/lit/ - Literature

>this concept I have identified and inserted into a philosophical system is God
"No!"

>>15362958

It would be God for the Christian who would read it. This would definitely be the key for everything to suddenly come alive for the reader in Schopenhauer's books, as if each page wasn't already beautiful enough.

It doesn't have to be God for anybody else, though.

>blind eternally striving will composing the cosmos
>personal deity who created cosmos
Does not compute

Schopenhauer was a pessimistic neoplatonist
His matter is identical to the platonic receptacle/matter .
His Subject is 'Intellect'.
Together they are Being (presentation).
Above them is the pure Wille, that is the One, as explicated by Plotinus.

>Once more, we must be patient with language; we are forced to apply to the Supreme terms which strictly are ruled out; everywhere we must read "So to speak." The Good, then, exists; it holds its existence through choice and will, conditions of its very being: yet it cannot be a manifold; therefore the will and the essential being must be taken as one identity; the act of the will must be self-determined and the being self-caused; thus reason shows the Supreme to be its own Author. For if the act of will springs from God Himself and is as it were His operation and the same will is identical with His essence, He must be self-established. He is not, therefore, "what He has happened to be" but what He has willed to be.

>>15362945
Best translation?

>>15362945
I'm almost certain this is a shitpost, but one of my professors is a Schopenhauerian Catholic, so it can be done.

>>15364109

Well, by replacing "Will" with "God" you now get the sense that the will is no longer blind, which was my only core issue with Schopenhauer's work; and now God as Will is indeed still a personal deity, but one that resides within you and communicable at all times, intimately, which you get the sense is more reasonable than some wholly separate entity as is usually interpreted.

So it improves the situation immensely by giving more certainty to both issues I just mentioned. In other words, harmony.

>>15364782

Cambridge, but if you want to save money Payne works just fine

>>15364801

No sir. I own all of Schopenhauer's books and have read most of the books twice, and this is just my independent theory since his philosophy pervades nearly every waking moment of mine. Obviously it is kind of a simple substitution but it very much makes intuitive sense to me just based on everything I've come to read with Schopenhauer.

>>15364369

Nothing you are saying is precise and none of it seems relevant to what I am saying. "The Supreme is its own Author" - So God created God? I'm not talking about this at all.

I don't claim to know anything about the Will except through inferences made from its appearances in our experiences here in reality.

In other words, I'm saying our representation is the product of Will (God), but I don't know what created Will (God). This would be the metaphysics of metaphysics and I don't see how anyone can penetrate that high in knowledge.

>>15362945
It would be an unabrahamic god, no?
The will is not a deity. But yes, for individual mythmaking it can be read as one.

>>15365985

I understand the Will is not a deity, but if you conceptually take God/Christ/Holy Spirit and overlay them as the metaphysical Will, the "thing in itself", you can make the argument that now the Will is no longer blind but purposeful albeit mysterious. Schopenhauer has a very big problem with the Abrahamic God as this separate deity because the very foundation of Schopenhauer's philosophy is the representation and how everything we know, all our truths, are intimately tied to and only knowable through experience via representations. In other words no castles in the sky with Schopenhauer.

I know even Schopenhauer kind of makes the comparison of the Holy Trinity with Will at one point, but just briefly, I just can't remember the location or book and I don't have the books in front of me at the moment, but it's there somewhere.

this paint appears in brothers karamazov

>>15366139

Yes that's where I got it from because I'm currently reading it. Good eye

>>15362945
Replace the word "world" with "turd" and you have the only philosophy text that speaks the truth

>>15366780
keep it reading it anon , i would love to read tbk for the first time

>>15362945
I think Jung may elude to this. he read a lot of Schopenhauer along with the history of philosophy

>>15362945
God is a more subtle concept than will imo. The Christians would be loosing out.

Doesn't this pic get talked about it Dosto somewhere?

>>15367049

Yes, "The Contemplators" in Brothers Karamazov

>>15362945
Is the "will" the same as Langan's "telesis" and Taoism's "tao"

>>15362945
Well, this is what Jung did.
>I felt sure that by "Will" he really meant God, the Creator, and that he was saying that God was blind. Since I knew from experience that God was not offended by any blasphemy, that on the contrary He could even encourage it because He wished to evoke not only man's bright and positive side but also his darkness and ungodliness, Schopenhauer's view did not distress me.

>>15362945
>Replace the word "Will" with "God" and every Christian will instantly understand Schopenhauer.
No, he wont. Many question arise, "Why is God just meaningless ephemeral suffering that must be quieted?", for example. Schopenhauer relates directly to the Christian already in his confirmation of suffering, as far as thoughts on the Father go, there are so many systems in which it can be inserted better.

>>15364369
The problems of suffering, evil, tragedy, temporality and from all this beauty and necessarily entailed with freewill: have not been answered by the neoplatonists, but the entirety of much of the question was presented by Plato, most notoriously the question of the meaning of Being in Parmenides. As great as the neoplatonists are, they will never be Plato, and in though they have a unique value in many ways they lost the original thought of Plato through metaphysical developments.

>>15362945
BRAINLET

>>15368602
>have not been answered by the neoplatonists
There is no problem of suffering/evil without a personal supreme deity. It is only a problem in the Abrahamic traditions.

>>15368579
Meaningless ephemeral suffering is inside representation, not the Will (God) itself. I never said God is Representation.

>>15368578

That's really, REALLY interesting. What book is this from?!

>>15368559

I don't know Telesis, but sure it can be Tao.

I think the "brothers and sisters in Christ" and "Tao" and other "Unity" metaphysics/religions are all pointing to the same thing. There is an eternal truth here that has different names under earthly truths.

>>15368602
think again
Proclus reports:
>The divine Iamblichus is quite correct, therefore, in attacking those who hold this opinion [that there is something of the soul which does not fall], for what element in us is it that sins when the unreasoning principle in us is stirred, and we chase after a lawless notion? Is it not our free will (prohairesis)? And how would it not be this? For it is by reason of this that we differ from those beings that follow impressions without reflection. If the free will sins, then how would the soul remain sinless? . . . And what is the Charioteer of the soul? Is it not the noblest, and, one might say, consummate part of us? And how can we avoid this conclusion, if indeed this is what directs our whole being and with its own head views the supracelestial sphere and is assimilated to the "great leader" of the gods, who "drives a winged chariot" and "journeys through the heaven as a first" charioteer? And if the charioteer is the highest element in us, and he, as is said in the Phaedrus, sometimes is carried up aloft and raises "his head into the region outside," while at other times he descends and (fills his pair) with lameness and moulting, it plainly follows that the highest element in us experiences different states at different times.
The agent of the soul's descent was prohairesis, its "free will," "choice," or "disposition." In his letter on fate Iamblichus again used this term to account for different conditions in human life:
>"Why, you ask, are goods undeservedly distributed? Rather, to begin with, is it not impious even to ask this? For the goods of life do not depend on anything else but on man himself and on man's choice (hairesis), and the most important goods are determined by free-will (prohairesis) alone."

>>15368559

I am reading Langan's paper now. Yes, Schopenhauer's Will is "Telesis". I would definitely read Schopenhauer if I was you.

>>15362945
You should replace the word "Will" with "my dick" and everything shall make sense

>>15370390
I agree. I think there is a lot to be explored in Jung's reception of Schopenhauer. The passage is from Jung's Memories, Dreams, Reflections

>>15368578
Then clearly Will is not at all like the Christian God except in that both can be described by the same three lettered English word "God".

People on /lit/ really need to learn the difference between signifiers and the signified.

>>15371506

Perhaps Christians can understand God better through the lens of Schopenhauer's Will, and Schopenhauer disciples can understand Will better through the lens of Christianity's God.

"you complete me"
>draws heart with both fingers in the air

>>15372589
Similarities are gay. Distinctions are based.

The Will would stomp out the Christian God in a fight.

Thoughts on Huysmans?

Schopenhauer's will is more like the demiurge whereas the quieting of the will allows the dormant sparks of sophia within the soul to speak revealing the personal force above beyond and behind the blind idiot god of thanateros and craftsmanship and so on. Ideally tho one doesn't cause the desiring machines to cease to function like an empty or cancerous bwo but like the full bwo uses the transformative power of eros to develop a relationship with the holy guardian angel or antioedipal subject which is known as known as knowledge and conversation -- a practice which is in fact ancient aryan. Perhaps socrates used goetic or theurgic rites to establish contact with his own daimon thus proving its traditional lineage.

>tl;dr: read dead sea scrolls, nag hammadi library, koran, corpus hermetica, coffin texts, pyramid texts, papyri graecae magicae, chaldean oracles, orphic hymns, homeric hymns, oddysey, iliad, dionysiaca, aeneid, heroides, theogeny, metamorphoses by ovid, metamorphoses or the golden ass, plato, aristotle, plotinus, proclus, iamblichus, macrobius, porete, eckhart, bohme, solovyov, jung, eliade, culianu, etc.

>>15369012
Come on, Dionysius showed how evil is to be dealt. It is not a problem at all for christians, just like for platonists.

>>15362945
Isn't this the actual basis of hermeticism and the reason for a lot of inquisition?

>>15373450
The demiurge is the logos. The schopenhauerean Will would be more like the World Soul. I think it is better explained in conjuction with christian fallen state. A fallen World Soul.

>>15373450
take your meds

>>15364801
>Schopenhauerian Catholic
Huh, you would think it would work better with Orthodox

>>15366132
Schopenhauer's problem with the Abrahamic God wasn't about his metaphysics since he shat on pantheism too. Rather Schop's problem was always the problem of evil.

>>15368578
>Since I knew from experience that God was not offended by any blasphemy, that on the contrary He could even encourage it
Jung on that weed again.

>>15373450
>>15373592

>>15370409
Is Schopy preaching to slack off and let things work themselves out? Otherwise it's not very compatible with Daoism.

>>15374356
>work themselves out
Nothing works out under Schop's system.

>>15372609
> Thus I say that whenever someone equalizes he shall be filled with light, yet whenever he divides he shall be filled with darkness

>>15366132
Why isn't the representation itself a castle in the sky? The Indian attitude is that the representation is an illusion.

>>15374392

Because representation is quite literally the mental image you are constantly creating via your cognition. It is the most basic and fundamental fact of all experience, it is your waking life of you and your surroundings.

Your comparison of illusion and castle in the sky is where the issue is. The castle in the sky indicates something wholly separate and foreign from our experience, meanwhile when have you ever not been separated from representation? Either with your eyes open, or closed and thinking, or closed and dreaming, these are all representations that you can't disconnect yourself from. So the castle is on the ground.

The representation is still an illusion relative to the thing in itself, yes. The veil of maya. Light comes into your eye and undergoes a signal translation so that you can biologically process it and display it to yourself. You aren't presenting the raw stuff to yourself, you are RE-presenting it to yourself. Therein lies the illusion, the veil, that we can't break through.

>>15365985
>>15366132
You guys realise that this is how God is defined in Catholic theology, right?

Eckhart's sermons make it more clear

>>15376582
>Eckhart's sermons make it more clear

Who? A literal heretic?

>>15376666
>6666

Eckhart is in good standing with the Church, his teachings are not considered heterodox

>>15362945
Say there was a Tf2 hat called World As Will & Representation, tf2 fans will instantly flock to it

>>15376671
Meister Eckhart btw

In case zoomer converts think I'm talking about Eckhart Tolle.

>>15370383
The representation is a form in the will.