/lit/ - Literature

>>4174856
>The problem with this interpretation is that it ignores that fact that Schopenhauer was obviously stating that one could recognize the will in itself of all things, hence 'world as Will'. If Schopenhauer believed that we could only know our will's in themselves, it wouldn't be all that profound because one individual could have a differing 'will' than another, and you really couldn't recognize that there is an inter-connectivity of Will--which was another of Schopenhauer's main points.
It's not the will of a person but rather a person of the will. Very important difference. We're manifestations of it, not the other way around.

>Now, I'm not trying to hate on the guy, but I hope that we all can see how problematic his attempt at creating a metaphysical lens of the world was for him. I mean, this isn't Heidegger's Being we're discussing, this is a kind of subterranean Energy that Schopenhauer thought that one could perceive in itself of all things--whilst simultaneously being stuck in one's phenomenal experience. How does that make any sense...?
Because of the duplicity of our experience of ourselves. One of those perspectives is phenomenal, but the other is direct. Like maya/atman. We only see the other waves and call them waves and speculate about their being, but we're a wave ourselves and we feel wet as shit, thereby knowing our nature to be water. Something like that.

I'm off to temp death now, I sure am tired boss.