[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 219 KB, 800x1000, Arthur-Schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19806811 No.19806811 [Reply] [Original]

Was Schoppy a Parmenidean? It seems to me with his principium individuationis and his interpretation of unity in the will. As opposed to Hegel who was more Heraclitean. Was Hegel vs. Schop just a repeat of Heraclitus vs. Parmenides?

>> No.19806859

>>19806811
>Was Schoppy a Parmenidean?
If you simplify both Schop and Parmenide to the point where their systems stop meaning anything at all, sure.

>> No.19806877

>>19806811
Schopenhauer interpreted both Parmenides and Heraclitus as philosophies of will and representation respectively. He was a 'supporter' of both, if you want to use such a word. Plato likewise appropriated both as representatives of different areas of his own philosophy.

>> No.19806884

Plato already synthesized Parminides and Heraclitus. The greeks already solved philosophy. The rest is fanfiction.

>> No.19806937

>>19806877
>will and representation respectively
This is from Plato Stanford:
>Plato seems to have used Heraclitus’ theory (as interpreted by Cratylus) as a model for the sensible world, as he used Parmenides’ theory for the intelligible world.
As >>19806884 said or Whitehead said more eloquently, it's all just footnotes to Plato.

>> No.19807121

>>19806937
Yeah I said that retard.

But it's arguable that Plato abandoned the interpretation of Heraclitus' philosophy merely being one of the sensible world.

>> No.19807131

The entire concept of will is fucking dumb anyway. Schopenhauer will forever be more known as a funny polemicist than a philosopher.

>> No.19807153

>>19806811
/lit/ always talks about philosphy as if philosophers were pokemons

>> No.19807155

>>19806877
This. He talks about it in his Notes on History of Philosophy.
>>19807131
Read a book.

>> No.19807165

>>19807153
lmao

>> No.19807180

>>19807165
>Implying they aren't
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/74

>> No.19807196

>>19807153
That's just a 21st century perspective (which was developing in the 20th). The intelligent man now has a large view of whatever may peak his interests and stimulate his creativity.

>> No.19807690

>>19806811
>what not reading Kant does to a mf

>> No.19807760

>>19806811
He makes more sense in eastern terms. The principle of individual is an illusion that corresponds to the buddhist/hinduist concept of Maya/Samsara/atman, or the illusory phenomenological world of perception. The Will is a monistic unity that corresponds to Brahman, the universal consciousness or ultimate reality that is behind and moves through all things. The former perceives the illusion division and separation as a consequence of the objectification of the Will, which instantiates itself through individual living forms in order to make itself perceptible to itself.

>> No.19807765

>>19807760
>The principle of individual
*individuation