I think I am beginning to get old-school metaphysical again! Indeed there is a ground, but it is a relative ground: I am a ground relative to you, you to me, though that doesn't mean there's any space in which we interact. So there is no traditional ground, the world hangs upon nothing, yet in another sense everything hangs on everything else, because there is no world, just a bunch of blindness, relative grounding without any shared space or common world or interaction. — The Great Whatever
Hence epistemological loneliness and the odd compulsion some have for solipsism, but coupled with the ultimate failure of all transcendental principles, so that nothing is 'grounded' in oneself either, everything comes from 'outside' oneself. but in such a way that there is no 'world' outside, either. — The Great Whatever
That is more pessimistic! — The Great Whatever
Sure..but I won't be condescending about it: — schopenhauer1
As I replied to TGW: I agree, a world lacking transcendental unity (e.g. Schopenhauer's Will being identified as noumena, and everyone is a manifestation of the Will, etc.), seems more isolated, absurd, and nihilistic than one with a ground of some sort. Even if Schop's Will is this force that goes nowhere and thus frustrates the phenomenal manifestation/animal/human with suffering, at least it is universal and all pervasive- a connecting principle with everything else. — schopenhauer1
Thanks for the elaboration, although personally I think it could have done with a little condescension, just to give it a kick. — Sapientia
One more important question: what do you mean by asking which is more pessimistic? — Sapientia
Yes.Does that mean that you think this metaphysical nihilism is more pessimistic? — Sapientia
How does this paradox of "everything comes from 'outside' oneself, but in such a way that there is no 'world' outside, either" exist in the first place? — schopenhauer1
Dreariness, isolation, suffering and other unpleasantness are part of the world (among other aspects some of which are pretty neat), not based on its metaphysical foundations. Talk of a striving will or any other metaphysical ground are just stories and abstractions. It wouldn't be any different if it was turtles all the way down. — shmik
It seems to me that the former is more pessimistic, but that the latter is preferable. Of course, I think the latter is true and the former false. — Moliere
The solipsistic story doesn't have trumps over the story I build about the world through my interaction with others. — shmik
As I see it, there can be no salvation at all beyond either mere indifference (in the sense of acceptance) or affirmation. Acceptance or affirmation of a groundless reality would certainly seem to be no more difficult (in fact arguably much less so) than acceptance or affirmation of a reality driven by a purposeless (or even a purposeful) will. — John
All creatures appear to strive. What rational justification can there be for hypostatizing that fact as a purposeless, indifferent "monistic will"? — John
I mean, I can see the attraction of imagining a purposeful, loving will in the light of which abnegation of own-will in order to receive the love might make sense, but abnegation of own-will in light of a purposeless, indifferent will seems pointless; if a monistic will were to be postulated and understood to be indifferent then it should become a matter of indifference to us, surely? — John
The problem with the notion of 'purposeless will' is that it seems somewhat self-contradictory. If striving is not manifesting any overarching purpose then it just consists in something like 'reactively directed energy vectors'. and the word 'will' in this context seems inappropriate. — John
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.