How does he draw the conclusion that the noumenal world (reality as it is in itself) is pure will? — Albero
Schop says that the narrow door to the truth is that our bodies appears to us as both external physical objects (as representation) and as something we can experience such as touch hunger and desire I.e as will. And because our bodies appears to us as both will and as representation-the noumenal world is entirely constituted out of will. — Albero
So I've been trying to read Schopenhauer as a prelude to Nietzsche — Albero
How does he draw the conclusion that the noumenal world (reality as it is in itself) is pure will? Schop says that the narrow door to the truth is that our bodies appears to us as both external physical objects (as representation) and as something we can experience such as touch hunger and desire I.e as will. And because our bodies appears to us as both will and as representation-the noumenal world is entirely constituted out of will.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding him, but this to me seems like a kind of invalid inference? To me it seems that both representation and the will that we experience are both just phenomenal experiences we perceive. I still don't get how Schopenhauer comes to this conclusion, can anyone explain his thought process for me more clearly? — Albero
Most of the Will is "below the water".. It is a sort of unknown (not even an unknown..it's literally the thing-in-itself...An all encompassing nothingness/everythingness.. can't be described without being contradicting.. it can only be spoken about in the negative)....
Of course, his suggestion will be to deny the will to negate the subject-for-object relationship all together. This would be akin to perhaps Nirvana/Enlightenment. This would be closest perhaps to a sort of pure gnosis of the Will "below the water" and not just will as it manifests in representation.
Per Kant, we could never truly know, right? — Albero
Or is Xtrix correct in assuming that what Schopenhauer means is that the gnosis is the “closest we can possibly get” because anything else couldn’t exit the principle of sufficient reason? — Albero
Schopenhauer throws platonic forms into the mix as well — Albero
So I've been trying to read Schopenhauer as a prelude to Nietzsche — Albero
The first Schopenhauer, our own schopenhauer1, illustrates the problem, although his intent may lie elsewhere. — Fooloso4
If the advice is to first read Schopenhauer in order to read Nietzsche, which is clearly not your advice since you recommend stopping with Schopenhauer, then since, as you point out, there are other things to read that shed light on Schopenhauer, the same advice, again not yours, to read Schopenhauer as a prelude to Nietzsche, could be extended to reading other thng as a prelude to reading Schopenhauer. — Fooloso4
yeah I’d definitely appreciate it! — Albero
[Emphasis is mine.]Meanwhile it should be carefully observed, and I have always kept it in mind, that even the inward experience which we have of our own will by no means affords us an exhaustive and adequate knowledge of the thing in itself.
[...]
Yet inner knowledge is free from two forms which belong to outer knowledge, the form of space and the form of causality, which is the means of effecting all sense-perception. On the other hand, there still remains the form of time, and that of being known and knowing in general.
Accordingly in this inner knowledge the thing in itself has indeed in great measure thrown off its veil, but still does not yet appear quite naked. In consequence of the form of time which still adheres to it, every one knows his will only in its successive acts, and not as a whole, in and for itself: therefore no one knows his character a priori, but only learns it through experience and always incompletely. But yet the apprehension, in which we know the affections and acts of our own will, is far more immediate than any other. It is the point at which the thing in itself most directly enters the phenomenon and is most closely examined by the knowing subject; therefore the event thus intimately known is alone fitted to become the interpreter of all others.
[...]
Accordingly the act of will is indeed only the closest and most distinct manifestation of the thing in itself; yet it follows from this that if all other manifestations or phenomena could be known by us as directly and inwardly, we would be obliged to assert them to be that which the will is in us. Thus in this sense I teach that the inner nature of everything is will, and I call will the thing in itself. Kant's doctrine of the unknowableness of the thing in itself is hereby modified to this extent, that the thing in itself is only not absolutely and from the very foundation knowable, that yet by far the most immediate of its phenomena, which by this immediateness is toto genere distinguished from all the rest, represents it for us; and accordingly we have to refer the whole world of phenomena to that one in which the thing in itself appears in the very thinnest of veils, and only still remains phenomenon in so far as my intellect, which alone is capable of knowledge, remains ever distinguished from me as the willing subject, and moreover does not even in inner perfection put off the form of knowledge of time.
the question may still be raised, what that will, which exhibits itself in the world and as the world, ultimately and absolutely is in itself? i.e., what it is, regarded altogether apart from the fact that it exhibits itself as will, or in general appears, i.e., in general is known.
What I recommend, and I think most of us actually do, is to start somewhere and then move back and forth, expanding the picture, filling in gaps, and correcting the picture. — Fooloso4
the question may still be raised, what that will, which exhibits itself in the world and as the world, ultimately and absolutely is in itself? i.e., what it is, regarded altogether apart from the fact that it exhibits itself as will, or in general appears, i.e., in general is known.
Think of Will as an iceberg.
Most of the Will is "below the water".. It is a sort of unknown (not even an unknown..it's literally the thing-in-itself...An all encompassing nothingness/everythingness.. can't be described without being contradicting.. it can only be spoken about in the negative)....
However Will has the unfortunate aspect of having representation. Thus there is a form of Will that is subject-for-object. Pure subject-for-object is apprehended through aesthetic genius (the artist/musician and the experience of art and music). It is disinterested insight into the the object. However, most of life is not this, but rather the suffering version whereby subject-for-object is conditioned by space/time/causality imposed by the subject which is to say desiring, lacking, wanting, appropriating. It is the pendulum swing of pursuing a goal and boredom and being caught up in the negatives of conflict with environment, others, for survival, comfort, and such.
Of course, his suggestion will be to deny the will to negate the subject-for-object relationship all together. This would be akin to perhaps Nirvana/Enlightenment. This would be closest perhaps to a sort of pure gnosis of the Will "below the water" and not just will as it manifests in representation. — schopenhauer1
The Ein Sof is the unknowable nothingness/everythingness/infinite/unlimited/unified (you can only get at it from the negative of what it's not) aspect of God (Will below the iceberg).. — schopenhauer1
unless you want to make a point to read chronologically. — schopenhauer1
Why do you seek to interpret everything through the lens of a second-rate philosopher? — Janus
I think that’s a bit harsh. I think there’s plenty to learn from Schopenhauer, and he’s an excellent writer — very clear. I also think his interpretation of Kant is a good one. Although he does take some liberties… — Xtrix
Can’t argue with that list. I’ve been meaning to read Hegel. Seems daunting but probably isn’t once one starts. — Xtrix
Accordingly in this inner knowledge the thing in itself has indeed in great measure thrown off its veil, but still does not yet appear quite naked.
My own interpretation of how Schopenhauer comes to see the will as the 'thing in itself' is through the idea of it being an imminent reality in mind/body consciousness. This is different from seeing as it as being transcendent and separate and, possibly unknowable. — Jack Cummins
The "Ein Sof" in Jewish mystical thought has nothing whatever to do with "Will". And the creator God is not merely blind will either. — Janus
Think of Will as an iceberg.
Most of the Will is "below the water".. It is a sort of unknown (not even an unknown..it's literally the thing-in-itself...An all encompassing nothingness/everythingness.. can't be described without being contradicting.. it can only be spoken about in the negative)....
However Will has the unfortunate aspect of having representation. Thus there is a form of Will that is subject-for-object. Pure subject-for-object is apprehended through aesthetic genius (the artist/musician and the experience of art and music). It is disinterested insight into the the object. However, most of life is not this, but rather the suffering version whereby subject-for-object is conditioned by space/time/causality imposed by the subject which is to say desiring, lacking, wanting, appropriating. It is the pendulum swing of pursuing a goal and boredom and being caught up in the negatives of conflict with environment, others, for survival, comfort, and such. — schopenhauer1
Why do you seek to interpret everything through the lens of a second-rate philosopher? — Janus
So, to get to the "implications" mentioned above, if everything we experience is a for-us, things-for-us, which leads logically to the idea of things-in themselves, then why would it not follow that space-for-us, time-for-us, causation-for-us lead logically to the ideas of space-in-itself, time-in-itself and causation-in-itself, thus defusing Schopenhauer's whole critique and transcendent reification of the thing-in-itself? — Janus
Because space, time, and causation are not just space-for-us, time-for-us, causation-for-us. It is rather space/time/causality are but conditions of the mind imposed on the thing(s)-in-it(them)self. Thus the thing-in-itself is not conditioned by space/time/causality. — schopenhauer1
Schop himself I believe addressed this and really meant to say that Will is really only talked about in the negative (what it can't be).. — 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.