/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22028325]

This is one of the most confused philosophical texts I have ever read. In the first place he utters sacrilege against the great prophet Kant (pbuh) by stating that the will is the thing in itself when it clearly is merely an inner sensation. Then he pretends that art is an objectivation of platonic ideas when they are in fact merely a representation of a representation (Plato states this as "reflection of a reflection" but that is due to his mistaken belief that the human mind can comprehend things in themselves, an opinion retroactively refuted by the great one himself). Finally he starts applying his hallucinations to the field of ethics where he "discovers" that by doing wrong to others is in fact doing wrong to yourself, seeing as the will is present before all individuality and negating others' wills is just negating your own. He then concludes that the greatest life is to live as an ascetic and to have compassion for others. He applies these ethics to his own life by throwing old ladies down the stairs, pursuing failed love affairs and being an insufferable know it all.

How do pessimists defend this shit? I strongly suspect the reason why he is held in such regard is because pessimists haven't actually read any other work of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22028426]

He was a crypto-positivist and made it all up just to cope.

[Anonymous No.22028442]

>live as an ascetic and to have compassion for others.

GIWTM

[Anonymous No.22028530]

>>22028325
>when it clearly is merely an inner sensation.
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.22028546]

>>22028530
To say that it's the thing in itself is height of naivety. It's an insolent attempt to prentend that he knows better than his superiors (kant) when he reveals the truth to them. It is like a child blocking it's ears and prentending it can't hear when their parents tell them that santa claus isn't real.

[Anonymous No.22028568]

>>22028325
>mistaken belief that the human mind can comprehend things in themselves, an opinion retroactively refuted by the great one himself
Plato was divine, and so was Hegel. The thing in itself is God, and to know God one must become like God. Kant is the limit of human thought; Plato and Hegel transcend it, and commune with the thought of God, divine thought, the Logos, the Word of God, Jesus Christ. Kant is the German Moses, leading his people to the promised but forbidden to enter for his lack of Faith.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1

[Anonymous No.22028609]

>>22028568
If one attempts to unify thought and being then is one commited to saying that tranvestites are really women because they think that they are? Perhaps the dialectic is currently uncovering the contradiction between man and woman and the sublation will result in the emergence of a third gender? I feel like there needs to be an extension of the PoS to modern forms of conciousness in order to cover this pressing issue. Or perhaps you will concede and admit that kant was right and that hegel is a faggot?

[Anonymous No.22028645]

>>22028325
>the will is the thing-in-itself
I haven't read him, and frankly, I agree with him, but I never understood how he justifies this in an academic philosophy context. This is clearly a mystical statement.

[Anonymous No.22028689]

>>22028426
>Crypto-positivist
Nigga just say materialist goofy ass motherfucka

[Anonymous No.22028763]

>>22028645
The will is the desire of a thing to remain a thing. Like Spinoza's conatus.

Any thing that can be said to exist, at least in our sensible world, has that will to live, that desire to stay together as an entity.

That which "is" that does not have the will to live, in a way, are the Platonic forms, the Ideas that shape the world.

Schope is very clearly a Platonist in the line of Plotinus. His view of suffering as coming from being buried in this world, buried in material striving, is deeply Plotinian.

As Plato said, philosophy is training for death, training to ascend beyond the madness of the purely sensible. To see the Ideas trapped in the forms here, in Beauty.

Schope is cool, if sometimes unable to see the Beauty that is "trapped" in the material world.

[Anonymous No.22029009]

already inb4'd by schopenhauer in §23 of WaWaR. besides every philosophical system contains a leap of faith. who said it? maybe even Schoppi himself. some philosophers hide it, others literally present it in the title, so you can better follow their deductive method.
>§ 23. The will as a thing in itself is quite different from its phenomenal appearance, and entirely free from all the forms of the phenomenal, into which it first passes when it manifests itself, and which therefore only concern its objectivity, and are foreign to the will itself. Even the most universal form of all idea, that of being object for a subject, does not concern it; still less the forms which are subordinate to this and which collectively have their common expression in the principle of sufficient reason, to which we know that time and space belong, and consequently multiplicity also, which exists and is possible only through these. In this last regard I shall call time and space the principium individuationis, borrowing an expression from the old schoolmen, and I beg to draw attention to this, once for all. For it is only through the medium of time and space that what is one and the same, both according to its nature and to its concept, yet appears as different, as a multiplicity of co-existent and successive phenomena. Thus time and space are the principium individuationis, the subject of so many subtleties and disputes among the schoolmen, which may be found collected in Suarez (Disp. 5, Sect. 3). According to what has been said, the will as a thing-in-itself lies outside the province of the principle of sufficient reason in all its forms, and is consequently completely groundless, although all its manifestations are entirely subordinated to the principle of sufficient reason. Further, it is free from all multiplicity, although its manifestations in time and space are innumerable. It is itself one, though not in the sense in which an object is one, for the unity of an object can only be known in opposition to a possible multiplicity; nor yet in the sense in which a concept is one, for the unity of a concept originates only in abstraction from a multiplicity; but it is one as that which lies outside time and space, the principium individuationis, i.e., the possibility of multiplicity. Only when all this has become quite clear to us through the subsequent examination of the phenomena and different manifestations of the will, shall we fully understand the meaning of the Kantian doctrine that time, space and causality do not belong to the thing-in-itself, but are only forms of knowing.

[Anonymous No.22029040]

>it clearly is merely an inner sensation
read it again

[Anonymous No.22029059]

>>22029009
>The will as a thing in itself is quite different from its phenomenal appearance
Source?
>every philosophical system contains a leap of faith
Yeah, and I'm arguing that the only people who make this leap of faith are woefully confused, as evident in the practical philosophy which recommends living a saintly life whilst actually living as an egoist just like everyone else does.

[Anonymous No.22029067]

>>22028689
not the same

[Anonymous No.22029069]

>>22029059
>Yeah, and I'm arguing that the only people who make this leap of faith are woefully confused
Radical Skepticism has proved that everything is a belief. Only a subhuman can like you could utter such retarded nonsense

[Anonymous No.22029070]

>>22028325
>when they are in fact merely a representation of a representation
Interesting. Kubrick once described films as "taking a photo of a photo."

[Anonymous No.22029073]

>>22029070
Based Kubrick dabbing muh art is truth retards

[Anonymous No.22029074]

I bet Mrs. Schopenhauer was a cutie

[Anonymous No.22029089]

>>22028325
although the will is a great idea, yeah he's kind of a shit philosopher

[Anonymous No.22029106]

>>22029069
>Radical Skepticism has proved
lmao, Skeptics feign ignorance until you begin to hit them with a stick with intent to kill, then immediately indubitable knowledge of "I want to live please stop" appears and mere beliefs end.

[Anonymous No.22029114]

>>22028325
Schopenhauer's philosophy was saved by Wagner because he was the only Schopenhauerian whose own life didn't invalidate its conclusions. He was charismatic, a womaniser, an artistic genius, achieved the very highest levels of success among monarchs, had an incomparable influence on culture while still alive, and in everything was driven on by a force of galvanic spontaneity. His own reshaping of Schopenhauer's system from within highlights the most important features, while making his own additions where it is necessary for correction, and relegates its original state to lesser importance.

[Anonymous No.22029134]

>>22029114
this isn't even a 1st order approximation of anything they both wrote or did. stop increasing world entropy.

[Anonymous No.22029191]

>>22029106
Oy Vey!!!! Le intellectual is now embracing ooga boogaism at the mere suggestion Radical Skepticism. These subhumans are trying to refute Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.22029195]

>>22029134
>stop increasing world entropy.
Why should he stop being based?

[Anonymous No.22029300]

>>22029114
Lol no. Fuck. You.

[Anonymous No.22029317]

>>22028645
>>22028325
>the will is the thing in itself when it clearly is merely an inner sensation.
He's very clear about it actually.
1) Following Kant, there are only two categories of knowledge. Mediated (phenomenal) knowledge and immediate (noumenal) knowledge.
2) We experience our bodies in two distinct ways, as an object among objects, like any other, but we also have the feeling of 'inhabiting' our body, and we experience things like hunger, pain, desire, etc. Moreover we feel like we can 'will' our body to move
3) Since there are only two categories of knowledge, and knowledge of our body-as-object is clearly phenomenal in nature, it follows that this other experience we have of our body, must be noumenal in nature
4) now the question arises: is our body unique among this world, the only thing that reveals itself in this dual aspect? Or is it more likely that the entire world is imbued with this "will", this dual aspect?
5) if you say our body is unique, you're a solipsist. Schopenhauer rejects this outright.
6) Therefore, this "other" knowledge of our body, is noumenal, which is the thing-in-itself, and it's not confined to our body, it permeates the entire world, ergo "the world is will."

[Anonymous No.22029343]

Apparently Tolstoy loved it
I am planning to read the majority of Tolstoy's works of fiction this year so should I read The World as Will and Representation as well?

[Anonymous No.22029345]

>>22028325
>when it clearly is merely an inner sensation.
Nobody tell him

[Anonymous No.22029548]

>>22028609
>If one attempts to unify thought and being then is one commited to saying that tranvestites are really women because they think that they are?
No. That’s not what the unity of thought and being is. The Idea of woman is not a human production of the imagination, it exists in the mind of God, and is the standard for what constitutes a woman in the phenomenal realm. Being is not phenomenal; you cannot see Being, just a you cannot see thoughts. Trannies, as atheists and materialists, in other words, Satanist, who invert the correct order, and claim the phenomenal realm as the only “reality” fail to meet this standard because they lack intuition of the Divine truth and will of God, choosing to instead follow their own fancies and perverted will.

[Anonymous No.22029615]

>>22029317
>2) We experience our bodies in two distinct ways, as an object among objects, like any other, but we also have the feeling of 'inhabiting' our body, and we experience things like hunger, pain, desire, etc. Moreover we feel like we can 'will' our body to move
>3) Since there are only two categories of knowledge, and knowledge of our body-as-object is clearly phenomenal in nature, it follows that this other experience we have of our body, must be noumenal in nature
This shows that Schopie didn’t truly understand Buddhism which also rejects the latter as phenomenal. There is no solid reasoning for pain, desire, hunger, etc, to be noumenal when we can clearly show that they arise in accordance with the principle of sufficient reason. The only thing that is noumenal is the ground of consciousness-awareness. This is not thought or mind, which are just knots in our psyche or subtle body arising from ignorance (Buddhism is non-Cartesian and takes mind as a sense because ultimately reason itself cannot be priveleged), but instead non-dual awareness without any self that is purely objective and purely subjective simultaneously. In such a state there is only the world and not us looking it through a window in our skulls but pure existence with no self. Any such state is the result of total cessation of phenomena and as such the will is not equivalent to vitality or what drives us on in the world, but our ability to reject the world, which is synonymous with our freedom. Imo Schopenhauer’s mistake was that he tried to use Descartes against Descartes but that’s already playing into a frame of Western metaphysical assumptions about the world such as the primacy of reason.

[Anonymous No.22029621]

>>22029317
>4) now the question arises: is our body unique among this world, the only thing that reveals itself in this dual aspect? Or is it more likely that the entire world is imbued with this "will", this dual aspect?
>5) if you say our body is unique, you're a solipsist. Schopenhauer rejects this outright.
>6) Therefore, this "other" knowledge of our body, is noumenal, which is the thing-in-itself, and it's not confined to our body, it permeates the entire world, ergo "the world is will."
Who feels this worldly "will"?

Also, I find it weird to describe our knowledge of our own bodies as noumenal, considering how little we tend to know about them, even though we nominally have so much control and stake in them. If you've ever transitioned from a sedentary to an active lifestyle, you'll know exactly what I mean, as you discovered subtleties of pain and muscle activation that you've never experienced before. And yet that journey never completes either. Bodily knowledge has to be phenomenal knowledge.

[Anonymous No.22029625]

>>22029317
>2) We experience our bodies in two distinct ways, as an object among objects, like any other, but we also have the feeling of 'inhabiting' our body, and we experience things like hunger, pain, desire, etc. Moreover we feel like we can 'will' our body to move
>3) Since there are only two categories of knowledge, and knowledge of our body-as-object is clearly phenomenal in nature, it follows that this other experience we have of our body, must be noumenal in nature
This shows that Schopie didn’t truly understand Buddhism which also rejects the latter as phenomenal. There is no solid reasoning for pain, desire, hunger, etc, to be noumenal when we can clearly show that they arise in accordance with the principle of sufficient reason. The only thing that is noumenal is the ground of consciousness-awareness. This is not thought or mind, which are just knots in our psyche or subtle body arising from ignorance (Buddhism is non-Cartesian and takes mind as a sense because ultimately reason itself cannot be priveleged), but instead non-dual awareness without any self that is purely objective and purely subjective simultaneously. In such a state there is only the world and not us looking it through a window in our skulls but pure existence with no self. Any such state is the result of total cessation of phenomena and as such the will is not equivalent to vitality or what drives us on in the world, but our ability to reject the world, which is synonymous with our freedom. Imo Schopenhauer’s mistake was that he tried to use Descartes against Descartes but that’s already playing into a frame of Western metaphysical assumptions about the world such as the primacy of reason and Aristotelian logic.

[Anonymous No.22029640]

>>22029625
>non-dual awareness without any self that is purely objective and purely subjective simultaneously
>non-dual
>objective and subjective simultaneously

[Anonymous No.22029642]

>>22028546
The will isn't an inner sensation. It is the foundation for all of the categories of the understanding. None of them would have relevance without the will's necessitating them as interpretive faculties of itself. It's why without a will we are not even capable of reasoning with the understanding, nor coming to realize that there are categories.

[Anonymous No.22029647]

>>22028763
>The will is the desire of a thing to remain a thing
Will can be taken as the Thing that conserves the world only if you presuppose the rational mental image (phenomena) of the world as I pointed out in >>22029625.
>Any thing that can be said to exist, at least in our sensible world, has that will to live, that desire to stay together as an entity.
This presupposes that there are ‘things’ in the world in the first place, i.e. Aristotelian logic of fixed ‘isness.’ General semantics has shown this to be false. The sensible world exists as a whole because it holds itself together relationally like a scaffolding or a house of cards. Matter and energy are conserved. All action has consequence.
>That which "is" that does not have the will to live, in a way, are the Platonic forms, the Ideas that shape the world.
All that can be asserted to ‘be’ is the All. See above. See ship of Theseus. See Heraclitus.

[Anonymous No.22029651]

>>22029640
Should have said neither desutbh

[Anonymous No.22029656]

>>22029651
it would be dual regardless, you fucking pseud. Your word salad is impressive but you should work on cohesion.

[Anonymous No.22029658]

>>22029647
Forgot to add to the first part, if it’s not clear, this shows that Schope’s philosophy is circular (like the entire Platonic tradition.)

[Anonymous No.22029661]

>>22029317
>6) Therefore, this "other" knowledge of our body, is noumenal, which is the thing-in-itself, and it's not confined to our body, it permeates the entire world, ergo "the world is will."
hot take but this seems inherently fetishistic, reified, as well as reductionist, and in a sense fascistic

[Anonymous No.22029666]

>>22029661
are you a woman? Would explain a lot.

[Anonymous No.22029675]

>>22029621
uhhh i mean it kind of makes me appreciate schopenhauer's idea of will, even though his philosophy is shit it's still a great idea. but for instance the medical sciences address the body and such, i guess on a subatomic level there is no body, so yeah
>>22029625
he misunderstands buddha (didn't read this post), but yeah it makes to renounce the will, the body, the world, as in the end it really is all NOTHING
how can such a bad philosopher be so great at the same time? lol

[Anonymous No.22029680]

>>22029666
>666
why are you in a thread about schopenhauer when you're stupid and evil? please submit suicide anon

[Anonymous No.22029684]

>>22029656
>ignoring almost all of my post
>instead nitpicking poor writing on a loli basketweaving forum
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.22029703]

>>22029680
because Im tired of women’s word salad. It’s so fucking obvious that OP is a femanon. Walls of text with zero cohesion but a lot of smart person words. Makes you sound like a man, ain’t that right sweetie? An actual smart man has a system of thought that he compares to others’, which is how a debate goes. This whole thread is OP attention whoring on 4chan bc she’s too fat and crazy to have Chad listen to this shit irl. I’ve known too many women in academia, they all have the exact same modus operandi. Create an illusion of intelligence by flaunting jargon and qualifications while making your opponent sound dumb so that everyone around pats her on her childish head and says “good girl.” That’s women’s goal, not searching for truth through a Socratic dialogue.

[Anonymous No.22029708]

>>22029703
i'm man you faggot, bet you fapped while writing that. fucking alt-right sack of shit, kill yourself

[Anonymous No.22029711]

>>22029708
>i’m man
>fucking alt-right sack of shit
ywnbaw

[Anonymous No.22029714]

>>22029661
Actually because it's so impersonal and metaphysically anti-personalist, it's close to most leftist metaphysical positions (such as they are), like left-wing Nietzschean reifications of the Will to Power as the will to individual liberty (Foucault's reading of Nietzsche), left-wing promethean individualism (Stirner), the Freudo-Marxist reduction of the human being to instincts and drives repressed by bourgeois culture (Marcuse), as well as more explicit metaphysical fusions of Marxism and psychoanalysis like Reich's orgones, various metaphysicized forms of "dialectical materialism," and the poetizing semi-philosophical synthesis of all these tendencies in Deleuze, as well as post-Deleuzian/post-Foucauldian lite-Heideggerian neo-Eliadean quasi-metaphysical crap that leftist academics like to do, like finding vague "rhizomatic" pantheisms in foreign and primitive cultures (Yuk Hui's "cosmotechnics").

Again all of this (typically) has in common that it is impersonalist, basically a fusion of unmetaphysical left Hegelianism and vaguely metaphysical "new age" forms of pantheism into a feel-good liberation theology. Guenon and Evola critique it as counter-tradition since it takes bits and pieces of valid longing for transcendence and repackages them in "sentimental" bourgeois ("leftist") form. Schopenhauer also wouldn't have identified with any of it, as he had a fully developed natural philosophy none of these people would have liked.

[Anonymous No.22029715]

>>22029703
also, it's not my fault you're too fucking stupid to understand what i said, you fucking sack of shit. again, for the third time, affirm the will through suicide

[Anonymous No.22029720]

>>22029711
kek, thanks for proving my point you neonazi faggot

[Anonymous No.22029723]

>>22029714
yo thanks for the thought you put into this post but i'm going to sleep. i'll read it later, if the thread's still alive i'll reply

[Anonymous No.22029739]

>>22029715
see >>22029317
for an example of a good post. A well-thought out deductive argument that doesn’t rely on a thousand philosopher’s names, or this and that -ism. It’s goal is to elucidate, not confuse.
You respond to this with a wall of text mentioning every mainstream philosophical school and saying le smart nonsense because your dumb childish brain think emulating men makes you like a man. What this does is confuse, not elucidate. This is precisely how women operate according to Schopenhauer and all the nonsensical talks I had to stomach in grad school.

[Anonymous No.22029744]

>>22029703
>>22029739
I think you confused me with OP, who is indeed some tourist redditor. I’m
>>22028645
>>22029625
>>22029647
>>22029658
and my objections to S. were level-headed and still haven’t been addressed

[Anonymous No.22029746]

>>22029739
i'm literally going to sleep rn, it's 6:43 am, fucking pay me and i'll write a wall of text, if not fuck off, faggot

[Anonymous No.22029753]

>>22029746
>evasion
>I literally can’t even rn omg
good night, femanon :3 We love your stupid ass.

[Anonymous No.22029759]

>>22029753
ahahahah i'm a man dude, still funny though

[Anonymous No.22029776]

>>22029753
This faggot thinks he's flirting with a woman
>>22029759
This faggot just got here from Twitter and thinks this is a "comments section"

Both of you shut the fuck up and kill yourselves

[Anonymous No.22029782]

>>22029776
>flirting
>with a woman
>on 4chan
Im just shitposting brah

[Anonymous No.22029783]

>>22029776
/thread

[Anonymous No.22029802]

>>22029744
I’m curious, what do you think of Kantian philosophy? Because many of your arguments are against transcendental idealism and not Schopenhauer’s metaphysics per se.

[Anonymous No.22029806]

>>22029802
I clearly think the entire project is misguided. I suppose that makes me a radical.

[Anonymous No.22029813]

>>22029806
what fucking project? Kant or Schopenhauer? Are you a hegelfag?

[Anonymous No.22029825]

>>22029813
You asked about Kantian philosophy. Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.22029838]

>>22028325
it's normal to hate shopie if you think a subhuman piece o shit humanist like kant is a god

[Anonymous No.22029846]

>>22029825
you weren’t very clear. I can understand your point and I personally think Kant pulls a lot of things out of his ass. It’s not a big deal in Pure Reason which claims to be very fundamental and almost mathematical, but him making such claims in Practical Reason and Judgement does make him a bit of a mystic. Hell, he bases his entire premise of what constitutes a beautiful object is that of universality. I listen to a lot of extreme metal that I would consider beautiful but some normalfag would obviously disagree.

[Anonymous No.22029871]

>>22028325
>we have access to the noumenal by dint of intersubjectivity; this is best expressed by instrumental music
His reading of Kant wouldn't be accepted by Kant (then again, fuck that nerd).

[Anonymous No.22029885]

>>22029846
Playing devil’s advocate here but I think you’re playing language games here. Do you really consider extreme metal ‘beautiful’ in the truest sense or do you just enjoy it, partly because it contains some beauty, but mostly for other reasons. If someone held a gun to your head and asked you to show them beauty I imagine you’d show them high art or something.

[Anonymous No.22029970]

>>22029885
You are displaying a clear bias here and playing language games yourself. I mean beauty in a disconnected Kantian sense of a dissociative experience that is a reflection of the objective world. Muh “high art” can be bland too, you’re only looking at the masterpieces and comparing them to contemporary culture where a masterpiece hasn’t established itself as such. Many of the commissions during e.g. Dutch Golden Age were merely tax evasion schemes by the rich. Rembrandt just happened to be the right man for the right job at the time.
I know plenty of bands that create unique and emotive music that just happens to be harsh and aggressive. The Body, Burzum, Furia, Sumac, and Afsky would be my personal examples of harsh yet beautiful music. You can tell that the performers in those bands were expressing their inner world through aesthetic means. Of course, there’s also unaesthetic trash out there (power metal is that imo), these bands are a diamond in the rough. If you’re not in the scene, you won’t know them or like them, which is why I think beauty cannot be universal from a practical standpoint.

[Anonymous No.22029995]

>>22029067
how is it not basically the same thing?

[Anonymous No.22030006]

>>22029995
okay sorry to samefag but yeah i guess you're right cause positivists seem to be more concerned with epistemology rather than ontology which is the materialist concern, but come on, one basically leads to the other in almost all cases. I guess you could have a positivist that's not a materialist but they would have to simply just be pleading ignorance towards certain questions. and i guess a materialist does make the claim despite not having authentic knowledge that metaphysics are out. Idk, they're related atleast, can you admit that?