9

This is just an old paradox in discussions of free will. You are free to do whatever you desire. But you are not free to choose your desires. Similarly, Marx said, "man" makes his own history, but not under the historical conditions of his choosing. And Mill attempted to secularize the paradox by observing that we are slaves to habit, but can step back and ...


9

Both Nietzsche's and Buddhist writings share the fact that they are a direct response to nihilism, however was he right in characterising Buddhism as advocating a negation of the will, as a will to nothingness, or was this a misunderstanding stemming from his reading of Buddhist texts through the works of Schopenhauer? I can speak less strongly to ...


6

Why restrict yourself to philosophers and mathematicians? Lots of people are interested in music, many more than are actually interested in either of the disciplines mentioned above. And most are moved more by music than by poetry and the literary arts; and likewise, the visual or dramatic arts. Music has been of perennial interest in mankind. ...


5

Berkeley populated the world with entities, ideas, which were in their essence perceptions. Berkeley's famous formula was "esse est percipi", to be is to be perceived. Those perceptions, the ideas, are things which are necessarily perceived by someone, by some perceiver. There are, on the other hand, no substantial things behind the perceptions, in Berkeley'...


5

The World Will, primordial, blind, and irrational, "holds the world together" in Schopenhauer's philosophy. It doesn't do a very good job of it, but then he was not called the father of pessimism for nothing. Schopenhauer's ethics was influenced by Oriental philosophy, in particular the Buddhist idea that the world is full of suffering, and the cause of ...


5

He is calling Schopenhauer dumb. One could call Schopenhauer a quite crude mind. I.e., he does have refinement, but at a certain level this suddenly comes to an end & he is as crude as the crudest. Where real depth starts, his finishes. One might say of Schopenhauer: he never takes stock of himself. The full text of the quote can be found here ...


5

As Schopenhauer spent much time and energy on denouncing Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Johann Gottlieb Fichte, opposing their views violently to those of Kant and himself, I would suggest reading one of their works. For the subject is love, Fichte contemplates on it in his Anweisung zum seligen Leben (The Way Towards the Blessed Life), proposing to "...


4

Schopenhauer was inspired by Indian philosophy. He auto-didactively learned Sanscrit to read original texts (Vedas). One idea of it is that the circle of life has to be broken to get to Nirvana. The Will to Live therefore is something bad as it prevents us from getting there. The solution is NOT suicide in the sense we know. It is rejecting the Will to ...


4

Bryan Magee, The Philosophy of Schopenhauer (1997) has Ch.14 dedicated to: Schopenhauer's Influence on Wittgenstein. [page 310] This influence can be asserted with absolute certainty; it is clear in the notebooks, and Wittgenstein himself stated in conversation that when he was young he believed Schopenhauer to have been fundamentally right [...]. This ...


3

Note that the first qoute from Schopenhauer: "The world is my idea”—this is a truth which holds good for everything that lives and knows, though man alone can bring it into reflective and abstract consciousness. does rather square nicely with a few Tractarian propositions: 5.62 This remark provides the key to the problem, how much truth there is in ...


3

In his youth Wittgenstein was interested in Schopenhauer's epistemology (largely inherited from Berkeley and Kant), but after his interests shifted to logic and mathematics he found it wanting under the influence of Frege's conceptual realism and critique of "psychologism". For a while he became the star pupil of Russell's and shared his logical atomism ...


3

Schopenhauer offers a double epistemological aspect of the world, which is to say, existence, as being at once Will and Idea. His work is not explicitly a study of ontology, i.e. essence/being, beyond the essences of Ideas, which for Schopenhauer are simply the intelligible, a priori objectifications of Will, for the subject. Although this system appears ...


3

The key to understanding the italicized part of your question is “in itself”. If the first state of matter is the cause in itself (and does not become the cause as a result of something else at a certain point in time), it means that all the effects or subsequent changes in states of matter start following immediately as soon as this first cause exists, ...


3

Short Version: The subject is simply that which experiences and the object is experience itself. The subject is not accessible to experience and is inferred. Objects are everything that can be known. Longer Version... First, the subject/object distinction and then an elaboration on the Schopenhauer quote. The subject/object distinction... When I ...


2

I like the question, but the answer is pretty simply "no" unless you take a very weak view of your "unconscious philosophizing" - so weak, in fact that you may want to consign it to the heap. It could also stand a little editing for clarity. Let's start with "a theory of mind" here. Do you want it to be an explanation of why minds exist, how they come to ...


2

Schopenhauer's intent in the passage is to contrast the knowledge of outer forms, which is the province of natural science, and the knowledge of inner nature, which is, according to Schopenhauer, in the province of philosophy, and which may ultimately leads to knowledge of the thing-in-itself. By the term 'etiology' Schopenhauer refers to natural science, ...


2

As you see from the discussion subsequent to your post the original quote is from Schopenhauer, Arthur: Über die Freiheit des menschlichen Willens (= On the Freedom of the Will). Brodhaus, Leipzig 1868, p.68. It reads You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that ...


2

No one can enter Wittgenstein's mind of course, there is however a bit of history to it. In his youth Wittgenstein was enamored with Schopenhauer's epistemology (largely inherited from Berkeley and Kant), but when he became interested in logic and mathematics he found it wanting on account of their nature and role. In particular, he was impressed by Frege's ...


2

Schopenhauer begins by noting that when we view an object, the information that is impressed upon our retinas is upside down (since the light rays cross after entering the eye). He then notes that if seeing was simply the sensation resulting from the light rays entering our eyes and impressing their information upon our retinas, then we would expect our ...


2

EFJ Payne's translation of 'The World as Will and Representation' translates in footnotes all the foreign language quotes. This is available in a Dover Books edition. More generally all your quotational problems are solved in The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Schopenhauer : https://www.cambridge.org/core/series/cambridge-edition-of-the-works-of-...


2

I think this is a rather deep topic, worthy of more than just an answer. However, I think the musings of Alan Watts provide an excellent answer: music is intrinsically close in nature to the act of life. He also suggests another art which is in a similar class: dance. The existence, the physical universe is basically playful. There is no necessity for ...


2

Quote in context and its origin This quote is dubious. It is supposed to be taken from "a chapter in the Parerga entitled Den Intellekt überhaupt und in jeder Beziehung betreffende Gedanken: Anhang verwandter Stellen" (preface). After quite a while of research, I found the original quote in a different translation in Schopenhauer, A. (2000). Parerga and ...


2

To understand Schopenhauer’s definition of genius, we have to keep in mind a few of the following considerations:* The difference between a genius and an ordinary person lies exclusively in the sphere of knowledge. According to Schopenhauer, any knowledge, be it knowledge of a genius, of an ordinary person, or even of an animal, always presupposes two ...


2

Before ( or while ) reading Schopenhauer, you need : some basic knowledge of Plato's metaphysics and epistemology some basic knowledge of the christian doctrine and of oriental philosophy/religion. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, or its popular summary ( by Kant himself) : Prolegomena to any future metaphysics. Kant's Groundings for the metaphysics of ...


1

Schopenhauer was at war with Hegel and, after his death (1831), with anybody who did not consider him to be the most important living philosopher. The 'bad writers' are the Hegelians which were sufficiently numerous as to be seen as forming at least two factions: Young Hegelians and older ones, but also situated on the 'Left' or the 'Right'. Rather ...


1

Schopenhauer's On the Basis of Morality ~ morality stems from sentient compassion It follows that by not exercising compassion towards all sentient creatures, one is being immoral by definition. Preference utilitarianism ~ the least amount of suffering for sentient beings Unnecessary non-human suffering is still suffering (granted this would not be the ...


1

Schopenhauer's moral theory addresses the real agents of morality, human beings as they actually are in their everyday conduct (in his view) and not as mere Kantian rational agents. As human beings actually are, the main barriers to moral conduct are egoism and malice or spitefulness (not just egoism) : ▻ Egoism (Egoismus) and spitefulness (Gehdssigkeit) ...


1

I don't think Nietzsche's last man refuses life. Rather, he accepts the life of a herd animal. No more exceptional human beings. According to Nietzsche in Genealogy, man will never find life intolerable. Near the end, he said something to the effect that man would rather will nothingness than not will at all. That would at least still be willing. Efforts ...


1

I think it is quite simple. A man can do what he wants. This, of course, means he is free to choose to do what he likes. A man however, cannot want what he wants. This, to me, means that I cannot have a choice in my desires. If I desire or want a red car, can I feel the same "wanting" for a blue one? Who knows why I want what I want? Can I want something ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible