Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Now
Posts: 722
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Philosophy Now » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:18 am

Alistair MacFarlane reviews the phenomenal life of a wilful mind.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Ar ... _1788-1860

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

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Dalek Prime » Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:22 pm

Again, he said that life wasn't worth the trouble, and yet he had kids. Granted, birth control wasn't much except sheepskin condoms, but still, common Schopenhauer....

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Gary Childress » Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:33 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:Again, he said that life wasn't worth the trouble, and yet he had kids. Granted, birth control wasn't much except sheepskin condoms, but still, common Schopenhauer....
I wasn't aware he had children. But even so, I'm sure it wasn't planned, which would fit in perfectly with his notion that the Will is the underlying drive in all of us.

Some have cited hypocrisy in the way AS lived his life but I think his ideas stand on their own merit.

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

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Dalek Prime » Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:01 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:Again, he said that life wasn't worth the trouble, and yet he had kids. Granted, birth control wasn't much except sheepskin condoms, but still, common Schopenhauer....
I wasn't aware he had children. But even so, I'm sure it wasn't planned, which would fit in perfectly with his notion that the Will is the underlying drive in all of us.

Some have cited hypocrisy in the way AS lived his life but I think his ideas stand on their own merit.
Yes, well worth reading. As to will, it could be will to anything. I like Philip Mainlander's notion of the 'will to death', where God has committed suicide, dispersed, and the rest is following suit.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Gary Childress » Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:45 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:I like Philip Mainlander's notion of the 'will to death', where God has committed suicide, dispersed, and the rest is following suit.
Interesting. Hadn't heard of this idea before.

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

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:27 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:I like Philip Mainlander's notion of the 'will to death', where God has committed suicide, dispersed, and the rest is following suit.
Interesting. Hadn't heard of this idea before.
He killed himself early. His philosophy fits with entropy quite well, though I'm not so sure he knew what entropy was at the time.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Greta » Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:16 am

I'd assumed that Schopenhauer was a flake from reputation but that article was great and I have a new respect for him and, despite being (I think, rationally) optimistic, I'm inclined to agree with a lot of his ideas as presented in the article.

Yes, life is exceptionally harsh, possibly never more so in primitive life. The story of humanity - and life - has been one of fleeing from danger and suffering and either looking for - or in the case of humanity, creating - safe oases amongst the relentless competition of nature.

At present I'm still leaning towards VR as a solution to the problems of suffering, both in us and other species. VR safely keeps our dominating thirst for growth away from fragile physical systems while permitting desired levels of growth and pleasure without physical limitations.

Olivia Newton John was wrong - we ultimately need to become less physical :)

In case you find the link between ONJ and Schopenhauer ludicrous, consider this quote from an interview with the former:
Q. Did you ever participated in a séance?

A: Indeed! But just one time. It was an extremely unsettling experience. At a certain point, the ghost of Arthur Schopenhauer manifested and certified that almost surely I'm the reincarnation of Gore Vidal's cook.

Dubious
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Dubious » Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:32 am

Greta wrote:I'd assumed that Schopenhauer was a flake from reputation but that article was great and I have a new respect for him and, despite being (I think, rationally) optimistic, I'm inclined to agree with a lot of his ideas as presented in the article.
Among most readers Schopenhauer never had that reputation but it's often the preconception of those who have never read him. Nietzsche more than anyone is usually on the receiving end of those denigrations. Both their styles are brilliant and much of what they wrote is taken for granted now.

Quotes are shortest way to get the flavor of someone and Schopenhauer has many. Here's a few.
All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.

Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.

Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.

Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think.

Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.

They tell us that Suicide is the greatest piece of Cowardice... That Suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in this world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person.

Just as one spoils the stomach by overfeeding and thereby impairs the whole body, so can one overload and choke the mind by giving it too much nourishment. For the more one reads the fewer are the traces left of what one has read; the mind is like a tablet that has been written over and over. Hence it is impossible to reflect; and it is only by reflection that one can assimilate what one has read. If one reads straight ahead without pondering over it later, what has been read does not take root, but is for the most part lost.
...and hundreds more:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... hopenhauer

Above us only sky
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Above us only sky » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:17 am

I used to consider him a great philosopher, but as I grow older I realize his ideas is just one of many incomplete explanation we give to our world just like others'.

For example, his theory can not be used to explain things like 'anorexia' with ease.
Last edited by Above us only sky on Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Above us only sky
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Above us only sky » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:45 am

The greatest problem of his theory is this: he insists that behind the real world there is something ugly, a dark energy called 'the will' that dictates the real world, that the real world is merely an expression of this dark energy that lies behind, yet he provides no valid evidence for this.

The world as we know is created by galatic cosmos movements, big bang, the process is similar to making bread with flour, if a singlar yeast cell within the bread wants to view this whole process as a giant invisible WILL making this bread, then let it be. :roll:

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Viveka » Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:33 am

I don't see how will can be undirected and random and blind. The will always has a purpose in mind. If I were to say the universe was made from will, it would necessarily be teleologically and optimistically.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:11 pm

Viveka wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:33 am
I don't see how will can be undirected and random and blind. The will always has a purpose in mind. If I were to say the universe was made from will, it would necessarily be teleologically and optimistically.
Its possible


Will can be observed as similar to cause and effect. I will one thing and in turn the effect is I will another based upon the previous will.

For example: I cook (willed/caused) a plate of pasta. The pasta is cooked and in turn I eat is (willed/effect).

As the wills are approximate to each other, that approximate nature has many "random elements to it".

a) I do not know what I will "will" next.
b) The will has an "approximate" nature; therefore is never fully observable.
c) The will as effect is not the same in structure as the will as cause. Both vary in structure and in this respect contains "deficiencies" that the other maintains are real. These deficiencies, as absences of structure are similiar in form and function to "randomness".

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Viveka » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:59 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:11 pm
Viveka wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:33 am
I don't see how will can be undirected and random and blind. The will always has a purpose in mind. If I were to say the universe was made from will, it would necessarily be teleologically and optimistically.
Its possible


Will can be observed as similar to cause and effect. I will one thing and in turn the effect is I will another based upon the previous will.

For example: I cook (willed/caused) a plate of pasta. The pasta is cooked and in turn I eat is (willed/effect).

As the wills are approximate to each other, that approximate nature has many "random elements to it".

a) I do not know what I will "will" next.
b) The will has an "approximate" nature; therefore is never fully observable.
c) The will as effect is not the same in structure as the will as cause. Both vary in structure and in this respect contains "deficiencies" that the other maintains are real. These deficiencies, as absences of structure are similiar in form and function to "randomness".
Will is always a cause and never an effect. To will is to intend. One might even say that Karma is Will's (meta-?)physical counter-part. I do know what I will will next. The will always has a purpose intended. For instance, I move my arm. I know that I moved my arm because I willed it. If I didn't know, then I would be unintentionally moving my arm, such as in a tremor or some kind of problem. The fact that one can move one's arm without willing it indicates a deficiency in health or a problem with one's mind/brain. I agree that the will is never fully observable . The will is never random, it is always 'intended.'

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10658
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Arising_uk » 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?

dorothea
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by dorothea » Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:24 pm

Did he not mean something more like energy or force (an unconscious striving) rather than what we typically mean by will these days. So, for instance you might reach for a piece of walnut cake - striving for it without consciousness of the fact - and only think about what you're doing if, say, you bite on a nut and hurt your tooth. He asserted that sexual will comes into everything - long before Freud - so the children are no surprise (though I didn't even know he was married). He looks a dish in the photo I've seen. That last bit was unconscious will.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests