Schopenhauer starts his philosophy with the statement ‘the world is my idea' (pg. 448). He sees the world as a perception of ideas within the intellect. He feels that the same mechanisms are in action when it comes to the perception of the world in dreams and the waking objective world. Therefore, he concludes that philosophy has its true start in the idealistic, but he recognizes that this is subjective individual consciousness as it is the only immediate thing. Everything else depends on consciousness. Hence the objective existence of things are governed by the subject's ideas, making the objective world exist only as idea. Schopenhauer concludes that the world cannot exist without intellect.

He then moves into defining matter and intelligence. Both the knowing subject without forms and matter without form and quality are unknowable. Both are presupposed to be what they are as conditions of perception, and are given this conclusion through abstraction. Schopenhauer concludes that intelligence and matter exist for each other and that they are the same thing regarded from opposite points of view. This is the manifestation of the will or the thing in itself (pg. 451).

In regards to art, Schopenhauer feels that it tries to answer the same question as philosophy; ‘what is life?' (pg. 452). Every good work of art answers this question in its own way correctly. The arts answer this with the language of perception making the answer fleeting, instead of permanent and general knowledge. He feels that music is the highest form of art that provides truth as the language of music is directly understood, although it is untranslatable. Yet, all forms of art leave a temporary satisfaction that is a condition of its conception. Because of this, Schopenhauer feels that it is philosophy which will give a permanent and satisfactory answer because it tries to find the answer to life through reflection which is a much more serious language than that of art.

A work of art has to be able to leave something for the viewer to discern if it is to be successful. An effect of this is that not all people will be able to totally discern the truth from a work of art. The viewer has to bring his own knowledge to the work and use that in an interplay with what the artist has provided to reveal the truth. Due to the interpretation aspect of the viewer it brings into question if the truth conceived of by the artist and the truth gotten by the viewer is the same. Does the distinct clear truth provided by philosophy make the truth of art unnecessary? Or does the truth of art, as it removes individual will, render philosophical truth invalid? One of the problems with fine art is that once the truth is discerned from a piece it has served its function for that viewer and the work has to be produced in a different fashion to keep viewers engaged, but Schopenhauer notes that art has a larger audience than philosophy.

The concept of will plays a large role throughout the rest of Shopenhauer's writings. He says that we are all slaves to will and the desires of the will. When we attain our desires we still are not satisfied as we are still under the influence of will. Therefore, we cannot find peace as long as we are driven by will. The only time that we do find peace is when some event happens that places us above the state of willing. Then we are able to understand things outside of the motives of will and view them in a state of disinterestedness. Schopenhauer says that this is state necessary to gain knowledge of the Idea (pg. 457). He credits artistic nature for being able to get beyond the will to the state of knowing. He uses still life as an example of an artist's ability to rise above the will. The artist needs a peaceful frame of mind that is free from will to be able to objectively contemplate such insignificant objects.

The sublime can also be used to rise above the will, but it works differently than just raising above the will through a random event. With the sublime, a person attains the state of knowledge through a forcible breaking from the relations of the object to the will. The previous scenario happens when a person breaks from the will without resistance. For the sublime, the individual will has to be kept from entering into consciousness, or the person will return to their previous state of will. Schopenhauer uses a Kantian model of the sublime to illustrate his point. In the vastness of space, we realize that we are very small and are insignificant. In this feeling we lose our sense of individuality, experience the sublime, and enter into the state of pure knowing.

On page 466, Schopenhauer points out that this explanation of the sublime only considers the beautiful subjectively as the difference between the two is very slight. Beauty also has an objective side that he now returns to. He says that a beautiful object has a double meaning. The sight of it makes us think objectively, as will-less subjects. But we also see beyond the object to the Idea. This only happens if we do not relate the object to things outside of it which would ultimately bring us back to the will.

Having dealt with intellect, Schopenhauer turn toward a discussion of matter. Ultimately, matter cannot express an idea. It just serves as a link between the Idea and the principle of reason. In the hierarchy of the arts, he places architecture at the bottom as the weakest form of objectivity of the will. Architecture only works as a fine art when it is able to make the conflict between gravity and rigidity as distinct as possible. This is done through design where every element of architecture is necessary so that the manifestation of the will becomes obvious and objectivity of the will happens in its lowest form. He moves from architecture to painting. Painting for Schopenhauer is higher on the scale as the work shows the view through the eyes of the artist. This gives a reflected sense of deep spiritual peace and objectivity of the will.

Despite explaining how art lifts people beyond the state of will, philosophy is still the highest form of explaining life for Schopenhauer. It almost seems as if he wants to give art high credit, but he then seemly retracts so that philosophy will still be the supreme route to the meaning of truth.