Will, Representation, and Thing-in-itself.

KantDane21

I am a bit stumped by the below passage from Schopenhauer, perhaps it is the syntax.

"Will and representation alone are fundamentally different in so far as they constitute the ultimate and basic, fundamental contrast (opposition) in all things in the world and leave no remainder (leave nothing else). The thing represented and the representation of it are the same, but only the represented thing, not the thing-in-itself: this is always will, in whatever guise it may represent itself in the representation."

So will and representation are in contrast and will and representation is all that there exists.
The thing represented (a chair) and the representation of this thing (the chair) are one and the same. The represented thing (the chair) is not thing-in-itself, but it is will?
So is he drawing a distinction between will and thing-in-itself here?
This would seem strange since he repeatedly claims will is the thing-in-itself.

jancanc

According to this excerpt, I see him as saying that the represented thing ("the representation of it", i.e. of the representation) differs from the thing-in-itself.
Will have to reflect more on the excerpt.

Mikie

So is he drawing a distinction between will and thing-in-itself here?
This would seem strange since he repeatedly claims will is the thing-in-itself. — KantDane21

Schopenhauer says that the will is the closest we can get to the thing in itself, without going beyond time (and thus any knowledge whatsoever). At one point he says the veil isn't completely lifted, but is as close to being lifted as we can achieve. The will is sui generis different from any other object, as we know it intuitively, by "being" it.

That's my understanding of Schopenhauer. If you ask me for the passage I'll be in trouble, though, because I've totally forgotten where he says it.

Tom Storm

So is he drawing a distinction between will and thing-in-itself here?
This would seem strange since he repeatedly claims will is the thing-in-itself. — KantDane21

My understanding is that for S there is only will. All physical reality is just an instantiation of will - which is also translated as energy. For S will is instinctive and not meta-cognitive, it makes no plans and is not a god surrogate.

Will, Representation, and Thing-in-itself.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions