I wouldn't put Schopenhauer into the same "New Age" box, but I think his philosophy helps the move in that direction. — Count Timothy von Icarus
↪schopenhauer1 Other minds have always been a problem for idealists.
Trouble is, it’s so unclear what idealism is.
But yes, idealism has difficulty in avoiding solipsism, as I’ve explained previously. It usually needs God’s help.
Idealism has been moribund since the end of the century before last, and of little more than historical interest. That it is so popular in this forum is a peculiarity of the forum.
But why should we assume that what is meant by idealism is its most unpopular variant? This is like attacking physicalism on the grounds that physicalism must mean reductive corpuscular materialism, and then pointing out that that ontology has major problems and has thus been dumped. — Count Timothy von Icarus
What's doing the objectivication? Well i think it's Will, the primordial faculty. Reason-thinking come from Will. This is interesting because we usually think of a conceptualization and only then an act of will. But will produces thinking and it's object is the Forms. — Gregory
I think Schopenhauer works best as a man who saw the godless [ Darwinian ] deathfuck wheel. I open Dawkins and find Schopenhauer naturalized. In case it's obscure, I mean the loop of breeding and dying, and the generations that come and go like leaves on the tree. Lust leadeth to the horrors of aging, but the young and lusty have not seen this part of the wheel yet, not from the inside, not in the mirror.
Sages of old saw it too, the deathfuck wheel which was just there, shining and dripping. At his best, Schopenhauer was this old school kind of sage, seeing through the illusion of time to the form of the circle, the ancient indestructible Wheel. He believed in The Loop, thought reading Herodotus was enough. He took the world as spectacle, grasped its essence.
He did not need to descend from his balcony for the glory of the revolution. There would be no revolution, not a real one. Just the bloodflower sinwheel forever. He left graffiti for others who might be able to get there sometimes, maybe to help others get there. — plaque flag
I like the term "deathfuck wheel". — schopenhauer1
:up:Somewhere in our ancestral past, the human animal took itself out of time and out of the moment and into a virtualized world that is secondary. — schopenhauer1
:up:Thus the Fall into Time and the Exile from Eden. But not to romanticize any of it. — schopenhauer1
The two main schools of philosophy of mind are dualism and materialism.
Dualism: Dualism posits that the mind and the physical body are two distinct substances or entities. This view suggests that the mind is not reducible to or identical with the physical brain and its processes. One common form of dualism is Cartesian dualism, named after René Descartes, which asserts a fundamental distinction between the immaterial mind (or soul) and the material body. Dualism can take various forms, including substance dualism, property dualism, and interactionist dualism.
Materialism: Materialism, also known as physicalism or monism, asserts that everything, including the mind and mental processes, can be explained in terms of physical matter and its interactions. In this view, the mind is seen as a product of the physical brain and its activities. Materialism denies the existence of any separate, immaterial substance like a soul. Instead, it holds that mental states and consciousness are the result of complex neural processes and interactions in the brain.
These two schools of thought represent opposing perspectives on the nature of the mind and its relationship to the body and the physical world. There are various nuances and subcategories within each school, and the philosophy of mind continues to be a rich and ongoing area of philosophical inquiry and debate. — ChatGPT
Philosophy of mind still breaks down most theories at the university level into materialism and dualism. — schopenhauer1
The absurd presumption is that we are obliged to choose between two defunct cannons.
Fucksake. As if materialism and dualism were juxtaposed, and paralleled idealism and materialism.
That's just poor . The sort of thing you might get by granting authority to a bullshit-generator instead of thinking for yourself. — Banno
You can't get to the thing itself by way of empirical observation. You will never get at it that way. That is where the realists/materialists are missing subjectivity/inner aspect of being, etc.
Hence he says:
Thus we see already that we can never arrive at the real nature of things from without. However much we investigate, we can never reach anything but images and names. We are like a man who goes round a castle seeking in vain for an entrance, and sometimes sketching the façades. And yet this is the method that has been followed by all philosophers before me.
— WWR — schopenhauer1
That's the way it is presented in neophyte philosophy classes, sure. We know better. — Banno
The PSR is a concept of the mind, which has intuition and reason. Intuition is the source of our knowledge of the Will. Reason is the consequence of separartion and time. The mind and forms are all illusions. The only way we can talk about the world and noumena is through the categories however. Complete personal individuality is denied by German idealists, as it is in philosophies of India and the Islamic world, and yet freedom rather servile piety is teleogical end. But ye speaking of any teleology or forms is strange and can only be strange from the position that Will is fundamental. — Gregory
I just don't see the point about science being only about how things appear to us as being difficult to understand or adding anything that hadn't already been pointed out by Kant, — Janus
Idealism has been moribund since the end of the century before last, — Banno
Schopenhauer's claim that introspection yields knowledge of the thing in itself might seem plausible to you, but it does not to me, the reason being that he claims that a blind will is fundamental, and I see that as failing to explain how we all see the same things, unless it is interpreted as energy which is structured to produce the things we perceive, or a universal mind which thinks those things into existence (pace Berkeley). The first would be a materialistic interpretation and the latter an idealistic interpretation, but would there be any difference that actually makes a difference between these models if the latter is not understand as an intentional, or even a personal, universal mind? — Janus
How many people do you think have really taken on board Kant's 'copernican revolution in philosophy'? — Quixodian
The Matrix was huge. — plaque flag
How many people do you think have really taken on board Kant's 'copernican revolution in philosophy'? It is far less part of popular culture than 'the selfish gene' or many of the other tropes of neo-darwinian materialism. — Quixodian
Yep. Those who get past first year do so by criticising what they were told in first year. Those who get past being an undergrad do so by criticising what they were told as undergrads. Hopefully. — Banno
When someone nails their flag to the mast, say by using the name of their favourite philosopher as their moniker in an on line forum, they will feel obligated to come to the defence of said favourite at every turn. Makes for an inability to learn. — Banno
It suggests they play to our sense that we - including scientists - don't really know what is real any more, that the whole of existence could be a simulation, fantasy or dream. — Quixodian
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.