I notice a tendency whereby when you question Wittgenstein's ideas, the only answer that seems to be legitimate to the majority who jump on these threads is to quote another line from Wittgenstein.. As if you cannot refute Wittgenstein, you can only have varying levels of understanding of Wittgenstein. — schopenhauer1

Help me understand why it is SPECIFICALLY Wittgenstein where I see this?? — schopenhauer1

For what its worth, Wittgenstein was a complex philosopher. His methodology was methodological nominalism, and when you apply methodological nominalism towards philosophy as therapy, you get a complex relationship between examples elucidating/clarifying a way out of the bottle for the fly.

Compound the fact that the Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus was meant as a preface to the Philosophical Investigations, then you might have a lot of questions about what the TLP and then the PI meant. In my opinion, if people started with the Blue and Brown Books, which were presented in a university setting where Wittgenstein taught for a brief while, you might find it easier to understand Wittgenstein.

If not Will for Schopenhauer, then what would he have "equated" with, say, Brahman or whatever stage of Buddhist translations' version of Tathagatagharba(?), or even Spinoza's Monism/God? What would Schopenhauer call that? Or is it utterly absent and there is only will and Representation, and will is not a being but a drive? — ENOAH

Well, Freud, who was heavily influenced by Schopenhauer, alluded to the ID as the wellspring of desire and arousal. Boredom isn't such a negative thing with how this whole industrialized psychological programming went crazy with advertisements and our beloved dopamine nation. Endless, really.

In the OP, ↪Shawn found Schop's "denial of the will to live" unacceptable. — Gnomon

Yes, I would like to elaborate on why I find it unacceptable. How is one to deny the will to live? Doesn't this imbue a persons life or deny their adaptability to the environment they are in?

Compare and contrast the Darwinian notion of the survival of the fittest with Schopenhauer's notion of the denial of the will to live?

What was Schopenhauer known for?

In my mind he was a bona fide person, more authentic and genuine about his philosophy and its import towards life like no other philosophy. Perhaps the only philosopher that was more bona fide was Wittgenstein.

As a person, he wasn't very interesting to investigate; but, his aphorisms enduring popularity is still a testament to his genuineness and authenticity.

I'm skeptical about empathy. — Tom Storm

It's fairly easy to empathize with another. I don't think sympathy arises out of nowhere. First, based on experience one gathers the raw datum of what it would feel like to ourselves, and then through experience can fathom what sympathy might allude to another, no?

How, for instance can someone without children understand what it is like to lose a child? — Tom Storm

I believe that what you might be alluding to is "care," which is even more stipulated and derived from compassion and with that empathy.

Pessimism seems a pretty easy, even tidy solution to the world's problems. If you can put all things into the basket of 'everything's fucked' one doesn't have to think much further. — Tom Storm

Yes, well isn't it derived from a sense of compassion, or a strong sense of empathy towards others? I can anticipate what you might say based on only basing the suffering of the world focusing only on ourselves, yet, Buddha wouldn't have been Buddha and neither would Schopenhauer been Schopenhauer without a strong sense of identity derived from the suffering of others, yes?

compassion and empathy are the entirety of meaning without reference to anything other than themselves, — aodhan

The pronoun "we" seems to derive its meaning from the very notion of empathy professed towards another, no?

Sorry if 'm not directly addressing anyone who referenced my OP, as impolite; but, took a break for a while and had some questions about Schopenhauer.

Namely, since Schopenhauer was influenced by Buddhism and Hinduism, especially, I had a question regarding compassion and empathy in the landscape of Schopenhauer's philosophy. Whether Schopenhauer mentioned it or not; but, the philosophy of Schopenhauer is rife with the notion of empathy or compassion being a prerequisite for entertaining his notions of pessimism. I see it as such;

Without compassion or empathy, how would one become pessimistic without noticing the sadness of the world without compassion or empathy, which are needed to feel out or empathize with one another's suffering. If you agree, please let me know.

I think this thread has been one of my better threads. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. They are appreciated even if I have nothing to say, since I wouldn't know how to respond.

Don’t confuse apathy Stoic ‘apathia’ with mere indifference or ennui. — Wayfarer

I don't think an emotion or rather passion, which was once called apathia, which is nowadays called 'apathy', really could have changed all that much. The only thing that changed was our perception of such a passion... In my opinion, reification happened to the term in the context of socioeconomic systems and tidbits of rationalizations about psychologizing the term away.

Do you think so too?

I'll just leave this here as a pretty profound quote by Schopenhauer.

"[...] the Stoical philosophy is the most complete development of practical reason in the true and genuine sense of the word; it is the highest summit to which man can attain by the mere use of his reason..."

-Arthur Schopenhauer
The World as Will and Representation, par. 6

I'm just bogged down by the term apathy and indifference towards the attainment of happiness. Then again I always thought Stoical philosophy wasn't meant for the young and eager to enjoy life. :fear:

A lot of Schopenhauer's philosophy has to do with how human beings profess empathy and compassion.

It would be awesome if we had a ChatGPT bot responding to questions presented in new forum posts. It might be a way of grounding a discussion in what is currently known and then proceeding from there.

and also I'm uncertain what "valence" might mean in relation to value — Moliere

I think valence of value is confounded by many factors, such as, whether one 'likes' or 'dislikes' something to be valued. Otherwise, it may also depend on the inherentness of a quality or attribute to the ascription of value. Hope that doesn't sound too vague.

Would this relationship hold generally: if and only if a person does not have knowledge of valence of X, then it's hard to explain how they have an appreciation of or cherishing of the Y.

Where, in your example, the variables are set to
X=value
Y=the good — Moliere

Yes, well I don't have all the answers to your question; but, I can attempt to say that the study of value would lead a person to believe that what they value is in fact a good "thing."

On the contrary I'm hesitant to say that there's a direct correspondence between X and Y. So, what do you think about the association between X and whether it is intrinsically related to Y, as I'm getting hung up on intrinsic goods which have a strict relationship, and instrumental or extrinsic goods with a weaker relationship...

In the same manner as the bodybuilder trains his or her body to become more muscular, so too the layman or moreso the philosopher can profess the study of value to become more content or cognizant of what to value.

So, I take this as a analogy that was provided of the nutritionist.

Yet, I find it hard to believe that without knowledge of valence of value, how would anyone know how to appreciate or cherish the good? If you take a glance at how transient happiness is, then the very notion of what one values would serve as a compass in the fleeting moments of cherishing and loving the good.

Yet I think Plato would say that The Good is the highest good, not philosophy. — Leontiskos

I find this hard to believe.

The study of axiology enhances the appreciation of value.

Tell me what you think of it whenever you have the time, if you'd like. — Moliere

Yes, I agree that it's a nice letter. Yet, it seemed so apologetic as to apologize for even writing the letter. :snicker:

In what sense does the study of value instantiate value? — Pantagruel

No, let me rephrase what you said. The study of value, appreciates the valuable from the rest of things.

I'm not familiar with how quick to expect a response but please feel free to ridicule and mock my propositions — Gingethinkerrr

Nothing to mock. Mocking doesn't happen on this forum.

This was my first stab at a basic question — Gingethinkerrr

Seems like a very important question.

My question is....are there any stupid questions? — Gingethinkerrr

The value of a single human life? — Gingethinkerrr

Hello Gary,

Some questions have varying answers. In the ascription of value towards one's life, why would anyone let someone else ascribe it to you? Unless it is someone you trust or have a relationship with.

Hope that helps.

I think the value of life can only be put forward in an analysis towards one's self, and thus seems an endeavor in psychoanalysis, yes?

And what is "the good" to "anyone" – philosopher and non-philosopher alike? — 180 Proof

What they value.

Upon further thought, what I mean by axiology not being exclusive to the philosopher, is meant in not all philosophers being the disciples of Plato that would be well versed in the study of value and goodness of the objects endowed with value.

So only philosophers can recognize or seek "the highest good"? — 180 Proof

I don't see how it would be exclusive to philosophers; but, rather to anyone concerned about "the good."

I suppose the study of value, or axiology, would lead one to appreciate what to value as good. That's why, I am led to believe that axiology must be one of the highest goods, to a philosopher or even a layman.

What does "highest good", as you're using the term, mean or refer to? — 180 Proof

Well, is it something that, in your mind, has to be true universally? Because I only know of a few goods that, I assume, have the highest or very high goodness to them, which I value highly.

For the modern mind if one knows the highest good then they will necessarily choose it, and therefore axiology assumes a preeminent place. For the ancient mind to intellectually know the highest good does not mean that one will necessarily be capable of choosing it and adhering to it, and because of this axiology becomes more subsidiary. — Leontiskos

:up:
I believe you are correct about this way of stating the interrelationship between incontinence and axiology. Yet, the hierarchy of values is, what I suppose, a function of the nous performing this decision, as Plato would have defined it. So, what would you say about such an idea?

In that case the ability to desire well becomes a central end of education (in the broad sense). — Leontiskos

No disagreement, here. Education must count as a very high good, maybe even the highest, according to Plato. :chin:

Just pointing this out, after looking into axiology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiological_ethics

I don't want to interject anything of my own unless there are any questions to answer.

So I'm wondering if the first meaning of "value" is the same as the second? Is the study of value becoming able to value what is good? — Moliere

Yes, I shortened the thesis too much. So, I think the study of value is of the highest good to the philosopher.

but usually people get by with goods just fine without studying axiology. — Moliere

Yes, well, what a impoverished world to value things only materialistically with a unit of exchange to do so, such as money.

I'm reading you as saying "Because we have to be able to value what is good in comparison with other goods to be able to appreciate it as a "good" " -- am I reading you right? — Moliere

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Not "What is of highest good?" -- I'm asking what would it count to be a "highest good" at all? — Moliere

But, doesn't the situation that you are framing require us to have a way of qualifying what is good by appreciating it? Hence, the presupposition, to me, seems like we have to be able to value what is good in comparison with other goods to be able to appreciate it as a "good."

What's a highest good? — Moliere

What is of the highest good can only be defined by how you or a group of people value it, no?

But what is love in this sense? By most definitions it alludes to a feeling of admiration that transcends (is devoid of any and all or is otherwise operating outside of the realm of) logic. If this is true, how useful is such a quality in philosophy, really?Does it not make philosophical discourse into little more than a game of favorites based on transient states of favor not fixed in any deeper absolute truth or concrete value? — Outlander

It seems like a deep question, rather very deep. According to relativists and postmodernists, to the best of my knowledge, there are very few absolute truth's. But, I will list something that might seem perplexing... Namely, if economics is the domain where value is defined, in terms of a unit of value (such as money), then why the hell are things this way? Why do Westerners seem like sheer materialists in terms of professing what they believe as what is valuable or concrete value? Does that make some sense, because I find it hard to believe...

Could there not be different types of a single value each with varying degrees, though? Take love, for example. There's platonic, romantic, and one other I believe. You could love someone as a brother but hate them as a friend, no? — Outlander

Yes, there are degrees of value. Just referencing Wiki here; but, there seems to be no consensus on what philosophers denote as what is value. The best we have to agree on is probably money. Again sheer materialism, right?

If you could replace 'value' with a single word, what would it be? Worth? (to whom?) Characteristic? (intrinsic and absolute or circumstantial based on social or environmental factors?) Something else? — Outlander

I think methodological nominalism forces be to conclude that it would have to be worth, given society and personal values where they get sorted out...

I enjoy your threads as they're often brief and to the point, allowing even those ignorant of common philosophical models and -isms such as myself room to jump in and postulate from a beginner's frame of mind comfortably in between other mentally-taxing tasks. Looks like I may have gotten a bit over eager on this one, however. — Outlander

Thanks, looking forward to your posts.

What is good, though? — Outlander

According to Harry Frankfurter and Hume (the respectable late philosopher), the highest good seems to be 'love'.

Value as in, intrinsic quality but in a taxonomical sense, whether that quality is good or bad or neither. Something can have an extremely high value of "indistinctiveness" or ambiguity, rather, couldn't it? So, essentially traits and characteristics and their levels of is what "value" refers to here? — Outlander

Well, I think the confusion can be mitigated about the quality of value by asserting that it exists in degrees of greatness, yes? So, if love is something we value, then I believe that it seems to exist in a category of its own.

Seems easy to get lost in semantics. — Outlander

I don't think the disambiguation or delineating what is good and what is of value is entirely a semantic issue. Again, if you want to go in this direction I believe in the very subjectivity of 'value' is to be associated with relativism or postmodernism if that's how you want this discussion to shape into...

If what you're saying is that of what is of "value" and "good" are one and the same, then I would disagree.

:ok:

Sorry I mistook the negation of disvalue as a feature of appreciation of value.

Axiology is the study of value. — 180 Proof

Yes, and the study of value is of the highest importance to the appreciation of value, or what you call the abating of disvalue in appreciation.

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, or is that too much of a pessimistic stance? — Arnie

It would be a performative error to conclude that life doesn't have the potential to be anything beyond suffering. Yet, when one engages in such black and white thinking, there's bound to be so many cherries one can pick to justify the argument.

I don't understand what you mean by "appreciation". — 180 Proof

Isn't the negation of disvalue, the meaning of appreciation - or maybe you meant this in terms of aesthetics?

For me, axiology is the highest good.

Yes, I agree with you Alkis Piskas. In that, good, is beneficial. But, I wouldn't know how to outline good as beneficial in different circumstances, because what can be beneficial is subject to interpretations. So, once again I would have to agree with you. :cool:

Telling the economy to not grow, just doesn't seem remotely likely... Something only Japan would probably be able to accomplish.