Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
PrintPage: 1 2
 Schopenhauer? | ||
|
Morosephantom010
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 25, 2007 Total Topics: 20 Total Posts: 62 |
 #1
Subject: Schopenhauer? I have posted a very short critique of Schopenhauer's philosophy here. (http://forums.philosophyforums.com...uers-philosophy-24682.html) It has not been answered. Would anyone like to comment on Schopenhauer as a thinker in general, how he has influenced the Early Modern philosophy and the impact that he had on artists and the literary field. Would anyone like to provide constructive criticisms for my ideas and interpretations of his views? Is anybody here knowledgeable about him or thinkers that are closely related to him? If so, please write back in this thread and review my exegesis of Schopenhauer. |
|
|
Cyberflaneur
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 05, 2005 Total Topics: 8 Total Posts: 171 |
#2
>>Schopenhauer was also a Platonic Idealist. He believed that the Ideas are at the intermediate stage between the Will(noumena) and Representation(phenomena), and thus in virtue of attunement with those Ideas can we achieve salvation through the negation of the Will.<< I always thought that ideas were representation in his system? There's no difference between the two. >>Modern physics have affirmed Schopenhauerian process metaphysics. If the force constitutes the ultimate reality of the Universe, and matter is only an objectification of the force, than a finger is pointed at ontological idealism. << No, modern physics does not affirm his ideas and his ideas are not amenable to physics. I think you have said some very weird things about Schopenhauer's thoughts and made some very strange assertions that are not quite clear. |
|
|
Morosephantom010
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 25, 2007 Total Topics: 20 Total Posts: 62 |
#3
Ok, please point out whatever errors that I have made. The Idea in a Schopenhauerian sense of the Word is the way the Will manifests itself to the phenomenal world. The Idea is used in a very Platonic sense. So it is just a fancy way of saying there is a form of man, or the table and so on. Schopenhauer did not think that we could grasp those ideas. He very much agreed with Plato on this matter. For him there were three grades of existence. The Will(the noumena), Idea( a step below the noumena) and representation(phenomenal world as how we perceive the Idea). So there is a very big difference between the World as Idea and the World as Representation. So far you said that I have made strange assumptions about Schopenhauer and physics, yet made no effort to show what those strange assumptions were. Modern Physics at this point, I believe endorses process metaphysics. Which seem to be compatible with Schopenhauer's notion of the ever-changing Will. |
|
|
Cyberflaneur
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 05, 2005 Total Topics: 8 Total Posts: 171 |
#4
Morosephantom010 wrote: The Idea in a Schopenhauerian sense of the Word is the way the Will manifests itself to the phenomenal world. The Idea is used in a very Platonic sense. So it is just a fancy way of saying there is a form of man, or the table and so on. Schopenhauer did not think that we could grasp those ideas. He very much agreed with Plato on this matter. For him there were three grades of existence. The Will(the noumena), Idea( a step below the noumena) and representation(phenomenal world as how we perceive the Idea). Please show textual evidence of this from Schopenhauer's works. I think this is completely wrong. Schopenhauer used the word "vorstellung" for both "idea" and "representation." It is translated to english according to the tastes of particular translators. The distinction is not made by him. His metaphysics is ultimately dualistic (or pseudo-dualistic) with no room for a third type of entity. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/ Modern Physics at this point, I believe endorses process metaphysics. Which seem to be compatible with Schopenhauer's notion of the ever-changing Will. Nope. Modern phsyics does not endorse process metaphysics. It neither endorses it or rejects it. All physics deal with processes whether that is classical mechanics or quantum mechanics. But don't confuse the use of "process" in physics with the word used in "process metaphysics." "Process" used in the later is a highly technical term that has little substantive similarities with the processes physicists describe or the metaphysics of Schopenhauer. Other mistakes in your paper are for example, you've confused the scientific notions as defined by physics, of force and energy. Matter is not force "trapped" in a unit. Matter can be converted to energy, not force. Energy is measured in Joules (SI unit) while force is measured in Newtons (SI unit). 1 joule is 1 kg*m^2/s^2 while one Newton is 1 kg*m/s^2. Also, the next sentence is very bizzare: If the force constitutes the ultimate reality of the Universe, and matter is only an objectification of the force, than a finger is pointed at ontological idealism Modern physics does not say that "force constitutes the ultimate reality of the Universe." I don't know where you got that from and nothing you've said with regard to modern physics entails that "than [sic] a finger is pointed at ontological idealism". Do you even know what ontological idealism is? I don't have time to refute the rest of your understanding of both Schopenhauer's work or physics but I might return to it later when I have some more time. Suffice it to say that ou are way off on just about everything you asserted in your "critique" Edited by Cyberflaneur on Apr 16, 2007 - 1:10 AM |
|
|
Morosephantom010
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 25, 2007 Total Topics: 20 Total Posts: 62 |
#5
We are running into a linguistic discrepancy here. Based on what you mean by force and I mean by energy, we seemd to be referring to the same thing. Nevermind the conventional definition of Ontological Idealism, what I have in mind is what Plato meant with his theory of Ideas. Schopenhauer has incorporated this into his philosophy. I would like more evidence for modern physics takin an agnostic stance for process metaphysics. It does not accept process metaphysics as a scientifically approved doctrine, but it has had tendencies towards that after Einstein's discovery of relativity. We are just arguing over words, lets skip over that and get straight to ideas. So with Schopenhauer the Will in itself is inaccessible. It is in the noumenal world or the noumenal world in itself. We only have the representation of the Will. Our World is the World as Will and Representation, not the world as Will. We get the World as presented by the Will, but we will never get the thing in itself, because we can not have the noumenal world. Yes Will and Representation mean the same thing. Schopenhauer had a double aspect theory. We look at the World as Will, but we translate it in our minds into what we can understand, namely the World as Will and Representation. So to move it over to Kant's terminology, noumenal and phenomenal worlds are one. We look at the noumenal world, but we can not perceive it for what it is, we perceive it as something different from what it really is. Hence the phenomenal world is not distinct from the noumenal, but just the way that we see the noumenal. This is because our perceptions are finite, yet the noumenal world is infinite. Hence we translate what is infinite into the finite bounds of our perception. Edited by Morosephantom010 on Apr 16, 2007 - 12:34 AM Attached Files:
|
|
|
Cyberflaneur
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 05, 2005 Total Topics: 8 Total Posts: 171 |
#6
I would like more evidence for modern physics takin an agnostic stance for process metaphysics. It does not accept process metaphysics as a scientifically approved doctrine, but it has had tendencies towards that after Einstein's discovery of relativity. No, that's not how things work in philosophy. You claimed to know something about Popper and it's obvious you don't if you don't understand this. You made the claim that modern physics supports Schopenhauerian philosophy but did not offer any definitive and substantive evidence for this. Cite something that quotes or directly from papers from physicists that show that his dualistic ontology of Will and Idea is correct. We are just arguing over words, lets skip over that and get straight to ideas. Just admit you are wrong and move on. You got basic facts wrong and I showed you where you went wrong. Don't try to ad hoc redefine your words according to your own whims to save face.Yes Will and Representation ....blah blah blah See my stanford philosophy link.
Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on Apr 18, 2007 - 8:14 AM. Reason: removed those flames that were without content |
|
|
Morosephantom010
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 25, 2007 Total Topics: 20 Total Posts: 62 |
#7
It doesnt matter who is right or who is wrong. The point is to learn. I dont care if I have to switch positions 10 times in an argument as long as in the end my views end up getting closer to the truth. There is no opponenet in an argument, only someone that you work with as a team to make discoveries. If you are arguing to prove things or to reaffirm your prejudices or to convince your opponent to agree with you, or anything of that nature, you've picked the wrong thread. I am beginning to get impatient with your petty insults. Now one last thing on your posts. I suspect that we will have to end this exchange at this point because the atmosphere here is not very conducive to either you are I getting closer to the truth. The duality of Will and Idea is a metaphysical problem and not an ontological, hence physics can not address it. What Schopenhauer meant by Will is this strange metaphysical force that drives us all along, it is just like blind urges that compell us to act. For Plato this would be appetites. And the Ideas, he meant as the same thing as what Plato meant by his Ideas. Something that we can grasp with our intellects if we are bright enough. For Schopenhauer salvation consisted in us quenching this will, this blind force that compells us to act by using our intellect as much as possible. He recommended art for this, art, he said sharpens the intellect more than any profound erudition in sciences. So in this respect Schopenhauer is saying that art is more conducive to you cultivating your intellect than science. Schopenhauer does not believe in duality of mind and body, or the phenomenal or the noumenal. To him everything that exists is the Will, or the noumenal world. Yet we perceive it differently than it really is, so it is all a double aspect theory. For Schopenhauer, the real matter was not the crude tables and chairs that we see. To him this was an extension. The real stuff that dwells within the chair is this immaterial will. For our modern day scientists, this would be the force or energy, or whatever you would want to call that. Now this is the connection between Schopenhauer's discoveries and the Ideas of Modern physics. In an allegorical sense one can even look back at the time when Schopenhauer said that the real matter is comprised of the immaterial Will that is constantly in motion, and how scientists said that this energy or force that is immanent within things that we perceive as material is also always changing. Schopenhauer himself even once said that if we dissect an atom and look within the innermost essence of things that we perceive as material, we will actually see the Will. What scientists have discovered may be slightly different from what Schopenhauer had in mind when he used the word Will, yet there certainly is a connection with his idea of how the stuff that dwells within things that we consider material is always changing, and the idea of force/energy that were discovered in the 20th century physics. This should put an end to materialistic ontology, as we see that the crude tables and chairs are not the core essence of matter. Again Will and Idea are metaphysical suppositions. The Will is in the noumenal world, and therefore inaccessible. Ideas is basically like Plato's paradise, the world of Ideas. Where we will end up after we conquer the Will. After the Will recedes, the Intellect shall be liberated from the services of the Will and shall be the mirror of the World. This is what Schopenhauer meant by Ideas. But there is no way this could be supported by modern day physics because Ideas exist outside of the bounds of the universe. In fact Schopenhauer would say that they do not exist, and he believed in Salvation through non-existence. Accordingly, we need the Will in order to exist, yet the Intellect and the Will are in constant struggle. When the Will ceases to exist, we will be left with nothing but peaceful intellect or Ideas. This is very similar to how the Buddhists believe that salvation consists in becoming free from cravings and desire and being left in peace. This certainly bears a semblance on how their meditation techniques strive to inspire a peaceful state of mind. The relevance of Popper is not with Schopenhauer's philosophy. The relevance of Popper here is to the idea of how philosophers should not fight over words and it is ok to make new words up if necessary or use two different words to depict the same idea, as long as we are on the same page.We have to construct mediums of communication where we can understand each other without having to stick to rigid definitions of words. Its ok to re-define words if necessary too, to avoid rigid attunement with this or that conventional definition, all of this is done to facilitate intellectual communication skills. It does not matter what words we use, as long as we understand each other, and it is up to us to decide what we mean when we say those words. Again, we do not need to go by the meaning that we will find in dictionary.com, we can use the same words that are there and mean something totally different, as long as we both have agreed on such a medium of communication. And finally on Schopenhauer, E.F.J Payne a very well known translator of Schopenhauer explained why the Title in German should be translated as representation and not Idea. Even though Schopenhauer himself once even translated it as Idea. "Vorstellung is important, for it occurs in the German title of this work. Its primary meaning is that of "placing before" and it is used by Schopenhauer to express what he himself described as an "exceedingly complicated physiological process in the brain of an animal, the result of which is the consciousness of a picture here" In the present translation "representation" has been selected as the best English word to convey the German meaning, a selection that is confirmed by the French and Italian Version Die Welt as Ville und Vorstellung. The word 'idea' which is used by Haldane and Kemp in their English translation of this work clearly fails to bring out the meaning of Vorstellung in the sense used by Schopenhauer. Even Schopenhauer himself translated Vorstellung as "idea" in his criticism of Kant's philosophy at the end of the first volume, although he states in his essay, On the Fourfold of the Principle of Sufficient reason, that "idea" should be used only in its Platonic sense. Moreover, confusion results in the translation of Haldane and Kemp from priner's errorss in the use of 'Idea' with a capital letter to render the German Idee in the Platonic sense and of 'idea' for the translation of Vorstellung as used by Schopenhauer. In the present translation Idee has been rendered by the word "Idea" with a capital letter." Accordingly, Representation is what Schopenhauer thought of as the double aspect theory of the phenomenal world. It is the noumenal world as we receive it, hence the phenomenon. Idea and Representation are not the same thing. We should only use the word representation to talk about how the Will is perceived. Ideas can only be grasped by the brightest of intellects, this happens when you free yourself from the Will, or Will as Representation, though ordinary perceptions are not Ideas, they are just representations. And here is an example from Schopenhauer's writings to support my thesis that is stated as follows: The Will in itself is in the noumenal world it is inaccessible, the Representation is all that we get, this is an objectification of the Will. There is no dualism here. It is a double aspect theory. Never mind the third entity, there is not even two. Just one Will. Everything does not really exist it is just our perception of it, one of many objectifications of the Will. Ideas can only be accessed through NON-EXISTENCE, and this is possible when the intellect conquers the Will. You know the role the intellect plays here is very similar to what Plato had, with how only the brighest intellects access those ideas. Much like with Schopenhauer, you use your intellect to conquer the Will, this way you will retreat to non-existence and in virtue of which access those Ideas. Now I shall quote Schopenhauer. "Accordingly, what follows, and this has already impressed itself as a matter of course on every student of Plato, will be in the next book the subject of a detailed discussion. Those different grades of the will's objectification, expressed in innumerable individuals, exist at the unattained patterns of these, or as the eternal forms of things. Not themselves entering into time and space, the medium of individuals, they remain fixed, subjects to no change, always being, never having become. The particular things, however, arise and pass away:, they are always becoming and never are. Now I say that these grades of the objectification of the will are nothing but Plato's Ideas.I mention this here for the moment, so that in future I can use the word Idea in this sense.Therefore for me the word is always to be understood in its genuine and oriignal meaning, given to it by Plato; and in using it we must assuredly not think of those abstract productions of scholastic dogmatizing reason, to describe which Kant used the word wrongly as well as illegitimately, although Plao had already taken possession of it, and used it most appropriately. Therefore, by Idea I understand every definite and fixed grade of the will's objectification, in so far as it is thing in itself, it is foreign to plurality. These grades are certainly related to individual things as their eternal forms, or as their proototypes. I take no further notice of the Kantian misuse of this word; the necessary remarks about it are in the Appendix." World As will and Representation, P 130. Edited by Morosephantom010 on Apr 16, 2007 - 8:48 AM |
|
|
Cyberflaneur
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 05, 2005 Total Topics: 8 Total Posts: 171 |
#8
Again, you've only shown that what I've said was true with your quotes from translator's notes. You haven't shown that Schopenhauer made the distinction between idea and representation and that Ideas are an intermediate stage between will (ville) and representation (vorstellung). Like I said and like the people you quoted said, the choice between "Idea" and "Representation" is a translator's choice and not one made by Schopenhauer (who used "Idea" in place of "Vorstellung"). If you are now admitting you were wrong to make the distinction in the first place then good. Edited by Cyberflaneur on Apr 16, 2007 - 11:53 AM |
|
|
Morosephantom010
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 25, 2007 Total Topics: 20 Total Posts: 62 |
#9
"Accordingly, what follows, and this has already impressed itself as a matter of course on every student of Plato, will be in the next book the subject of a detailed discussion. Those different grades of the will's objectification, expressed in innumerable individuals, exist at the unattained patterns of these, or as the eternal forms of things. Not themselves entering into time and space, the medium of individuals, they remain fixed, subjects to no change, always being, never having become. The particular things, however, arise and pass away:, they are always becoming and never are. Now I say that these grades of the objectification of the will are nothing but Plato's Ideas.I mention this here for the moment, so that in future I can use the word Idea in this sense.Therefore for me the word is always to be understood in its genuine and original meaning, given to it by Plato; and in using it we must assuredly not think of those abstract productions of scholastic dogmatizing reason, to describe which Kant used the word wrongly as well as illegitimately, although Plato had already taken possession of it, and used it most appropriately. Therefore, by Idea I understand every definite and fixed grade of the will's objectification, in so far as it is thing in itself, it is foreign to plurality. These grades are certainly related to individual things as their eternal forms, or as their proototypes. I take no further notice of the Kantian misuse of this word; the necessary remarks about it are in the Appendix." World As will and Representation, P 130. Schopenhauer does not say that he knows what the Will is like because it is inaccessible due to its domain being located in the noumenal world. Ideas do not change, they are incorruptible like Plato's forms. Representation is what changes, or our perception of Ideas. I think Schopenhauer explained this very clearly in the paragraph I have just cited. EDIT:Based on the way Schopenhauer used the word 'Idee', and went on to describe this particular concept, it is clear that what he had in mind was more akin to Plato's Ideas/Forms, rather than our vernacular notion of the idea. Representation or Vorstellung, however, is better suited to depict the way we perceive the ordinary world, and to Schopenhauer--those were not ideas. Ideas are ethereal, and transcendental. Schopenhauer made a very clear allusion to the concept of Ideas (in the passage I cited) and reviled Kant for suggesting that ideas, in the Schopenhauerian sense of the word should be perceived in a vernacular fashion. Moreover, Payne made a persuasive argument for why it is more appropriate to translate Vorstellung as Representation rather than Idea, and why those who chose the latter route were mistaken. Edited by Morosephantom010 on Aug 7, 2007 - 5:49 PM |
|
|
Drizzt Do'Urden
Graduate  Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 01, 2004 Location: Montreal Total Topics: 27 Total Posts: 183 |
#10
The quote you just used is already translated. And, given that some translators use 'idea' and some use 'representation' to designate 'Vorstellung', it would be necessary to see whether Schopenhauer himself used 'Idee' or 'Vorstellung' in order to designate which word he is speaking of. I believe that he is speaking of Idee, for, according to your quote it cannot be Representation. However, given that I have never heard of a distinction between idea and representation and given the fact that the book has been translated as both '...Will and Representation' and '...Will and Idea', they must be taken to mean the same thing. Each to each a looking glass Reflects the other that doth pass. |
|
Page: 1 2
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.