Well stick to Descartes if you don't like W. One talks of 'experience of' - an oasis, say - precisely to bracket off the possibility of illusion. The illusion of experience is a nonsense. — unenlightened
either I don't understand or I don't think it actually does answer this question of how representing can "come on" the scene AFTER pure Will is on the scene. — schopenhauer1
To my mind, representation is ALWAYS there along with Will (as it's flipside double-aspect) because it cannot "arise" when "arising" implies causality. — schopenhauer1
While in time, timelessness is unthinkable, but while in timelessness, time is unthinkable. — Thorongil
Transcendentally, we can say that the knowing subject is atemporal. — Thorongil
My experience is very similar. To my therapist, I've likened that moment, where an image is immediately made of authentic expression, to those scenes in horror movies where the protagonist finally escapes the lair of their captor, runs out into the street, flags down a car --only to realize their captor is the one driving it. (Probably a bit melodramatic, but it sometimes feels that disheartening.) (& the turn of the screw here is when I first came up with this metaphor, it was spontaneous, to the point where I teared up a bit. Now its something I've rolled out a couple times in various places as yet another set piece)So much selves, so little consciousness. This is getting a bit off topic perhaps, but I would say that most of the time I am performing, conforming to an image that I hold onto and from that nothing new can come. But to be 'authentic' (is that the right word?) is not to make that division for a moment but to respond from the whole of what one is, and in doing so one learns - recognises -something of the truth of what one is. Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that the same process of thought immediately makes a new image of this, and one starts performing it.
I think people do a switcharoo and try to explain the causes of consciousness as some sort of hitherto unexplored origin and then because it is some genus of causes which is not what we originally thought, they want to then go an extra step and say the actual consciousness is therefore an illusion. — S1
Yeah, I tried to read Dennett's Consciousness Explained (recon to know the enemy better, I guess) but, even though I expected to disagree, I was legitimately disappointed by how shallow the argumentation was. It's exactly as you say - he just attacked the 'cartesian theater', again and again, as if the only two positions were eliminative materialism and Homunculism.
Maybe the book gets better, but I gave up after a couple hundred pages. — csalisbury
When it comes to such as "mind" and "self" and "consciousness" I think we're best off applying Peirce's pragmatic maxim, and then getting on with life. But I'm no philosopher. — Ciceronianus the White
So much selves, so little consciousness. This is getting a bit off topic perhaps, but I would say that most of the time I am performing, conforming to an image that I hold onto and from that nothing new can come. But to be 'authentic' (is that the right word?) is not to make that division for a moment but to respond from the whole of what one is, and in doing so one learns - recognises -something of the truth of what one is. Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that the same process of thought immediately makes a new image of this, and one starts performing it. — unenlightened
The hope is that in applying the pragmatic maxim, one might achieve some sort of clarity regarding concepts. But it has a negative function as well, as a tool of criticism. — Ciceronianus the White
it's inappropriate to speak of "the mind" or "the self" or "consciousness" or "the Will" in the abstract, without context; in other words, without consideration of what is meant by them when applied to actual situations arising in life, If I'm right, its application would thus indicate that we should stop speaking of them in that manner, and so get on with life. — Ciceronianus the White
I don't know what other methodologies you refer to. — Ciceronianus the White
I'm inclined to think that the application of the pragmatic maxim would indicate the concept is idle, as it would seem to be the case that the Will either is everything or some unverifiable, perhaps unknowable, impulse that makes everything happen which Schopenhauer chooses to call "Will." — Ciceronianus the White
So, we think, we feel, we dream, etc. It would seem unnecessary at best to say that our minds do such things. That doesn't mean "the mind" is an illusion, though. It just means that there is no basis on which to distinguish our minds from ourselves. — Ciceronianus the White
So how is it idle? You just explained the theory and framed it in a negative way. — schopenhauer1
I tried to note that what I've read of Schopenhauer's Will may be incorrect in some way. If what I've read is correct, though, I think it would be idle in that it would be a mere assertion along the lines of the claim that God is the impulse that makes everything happen. It tells us nothing, explains nothing. — Ciceronianus the White
Un, Just to say this is exactly how I feel. Thanks for articulating it in a way I haven't been able to. I would say 'authentic' too but then I'm irretrievably stuck with Sartreian categories I mis-learnt about 45 years ago. — mcdoodle
The problem with using a priori is it takes an empirical state (us, in the world, in each moment) and tries to turn it into the infinite. Will is idle because, in forming that universal idea, it leaves out where the action occurs, in each moment of existence, where every little thing is distinct and change occurs. — TheWillowOfDarkness
It is an abstraction of meaning expressed by states of the world. Desire might be everywhere at all times, but no instance of it is the same as another. Will is not what acts. It's merely something expressed in any action. Those actions differ vastly. One soldier is Willed to fight. Another soldier is Willed to flee. Different consequences, different meaning, an understanding of which is not dependent on understanding Will (i.e. that everyone is willed to act), but rather on the states themselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The so called "it-in-itself" is a red-herring. With respect to the world, it gives us understanding of nothing, for it only refers to the infinite expression found in any state. It our escape from the world into an abstract realm free of finite difference and change. About the world and its relationships, it says nothing at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness
And that's why a "reason" cannot be found for Will. It doesn't have one. To pose the question is to ask, "Why is making a post making a post?" Unlike states of the world, where existence defines whether or not something occurs, Will contains no action and cannot be said to be or not be. The infinite nature of Will means it cannot have a reason. It's necessary. No matter what we do, Will is still expressed. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Right, so ever present "knowing subject". The knowing is the keyword here. — schopenhauer1
It cannot be explained away because "really" everything is atemporal Will. There is still the illusion to be accounted for, and which CANNOT have arisen. — schopenhauer1
The will is a logical explanation of the world, not a physical one. If you recognize this distinction, then I think the force of your concern evaporates. — Thorongil
Certainly we can speculate if we wish, but that is all we do in that case, but when our speculation is unable to be judged correct or incorrect, or even probably correct or incorrect, that speculation is idle. — Ciceronianus the White
This brings me to a larger point: You assume what is "true" is what is goal-oriented. That in itself could be false. What is useful to "achieve" a a goal, might be good if that is your goal, but then you must argue why being goal-oriented should be the goal, and when you start arguing for the basis of this without any a priori appeal, you will be begging the question and then what happens is you can only use snark and smugness to assert your claim, which would be sad and annoying. — schopenhauer1
That evidence can be gained only through observation, investigation, experiment, life experience--living and interacting with the rest of the world, trying and failing or succeeding, seeking solutions to problems, answers to questions, and finding out what happens when we do. — Ciceronianus the White
Certainly the Schopenhauer's Will can be found in our own striving nature which is hard to simply deny by fiat. Our own striving is something immediate to us. Try stopping it.. — schopenhauer1
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.