"A healthy mind can accept a paradox." Chesterton

via the use of cognition — jancanc

Cognition? Or reason?

Cognition? Or reason? — tim wood

Cognition is prior, no? "An insane man is not he who has lost his reason, but he who has lost everything except his reason." Chesterton again

Cognition? Or reason? — tim wood

how, specifically, do we differentiate the two?

It's been stated a lot that Schopenhauer's theory of salvation is contradictory- , in salvation one apparently denies and thus transcends the will via the use of cognition. Yet how can we deny and transcend the essence of what we are (i.e. will)?
However, is denial of the will really contradictory; is it really about cognition? — jancanc

If Will is what brings dissatisfaction, will-lessness is what brings the salvation. The cognition comes from a sort of recognition of what is happening. The hard part is trying to get rid of that which essentially causes the very world to exist in its subject-object form, and thus the "illusion" of a the very world itself. Somehow getting to a state of "nothing" without "willing" it. This is why really achieving "Enlightenment" is so hard in Buddhism I wold presume. Same type of deal.

If Will is what brings dissatisfaction, will-lessness is what brings the salvation. The cognition comes from a sort of recognition of what is happening. The hard part is trying to get rid of that which essentially causes the very world to exist in its subject-object form, and thus the "illusion" of a the very world itself. Somehow getting to a state of "nothing" without "willing" it. This is why really achieving "Enlightenment" is so hard in Buddhism I wold presume. Same type of deal — schopenhauer1

will-lessness, yes, but not the wholesale abolition or destruction of will. So, it's like the will understands itself and loses interest in itself.
However, is it a result not of cognition, but of intuitive knowledge? And in Schopenhauer, we can tease these two out as being disparate?

However, is it a result not of cognition, but of intuitive knowledge? And in Schopenhauer, we can tease these two out as being disparate? — jancanc

Yes, it is kind of a sudden, even spontaneous understanding of the Big Picture, and then a kind of change in character from being will-driven to being will-less. It cannot be pursued so seems kind of elusive to most people.

I remember reading about a Catholic saint who was so passive the account said "it seemed he had no will of his own". Buddhists aren't the only ones who know this

I remember reading about a Catholic saint who was so passive the account said "it seemed he had no will of his own". Buddhists aren't the only ones who know this — Gregory

Schopenhauer did mention many times the asceticism of Catholic monks and nuns and the concept of grace being similar. He just didn't actually believe the mythology or specific theologies of the specific religions. He thought they were simply unnecessary drapery over the heart of the metaphysics.

Yet how can we deny and transcend the essence of what we are (i.e. will)?
However, is denial of the will really contradictory — jancanc

Gandhi said, “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself [in the service of others].”

The paradox can relate to interconnectness. If it is true, that it is only through others we achieve our goals (life and relationships), then at least we know we are dependent on something outside of ourselves.

The Will acts similarly. One way of trying to define the Will would be like trying to defines one's identity. As self directed individuals, we depend on the metaphysical will in order to seek out and share in, happiness.

To transcend the Will would mean to allay one's fears. To subordinate intellect from the higher force of the Will. In that case, the will would take primacy over the intellect.

So when talking about the 'essence of who we are', those thoughts come to mind. Accordingly, when we talk about self (intention and/or identity), we have to include intrinsic fear. Is the notion or concept of salvation relative to fear? Do we fear others? Do we fear ourselves? Who am I? Those kinds of questions rear their heads...

In that context, we can indeed find truth in paradox or contradiction.

"A healthy mind can accept a paradox." Chesterton
:up:

I have tried to subordinate reason to will. Is there a next step after that? I realized tonight that everything must have a meaning. Even why this particular snail by the door looks that way. Nothingness produced the world. The cause is greater than the effect.

An interesting discussion would be about whether there is "random meaming". Necessity might not exist in anything

The cause is greater than the effect. — Gregory

Or, perhaps the effect is greater than the cause. Of course, we might could try to define 'greater'.

In contemplating that the Will is a metaphysical impulse, that might precede intellect, the paradox would be in the so-called attempt to understand it. Meaning, our will to understand the will. Or, to understand that which we Will to understand.

In that instance, having is not as pleasing a thing afterall, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true. :gasp:

Maybe the Will is some sort of a logical necessity nonetheless.

Or, perhaps the effect is greater than the cause. Of course, we might could try to define 'greater'. — 3017amen

A Schopenhauer thread is a good place to talk about this. Can the genie make a greater genie? If would seem that he could only make an equal or less, unless he combined his power with something else. My theory of everything is that time is only a measure in our heads, and that there is simply a finite number of motions that go back to the first pull of gravity. Nothing is behind it because there is just no motion. And why did the first motion happen then instead of before? Well again, time doesn't exist imo. Nothingness encases and encloses the world with it's sacrality. But I'm not married to any position on any subject. Back to the genie: maybe he has two powers within him that he can't combine unto himself but can use to combine outside himself, creating something greater than himself. It's almost like 1=2 though in that cause

My theory of everything is that time is only a measure in our heads, and that there is simply a finite number of motions that go back to the first pull of gravity. Nothing is behind it because there is just no motion. And why did the first motion happen then instead of before? Well again, time doesn't exist imo.

Well...I'm not sure how that relates to Salvation and the Metaphysical Will. It sounds like you are talking about yet another paradox relating to time. Of course, here's the classic contradiction of temporal time versus eternal time (timelessness):

Of course, here's the classic contradiction of temporal time versus eternal time (timelessness) — 3017amen

Nothingness is neither eternal nor temporal.

Nothingness is neither eternal nor temporal. — Gregory

Is nothingness, or is somethingness, logically necessary?

Is nothingness, or is somethingness, logically necessary? — 3017amen

Amazing question.. I believe I'd say that nothingness is necessary and the world contingent, but the contingent has solidity, so if a stick hits my head there seems to be a necessity there in feeling pain. Ultimately though the world is not necessary and we can enter into the necessary by following our Will. Buddha refused to answer if the world was eternal or finite, maybe because it was the wrong question. How long we can measure the world into the past is irrelevant. When ask if there was a God or, he again answer "no" by his silence, knowing nevertheless that there was the truth in the question: that is, the godliness of buddhahood

Amazing question.. I believe I'd say that nothingness is necessary and the world contingent, but the contingent has solidity, so if a stick hits my head there seems to be a necessity there in feeling pain. Ultimately though the world is not necessary and we can enter into the necessary by following our Will. — Gregory

1. Explain what you mean by "nothingness is necessary" .

2. Explain what you mean by " we can enter into the necessary by following our Will."

1. Explain what you mean by "nothingness is necessary" .

2. Explain what you mean by " we can enter into the necessary by following our Will." — 3017amen

If everything is contingent, it's harder to believe in objective truth. I've been moving away from materialistic relativism into Buddhism recently. Buddha and his religion speak of an eternal light, but also call it nothing. Maybe they speak a different language than us. But I believe we have translated it properly and can get a glimpse of this philosophically. I personally dont meditate, but am trying to be as Buddhistic as I can as I continue to read Being and Time by Heidegger. So truth is not a substance like for Plato, or a person(s) like for Augustine or Aquinas (or the New Testament actually). Saying nothingness is special and even holy rings a religious bell for me. I don't think it's in eternity like a substance though. It would be in something like the aevum (or aeviternity): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aevum

There is a book on Amazon titled Nothingness in Asian Philosophy, 1st Edition by Jeeloo Liu (Editor) and Douglas Berger (Editor). It's pricey though

A much more reasonably priced book is Nishida's The Logic of the Place of Nothingness and the Religious Worldview. I really like Schopenhauer though because he's a Westerner who directly speaks of the Buddha. I need to read more of him

Also, wiki:

"Some authors have pointed to similarities between the Buddhist conception of nothingness and the ideas of Martin Heidegger and existentialists like Sartre... The other kind is être-pour-soi which is consciousness. Sartre claims that this second kind of being is 'nothing' since consciousness cannot be an object of consciousness and can possess no essence. Sartre, and even more so, Jaques Lacan, use this conception of nothing as the foundation of their atheist philosophy. Equating nothingness with being leads to creation from nothing."

I would agree with consciousness coming from both the brain and from the Nothing

Yet how can we deny and transcend the essence of what we are (i.e. will)? — jancanc

Because it's not what we are, not really. Schop. never really put that last piece together, but his conclusions might imply it.

Amazing question.. I believe I'd say that nothingness is necessary — Gregory

I know it's off topic, so I'll only briefly comment with my reply to 'nothingness' relative to logical necessity viz EOG:

1. There exists at least one true proposition (is it true or false?).

Otherwise, back on topic, have a look-see here:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/134/Schopenhauer_the_Optimist

People take it for granted, but even to merely exist in a civilized or 1st world country, we are already living in "restraint" of the lower or purely physical impulses.

For example, on a biological level, polygamy or polyamory in men and women isn't "unnatural", but in civilized societies, monogamy is considered a cultural evolution up from archaic polygamous practices, which are often associated with 3rd world countries, ills like child marriages, and so forth.

The entire philosophy of the law and civilization itself is predicated on this; such as how the law denotes between crimes of "passion" or committed while in an impulse and irrational state of mind, versus more serious pre-meditated crimes which are rationally calculated and planned out.

Denying this is simply denying what the law and its legal and moral philosophy has been since the 19th century (if one uses Oliver Wendell Holmes as an example of a legal philosopher), if not even before that, within the context of older legal or 'religious' systems of law and government which modern law and legal philosophy evolved out of, ranging from the Bible, to Ancient Rome.

1. There exists at least one true proposition (is it true or false?). — 3017amen

Truth trumps error

Truth trumps error — Gregory

Does truth trump paradox?

Does truth trump paradox? — 3017amen

No, but paradox is type of truth. At the bottom of the series might be a paradox, or it might be turtles all the way down and a paradox to consider them all

No, but paradox is type of truth. — Gregory

What type of truth would that be... ?

While you are thinking about that one, consider the next paradox:

1. The only certainty is uncertainty.