Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:35 pm

Viveka wrote:
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.'
An effect is an approximate cause. What is intended does not always equate to what is willed. I may "intend" to take a full plate of pasta to the table, but some unforeseen aspect of the environment may cause me to drop it. Now I may be it back up and take the clean pasta to the table.

a) The random elements of the will, are fundamentally the "limits" of the will. Randomness as a deficiency in the will would be to observe the will as having certain "limits" or "deficiencies".

b) The will may be "intended" however intention has deficiencies. One's intentions do not always go along with ones actions.

c) And vice versa, one may "act" without intention and this is a deficiency in the will. (such as involuntarily trying to grasp the plate out of instinct.

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

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Viveka » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:35 pm
Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:59 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:11 pm

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.'
An effect is an approximate cause. What is intended does not always equate to what is willed. I may "intend" to take a full plate of pasta to the table, but some unforeseen aspect of the environment may cause me to drop it. Now I may be it back up and take the clean pasta to the table.

a) The random elements of the will, are fundamentally the "limits" of the will. Randomness as a deficiency in the will would be to observe the will as having certain "limits" or "deficiencies".

b) The will may be "intended" however intention has deficiencies. One's intentions do not always go along with ones actions.

c) And vice versa, one may "act" without intention and this is a deficiency in the will. (such as involuntarily trying to grasp the plate out of instinct.
Remember that we are talking about the Will itself. The Will is never unintended, but it can occur that something circumstantially hinders our will. Again, we are talking about the Will itself. One's actions can occur that are 'unintended,' but then that would mean some sort of health problem or some other deficiency, while the Will itself, as I must point out again, is never unintended.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:55 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:18 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:35 pm
Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:59 pm


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.'
An effect is an approximate cause. What is intended does not always equate to what is willed. I may "intend" to take a full plate of pasta to the table, but some unforeseen aspect of the environment may cause me to drop it. Now I may be it back up and take the clean pasta to the table.

a) The random elements of the will, are fundamentally the "limits" of the will. Randomness as a deficiency in the will would be to observe the will as having certain "limits" or "deficiencies".

b) The will may be "intended" however intention has deficiencies. One's intentions do not always go along with ones actions.

c) And vice versa, one may "act" without intention and this is a deficiency in the will. (such as involuntarily trying to grasp the plate out of instinct.
Remember that we are talking about the Will itself. The Will is never unintended, but it can occur that something circumstantially hinders our will. Again, we are talking about the Will itself. One's actions can occur that are 'unintended,' but then that would mean some sort of health problem or some other deficiency, while the Will itself, as I must point out again, is never unintended.
The will is multifaceted when reflecting the human condition of body, mind and spirit. What the body and mind may actualize, through intention the spirit itself may not fully "involved" (and same for body/spirit and spirit/mind). Intention, and the corresponding act, manifests itself fully through all three.

One may apply the mind and body to a specific task with the spirit not being fully integrated (take for example a player in a sport's competition whose "heart is not into it".)

One may apply the mind and spirit to a specific task with the body not being fully integrated (take for example a player in a sport's competition who play's injured).

One may apply the spirit and body to a specific task with the mind not being fully integrated (take for example a player in a sport's competition who in fit of joy or rage ignores a planned strategy).

It is these deficiencies of the will, in these corresponding manners that gives a "degree" of randomness as what is will does not always correspond with what is either actualized or intended to be actualized.

In this respect the will must be "strengthened" through habit or discipline in order to give it further structure. These habits may be involved to give structure to a deficiency in the mind, body, or spirit. However the habit itself is the will reflecting upon itself to give itself a "fuller" or more "structured" form of being.

The will as a "causal" element manifests itself through further "approximate cause (or effect)" through the nature of habit. The will is effect as effect is just approximate cause. It is within this nature of the will through habit, that its inherent "approximate" nature manifests itself as having specific limits with these limits corresponding to "randomness".

A random, or unstructured will, is not will at all but rather deficiencies of the will. These deficiencies are not things in themselves but rather what "the will is not". In this respect the will reflecting a degree of randomness is strictly observing a will as what it is:
"being" and nothing more.

If that makes more sense.

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

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Viveka » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:38 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:55 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:18 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:35 pm


An effect is an approximate cause. What is intended does not always equate to what is willed. I may "intend" to take a full plate of pasta to the table, but some unforeseen aspect of the environment may cause me to drop it. Now I may be it back up and take the clean pasta to the table.

a) The random elements of the will, are fundamentally the "limits" of the will. Randomness as a deficiency in the will would be to observe the will as having certain "limits" or "deficiencies".

b) The will may be "intended" however intention has deficiencies. One's intentions do not always go along with ones actions.

c) And vice versa, one may "act" without intention and this is a deficiency in the will. (such as involuntarily trying to grasp the plate out of instinct.
Remember that we are talking about the Will itself. The Will is never unintended, but it can occur that something circumstantially hinders our will. Again, we are talking about the Will itself. One's actions can occur that are 'unintended,' but then that would mean some sort of health problem or some other deficiency, while the Will itself, as I must point out again, is never unintended.
The will is multifaceted when reflecting the human condition of body, mind and spirit. What the body and mind may actualize, through intention the spirit itself may not fully "involved" (and same for body/spirit and spirit/mind). Intention, and the corresponding act, manifests itself fully through all three.

One may apply the mind and body to a specific task with the spirit not being fully integrated (take for example a player in a sport's competition whose "heart is not into it".)

One may apply the mind and spirit to a specific task with the body not being fully integrated (take for example a player in a sport's competition who play's injured).

One may apply the spirit and body to a specific task with the mind not being fully integrated (take for example a player in a sport's competition who in fit of joy or rage ignores a planned strategy).

It is these deficiencies of the will, in these corresponding manners that gives a "degree" of randomness as what is will does not always correspond with what is either actualized or intended to be actualized.

In this respect the will must be "strengthened" through habit or discipline in order to give it further structure. These habits may be involved to give structure to a deficiency in the mind, body, or spirit. However the habit itself is the will reflecting upon itself to give itself a "fuller" or more "structured" form of being.

The will as a "causal" element manifests itself through further "approximate cause (or effect)" through the nature of habit. The will is effect as effect is just approximate cause. It is within this nature of the will through habit, that its inherent "approximate" nature manifests itself as having specific limits with these limits corresponding to "randomness".

A random, or unstructured will, is not will at all but rather deficiencies of the will. These deficiencies are not things in themselves but rather what "the will is not". In this respect the will reflecting a degree of randomness is strictly observing a will as what it is:
"being" and nothing more.

If that makes more sense.
Like I said, the Will by itself has no deficiencies or material counterparts. We are talking about the Will itself, alone, by itself, for itself.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:47 pm

Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:38 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:55 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:18 pm


Remember that we are talking about the Will itself. The Will is never unintended, but it can occur that something circumstantially hinders our will. Again, we are talking about the Will itself. One's actions can occur that are 'unintended,' but then that would mean some sort of health problem or some other deficiency, while the Will itself, as I must point out again, is never unintended.
The will is multifaceted when reflecting the human condition of body, mind and spirit. What the body and mind may actualize, through intention the spirit itself may not fully "involved" (and same for body/spirit and spirit/mind). Intention, and the corresponding act, manifests itself fully through all three.

One may apply the mind and body to a specific task with the spirit not being fully integrated (take for example a player in a sport's competition whose "heart is not into it".)

One may apply the mind and spirit to a specific task with the body not being fully integrated (take for example a player in a sport's competition who play's injured).

One may apply the spirit and body to a specific task with the mind not being fully integrated (take for example a player in a sport's competition who in fit of joy or rage ignores a planned strategy).

It is these deficiencies of the will, in these corresponding manners that gives a "degree" of randomness as what is will does not always correspond with what is either actualized or intended to be actualized.

In this respect the will must be "strengthened" through habit or discipline in order to give it further structure. These habits may be involved to give structure to a deficiency in the mind, body, or spirit. However the habit itself is the will reflecting upon itself to give itself a "fuller" or more "structured" form of being.

The will as a "causal" element manifests itself through further "approximate cause (or effect)" through the nature of habit. The will is effect as effect is just approximate cause. It is within this nature of the will through habit, that its inherent "approximate" nature manifests itself as having specific limits with these limits corresponding to "randomness".

A random, or unstructured will, is not will at all but rather deficiencies of the will. These deficiencies are not things in themselves but rather what "the will is not". In this respect the will reflecting a degree of randomness is strictly observing a will as what it is:
"being" and nothing more.

If that makes more sense.
Like I said, the Will by itself has no deficiencies or material counterparts. We are talking about the Will itself, alone, by itself, for itself.
The will alone, I am assuming that is what we are talking about.

The will contains randomness in the respect it contains deficiency or maybe better put: "limit". The will has limit. While the will may be deficient, that fact that it is "will" does not change and in these respect "exists" as "will".

The will have limit because of the mediums it must manifests itself through, specifically the temporal.

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

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Viveka » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:38 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:55 pm


The will is multifaceted when reflecting the human condition of body, mind and spirit. What the body and mind may actualize, through intention the spirit itself may not fully "involved" (and same for body/spirit and spirit/mind). Intention, and the corresponding act, manifests itself fully through all three.

One may apply the mind and body to a specific task with the spirit not being fully integrated (take for example a player in a sport's competition whose "heart is not into it".)

One may apply the mind and spirit to a specific task with the body not being fully integrated (take for example a player in a sport's competition who play's injured).

One may apply the spirit and body to a specific task with the mind not being fully integrated (take for example a player in a sport's competition who in fit of joy or rage ignores a planned strategy).

It is these deficiencies of the will, in these corresponding manners that gives a "degree" of randomness as what is will does not always correspond with what is either actualized or intended to be actualized.

In this respect the will must be "strengthened" through habit or discipline in order to give it further structure. These habits may be involved to give structure to a deficiency in the mind, body, or spirit. However the habit itself is the will reflecting upon itself to give itself a "fuller" or more "structured" form of being.

The will as a "causal" element manifests itself through further "approximate cause (or effect)" through the nature of habit. The will is effect as effect is just approximate cause. It is within this nature of the will through habit, that its inherent "approximate" nature manifests itself as having specific limits with these limits corresponding to "randomness".

A random, or unstructured will, is not will at all but rather deficiencies of the will. These deficiencies are not things in themselves but rather what "the will is not". In this respect the will reflecting a degree of randomness is strictly observing a will as what it is:
"being" and nothing more.

If that makes more sense.
Like I said, the Will by itself has no deficiencies or material counterparts. We are talking about the Will itself, alone, by itself, for itself.
The will alone, I am assuming that is what we are talking about.

The will contains randomness in the respect it contains deficiency or maybe better put: "limit". The will has limit. While the will may be deficient, that fact that it is "will" does not change and in these respect "exists" as "will".

The will have limit because of the mediums it must manifests itself through, specifically the temporal.
No, you were talking about "The will is multifaceted when reflecting the human condition of body, mind and spirit. " I am talking about Schopenhauer's Universal Will. Which is something that is similar to the Logos when understood correctly as non-random, always intended, teleological, and meaningful.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:15 pm

Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:38 pm


Like I said, the Will by itself has no deficiencies or material counterparts. We are talking about the Will itself, alone, by itself, for itself.
The will alone, I am assuming that is what we are talking about.

The will contains randomness in the respect it contains deficiency or maybe better put: "limit". The will has limit. While the will may be deficient, that fact that it is "will" does not change and in these respect "exists" as "will".

The will have limit because of the mediums it must manifests itself through, specifically the temporal.
No, you were talking about "The will is multifaceted when reflecting the human condition of body, mind and spirit. " I am talking about Schopenhauer's Universal Will. Which is something that is similar to the Logos when understood correctly as non-random, always intended, teleological, and meaningful.
Schopenhauer, if I remember correctly, was an atheist and prerequisite philosopher to Neitszche. The universal will, is a force similiar to the "apeiron" I talked about on other posts.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:17 pm

Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:38 pm


Like I said, the Will by itself has no deficiencies or material counterparts. We are talking about the Will itself, alone, by itself, for itself.
The will alone, I am assuming that is what we are talking about.

The will contains randomness in the respect it contains deficiency or maybe better put: "limit". The will has limit. While the will may be deficient, that fact that it is "will" does not change and in these respect "exists" as "will".

The will have limit because of the mediums it must manifests itself through, specifically the temporal.
No, you were talking about "The will is multifaceted when reflecting the human condition of body, mind and spirit. " I am talking about Schopenhauer's Universal Will. Which is something that is similar to the Logos when understood correctly as non-random, always intended, teleological, and meaningful.
Article:

"Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung was published in 1818 and went through extensive revisions and expansions, at Schopenhauer’s expense. The best English translation is The World as Will and Representation by E.J.F. Payne, published in 1958. It aroused little interest either in Germany or in England until the latter stages of Schopenhauer’s life – a fact that, despite his expressed belief in the heartless and purposeless nature of the world, caused him great unhappiness."

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

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Viveka » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:23 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:17 pm
Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:47 pm


The will alone, I am assuming that is what we are talking about.

The will contains randomness in the respect it contains deficiency or maybe better put: "limit". The will has limit. While the will may be deficient, that fact that it is "will" does not change and in these respect "exists" as "will".

The will have limit because of the mediums it must manifests itself through, specifically the temporal.
No, you were talking about "The will is multifaceted when reflecting the human condition of body, mind and spirit. " I am talking about Schopenhauer's Universal Will. Which is something that is similar to the Logos when understood correctly as non-random, always intended, teleological, and meaningful.
Article:

"Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung was published in 1818 and went through extensive revisions and expansions, at Schopenhauer’s expense. The best English translation is The World as Will and Representation by E.J.F. Payne, published in 1958. It aroused little interest either in Germany or in England until the latter stages of Schopenhauer’s life – a fact that, despite his expressed belief in the heartless and purposeless nature of the world, caused him great unhappiness."
I know that! That's what I've been debating! A Will would never be purposeless! Nietzsche gave a specific purpose to the Will of Schopenhauer: the Will to Power.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:26 pm

Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:23 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:17 pm
Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:12 pm


No, you were talking about "The will is multifaceted when reflecting the human condition of body, mind and spirit. " I am talking about Schopenhauer's Universal Will. Which is something that is similar to the Logos when understood correctly as non-random, always intended, teleological, and meaningful.
Article:

"Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung was published in 1818 and went through extensive revisions and expansions, at Schopenhauer’s expense. The best English translation is The World as Will and Representation by E.J.F. Payne, published in 1958. It aroused little interest either in Germany or in England until the latter stages of Schopenhauer’s life – a fact that, despite his expressed belief in the heartless and purposeless nature of the world, caused him great unhappiness."
I know that! That's what I've been debating! A Will would never be purposeless! Nietzsche gave a specific purpose to the Will of Schopenhauer: the Will to Power.
Self-will is without purpose when taken out of perspective because the self is an absence of definition.

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

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Viveka » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:43 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:26 pm
Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:23 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:17 pm


Article:

"Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung was published in 1818 and went through extensive revisions and expansions, at Schopenhauer’s expense. The best English translation is The World as Will and Representation by E.J.F. Payne, published in 1958. It aroused little interest either in Germany or in England until the latter stages of Schopenhauer’s life – a fact that, despite his expressed belief in the heartless and purposeless nature of the world, caused him great unhappiness."
I know that! That's what I've been debating! A Will would never be purposeless! Nietzsche gave a specific purpose to the Will of Schopenhauer: the Will to Power.
Self-will is without purpose when taken out of perspective because the self is an absence of definition.
The self has nothing to do with this.

Anyways, to play along:

I would argue that the self is a fullness of definition. With an 'I' we can identify ourselves amongst others as a singular being with a singular viewpoint that is independent of the rest and defines the conditions that exist. Much like Goodness is the singular end of all pursuits, the 'I' is the singular beginning of all pursuits.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:47 pm

Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:43 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:26 pm
Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:23 pm


I know that! That's what I've been debating! A Will would never be purposeless! Nietzsche gave a specific purpose to the Will of Schopenhauer: the Will to Power.
Self-will is without purpose when taken out of perspective because the self is an absence of definition.
The self has nothing to do with this.

It has everything to do with it considering the "force" that Schopenhauer argues for manifests itself through people.

Anyways, to play along:

I would argue that the self is a fullness of definition. With an 'I' we can identify ourselves amongst others as a singular being with a singular viewpoint that is independent of the rest and defines the conditions that exist. Much like Goodness is the singular end of all pursuits, the 'I' is the singular beginning of all pursuits.

The self is only "full" in respect in its ability to "transcend itself" through a unification with the Logos. Without the logos it has no dimension or reality to itself.

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

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Viveka » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:52 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:47 pm
Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:43 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:26 pm


Self-will is without purpose when taken out of perspective because the self is an absence of definition.
The self has nothing to do with this.

It has everything to do with it considering the "force" that Schopenhauer argues for manifests itself through people.
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:47 pm
Anyways, to play along:

I would argue that the self is a fullness of definition. With an 'I' we can identify ourselves amongst others as a singular being with a singular viewpoint that is independent of the rest and defines the conditions that exist. Much like Goodness is the singular end of all pursuits, the 'I' is the singular beginning of all pursuits.

The self is only "full" in respect in its ability to "transcend itself" through a unification with the Logos. Without the logos it has no dimension or reality to itself.
[/quote]

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.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:55 pm

Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:52 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:47 pm
Viveka wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:43 pm


The self has nothing to do with this.

It has everything to do with it considering the "force" that Schopenhauer argues for manifests itself through people.
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:47 pm
Anyways, to play along:

I would argue that the self is a fullness of definition. With an 'I' we can identify ourselves amongst others as a singular being with a singular viewpoint that is independent of the rest and defines the conditions that exist. Much like Goodness is the singular end of all pursuits, the 'I' is the singular beginning of all pursuits.

The self is only "full" in respect in its ability to "transcend itself" through a unification with the Logos. Without the logos it has no dimension or reality to itself.
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.

[/quote]

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

Re: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Post by Viveka » 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
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:47 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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:47 pm
Anyways, to play along:

I would argue that the self is a fullness of definition. With an 'I' we can identify ourselves amongst others as a singular being with a singular viewpoint that is independent of the rest and defines the conditions that exist. Much like Goodness is the singular end of all pursuits, the 'I' is the singular beginning of all pursuits.

The self is only "full" in respect in its ability to "transcend itself" through a unification with the Logos. Without the logos it has no dimension or reality to itself.
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.
[/quote]

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?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest