‘Schopenhauer’s philosophy is highly idiosyncratic and deeply flawed…But it played a vital role in the transition from the eighteenth century to the twentieth, in the destabilizing of trust in religion, progress, rationality, the conscious mind, human difference from the animal world, and the very meaning of our existence’.
It's not, one might have thought, a legacy of which to be proud. The adjective 'vital' is an interesting choice. 'Regrettable', 'lamentable' or 'deplorable' would seem more fitting.
There's a review of a biography of Schopenhauer in the same issue. There is no doubt that his philosophical views closely reflected his personality which raises the question, why are clever people so impressed by the elevation of character flaws into a philosophy? Schopenhauer was no angst-ridden teenager, from whom such outpourings might be excusable, though certainly not to be taken seriously. Perhaps writing in German helps? Don't get me started on Nietzsche...