I think my earlier post you were replying to it is best seen in conjunction with the last post.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/780262

But to go further

So this is backward. "Will" implies goals. The goals don't need to be directed toward something, because they are what actions are directed toward. The actions are the means, the goals are the ends. So subjugated goals are means, and the goal which the means are directed toward is logically prior to the means. Therefore the object which the goals are directed toward, if it is supposed to be a Form, is prior to the goals which are directed toward it, as these are the means. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I think you may have misinterpreted. I do agree with this sort of. However, I wouldn’t say that anything is prior in a causal sense. Rather, it seems to be a knot where they are all somehow one in the same. That is to say, Will manifests in the animal, desire and movement, and simply experience in space-time but that’s just the realization of Will in it’s flipside aspect of phenomenon. It is the playground.

In the playground (phenomenal aspect) Platonic form is both one’s own body (in one’s own character and manifestation of Will), played out in space/time (will-to live) and this form is directed towards other forms mediated by PSR (objects/representations) which provides the background or playground to play out its striving- towards. Space/time/causality is the necessary conditions for Will’s playground which is not prior but one and the same as Will. They are never disentangled. The Will is “dreaming itself” (maya) immediately.

Schopenhauer did not deny that goals could be met. It was just the never ending nature of the goals, and the fact that one never truly got satisfaction from obtaining the goals so I don’t think that interpretation is quite accurate in terms of completion.

It’s a tangled knot for sure. Will is the animal desiring objects which are simply representational versions of Will trying to obtain goals that it can never truly gain satisfaction from.

That part I get. Again, the objects are then seen as beyond time and space when not mediated by PSR. That’s the Platonic element. He then goes to say art “gets at” these forms in a way that circumvents the PSR of mediated representational Will. Again all an entangled knot.

I would say that the independent Forms are of God's Will, and the phenomenal representations of them are of the human will, as basic idealism, though I am very unfamiliar with Schopenhauer in particular.

If we remove God, then any proposed independent Forms are unsupported and meaningless conjecture. The only "world" or "worlds" are those created by human wills, and there is nothing to justify anything external. — Metaphysician Undercover

Certainly, god has no place in Schops metaphysics. Will is blind striving. But is it? Let me examine…

Schop posits Forms as immediate objects of the will. So what this could mean is that forms are created in order to have desires to achieve so the goals can be directed towards something. But it never achieved anything. It is the illusion of satisfaction. It’s the devils playground. So in a way, Will does have a telos, that is, to create never ending goals for itself in the goal of completion.

The problem again is how the one becomes Forms and many.

It was basically introspection writ large.

Not sure why Schopenhauer would be considered off here for positing the subject-object. The object is intrinsically tied to a subject. The object qua subject- the thing-in-itself is what, without a perceiver exactly? It's something, sure. Schopenhauer conceived of Will as this something.

HOWEVER, where I see conundrums in Schop's metaphysics is when he starts discussing the Forms as the "immediate" object of Will. This smuggling in of Plato, gets problematic as we now have to ask "Why?" and there seems to be little answer, other than the post-facto that we know objects exist. Also, how do these Forms turn into the sensible world of "phenomenon" that is of the PSR variety? All of this just gets confusing.

ARE the forms and the phenomenal representation of them mediated from the PSR "primary" along with the WILL? He did say, the World as Will AND Representation, afterall. If it is primary with the Will, how could the Will be "objectified"? It was then ALWAYS objectififed.

maximising their self-interest. — Banno

Depends what that really means. Does self-interest have to incorporate simply monetary gain? Keeping one's dignity can be in one's self-interest, perhaps. Viewing something as unfair and so proving that point can be in one's self-interest. But if it is financial self-interest, then I guess if those studies are correct to an statistical degree, it is true to some degree, still thus to be determined by more findings.

It isn't defined because it is gotten at indirect means. He can only gather that it strives, and thus there needs to be a playground for striving to take place... I guess?

He at the same time seems to want Will to be a double-aspect to reality, yet seems to also think it is prior in some sense. The Will, "wills life". But that implies that the Will was there first before the "will-to-live". But then again, I don't know.

The main question that is hard to answer with Schopenhauer, is how it is that there are objects when there is only Will. What is objectification of Will? He goes on about Forms as the original objects, and how artists perceive them best in their expressions in art and music. But this generates more questions..
Why does Will (unified and solo) have Forms? Why do forms have lower gradations of physical objects? It's all a bit obtuse.

He does go on about The World of Appearance being a mirror for Will, so perhaps it's something like: Will becomes objectified in order to experience itself and understand its own nature through the subject-object relationship.. But that is not explicitly stated in Schop as far as I know. It also gives a sort of story/mythos and perhaps even teleology, which really doesn't seem to be what Shop liked.

And again, the subject/object dichotomy is the private/public dichotomy dismantled by the private language argument. The stuff we talk about is always, already public. — Banno

This is obfuscating what's going on. The language is public, but the experience is private. If you are making some argument that subjectivity is only had via language acquisition, I give you proof in that other animals assuredly have inner lives, and are not constructed via a publically-domained language capacity.

I can only assume that's where you are going, otherwise, it's a red herring outright, as it is a digression without context.

Socialism has always had a puritan stream, but Marx seems to have seen the expansion of new needs in a positive light. — Jamal

Not sure what to think of Marxism, because it relies so heavily on the utopian dream being automated so we can pursue more meaningful things. But that requires even more digging into the minutia-mongering in the meantime. Also, I think the divide isn't necessarily "capitalists", it's also a knowledge divide. Having a deeper understanding of technology can provide individuals with a greater sense of agency and control over their lives and the world around them. This understanding goes beyond just using technology and involves knowledge of the materials, components, and processes that make it work. Scientists, engineers, and inventors, for example, often have this more comprehensive understanding and as a result, have more control and meaning over the technology they work with and the whole system in general. On the other hand, the average person may have a more limited understanding and tend to focus on the superficial aspects of technology, rather than its underlying mechanisms. This subsequently leads to simply minutia-mongering and leaving us more like babbling children lost in the big human-created forces that we can never fully understand or control (yet which others have more understanding and control of)- a sort of double-bind for the modern average person.

masses being as cattle because they avoid thinking as you say but can be easily lead in the wrong direction. — Athena

It's the structure that makes us cattle. But it's a double-bind, as the structure creates the goods and services you so love (like electricity, plastics, medicine, various materials, mining, food production, electronics, furniture, fixtures, goods of all varieties, heating, buildings, infrastructure, transportation, roads, ANYTHING). So unless you forgo that, back to the cattle pens we go as we monger minutia in the cattle feed.

The end of abstract speculation: Kant signalled the end of speculative metaphysics. Thereafter, abstract speculation was replaced by science and mathematics. — Jamal

To expand on this, I think it's more definitive death blow was the growing Analytic Philosophy of Frege, Russell, and positivists. Throughly atomizing the speculative to mathematical proof-based ideas and language analysis. However, I find it poetic justice that Whitehead, one of the big Analytic players, steeped in logic and math proofs, had one of the most speculative of speculative philosophy's metaphysics in his Process and Reality ("occasions of experience" anyone??).

Also, not that I am completely onboard, but the Speculative Realists, and traditional idealists in the Continental variety (Badiou, Deleuze, etc.) are still pretty speculative on the academic level.

Of course, speculative thinking in general is just not part of everyday speech in any logical form. It indeed is relegated to the fancies of "metaphysics" and "spiritualism" books, traditional religion (barely), and again, academia.

But certainly, people aren't connecting computer code, TPS reports, and accounting with anything other than their grueling repetitive tasks to be done with. The same with the trade-jobs, manufacturing, and the rest. Daily life gets in the way of meaning. As you stated:

unless this is taken to mean that most people remain excluded from the world of ideas and do not have the leisure or education to take part in intellectual discussion. What would be nice are two things: (1) a non-religious re-enchantment of the world, and (2) a re-organization of society to make this possible. — Jamal

What's sad, is the Self-Help gurus co-option of the Existentialism to make people subjugated to the menial but explaining to them, childishly, that there is meaning in the mundane by simply going through the gauntlet of life itself. As long as trends like "yoga" , "meditation", "vacation destinations", and "leisure time" is added, WhAt iS So WrOng WiTh tHiS ArraNgeMent!!!???


Meaning is shorn due to the internal workings of the socio-economic system, as it played out since the rise of industrialism and post-industrialism. Modernity is atomized thoroughly, to the point that we have internalized the atomization as thus good. Goods have obscured the Good. Also, simply stating "consumerism is bad" is a superficial attempt to get at this point. It's not just consumptive aspects, it is the PRODUCTION modes, which are obscuring meaning in daily life!!!! The focus on consumerism is likely a holdover from the Protestant Work Ethic's idea that work, even in atomized, meaningless form is best and sacred. Consumption must be the problem then, not production. But that is a deceptive ruse.

I wonder what @BC has to say on this.

Will give longer response, but I like to think of Schop as a sort of Kantian Neo-Platonist. Will is the Unified One, but somehow it immediately has an objectified aspect of lower gradations. He doesn’t explain why there needs to be this double-aspect as Will has no purpose. A poster long ago, mentioned the idea that the World of Phenonmenon is really a sort of playground for the Noumenal Will to reach teleology, but not realizing that it simply ends in strife for each manifestation. Anyways, that’s all speculation of Schop. All you need to know is that Will has a phenomenal aspect whereby there is a subject for an object. The animal is he place whereby appearances play out. This is the root of his PSR and thus the world of appearance of an object for a subject. He thinks all objects, including forces, have a will aspect to it, but it is unclear to me if all objects create appearance as animals do. To my understanding, his construct needs the animal subject to have always been in the equation. Time is a flat circle then. It appears to start billions of years earlier but really always stars with the first subjective being which oddly can never be prior to itself. It’s like the hand drawing itself Escher painting.

:up:
Agree with analysis.

What would be nice are two things: (1) a non-religious re-enchantment of the world, and (2) a re-organization of society to make this possible.

That's extremely simplistic and cartoonish, but there it is. — Jamal

See my utopian workplace itinerary post above in response to BC.

:100: :fire:

All of this has the effect of 'subjectivising' or 'privatizing' the notion of meaning, so that it becomes an attribute of the individual's search for truth, in an otherwise mechanical and inherently meaningless universe knowledge of which is mediated solely by science. — Wayfarer

Yes good analysis.

So I reframed the OP a bit further down not as a "today vs. yesterday". That's not really what I was getting at. Rather:

Let me reframe this. I really mean to get at, that in our daily lives, there seems to be lack of "meaningfulness in the mundane", whereby the meaningful informs the mundane. Again, religion tried to inject that (but usually one day a week in Western culture, and in a poorly delivered way to the masses). However, there is something about the minutia-mongering aspect of the post-industrial that does its best to take this away. The "workplace" (a social construct just like any other, but one whereby the majority of people garner their subsistence to maintain their material comforts and very survival), is often a killing floor for connecting what one does to anything broader, "mysteries of the universe" or otherwise. It is soul-crushing, demoralizing, and indeed leads to things like "End Stage Capitalism" and "Boring Dystopia". But it's more than just your token memes of ridiculous societal behavior, but the very connection of one's actions with the cosmos.

Yes, I can se BC coming in with some joke regarding the last sentence, something about scanning groceries at the checkout line and its connection with Plato's Forms, but I think you know what I am getting at. And yes, even that should be connected :grin:. — schopenhauer1

:wink:

When the bottom line is the dollar, and ethics go out the window, what happens to how we feel about ourselves and others? — Athena

Agreed. Not just ethics, but whole swaths of how we see value in things, life, and each other.

We say things like "work-life balance" for a reason. It means, you put in the recommended hours a week to your work, then use the remaining hours for your personal activities. — L'éléphant

:vomit: Check please!

The vision of a better, more humane - human - society comes from a) criticism of the existing society, and speculation about a better society. Any meaningful change in society has to be collective rather than individual. Just because I feel better now. than I used to doesn't mean I think it is up to individuals to solve these problems alone. — BC

:100: :up:

For instance, I welcome automation. A lot of boring tedious work really should be done by computers and robots. Coupled with automation should be a universal basic income system to avoid poverty among the displaced workers.

Of course, some people like doing routinized work -- I don't understand it, but they do.

There is the idea that people who have been relieved of boring routinized jobs can shift over to fascinating fulfilling work. Whether any such thing can, or would happen, isn't clear to me. Maybe it is a mistake to suppose that people would fill their days with fulfilling work. Maybe they would do what otherwise unoccupied people have always done: socialize, play, eat, etc. And that would be just fine. — BC

I think it's even more radical than that that has to happen. You are an old socialist, so maybe this might appeal to your sense of what could be... but imagine if work was a place of shared knowledge rather than bottom line individualism. It operated more like a seminar than output farm. But the donuts have to be made I get it. I don't know how to integrate the two necessities, but this would be something in some worker's utopia fantasy, only slightly different than our world in most other respects except how a "normal" place of "work" operates:

Here is a sample itinerary of a workplace that fosters learning and exploration:

8:00 am - Arrival: Employees arrive at work and are welcomed by a spacious and open office environment.

8:15 am - Morning Reflection: Employees start the day with a short meditation or reflection session to set their minds and focus for the day ahead.

9:00 am - Team Meetings: Teams hold their daily meetings to go over priorities and check-ins.

10:00 am - Workshops/Seminars: Employees attend in-house workshops or seminars on a range of subjects, from emerging technologies to philosophical debates.

12:00 pm - Lunch & Learn: Employees gather for lunch and listen to guest speakers or engage in discussions on topics of interest.

1:00 pm - Collaborative Work: Teams work on projects together, sharing ideas and knowledge, and encouraging cross-disciplinary collaboration.

3:00 pm - Personal Learning Time: Employees have dedicated time to pursue their own interests and learning, either individually or in groups.

4:30 pm - Show & Tell: Employees gather to share what they have learned during their personal learning time.

5:00 pm - Wrap-up: Teams wrap up their work for the day and plan for the next day.

5:30 pm - Departure: Employees head home, with their minds and spirits refreshed and reinvigorated.

This itinerary provides a snapshot of a workplace that prioritizes learning and exploration. By incorporating educational opportunities and personal time into the workday, employees are able to broaden their perspectives and connect with what they do in a deeper, more meaningful way.

I am very hesitant to go over my rant about replacing liberal education with education for technology but I think many of our problems are directly related to the change in education. Binary human thinking is no better than AI binary thinking. Young men who learn how to use weapons and how to make bombs, but do not learn how to have a pleasant life, are more than a workplace problem. — Athena

To be fair, in many places, no education is taking place. But fair enough- in upper-middle class areas, this may be true enough about emphasis on tech over liberal education. As far as bombs and such, you can replace that with any X products. You make boring things, you perhaps make boring people. "Work hard/ play hard".. Is like "Code hard/ game hard" or "Code hard and drink hard". "Enter stuff into forms", "Answer trivial emails", "Crunch numbers and make spread sheets" Repeat.

Wasn't the "Protestant work ethic" an effort to make the mundane meaningful? The idea was that all work was as sacred as the labor of priests. — BC

About as inspiring as a manager giving an ice cream social. If the PWE was the start, no wonder we didn't get much better! Management takes the role of dutiful Puritan leader, making sure all is making the hay for God's glory (and the bottom line that is).

So, scanning groceries was a service to God and Man, alike. — BC

And waiting in long lines is a penance.

Absolutely!

Can alienated people in an alienating culture overcome their alienation? I don't know if they can or not.

In various discussions around here about the meaningless universe it has been repeatedly asserted that man can impose, import, invent, invoke, create ... meaning.

How well is that working? Reasonably well.

BUT if one feels mired in anomie, alienation, meaninglessness, soullessness, etc. it is natural to believe that everyone is in the same hopeless boat. If one is NOT mired in the dark swamp, it is difficult to understand why some people are. I have had some long episodes of feeling alienated, meaningless, soulless, etc. in the past; and I have had some long episodes of feeling connected to and part of a solid meaning system.

What made the difference, moving from one state to another. Well, I don't know, exactly. Grace is as good an explanation as I can find. — BC

How about changes at a societal level? Work itself can transform into an environment that provides meaning as its goal rather than profit? Oh, I know, off to Utopian trashbin.

Your answer is indicative of the general trend towards radical individualism- the one that self-help books thrive on. It is YOUR fault that you feel alienated. In no way must we question the broader socio-cultural phenomenon.. Now buy this book and series of videos for $39.95.

@BC @Wayfarer @unenlightened @Agent Smith @L'éléphant

Let me reframe this. I really mean to get at, that in our daily lives, there seems to be lack of "meaningfulness in the mundane", whereby the meaningful informs the mundane. Again, religion tried to inject that (but usually one day a week in Western culture, and in a poorly delivered way to the masses). However, there is something about the minutia-mongering aspect of the post-industrial that does its best to take this away. The "workplace" (a social construct just like any other, but one whereby the majority of people garner their subsistence to maintain their material comforts and very survival), is often a killing floor for connecting what one does to anything broader, "mysteries of the universe" or otherwise. It is soul-crushing, demoralizing, and indeed leads to things like "End Stage Capitalism" and "Boring Dystopia". But it's more than just your token memes of ridiculous societal behavior, but the very connection of one's actions with the cosmos.

Yes, I can se BC coming in with some joke regarding the last sentence, something about scanning groceries at the checkout line and its connection with Plato's Forms, but I think you know what I am getting at. And yes, even that should be connected :grin:.

I meant I thought you were heading in a good direction in respect of this OP. — Wayfarer

:up:

'Religion' is not and has never been a monolithic entity, a single thing. When it's used in this context, it denotes the Enlightenment schema of philosophy, religion and science, each with their own magisteria, and with religion the waning voice of premodernity. But in pre-modern and archaic times there was no separately-defined sphere known as 'religion' - it was simply 'the law' which encompassed every aspect of life, governing social relations, the rythm of the days, months and years, and providing the cosmic backdrop against which the affairs of humans played out. But within these vast and ancient cultural lifeforms, there are still encoded many of the dramas and mysteries of the psyche, and of birth life and death. Think the Greek Myths and the Bhagavad Gita and other epics. — Wayfarer

Clearly, that was my interpretation, but I am kind of sympathetic to Schopenhauer's take which is that religion is simply a vessel for deeper truths. it just comes in the form of these myths.

So - I sense what you sense is lacking, and I think it's heading in a good direction, but I thnk it will involve a long journey. — Wayfarer

What makes you think it's heading in a good direction? There are niches for sure, but the broad mass of people, and frankly, the technocratic practicality of the Western values, is that what make 010100101 push electrical impulses.. and what balances debits and credits, and pushes materials from point a to b, c, and d is really what counts.

I'm forced to play, as we all are, oui mon ami? — Agent Smith

:up:

What's of great interest to me is speculation is sometimes fruitful and despite the appalling track record, people still do it. I guess it's kinda a fun way to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon, sippin' on something. — Agent Smith

Does practical = better? The way you phrase "fun way" "lazy", and "appalling track record".. Let me give you a scenario.. What if everyday everybody did all the things to stay alive, with no thought to speculation? You coded the code, hammered the nail, crunched the number, but that's it. Consumed your consumption. Repeat. Oh wait, that is much of what goes on anyways. I don't see how that's any less pernicious.

Are Descartes, Hobbes & Leibniz modern? — 180 Proof

Not how I'm defining it no. Early Modern, sure in certain contexts that phrase would be appropriate. I'll say, after the advent of the "second" industrial revolution...Seems to be beside the point of the OP though.

Spinoza made lenses for a living and was still able to produce some musings during his short life. — NOS4A2

Indeed he did. I'm not claiming that these are mutually exclusive, nor that a niche group of people think of speculative things. Nor is Spinoza modern, so also wrong era. Obviously, philosophers are indeed part of that niche.

Wait a minute. When did "speculation about the nature of existence and metaphysics" have great appeal? What exactly are you referencing here? Literature? Philosophy? Film? Beer hall conversation? — BC

I changed the OP. I think you're right and I don't want that to be the focus (then and now). Rather, simply that we focus on the minutia-mongering more than the speculative and abstract in general- explaining what those are as context.

My reading of history and literature leads me to think that "speculation about the nature of existence and metaphysics" has always been a niche activity. — BC

Yes it has.

Indeed, and that pleasure has been enjoyed for quite a long time -- especially by the people supervising or profiting from the hard work of accomplishment. Not sure how much the grunts working away in the pits felt about it. — BC

This I agree with wholeheartedly. I have a feeling there is a convergence of grunts wanting the concentration and flow, come home, decompress and [place entertainment-pursuit here] without too much into abstract thinking. There have always been exceptions pointing towards that niche, as you mentioned.

Sure, and you were forced to say that by these constraints and me to say otherwise, which is the meaninglessness of determinism and which is even more meaningless to suggest we've figured it out, considering whatever we figured out was what we had to think regardless.

Or, we have free will and despite these contraints can make our lives better or worse based upon how we decide. — Hanover

Well, I’m not referring to determinism. I’m referring to literally how our scoop-economic cultural system is setup and how it is near impossible to work against these larger forces, so the usual advice is as you and others are doing which is the self-help mindset of change yourself so you can try to fit the system better.

The pretence to objectivity fails. Your pills are for those who like prisons. And that's fine for those who do. — Baden

I actually agree here about objectivity to an extent. I understand the mindset of self-help is to look within for coping better with the external restraints. Why is my redirecting the lens as to focus on the external restraints not allowed? That itself is suspicious and not uncommon for people to be hostile towards. And I don’t think “because we can’t help what we can’t help” answers this.

@Baden
The problem too is you probably had something specific happen and rightly, you don’t go into detail, thus any advice is also going to be largely vague and just general positive redirections. You can do it, it’s not as bad as you think, and don’t let ‘em get ya down type of thing.

But @Hanover had some point that life is not necessarily a zero sum game of winners and losers in terms of the possibility of making a living. However, it is setup a certain way that is basically intractable. You were born, in this world you have to survive, and history has its contingent ever present constraint along with the cultural artifacts of what came from it.

Luckily my loaded question has no efficacy as to affecting someone’s life as compared to the reality of our social existence, oui?

What do you think? Can you relate to what I think/feel? — niki wonoto

What would be the ideal society and situation for you?

Can you redefine the prison or do you just accept the conditions as it is what it is?

Can that not be said to anyone?

Yes, consumer society is exploitative and alienating. I agree. If that is enough for you to build a prison for yourself, feel free. — Baden

It’s not just consumer society, but any consumption of advanced technology and workers working for owners/boards with high powered tech and science, is participating in this. It’s unavoidable even in a society of relative non consumerism.

It’s not of one’s own making. One cannot change the throwness of history and society. One can only become more comfortable accepting but never changing the immovable throwness and that seems to be what the OP is getting at. No agency but all acceptance. They can imprison you but they can’t break you is not great consolation.

Better to create stories for ourselves that give us power and reject those that take it away. — Baden

The minute you are summoned by the people with power and money, that fantasy goes away. Agency is had by those that have the knowledge and power is had by those who can make money from that knowledge whilst using those who don’t have the knowledge or money to get stuff done so they can sell the products of that knowledge to those who passively and ignorantly use them.

Of course OP feels a sense of alienation and disconnect.