and Strategies

• Systematic Core vs. Peripheral Essays
  Schopenhauer regarded The World as Will and Representation as his central, architectonic work. On the Fourfold Root and On Vision and Colors were conceived as preparatory or auxiliary. On the Will in Nature and The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics develop specific aspects of the central system, while Parerga and Paralipomena offer more occasional reflections and clarifications.

• Revisions and Second Editions
  He frequently revised earlier texts, adding prefaces complaining of misunderstandings and expanding arguments. The 1847 revision of Fourfold Root and the 1844 publication of Volume II of World as Will and Representation represent major stages in this process.

• Publication and Reception Dynamics
  Early works sold poorly and attracted little immediate scholarly attention. Only after the success of Parerga and Paralipomena did demand rise for new editions of his earlier books. This belated recognition influenced his own retrospective framing of the works as parts of a unified system that readers had previously neglected.

7. Core Philosophy: World as Will and Representation

Schopenhauer’s core philosophy, articulated in Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, rests on the claim that reality has a twofold aspect: as representation (Vorstellung) and as will (Wille).

World as Representation

He begins with the thesis:

"

“Die Welt ist meine Vorstellung.”
“The world is my representation.”

— Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, vol. I, §1

This expresses a transcendental-idealistic view: everything we know appears only in relation to a subject, structured by space, time, and causality. He adopts and modifies Kant’s framework, insisting that:

• Objects are not things-in-themselves but appearances,
• The subject is presupposed in all experience and is, in this sense, “the condition of the world.”

World as Will

He then argues that our own body provides a unique access to the thing-in-itself. We experience it both as an object among others (in space) and as immediate willing. From this, he infers that the inner nature of all phenomena is will—a blind, aimless striving manifesting in:

• Physical forces (gravity, electricity),
• Organic life (growth, reproduction),
• Human psychology (desire, action).

Thus:

"

“Die Welt ist meine Wille.” (Paraphrase)
“The world is my will.”

Dual Aspect and Pessimistic Consequences

The relation between representation and will is often described as one of appearance and inner essence. Scholars differ on whether this amounts to a strict metaphysical dualism, a monism with two aspects, or a more epistemological distinction.

From this structure he derives a broadly pessimistic view of life:

• Will is inherently insatiable, constantly generating new desires,
• Satisfaction is temporary and gives way to boredom or further longing,
• Suffering pervades all levels of nature due to conflict among individuated wills.

Proponents of systematic readings emphasize the tight integration of metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics within this dual-aspect doctrine. Critics question, among other points, the legitimacy of inferring a universal metaphysical will from human inner experience and the consistency of combining Kantian epistemology with a positive claim about the thing-in-itself.

8. Metaphysics of the Will and Individuation

Schopenhauer’s metaphysics centers on will as the inner essence of reality and on individuation as the process by which this unitary will appears as many distinct beings.

Will as Thing-in-Itself

Adapting Kant’s thing-in-itself, he claims that:

• The world of objects is phenomenal, governed by the principle of sufficient reason,
• Beneath this lies will, a timeless, spaceless, non-rational striving.

This will is not a conscious or teleological agency but a blind, incessant urge. He interprets natural forces, organic drives, and human motivations as various “objectifications” of the same underlying will.

Grades of Objectification and Platonic Ideas

Schopenhauer employs Platonic language of Ideas to describe stable patterns in which will manifests. These Ideas are:

• Timeless archetypes (e.g., of a species or natural form),
• Intermediaries between the pure will and individual phenomena,
• Accessible chiefly in aesthetic contemplation (treated elsewhere in this entry).

The hierarchy of Ideas corresponds to ascending grades of will’s objectification, from inorganic matter through plant and animal life to human rationality.

Individuation (Principle of Individuation)

The principle of individuation (principium individuationis) is grounded in space and time. Although will is one and undivided in itself, it appears as many individuals because:

• Space and time separate phenomena,
• Causal relations distribute forces across distinct entities.

This yields the appearance of discrete selves with conflicting interests, giving rise to egoism and struggle. On his account, individuality is in some sense illusory or secondary compared with the underlying unity of will.

Interpretive Debates

Scholars interpret this metaphysics in various ways:

Critics also question the move from our inner experience of willing to a universal ontological principle. Defenders argue that Schopenhauer intends an analogical but not strictly inferential extension: the most immediate knowledge we have of anything (our own will) provides the only content we can ascribe, cautiously, to the thing-in-itself.

9. Epistemology and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Schopenhauer’s epistemology is elaborated primarily in On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and forms the propaedeutic to his main system. It aims to clarify how representations are connected and what it means to give a “reason” for something.

Fourfold Root

He argues that the principle of sufficient reason (“nothing is without a reason”) takes four distinct forms, each governing a different class of objects:

These forms structure the world as representation, not things-in-themselves. They articulate necessary connections among phenomena but do not penetrate the essence of reality, which he identifies with will.

Intuition and Concept

Schopenhauer, following Kant, distinguishes between:

• Intuitive knowledge (Anschauung): direct perception in space and time, guided by causality.
• Abstract knowledge (concepts): derived from intuition via the understanding.

He assigns a central role to the understanding in immediately apprehending causal relations, in contrast to Kant’s more complex synthesis via categories. This simplification has been praised as psychologically plausible by some, and criticized as philosophically reductionist by others.

Relation to Kant and Critiques

He adopts Kant’s basic claim that:

• Space, time, and causality are a priori forms of our cognition,
• We cannot know the thing-in-itself through these forms.

However, he modifies Kant in several ways:

Critics contend that identifying will as the thing-in-itself contradicts his own epistemic limitations, while defenders argue that he distinguishes between discursive knowledge (limited) and immediate self-awareness (a different, non-representational access).

Overall, his epistemology serves to secure the autonomy and limits of the phenomenal world, thereby motivating the search for a non-phenomenal grounding in will.

10. Ethics, Compassion, and Asceticism

Schopenhauer’s ethics is developed in The World as Will and Representation and in Die beiden Grundprobleme der Ethik, especially On the Basis of Morality. It rests on his metaphysics of will and on a psychological analysis of egoism, compassion, and renunciation.

Egoism and Suffering

Given the metaphysics of individuation, each individual ordinarily experiences itself as a separate will. This yields egoism—the pursuit of one’s own well-being, often at the expense of others. Because will is inherently insatiable, egoistic striving leads to pervasive suffering, both for oneself and others.

Compassion (Mitleid)

He identifies compassion as the sole genuine basis of morality:

"

“Mitleid ist die wahre Grundlage aller freien Gerechtigkeit und aller echten Menschenliebe.”
“Compassion is the real basis of all voluntary justice and all genuine loving-kindness.”

— Schopenhauer, On the Basis of Morality, §22

Compassion, in his account, is an immediate participation in another’s suffering, in which the boundary between self and other is partially overcome. From this he derives two main moral virtues:

• Justice: refraining from harming others,
• Loving-kindness: actively promoting others’ well-being.

He explicitly rejects rationalist and theological ethical foundations (e.g., Kant’s categorical imperative, divine commands), arguing that they either misdescribe moral motivation or presuppose metaphysical doctrines he disputes.

Asceticism and Denial of the Will

At the highest ethical level, he describes asceticism as a radical turning away from the will-to-live:

• Renunciation of sensual pleasures,
• Voluntary poverty and celibacy in extreme cases,
• A sustained attitude of detachment from personal desire.

He interprets this as denial of the will, a rare state in which the individual no longer affirms life’s striving. In his view, such saints or ascetics manifest a metaphysical insight into the unity of all beings and the futility of desire.

Interpretive and Critical Responses

Scholars and critics raise several questions:

His ethical thought has been influential in later discussions of empathy, altruism, and the critique of rationalist accounts of morality, even among thinkers who do not share his metaphysical pessimism.

11. Aesthetics, Genius, and Art

Aesthetics plays a central role in Schopenhauer’s system as a privileged domain where temporary liberation from the will becomes possible. His views appear in The World as Will and Representation, particularly Book III (Vol. I) and corresponding supplements in Vol. II.

Aesthetic Contemplation

In aesthetic experience, the subject enters a state of will-less contemplation:

• Personal desires and practical interests recede,
• Attention is directed purely to the object,
• The subject apprehends Platonic Ideas—timeless forms or grades of objectification of the will.

This yields a temporary deliverance from suffering, since suffering is rooted in the restless activity of the will. Aesthetic pleasure, on his account, is not mere enjoyment but the experience of this release.

Genius (Genie)

He attributes the highest artistic creation to genius, characterized by:

• An extraordinary capacity for pure, disinterested perception,
• A relative weakening of the will’s dominance,
• The ability to express Ideas in artistic form.

Genius is, in his view, rare and often accompanied by practical maladjustment. Scholars have linked this account to Romantic notions of the artist, while also noting his departure from Romantic subjectivism: the genius attains objectivity rather than expressing personal feeling.

Hierarchy of the Arts

Schopenhauer proposes a hierarchy based on how directly each art reveals the will or its objectifications:

Music holds a special position as, he claims, a direct copy of the will itself, rather than of Ideas. This thesis has been influential, particularly in discussions of Wagner and later music aesthetics, but is also widely contested regarding its metaphysical assumptions.

Critical Perspectives

Interpretations vary:

• Some commentators emphasize the therapeutic function of art within a pessimistic framework.
• Others focus on the internal tension between the claim that art offers genuine insight into will and the assertion that true metaphysical knowledge is impossible through representation.
• Critics also question the cultural and gender biases in his examples of genius and artistic value.

Nonetheless, his aesthetics remains a major reference point for theories of disinterested contemplation, the role of art in relation to suffering, and the metaphysical interpretation of music.

12. Religion, Buddhism, and Indian Influences

Schopenhauer engaged intensively with religious and Indian philosophical materials, integrating them into his own system while maintaining a self-consciously philosophical approach. His views are scattered across The World as Will and Representation, On the Basis of Morality, and Parerga and Paralipomena.

Attitude toward Religion

He distinguishes between philosophy and religion:

• Religion presents truths in mythical, symbolic, and practical forms accessible to the many.
• Philosophy articulates similar insights in conceptual and argumentative terms for the few.

He often evaluates religions in terms of how far they, in his reading, recognize:

• The pervasive suffering of existence,
• The illusory nature of individual selfhood,
• The value of compassion and ascetic renunciation.

Within this framework, he is notably critical of what he sees as optimistic or world-affirming tendencies in some religious traditions, including certain strands of Christianity.

Encounter with Indian Thought

Schopenhauer read available 18th- and early 19th-century translations of Upaniṣads, the Bhagavad-Gītā, and early secondary works on Buddhism and Hinduism. He famously wrote:

"

“In der ganzen Welt gibt es keine so heilsame und erhebende Lektüre wie die Upanishaden.”
“In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads.”

— Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena, vol. II

He interpreted concepts such as Brahman, Māyā, and Nirvāṇa in ways he saw as analogous to:

• Will as the inner essence of the world (Brahman/ātman),
• The world of representation as illusion (Māyā),
• Denial of will and escape from suffering (Nirvāṇa).

Comparative and Critical Scholarship

Modern scholars emphasize that his understanding of Indian traditions was mediated by limited and sometimes inaccurate sources. Debates focus on:

Regarding Christianity, he found particular affinity with Christian asceticism and mysticism, while criticizing institutional churches and dogmas he regarded as incompatible with philosophical clarity.

Overall, religion and Indian influences function in his thought both as confirmation of his own doctrines and as comparative material through which he articulated a cross-cultural vision of suffering, compassion, and renunciation.

13. Attitude toward Academic Philosophy and Hegel

Schopenhauer’s relationship to academic philosophy, especially to Hegel, was deeply antagonistic and forms a conspicuous part of his intellectual persona.

Academic Career and Disillusionment

After obtaining his doctorate, he qualified as a Privatdozent in Berlin in 1820. He scheduled his lectures at the same hour as Hegel’s—a move often interpreted as a deliberate challenge. Student enrollment in his courses was negligible, whereas Hegel’s lectures were highly attended. The failure of this venture contributed to his withdrawal from university life and reinforced his view that genuine philosophy was incompatible with institutional incentives and fashions.

Critique of Hegel and “Professorial Philosophy”

In works such as Parerga and Paralipomena (e.g., “On University Philosophy”), he attacks what he calls professorial philosophy:

• Accusing it of serving state and church interests,
• Charging it with obscurantism and jargon,
• Portraying it as driven by careerism rather than truth.

Hegel is singled out as the prime example of such abuses. Schopenhauer characterizes Hegelian philosophy as:

• Incomprehensible and pseudo-profound,
• Supporting state ideology,
• A betrayal of Kant’s critical spirit.

"

He likens Hegel’s system to a colossal edifice built on “words without meaning,” though interpreters note that such polemics often replace detailed engagement with Hegel’s texts.

Interpretive and Historical Assessments

Later scholarship offers a range of views:

His dismissive stance extended beyond Hegel to much of contemporary academic philosophy, which he viewed as ignoring the central problem of human suffering and as overestimating reason. Nonetheless, he engaged seriously with Kant and certain pre-modern thinkers, whom he exempted from his general criticism of university philosophy.

These attitudes contributed to his self-fashioning as a philosophical outsider, a stance that both hindered his early reception and later appealed to readers skeptical of institutional authority.

14. Reception, Criticism, and Later Influence

Schopenhauer’s reception developed slowly and unevenly, moving from near obscurity to significant cross-disciplinary influence.

19th-Century Reception

During his lifetime, his works attracted limited academic notice. Early reviews were sparse, and his reputation lagged behind contemporaries like Hegel and Schelling. The turning point came with Parerga and Paralipomena (1851), whose more accessible style found a wider audience in the 1850s.

After his death, enthusiasm grew, especially in German-speaking countries and France:

• Philosophers such as Eduard von Hartmann drew on his pessimism and will-metaphysics.
• Writers and artists, including Wagner, Tolstoy, and various French and Russian novelists, engaged with his themes of suffering, irrational motivation, and disillusionment.
• Early psychologists and psychiatrists found his analyses of unconscious drives suggestive.

Major Lines of Criticism

Criticism has targeted multiple aspects of his philosophy:

Some commentators also argue that his critique of rationalism is itself overly rationalistic, and that his own system involves dogmatic commitments he rejects in others.

Influence on Later Thought

His impact is widely acknowledged in several areas:

• Nietzsche: Initially influenced by Schopenhauer’s pessimism and aesthetics, later developing a critical counter-position (e.g., affirmation of life, critique of will-denial).
• Psychoanalysis: Freud and others cited Schopenhauer as anticipating ideas of unconscious drives and conflict between rational self-image and deeper impulses.
• Existentialism and Lebensphilosophie: His focus on suffering, finitude, and the limits of reason informed later 19th- and early 20th-century movements emphasizing life, will, and experience.
• Aesthetics and musicology: His theory of music and genius influenced Wagner, music critics, and debates about the metaphysical significance of art.
• Cross-cultural philosophy: His engagement with Indian thought contributed to early Western reception of Hinduism and Buddhism, though now often critically reassessed.

Contemporary scholarship continues to debate how his work should be situated—whether primarily as a late representative of German Idealism, a precursor to existential and psychoanalytic currents, or an anomalous system that resists straightforward classification.

15. Legacy and Historical Significance

Schopenhauer’s legacy spans multiple domains, and assessments of his historical significance highlight both his continuities with and departures from dominant philosophical traditions.

Position within Western Philosophy

He is often placed as a post-Kantian critic of German Idealism who nonetheless retains a fundamentally transcendental-idealistic structure. Historians emphasize:

• His role in shifting attention from reason to will, drive, and affect,
• His systematic articulation of philosophical pessimism,
• His integration of aesthetics and ethics into a single metaphysical framework.

Some see him as inaugurating a “philosophy of life” (Lebensphilosophie) that anticipates later critiques of rationalism and progress narratives.

Influence Beyond Academic Philosophy

Schopenhauer’s influence has been particularly strong in:

Contemporary Reassessments

Recent scholarship re-examines his work through various lenses:

• Analytic philosophy: Discussions of his arguments about suffering, meaning in life, and the metaphysics of mind and consciousness.
• Continental traditions: Tracing lines from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche, phenomenology, and critical theory.
• Cross-cultural philosophy: Evaluating his comparative claims about Eastern and Western traditions, including issues of appropriation and interpretation.

Debates persist over how central his pessimism is to his enduring relevance. Some highlight his analyses of desire, boredom, and the search for relief as prescient for modern discussions of well-being and mental health. Others emphasize methodological issues, questioning the viability of his will-metaphysics while finding lasting value in his psychological and ethical reflections.

In intellectual history, he is widely regarded as a key figure linking classical German philosophy with many currents of 19th- and 20th-century thought, including existentialism, psychoanalysis, and cultural criticism. Even where his substantive doctrines are rejected, his attempt to confront suffering, desire, and the limits of rational justification remains an influential reference point.