[ 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: 10 KB, 220x263, 220px-Schopenhauer[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6998754 No.6998754 [Reply] [Original]

>The world is Will
What did he mean by this?

>> No.6998763

Power relationships

>> No.6998769

There's one substance and that substance is will.

Honestly, he's Hegel for plebs.

>> No.6998800

>>6998769
Hegel was a retard who was lucky enough to have geniuses think his retardation was profound.

>> No.6998840

>>6998769
Will is not a substance, you fool.
The Will is the primitive desire shared by all living things to "live". It robs humans of their free will, because they cannot "will" what they will (for Schopenhauer, even suicide is not an act of free will - you are still a slave of the "will", which dictated you to kill yourself; you, as an individual, are only the product of a long chain of causes and consequences - Schopenhauer is a hard determinist). If anything, the Will is a metaphysical force; it's simply the "will to live", not a substance, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Hegel's philosophy.

>> No.6998851

Schopenhauer's will is the absolute ding in sich of both subject and object. Will is blind desire.

>> No.6998857

Hes talking about william tynsdale, the guy who wrote the bible

>> No.6998917

>>6998857
why are you alive

>> No.6998920

>>6998917

He is a faggot tripfag that offers no insight in any of his shitpost. Just leave him be by filtering his name.

>> No.6998921

>>6998917
idk, read the bible then you tell me bro, its all about Will

>> No.6998929
File: 174 KB, 282x400, drnrd.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6998929

>>6998800
what do you have against his dialectic?

This is now a Hegel thread, sorry for stealing all your students shoppy boy

>> No.6998940

>>6998769
There's one substance and that substance is geist

Hegel is Hegel for pats

>> No.6998948

>>6998840
How did Schopenhauer (or anyone) ever discover the Will if everything we know is limited by the principle of sufficient reason? Desire is some kind of psychological state, not a noumenal...entity?

>> No.6998949
File: 7 KB, 199x253, 12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6998949

>>6998929

""Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation." - Schopy

>> No.6998992

>>6998949
Context is everything. Schopy was mad jealous and butthurt because him and Hegel both had a class at the same time and all the students went to hear Hegel's lectures and literally nobody gave a shit or went to Schopenhauers class.

>> No.6999008

>>6998992

Nah you right, I just wanted to retort with Schopy's antagonism towards Hegel. I actually quite enjoy Hegel, in that weird and inexplicably, sadistic way. (sorry schopy-senpai)

>> No.6999012

>>6998949
what does he mean Hegel was mystifying? Hegel tries to make the least assumptions about things as possible

>> No.6999017

Anyway, Schopenhauer is GOAT.

>> No.6999037
File: 103 KB, 510x640, 11826029_1012967572067929_7474497391402871204_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6999037

"In fact, the conviction that the world and man is something that had better not have been, is of a kind to fill us with indulgence towards one another. Nay, from this point of view, we might well consider the proper form of address to be, not Monsieur, Sir, mein Herr, but my fellow-sufferer, Soci malorum, compagnon de miseres! This may perhaps sound strange, but it is in keeping with the facts; it puts others in a right light; and it reminds us of that which is after all the most necessary thing in life—the tolerance, patience, regard, and love of neighbor, of which everyone stands in need, and which, therefore, every man owes to his fellow."

I was reading Schopy's studies on pessimism the other day, and this shit got me man. Hello my fellow-sufferers. How was your day?

>> No.6999038

Maybe if you read the book you'll fucking find out.

A man spends over 30 years and many hundreds of pages of text developing an idea and you think some rando on the internet will be able to adequately summarize it in a paragrapg or two. Get real.

>> No.6999079

>>6998948
I might be wrong, but I believe that, for Schopenhauer, the Will is transcendental, and can be immediately recognized by any rational mind, both analytically and empirically, as the "force" (for lack of a better word) that drives all living beings, from plants to animals.
The Will doesn't need to be discovered.

>> No.6999103

>>6999079

More or less correct, but Schopenhauer doesn't limit will to living things. All objects are 'motivated' by will. Put another way, representation is Will objectified.

>> No.6999124

>>6999012
Schopenhauer, when he calls Hegel a charlatan, is almost always referring to the way Hegel writes.
While Schopenhauer strives to be as clear as possible to make his philosophical findings accessible to all, Hegel deliberately obscures his prose to "mystify" his readers and hide the inanity of his ideas.
Schopenhauer thought that Hegel was directly responsible for the deterioration of German language across the nation.

>> No.6999134

Reminder that Nietzsche was a hack who failed to refute any of Schopie's main points.

>> No.6999142

>>6999079
How is that an atheist's philosophy? Transcendental is spiritual, and spirits are ghosts. Ghosts are geists and geists are minds.

>> No.6999146

>>6999142

Please. Fucking. Die.

>> No.6999150

>>6999142
I meant transcendental in the kantian sense of the word of course.

>> No.6999152

>>6999146
typical marxist argument

>> No.6999155

>>6999150
The numinous is transcendental.

>> No.6999157

>>6999155

Not in the Kantian sense.

>> No.6999163

>>6999155
Have you even read Kant?
There's nothing spiritual about transcendental knowledge.

>> No.6999171

>>6998754
He spends an entire work, four books, along with an entire accompanying volume, explaining it. Why not just read that?

>>6998948
All we know of (re)presentation is known through the principle of sufficient reason / principle of individuation. The will, however, is without reason and is not individuated. The world as presentation -- the world of objects and things as presented to perception and thought -- is only one side of the world. Its flip side or underbelly is pre-rational and felt in urges and movements of the body, in a more intimate relationship than with any object. We know the will because it's what we are.

>>6999079
The will isn't recognized rationally, but pre-rationally. Rationality itself is a kind of appendage that the will invents to service its needs. The world as known by perception and thought is the world as 'objectified.' The will objectifies itself to meet its needs.

>> No.6999179

>>6999142

'Transcendental' refers to a doctrine based on a specific type of argument. It does not refer to a supernatural realm, or to a class of supernatural entities. Schopenhauer rejects Kant's use of the terms 'noumena' and 'phenomena' precisely because they encourage the kind of confusion you've fallen prey to.

>> No.6999182

>>6999157
The noumenal is numinous.

>> No.6999188

>>6999182

Numinous is a predication upon the noumenal. The noumenal cannot be predicated upon besides a philosophical bracketing. Please.

>> No.6999198

>>6999188
Where is the hard evidence for this?

>> No.6999210

Will is more than the will to live you poopyheads, will in terms of nature are the physical laws that run our nature, and will in living beings is the will to live

>schopenhauer was a hard determinist
just lol, do you guys even read what you talk about before making statements like these? this is straight libel. Schopenhauer attacked determinism following Kant's steps, and he also spoke greatly about the denial of the will, essentially refuting your statement of "Schopenhauer believed in determinism".

>> No.6999211

>>6999198

Nigga, that is a the definition of the thing-in-itself in Kant. It is an analytic judgement that needs no 'hard evidence.'

>> No.6999215

>>6999211
Like God?

>> No.6999221

>>6999215

Sure, just define an analytically sound definition of God that is not self-inconsistent.

>> No.6999226

>>6999221
So the basis for his atheism is that in the imaginary world of ideas an imaginary deity is too much?

>> No.6999227

>>6999210
Denial of the will itself is determined by the will, because man cannot will what he wills. According to Schopenhauer, every human act is "necessary", that is to say determined by natural laws, and thus free will does not exist.
This much is made clear in On The Freedom of the Will.

>> No.6999240

>>6999210
>>6999227
In the world of phenomena, all man's actions are determined because they are subject to the principle of sufficient reason in the mode of efficient causation.

In the world as will, they are uncaused and have no reason, but nonetheless man has no control over them, because he cannot help what he wills in any way.

However, there is one exception to this, which is the denial of the will. The will's own annihilation is the only thing it can do 'freely.'

>> No.6999251

>>6999124
>Hegel deliberately obscures his prose to "mystify" his readers and hide the inanity of his ideas

but that's how philosophy works, you fool

how else are the unwashed masses supposed to think you're smart?

>> No.6999258

>>6999240
>The will's own annihilation is the only thing it can do 'freely.'
This seems uncharacteristically optimistic of Schopenhauer. I don't remember seeing this idea developed anywhere (I must admit I've only read On The Freedom of the Will, On The Basis of Morality, and various excerpts from other works).
Is the will's annihilation suicide? I remember Schopenhauer saying that suicide was itself a manifestation of the will.

>> No.6999268
File: 127 KB, 576x635, schop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6999268

>>6999251
reeeeee...

>> No.6999278

>>6999258
It's in Book IV of the world as will & representation, and no it's not suicide, but the self-denial and mystical desire for self-annihilation found in strains of christianity and buddhism.

Suicide for schop. is ultimately a way to further the will's ends, since it's always out of a concern for life that suicide is committed (my life sucks, life should be better, etc.). The denial of the will is more radical and denies that there should be any life at all.

Schop is still pessimistic in the sense that he thinks the world is ultimately 'no good,' but the promise of the annihilation of the will means precisely the end of the world, since it is will, and the change into something wholly new, which from our perspective is 'nothing.'

>> No.6999292

>>6999278
I see. This is very interesting, thank you.
I guess Schopenhauer thought these ideas were a bit too radical for the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences; this might explain why he refrains from talking about them in his essay 'On The Freedom of the Will', which he submitted to the Society.

>> No.6999341

To all you schoppy readers ITT what do you think on his short essay "On Woman"?

For some reason reading Schopenhauer's biography makes me think that the man himself didn't believe half the shit he wrote, he was too opinionated in his personal life but outwardly he behaved like a good fellow.
Maybe the entire text was dedicated to his mother?

>> No.6999343

>>6999278
I've always wondered what he would think of nuclear annihilation of ALL life.
Maybe this?
>finally

>> No.6999360

>>6999341
I haven't read it, but I'm reminded of a quote regarding an old woman to whom he had to pay a stipend:
>Obit anus, abit onus.
>The old woman dies, the burden is lifted.

DAMN!

>> No.6999368

>>6998754

That women are shit.

>> No.6999374
File: 32 KB, 401x480, quickschoped.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6999374

>>6999341

The original redpill.

Descartes is reminded for pumping and dumping.
Schopenhauer for women being nothing but hoes and tricks.

>> No.6999393

Hahahahaha he reminds me so much of scrooge

>> No.6999566

Kant: We can't perceive the inner true nature of objects, their noumenon.
Schopenhauer: Ah, but we can do so for one object, ourselves!
Schopenhauer: Introspect and you will feel yourself driven and irritated by forces beyond your control. This is your real noumenon, your Will, the real essence driving you.
Schopenhauer: Just as your Will drives you from within, a rock or a cat's will drives them from within...
Schopenhauer: But the difference between your wills is an illusion, a representation, because it is really one Will!
Kant: At last I truly see! Or I would, but alas, I am dead.

>> No.6999569

>>6999360
>anus

>> No.6999623
File: 159 KB, 900x654, 1437710411333.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6999623

>> No.6999630

>>6999623
Hah that's funny because everyone knows that in reality the woman is a hedonist and Schopenhauer was a very good writer and respect for language.

>> No.6999750

>>6999341
>Schopenhauer is brought up
>every imbecile who only knows that tiny inconsequential essay comes out of the woodwork
every time

>> No.6999764

>>6998754
is that the guy from the prodigy

>> No.6999776

>>6999037
equally beautiful and horrible. how was yours?

>> No.6999976

>>6999776

Ah, one of those paradoxical ones. You mind me asking what instigated those two affects? Anyways, I am just enjoying my last days prior to returning to Uni.

>> No.7000042

Schopenhauer was narrow-minded. If anyone who reads Schopenhauer were correct in their position in respect to pessimism I'd much rather be a piece of wood than a man.

>> No.7000262

>>6999623
>schopenhauer, one of the most lucid and sharpest stylists of all time, inaccurately portrayed as a drooling idiot by white knights
The childish inadequacy of feminist response to Schopenhauer proves him correct more completely than any further textual argument could.