/lit/ - Literature

Karl Eduard von Hartmann
Die Philosophie des Unbewusstseins

>>22747792
>unconsciously intellectually intuited it
checks out

>Unconscious representation of course, if it exist, must be incapable of being experienced, but we can't conclude from this that it does not exist; that it can't be experienced is a negative support of (the hypothesis of) unconscious representation. Positively, then, unconscious representation is determined as 'intellectual intuition' [intellectuelle Anschauung]. Intellectual intuition and unconscious representation are different expressions for the same concept.
-The Philosophical Review Volume 1 (1892) edited by Jacob Gould Schurman
Summary: Hartmann - Zum Begriff der unbewussten Vorstellung by Anonymous

Hartmann or Schopenhauer, but Schopenhauer would have been left in deserved obscurity if not for Hartmann. Then the world, and writers and artists, would have been spared the afflictions of pessimism and Nietzsche.

>>20312109

On the other hand, with regard to our cognition in respect of its mere form (excluding all content), it is equally manifest that logic, in so far as it exhibits the universal and necessary laws of the understanding, must in these very laws present us with criteria of truth. Whatever contradicts these rules is false, because thereby the understanding is made to contradict its own universal laws of thought; that is, to contradict itself. These criteria, however, apply solely to the form of truth, that is, of thought in general, and in so far they are perfectly accurate, yet not sufficient. For although a cognition may be perfectly accurate as to logical form, that is, not self-contradictory, it is notwithstanding quite possible that it may not stand in agreement with its object. Consequently, the merely logical criterion of truth, namely, the accordance of a cognition with the universal and formal laws of understanding and reason, is nothing more than the conditio sine qua non, or negative condition of all truth. Farther than this logic cannot go, and the error which depends not on the form, but on the content of the cognition, it has no test to discover.

Well?

Von Hartmann on Nietzsche

Studies in Ethics

Nietzsche’s “new morality”


Nietzsche often complains that the Germans do not understand his books, and pardons them, because his books are too profound for the understanding of the living. Perhaps it is nevertheless not impossible for a unbiased third party, to understand Nietzsche better than it was for himself from his subjective standpoint. It is certainly not the purpose of Nietzsche’s peculiar way of writing to make it easy to penetrate into his thoughts. For it fundamentally violates all methodology and classification and is equally unsuitable for an architectural design or a coherent logical development. All his works are compilations of aphoristic splinters of thought, which are sometimes epigrammatically sharpened, and sometimes spun into digressions. One can start and end this lecture at any arbitrary page; as he seems to have done with the works of all previous philosophers (with the exception of Schopenhauer), and the purpose of his works is to have a nibble, and to impede a coherent reading. Without any plan he turns for the hundredth to thousandth time around – but we may not call this a flight of ideas, because there are so few underlying thoughts, that possess his complete imagination – in a circle, where he comes back, after all his detours, which is not the case with a flight of ideas. Because he acknowledges no truth, his discourse is not yes or no, but instead yes and no; there is hardly a sentence in his work, that does not assert the opposite of another.

To distill positive thoughts from this cloak of words would be a nearly hopeless labor, if these thoughts would be rich and many-sided. But the labor is alleviated because they are so poor and limited, that they can be led back to a few meagre thoughts, that are constantly varied in diverse new forms. The poverty of the content of his thought would immediately come to light in a systematic presentation and can conceal itself only behind a wit-pap, like a cat that turns around the hot pap and makes thereby dainty or grotesque jumps.

Von Hartmann on Nietzsche

Studies in Ethics

Nietzsche’s “new morality”


Nietzsche often complains that the Germans do not understand his books, and pardons them, because his books are too profound for the understanding of the living. Perhaps it is nevertheless not impossible for a unbiased third party, to understand Nietzsche better than it was for himself from his subjective standpoint. It is certainly not the purpose of Nietzsche’s peculiar way of writing to make it easy to penetrate into his thoughts. For it fundamentally violates all methodology and classification and is equally unsuitable for an architectural design or a coherent logical development. All his works are compilations of aphoristic splinters of thought, which are sometimes epigrammatically sharpened, and sometimes spun into digressions. One can start and end this lecture at any arbitrary page; as he seems to have done with the works of all previous philosophers (with the exception of Schopenhauer), and the purpose of his works is to have a nibble, and to impede a coherent reading. Without any plan he turns for the hundredth to thousandth time around – but we may not call this a flight of ideas, because there are so few underlying thoughts, that possess his complete imagination – in a circle, where he comes back, after all his detours, which is not the case with a flight of ideas. Because he acknowledges no truth, his discourse is not yes or no, but instead yes and no; there is hardly a sentence in his work, that does not assert the opposite of another.

To distill positive thoughts from this cloak of words would be a nearly hopeless labor, if these thoughts would be rich and many-sided. But the labor is alleviated because they are so poor and limited, that they can be led back to a few meagre thoughts, that are constantly varied in diverse new forms. The poverty of the content of his thought would immediately come to light in a systematic presentation and can conceal itself only behind a wit-pap, like a cat that turns around the hot pap and makes thereby dainty or grotesque jumps.

“Man's only hope lies in "final redemption from the misery of volition and existence into the painlessness of non-being and non-willing." No mortal may quit the task of life, but each must do his part to hasten the time when in the major portion of the human race the activity of the unconscious shall be ruled by intelligence, and this stage reached, in the simultaneous action of many persons volition will resolve upon its own non-continuance, and thus idea and will be once more reunited in the Absolute.”

>>17275952
>So, rather than only destroying our own kind, Hartmann thought that, as intelligent beings, we are obligated to find a way to eliminate suffering, permanently and universally. He believed that it is up to humanity to “annihilate” the universe: it is our duty, he wrote, to “cause the whole kosmos to disappear”.

PicRelated is the saddest cosmology level doomer i've ever read (even Cioran and Mainländer can't compete). His "Philosophy of the Unconscious" must be on OPpic.