If the affirming is "after" some more primary stage, then that is suspect as there is no causality that would have a before (primary ONLY WILL) and after (WILL AND AFFIRMING OF WILL). — schopenhauer1

Does taking on different forms imply change? — csalisbury

Does the will take on different forms? — csalisbury

any claims you might make that life's not worth continuing to live, because they're gibberish. — csalisbury

The will changes — csalisbury

There's a good chance, he'll have a good run of it, and enjoy the remainder of his days etc. — csalisbury

how the will (but not its essence) changes — csalisbury

what I don't get is the idea of atemporal change, how the will changes, and evolves, into this or that, before representation, eventually coming to representation, as a kind of refined way to will more efficiently — csalisbury

what I don't get is the idea of atemporal change, how the will changes, and evolves, into this or that, before representation, eventually coming to representation, as a kind of refined way to will more efficiently — csalisbury

representation, which are both atemporal — schopenhauer1

But I'm talking about assuming that everyone in those groups has those attributes, which justifies mistreating and excluding those groups as a whole. — swstephe

My enemy is human biases and assumptions — swstephe

so it would be unfair for an international news agency to realize someone is a white Southerner and immediately call them a member of the KKK and suggest that they are too racist to be listened to. — swstephe

While trying to be helpful, or just gather voting support, she said something along the lines of "if the people were white, this problem would have been solved by now". I was a bit shocked, since the only famous person I know from Flint is Michael Moore, who is considered "white". A quick fact check said that 1/3 of Flint is white, so I wondered why she dismissed it as a problem of racism, rather than a problem of dismissing an entire group of people based on a generalization. — swstephe

I thought Libertarians rejected the authority of the state to pass laws which restrict the free market. — swstephe

I didn't say I don't like privileged people. — swstephe

Schopenhauer is not mentioned in Douglas R. Hofstadter's Pulitzer Prize winning book, Goedel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (1979), but as we have seen in our presentation of The World as Will and Representation, §7, §27, and §39, Schopenhauer should be recognized as among those philosophers who utilize the 'strange loop' structure at the very basis of their thought. In Schopenhauer, to recall, this involves the peculiarity of saying that although my mind is in my head, my head is in my mind, and although my head is in my mind, my mind is in my head. This mind-bending thought gives one extended pause.

An even better model that displays a sharper reversal of 'inside' and 'outside,' while also preserving a transition between the two, is characteristic of the type of image represented by M.C. Escher's Drawing Hands (1948), where one hand draws another hand, which in turn draws the hand that drew it. Each hand is sequentially 'outside' of the other, while each hand depends upon and issues from the other. Such comparisons suggest that we have here, in Schopenhauer, a 'strange loop' phenomenon that has been described well, and at great length, by Douglas R. Hofstadter, who writes: 'the 'Strange Loop' phenomenon occurs whenever, by moving upwards (or downwards) through the levels of some hierarchical system, we unexpectedly find ourselves right back where we started.'

If we accept the comparison between Schopenhauer's remarks on the reciprocal containment of realism and idealism, and the 'strange loop' images such as Escher's Drawing Hands, we can make more sense out of Schopenhauer's remarks concerning the relationship between intellect and brain. When referring to how brains are the result of the principle of sufficient reason's constructive activity, he speaks from an idealistic view and explains the spatio-temporal world as an illusion created by our mental activity. Then, immersing himself within the contents of that mental construction, he then identifies his own body, and then, his brain as a part of that body. Upon noting how this experiential perspective issues from his body within that construction, he then locates his perception within his brain. Once again reflecting that his brain is a product of the principle of sufficient reason, and with this, shifting from an external to an internal standpoint upon his body, he finds himself once again at the beginning of the strange loop.

An upshot of this unusual looping structure is that Schopenhauer can refer either to the brain as a function of the intellect, or to the intellect as a function of the brain, depending upon his assumed philosophical location within the loop. Appreciating this more complicated structure of Schopenhauer's philosophy - what Hofstadter would refer to as a 'tangled hierarchy' - helps resolve what seemed earlier to be a devastating criticism. Standing outside of the strange loop, as did Escher when he drew Drawing Hands, would be Schopenhauer himself; i.e. the philosopher in general, reflecting upon human experience in an effort to understand it.

This reference to strange loops and reciprocal containment may explain why Schopenhauer believed that his chapter on 'Physical Astronomy' was among the most important in his philosophical writings. Although the chapter does not contain the key arguments that we find in WWR, it does describe the movement through the hierarchy of nature, from inorganic, to organic, to human levels, and then, at the human level, describe how this hierarchy itself depends upon the human being's own intellectual construction.

Also, it isn't just "white privilege", but "white, male, married, protestant, upper-middle class, straight, moderate conservative privilege". It isn't just who oppresses whom, it is about the dominant social and cultural "narrative". We seem to be hard-wired into the process of "othering". — swstephe

Everyone else is difficult to trust, (they might become mindless violent savages trying to steal or destroy privilege), irrational, (they think differently, otherwise they would choose to be as similar as possible to privilege), and immoral, (their view of right and wrong is different than what is trustworthy and rational). — swstephe

They once asked me what race they were. — swstephe

Even if we don't deliberately oppress them, it harms those who have been "othered". — swstephe

If you raise a kid, always telling him he is stupid, then he will act that way, not bother to get an education and bypass opportunities. — swstephe

I watched the protests in Furgeson and heard CNN reporters, (even non-whites), saying that the protesters should essentially be more submissive to authority so they would be taking seriously. — swstephe

The psychology of "othering" and privilege is harming society and the economy. — swstephe

Would you rather live in a Brazilian slum or Beverley Hills? — swstephe

I'm surprised when Libertarians are opposed to illegal immigrants. — swstephe

It would seem to me that completely open borders with liberal employment would be the best economic option. — swstephe

I don't believe in "race". — swstephe

Power comes from privilege. — swstephe

In case you haven't noticed, all of the other any anti-anti-natalists left long ago. — Sapientia