Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 1496
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Belinda » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:52 pm

I think that human will can be perceived by its absence for instance when a man is depressed to the extent that he feels no reason to be alive.
One may also see the will in the behaviour of an animal which lacks concepts as it strives to live.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/1644513/incr ... -the-sand/

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 691
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:34 am

Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:24 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:55 pm
Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:52 pm


It only does so insofar embodied beings have a will, but the Will as a universal phenomenon has to do with the universe itself and how it is guided and formed.

I think will itself is a mental function that receives its being through the same Logos that is the universal clockwork-universe-type will. Both are reciprocals to one another.

The mind and spirit and body are both 3 in 1 and 1 and 3. I do not believe the Logos is, or can be considered fully as only "mental", considering the rational aspects of man reflect the Logos.

The mind reflects the heart and body.
The heart reflects the mind and body.
The body reflects the mind and heart.
The Will as clockwork-universe-type of Will is omnipresent and inbetween every attraction and repulsion as a middle between two heading towards each other or away from each other. The will as embodied finite sentient beings have it, is a 'force' that brings about every mental and physical activity, and is necessarily embodied by the mind and body. Thus 'metal/bodily activity' and 'will' are like 'force' and 'charge'. It is charge's 'intention' to 'manifest force,' much like it is the will's duty to 'manifest mental and bodily activity' through 'intention' of will.

BTW, here's a maxim of mine:

Look at the individual of oneself: is there too many or too few given by God?

The individual, in respect to all the good he/she manifests, is an extension of the One and what ever "good" that individual does is fundamentally the Creator. This is free will. When an individual ceases to do good, by reflecting solely upon his/her own will, whatever acts they commit in themselves lack structure and are not real expression of will but rather an absence of it. Will as a causal element is synonymous to Reflection.
[/quote]

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:18 am

I think there's definitely a discussion that could be had about whether it's better to never exist, but I don't think Arthur Schopenhauer was the one to make the case for it. He mostly focused on a subjective experience of how bad his own life was, rather than making an argument from logical necessity that existing was always worse than non-existence. I think that would have boded well, because intuitively speaking, most people do believe life is worth it, so using his own standard most people will find that disagreeable.

I think a much more interesting case to be made would be taking it to the whole structure of why we even value things - which is only because we exist in the first place. Feeling the rush of dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine chemically react in our brains are all things we treasure only because we are structured in such a way to desire them. In and of themselves, these things don't have any sort of value, so I think it's interesting to think about as it relates to his view of antinatalism.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:26 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:24 am
Dalek Prime wrote:Again, he said that life wasn't worth the trouble, and yet he had kids. ...
Did he?
Yes. With a servant of his.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10586
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:24 am

Dalek Prime wrote:Yes. With a servant of his.
I've never heard mention of this can you provide a link?

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:10 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:24 am
Dalek Prime wrote:Yes. With a servant of his.
I've never heard mention of this can you provide a link?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/86/Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer’s most satisfactory relationships were with animals (a succession of poodles) rather than with human beings. Physically unattractive and socially maladroit, he could never succeed in inducing a woman he loved to also love him. His frank acknowledgement of the primacy of the sexual instinct, together with his emphasis on unconscious motivations, makes him a clear precursor of Freud (who took more from him than he was prepared to admit). However, his love-life brought him no long-lasting satisfaction – only two short-lived illegitimate children. He never married. In an essay ‘On Women’ (1851) he states the truism that women are attracted to young, strong, handsome men (no doubt an insight drawn from experience); but the reason he gives is central to his philosophy: that this is “an unconscious expression of the will of the species” which ensures “the healthy propagation of mankind.”

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by -1- » Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:42 am

Dalek Prime wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:26 am
Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:24 am
Dalek Prime wrote:Again, he said that life wasn't worth the trouble, and yet he had kids. ...
Did he?
Yes. With a servant of his.
Was it a male servant, or a female servant?

Not a stupid question.

Because he could have had a man (a male servant) inseminate a woman and call the kid his own. Sort of using a surrogate father. Or else it could have been a joint effort on a woman, with the help of the male servant. Yeah. "Gregory and I just had a baby," says Schopenhauer down at the cigar club. "Yep. It's a boy. I wanted a girl, but Grigori, my servant, wanted a poodle. I guess we just reached a healthy compromise."

This is why we are philosophers. To think of all the possibilities.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10586
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:33 pm

[quote="Dalek Prime"'
Dalek Prime wrote:Yes. With a servant of his.
Ah! I see, the child died early but looking around I can only find mention of one child, a daughter, not two, wonder where the PN article got that from?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by -1- » Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:50 pm

UK, the Schopnehauer article was co-authored (check it out) and each author spoke only of one child. The editor, in a minor confusion, added one plus one together, producing two kids in the article.

Schopenhauer had only one child, because the servant swore off sex for the rest of her life after the first close encounter (of the third kind).

Belinda
Posts: 1496
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Belinda » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:35 am

What's the use of discussing his sexual peccadillos when the man's philosophy is up for discussing?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests