Being distances itself from itself in ways that create myriad, unique, fleeting perspectives from which to experience itself, and each person is one of these perspectives. — charles ferraro
Off the top of my head (more or less)Which philosophers, if any, can be said to subscribe to the following contention:
Being distances itself from itself in ways that create myriad, unique, fleeting perspectives from which to experience itself, and each person is one of these perspectives. — charles ferraro
FWIW, here's my personal definition of holistic BEING, as contrasted with any particular being. Is that close to your understanding? Eternal BEING looking at He/r reflection in a panoply of created beings. :smile:Being distances itself from itself in ways that create myriad, unique, fleeting perspectives from which to experience itself, and each person is one of these perspectives. — charles ferraro
Being distances itself from itself in ways that create myriad, unique, fleeting perspectives from which to experience itself, and each person is one of these perspectives. — charles ferraro
This idea is not dissimilar to one in many of Alan Watt's books. For example The Book: on the Taboo against Knowing who you Are, which 'delves into the cause and cure of the illusion that the self is a separate ego. Modernizes and restates the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. — Wayfarer
I believe Schopenhauer once said that we are "nature coming to know herself", which if not "being" per se, sounds accurate. — Manuel
It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself, as they flow through everything else. For that reason it is thought that one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being.
Among the most frequently-identified principles that are introspectively brought forth — and one that was the standard for German Idealist philosophers such as Fichte, Schelling and Hegel who were philosophizing within the Cartesian tradition — is the principle of self-consciousness. With the belief that acts of self-consciousness exemplify a self-creative process akin to divine creation, and developing a logic that reflects the structure of self-consciousness, namely, the dialectical logic of position, opposition and reconciliation (sometimes described as the logic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis), the German Idealists maintained that dialectical logic mirrors the structure not only of human productions, both individual and social, but the structure of reality as a whole, conceived of as a thinking substance (or subject)... — SEP Entry on Schopenhauer
Specifically, his explanation of how Being-for-Itself constantly issues from Being-in-Itself through a process of nihilation. — charles ferraro
For Schopenhauer, ultimate Being was a non-rational, purposeless, blind Will-to-Live that manifested itself throughout the several ascending levels of inanimate and animate nature until it reached its highest manifestation, and achieved full self-awareness through representation in human consciousness. — charles ferraro
According to Schopenhauer, aesthetic perception offers only a short-lived transcendence from the daily world. Neither is moral awareness, despite its comparative tranquillity in contrast to the daily world of violence, the ultimate state of mind. Schopenhauer believes that a person who experiences the truth of human nature from a moral perspective — who appreciates how spatial and temporal forms of knowledge generate a constant passing away, continual suffering, vain striving and inner tension — will be so repulsed by the human condition, and by the pointlessly striving Will of which it is a manifestation, that he or she will lose the desire to affirm the objectified human situation in any of its manifestations.
The result is an attitude of denial towards our will-to-live, that Schopenhauer identifies with an ascetic attitude of renunciation, resignation, and willessness, but also with composure and tranquillity. In a manner reminiscent of traditional Buddhism, he recognizes that life is filled with unavoidable frustration, and acknowledges that the suffering caused by this frustration can itself be reduced by minimizing one’s desires. Moral consciousness and virtue thus give way to the voluntary poverty and chastity of the ascetic. St. Francis of Assisi (WWR, Section 68) and Jesus (WWR, Section 70) subsequently emerge as Schopenhauer’s prototypes for the most enlightened lifestyle, in conjunction with the ascetics from every religious tradition.
...the ascetic consciousness can be said symbolically to return Adam and Eve to Paradise, for it is the very quest for knowledge (i.e., the will to apply the principle of individuation to experience) that the ascetic overcomes. This amounts to a self-overcoming at the universal level, where not only physical desires are overcome, but where humanly-inherent epistemological dispositions are overcome as well. — SEP
I think Schopenhauer saw Christianity as a holding on to life instead of a letting go towards death. — Gregory
What's really inconsistent to me is how Schopenhauer can vehemently reject the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, the source of the Judeo-Christian value system, while seeing no need to replace that value system with another. — charles ferraro
Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the consideration of the suffering and misery of life” (WWR I 161). Every system of metaphysics is a response to this realization of one’s finitude, and the function of those systems is to respond to that realization by letting individuals know their place in the universe, the purpose of their existence, and how they ought to act.
The ultimate goal of ascetic practices was the attainment of NOTHINGNESS. This constituted SALVATION for Schopenhauer. In this sense, Schopenhauer was a NIHILIST. — charles ferraro
This book traces the history of the Western discovery of Buddhism. In so doing, the author shows that such major philosophers as Schopenhaur, Nietzsche, Hegel, Cousin, and Renan imagined Buddhism as a religion that was, as Nietzsche put it, a "negation of the world." The author argues that such portrayals were more a reflection of what was happening in Europe at the time, when the collapse of traditional European hierarchies and values, the specter of atheism, the rise of racism and social revolts were shaking European societies. Argues this is still reflected in today's understanding of Buddhism in the west.
Not true. That the goal of ascetic practice is 'nothingness' is a myth. The 'emptiness' of Buddhism is not the annihilation in the sense of non-being, but the ending of the sense of self or ego — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.