The execution is the most important bit. What use - as Epictetus said - that you have read all those books, if you cannot execute?

reify — schopenhauer1

?

So, where does this "careful planning" come in when you are trying to do your best? You are clearly not articulating yourself correctly, considering that careful planning is reason and rational thought and not Lady Fortuna. — TimeLine

Not really. Rational thought and careful planning is spending time doing nothing so that every once in awhile you get a good idea about what you should do - then you implement it. Most people can't stand 'wasting' time like this though - they get bored and quit.

To say that your interpretations of the external world are irrelevant and yet somehow believe that you can climb Everest only because of luck fails to acknowledge the mutually compatible combination of determinism and exercising your free-will. — TimeLine

No, just that thinking is irrelevant to actually climbing. It takes will, not thinking, to do that. Too much thinking paralyzes the will.

Do you realise how crazy you sound? — TimeLine

That doesn't matter. Words are meaningless. Does reading my words - or any words for that matter - change one iota of your life? Not really. It's actions, not words, that change lives.

So you need luck and careful planning? — TimeLine

Absolutely. You have to do your best, but success isn't within your hands.

So, how we interpret the fundamental nature of reality, of knowledge and of existence — TimeLine

That is irrelevant. It won't put a dime in my pocket, get me to the moon, make me climb Everest, help me lift 30kg dumbbells at the gym, or anything else worth doing.

I see, and thinking that man is a straw dog and puppet will fill your heart and give your life meaning? — TimeLine

No, only Lady Fortune can do that.

From luck? — TimeLine

Yes. Luck, careful planning, laser-like focus. Meaning is not created, it is given.

Up to you.

Philosophical understanding and intellectual sophistication and a head full of knowledge won't fill your heart or keep you warm or give your life meaning. — oysteroid

I care what this revealed to me because I became conscious of how such terrible things occurred because I allowed it to and it gave me the capacity to visualise the temporal sequence of events that lead to that in order to learn to prevent that from occurring again. It gave me a sense of duty, taught me to honour virtue, and made me incredibly happy. I do not sit there and go "meh, its all Fortune" but I make it so because I exist. — TimeLine

Just a story though, doesn't change anything. You still almost died, you still suffered an accident, etc. etc. Suffering is not made better because you got something out of it.

We have moved on rather substantially from the ancients and it seems somewhat contradictory that - what with Tyche or Fortuna - you seemingly appreciate the very "story-making" that you oppose. — TimeLine

It's not a story, it is true. The gods raise some up and destroy others - the cycle of history.

For a start, I am happy with one God. — TimeLine

"the gods" are a metaphor for the guiding divinity.

how such terrible things occurred because I allowed it to — TimeLine

I don't think so - they just occurred because they occurred :s

It gave me a sense of duty, taught me to honour virtue, and made me incredibly happy. I do not sit there and go "meh, its all Fortune" but I make it so because I exist. — TimeLine

None of my experiences gave me anything except to understand that man is a straw dog, the puppet of the gods. That doesn't mean you shouldn't struggle towards the heights - just that reaching there is not in your hands.

Someone who vegetates in a state of bliss isn't doing anything for anyone else. And someone who feels like death warmed over -- but who also performs service to others -- has a more valuable life -- yes? — Bitter Crank

Not necessarily, that's only assuming that there is something that should or has to be done.

I think this is one of the most depressing things I've read on this forum. — praxis

It's depressing because you're opposing it. If you stop opposing it, and just accept that our festival is the making of money, then you can join the party. What's the difference between making money and the Olympic games of the Greeks? Who cares if we gather around Olympic games, or profit making, or singing? So long as we gather together, it is enough.

I had used those words interchangeably. But sure, if you posit a distinction between them, as you're apparently doing here, then the answer is no. — Thorongil

No wait a minute, it's not about positing a distinction. I'm asking you if there is a distinction.

I don't understand the question. — Thorongil

Why is it difficult to understand? :s

Say the Chinese Emperor laughs at my face. I get angry and shout at him. Next second I'm dead. Has my ego benefited my self?

As Uncle Karl said, "Under capitalism everything is reduced to the cash nexus." — Bitter Crank

Indeed, it's even pointless to fight it. Let's just restructure everything around it. Let's make money together, not alone.

Benefiting how? Becoming more virtuous? If so, then I agree, but that's different from what I was saying. The pursuit of virtue for oneself is not the same as egotism or narcissism. — Thorongil

Is one's ego beneficial to one's self?

In your own words, what does loving oneself entail? — Thorongil

Committed to benefiting one's self. It is conceivable that one's desires may be against one's good in some cases.

I must empty myself of self in order to allow the other to enter into me. — Thorongil

Yes and no - love your neighbour as yourself. You must love yourself first before you can love your neighbour. Extreme asceticism is indifference to self and to neighbour, and so is not compassionate.

asceticism — Thorongil

Quick comment, I think compassion is more relevant than renunciation in the final analysis.

Although there were philosophers in the past that made a good living out of their trade, we're known as sophists rather than pure philosophers. Why is that? — Posty McPostface

Only during Ancient Greece, but that's only because they had a non-capitalist economy. What you did in Ancient Greece was fight, train for Olympics, go and have fun in the market, trade, go to cultural shows, festivities, etc. - economy wasn't very relevant.

Later philosophers had no problem making dough. Epictetus had a philosophy school - can't have a school without the dough. Seneca was richest man in Rome - and so on.

And now that we live in a capitalist economy, it is making money that has to bring us closer together. To be close, we need to make money together - we need to be actively engaged in the economy with each other. All of life today, apart from family life and downtime - is the economy.

I feel alienated, but mostly from myself, my real self and the alienation stems from a natural desire to feel some kinship with those around me, ultimately suppressing the person that I am. As an example, if you have bad people around you, you have to act tough to protect yourself even if you are non-violent. It was not until several years ago when I met the worst sort of people that enabled a consciousness of the vanity of such a desire and when I nearly passed away after an accident and all on my own, I realised that I failed myself.

While I have spent so much time just trying to recover that horrible experience, I have recently had an epiphany that I am a culmination of choices that are leading to what I deeply want most, which has always been to fight injustice. I studied a masters in human rights law, I am working with disadvantaged women and children, I write on a blog, all leading to this created 'destiny' where it is my plan and dream to work in international human rights and write a novel. I applied for my first international post last week and I no longer have writers block.

There is a part of me that is telling myself to enjoy, have fun, relax because I feel like the time for serious is coming soon enough. This 'serious' is basically no longer dividing myself between two worlds, but quite simply being myself in this world and letting go of that desire which causes that alienating feeling. The more independent I become, the less desirious I am of others and the really odd thing is that by doing so I am attracting better people, company that I enjoy. To focus on yourself, on building virtue and a good character, you find wholeness and a peace that is good for you in so many ways. — TimeLine

Interesting. I could build a similar story, but lately, I don't feel the need. It's pointless - the gods give, and the gods take away. All else is just story-making that doesn't change anything.

You survived - who cares what this revealed to you if anything? It wasn't in your control. To look back and say "oh I wasn't really truthful to myself then" - so what? It doesn't change anything. Your life still remains as it is. Your destiny isn't self-made, but given - by Fortune, both the good and the bad.

Yes I notice the same thing, sometimes. I can be very non-philosophical too though, although I don't prefer being that way.

Part of the reason for this is that we haven't found a way to earn $$ out of doing philosophy, so the time you spend philosophising is time in which you're not engaged with the economy, and hence you're isolated. Zizek wouldn't feel like we do for example. If we found a way to earn money and live off doing philosophy - without being philosophy professors obviously - then it wouldn't be such a big issue.

What are you referring to? What is outside of the will? — Wayfarer

That's not relevant for the purposes of this discussion, only that Schopenhauer accepted that there is something other than Will, that seems to be nothing to those who are still full of Will.

Not struggling with anything. It is a meaningless word that says nothing about nothing. I call it lazy philosophy, or another way to put it, all illusions are illusions. — Rich

Well, "illusion" is meaningful to many people, apparently, you don't find it meaningful, that's okay. But it's only because you have defined it in a ubiquitous way, and refuse the common usage and understanding of the term.

How poor or unstable to living conditions need to be where it is wrong to have kids? Do you think there is one? Does it vary? Thanks. — learner111

Well, I'd say if the parents are in an unstable situation, financially, in terms of health, etc. it wouldn't be a wise thing to have children, obviously. Basically, if the parent thinks they will really struggle to care for the child - not enough money, time, etc. - they shouldn't have a child. For me, I wouldn't have a child anytime soon, because I don't feel financially secure enough yet to care for the child adequately, including contingencies that can come up, like illness, etc. Nor do I feel capable to carry the psychological pressure of being a father yet. So it's something that will come with time for someone like me I think. I'd say it would definitely not be wise for me to have children now.

Many parents though don't take much responsibility for when having a child, and I think that's bad. Lack of self-awareness often makes one think they are ready before they really are.

Thanks.

It is a manifestation of willing in the subject/object relationship.. one step down from Will, that mysterious force in-itself. — schopenhauer1

I know that Schopenhauer would say that, but I'm not quite sure. In hunger, the subject and object are the same it seems to me. That's why I said:

The feeling of pain just is pain — Agustino

Here, subject and object are identical it seems to me. Am I wrong?

There are no illusions and illusions are not misunderstandings. However, I understand the appeal for those who wish to create an aura if mystery. The Hindus call it the Maya. — Rich

Well right, if you define illusion as that which doesn't exist, no wonder then that you struggle to say what an illusion actually is or feel perplexed when representation is called maya or an illusion.

If that's the case, skip Leibniz and go right to Whitehead's process philosophy. — schopenhauer1

I have not studied Whitehead.

Man, you would debate a wall if it got in your way. — schopenhauer1

>:O - and would it move out of my way then?

“Truly I tell you that if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and has no doubt in his heart but believes that it will happen, it will be done for him. — Mark 11:23

Can you ever incorporate the other's ideas rather than pure me vs. you dialectic? — schopenhauer1

It's a me vs you dialectic not because you said it, but rather because I really disagree with your ideas on those points. I haven't bothered to comment on things I agree with, obviously.

Doesn't this way of debating wear you out and frustrate? — schopenhauer1

I don't take debate personally. I'm not pained if you disagree with me, I'm not here to convince you.

Anyways, pain is pain, but if all were pure will, (or rather X), then there is no pain, no you, no nothing except Will. — schopenhauer1

But isn't willing a pain, a suffering? When you're hungry, that is willing. The feeling of hunger is an aspect of Will.

To me it denotes some sorry if magically trickery. — Rich

Well you're not providing a definition or showing me what it is :s - so of course you have no idea why illusions are introduced into philosophy when you don't define them in any clear way :s

Do you think something mysterious and magical is going on. Or v is it just incomplete and continuously changing? — Rich

Once you define what this mysterious, magical, or illusory are (since now you're just giving me synonyms right now), I will be able to tell you what I think. If you cannot point me to the meaning of these words, then clearly I can't tell you in a way where we both agree on the meanings.

Thus, Will as thing-in-itself is not fully realized. — schopenhauer1

Yes, but don't forget that the Will appears as "nothing" to those where no Will is present, and inversely, everything else (non-Will) appears as "nothing" to those full of will. So no - Will is not thing-in-itself - at least not the complete thing-in-itself.

Now, yes Schopenhauer did say that we can feel the immediacy of Will in our very willing movements, but it is still will as mediated by appearance — schopenhauer1

I don't see how it's mediated by appearances at all. The feeling of pain just is pain, there's nothing "mediating" it. There's no separation between experiencing it and itself.

and fully monistic. — schopenhauer1

Schopenhauer denied this "one" for neither one nor two.

We can glean it is a striving principle and that we are part of the striving itself in our own natures. — schopenhauer1

I would disagree with Schopenhauer that there is one Will. Rather the World is the summation of Wills, which are similar to Leibniz's monads - I think that is a better way to think of it, one that I have only started investigating recently. Or perhaps even better said - the Will is a fragmentary process.

An illusion is a word that is inspired by magic. It has a connotation of the mysterious. It is a fun word to use but when I am investigating the nature of nature, I don't use it not do I encourage it. — Rich

Ok, so what does it mean exactly? And what is magic?

An illusion it's not a misunderstanding. When I tell someone that there is a misunderstanding I don't tell them they are having illusions. — Rich

What is an illusion? Can you offer me an example as well please?

An illusion is not a substance, it has no being. An illusion is a misunderstanding. So when you say that it's not some sort of an illusion, I have no clue what you mean. What does that mean, that it isn't an illusion? :s It is as it appears to natural consciousness, to use a Hegelian term? That is the correct conception of reality? Or what?

So to come back to the idea of the "first creature opening its eyes" - that is nonsense. The Will exists eternally, it does not need this "first creature". This creature only appears as a "first" within the representation. But the representation exists before this first creature as Will. The representation doesn't suddenly pop up when this creature emerges - that would be to locate the ground of the representation within the representation, which is obviously wrong.

I'd still say the main gist of what he was saying is truth can be in conflict with fitness and a species that survives does what is fit not what is truthful. — schopenhauer1

More - a species that survives does not know (leaning towards cannot know) what is true.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. The process of aiming (with no avail) is the will process. We do not aim at willing, it is the underlying process that causes one to aim in the first place. I am guessing you are trying to do some unique reading of this, and thus the claim where I am supposedly misguided, but I don't see it when reading Schopenhauer, and logically it seems to be a little word play you're doing that doesn't make sense. Will does what it does. It is the ground of being in his philosophy. Will plays itself out in the world of appearance (i.e. time/space/causality) in its restless nature, but no goal ever achieves satisfaction. — schopenhauer1

Yes, Will is like the serpent that eats its own tail - Will consumes itself, and thus goes on Willing.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Schopenhauer identified Will with thing-in-itself constantly. — schopenhauer1

He started to shy away from this identification towards the end of his life, when he reverted more to the Kantian understanding of thing-in-itself as an unknown X.

If all is monistic, then Will is all there is. — schopenhauer1

We don't know what is beyond the Will.

Rather, instead of being the "true" ground, it has to be concommitant. — schopenhauer1

I would say that the Will is the ground of the phenomenon, and thus there is a logical priority in the Will. The phenomenon is static. Time wouldn't flow for example if there was no Will. The flow of time is the Will. That's what grounds time, its flow, and the whole structure of the representation.

In other words, even though time is only in appearance, somehow it has to be atemporal as well because it has always been there as flipside of Will. — schopenhauer1

Yep, Schopenhauer says exactly this. Time is atemporal since the Will is always there, that's why from within representation time has an infinite past as it were - the Will projects itself in time, and thus time appears as infinite.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. In so far as Will itself is only seen to us through the representation, it is never seen in and of itself, only gleaned at through introspection and logical analysis. — schopenhauer1

I think this is the most profound misunderstanding. Quite the contrary, the Will is seen DIRECTLY unlike the representation which is perceived through the principle of sufficient reason. When you will something, you feel it instantaneously, there is no separation, like there is temporal, spatial, etc. separation in the representation. So if anything, it is the representation that is not seen directly, but mediated through the categories.

Are you attempting inquiry?

Is all this an illusion? — Rich

Yes, I am obviously attempting inquiry.

Is all this an illusion? — Rich

That depends on what you mean by illusion. When we say the representation is an illusion, we don't mean that the representation doesn't exist, only that it's not what it appears to be. The world of representation is thus dream-like. So representation is an illusion simply means that, for example, there is something that appears to be an external world, like in a dream, while it's actually all subjectively generated. In this manner, you too - being a Daoist - believe the world is an illusion. What did Zhuangzi say - one time I dreamed I was a butterfly, and then I woke up. I am not sure if it is now that I am a butterfly dreaming that I am a man, or that I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly. This is precisely what it means that representation is illusory.

Everything is exactly as we observe it, but it is not all and it is constantly changing — Rich

Well, this is either tautologically true (sort of like A = A), or it is a misunderstanding of illusions. What is an illusion? In a sense, an illusion is nothing - it's not an additional substance out there - it's just the wrong conception that something is the case when it isn't. It's a deception of the mind.

It's not an illusion but we are only grasping it bits at a time. That is the fun of life. It is detective work, it is mysterious, but it is not an illusion. How could it be? What or who is creating the illusions? Chemicals?? — Rich

Nobody argued everything is illusory. As I said, Schopenhauer wasn't doing metaphysics there.

if the we claimed that the truth of the world is its instrumentality (its need to strive forward for no reason without much end in sight), and people are wont to viscerally deny this through whatever means necessary to keep their own organism (and their offspring) moving forward, then indeed fitness for survival will always outcompete truth. — schopenhauer1

No, the claim was more radical than that - we cannot know the truth of the world as such - the truth of the world for us is will.

The world is really will- a striving force that has no aim or purpose. — schopenhauer1

It does have an aim. That's why it is willing. Willing is the aim.

The goal then of the enlightened individual is to turn the will against itself, live an ascetic life where will becomes gradually diminished, until it loses its grip completely thus somehow diminishing the reign of will's supremacy in some fashion. — schopenhauer1

I would disagree with Schopenhauer at this point. In the process of denial of the will I think compassion, rather than renunciation and asceticism, is the driving engine and most important factor. It is love if anything that opens the gate beyond willing.

1) If it is will that is thing-in-itself, and there is no causitive nature to the thing-in-itself (logically or temporally), then there cannot be a before or after. There cannot be a will and then something else. Thus, representation being secondary to will, cannot come after but be concomitant all the way down. Thus the thing-in-itself must logically be will AND representation and not just will. — schopenhauer1

I agree about the concomitance of representation and will - except that I disagree with the identification between Will and thing-in-itself, and old Schopenhauer would very likely have disagreed too.

2) If representation started with the first organism to represent its world (he used an analogy of the eye of a fish), then this makes the tricky situation of time itself starting with the first representational animal. This gets into problem that this organism then becomes extremely important in his ontology, as if the representation is always the flip side of will, then the organism would have to be a being in time, yet timeless, as if we look at my first argument, there was no before and after prior to representation, thus representation would have to be there from the beginning, or the animal that represents would have to be there from the beginning, which is an odd conclusion. — schopenhauer1

I don't think so, since the Will is atemporal, temporality only exists in the objectification of the Will qua representation. Will projects time.

What is the nature of this representation? — schopenhauer1

The representation is the objectification of the Will - the Will projects an external world, in time, etc. for itself. By projecting its own striving, it projects the world, including the structures of representation. For example, by projecting the failure of its striving to attain, it projects an external world in which it is a suffering victim and unable to control what happens to itself.

I think your reading misses precisely the point I'm trying to put my finger on. Schopenhauer never does metaphysics. The illusion isn't representation and Will is truth - rather they are both illusions. The Will is just the truth of the representation, but it is not truth in-itself, except perhaps in some partial and incomplete sense.

That just means our culture's view on sexuality is very much twisted by christianity's sick view on sexuality. — BlueBanana

:-d Care to provide some substance for this assertion?

Is there a person-independent truth about justice? Or about truth itself? Is there a person-independent truth about virtue? Do justice, truth, and virtue exist in a lifeless universe? — t0m

Yes, in the sense that the nature of Justice does not depend on what X or Y think about it (only sophists would say otherwise). That's exactly what Plato, Jesus, Socrates, etc. argued for and proved. But obviously, there can be no sense of justice in a lifeless universe (if such a thing as a lifeless universe can even be conceived :s ) - but that's simply because there would be no people for justice to apply to.

How do you know that man is not the measure of all things? Do you not 'measure' our situation yourself here? — t0m

So if man does the measuring, how does it follow that man would be the measure of all things? It's entirely unrelated. I can do the measurement with reference to an external standard - in that case, I wouldn't be the measure of all things, even though I am the measurer.

It's we humans who make it a virtue or a vice, who use it as a token in our dialogues. — t0m

No, we don't, I'd say we find that some things are virtues and others vices. Even if everyone considers X to be a vice, for example, they could be wrong. This fact alone shows us that what people think doesn't determine what is a virtue or a vice, for if it did, then it would be inconceivable that they are wrong.

I agree with Blake and Feuerbach that our conceptions of virtue and the transcendent must be founded on an image of the ideal human. — t0m

So this image of the ideal human is just given? Or how is it established?

A lovable, loving God only makes sense as a disembodied human, the "Human Form Divine." Or can we sincerely worship a being that makes no sense to us? — t0m

There's a big gap from God being limited to the human form, and God making no sense to us. It's not a black and white issue.

Along those lines, I suggest that man is still the center of the Universe. — t0m

I think that's an absolutely wrong understanding of the situation. After Kant there were two continuations of the Kantian project. Schopenhauer and Hegel. I think that Hegel placed man back at the center of the Universe, while Schopenhauer placed the Will there, which is a meta-human principle.

Thanks.

What works are good to get introduced to Henry's thought?

There you go again...Reality = Iceland and Denmark are in the top five most peaceful countries in the world and the top 20 is dominated by western liberal democracies. — Baden

And to judge the "peacefulness" of Western society based on less than 100 years from what were the 2 most brutal and bloody conflicts in human history is childish. — Agustino

*facepalm*