Why does no one show this guy any respect? I am just now wading my way through one of his text, still he is totally a genius. I don’t think he has nailed much, but who really has. Point is he is never talked about and the reason is, I think, his view makes people sad . Oh well, I am backing ole boy and have begun to believe this is the problem with us ever understanding cognition. People don’t want to know the truth, it is just to depressing for them. So they ignore and overlook these questions. Additionally, I would like to quote something of Schopenhauer, that is :
“Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.”
What does the community think?
Here is what I am getting at, how long did it take for us to discover oxygen, why?
I think, cause it is all around us.
Not only do people dislike that which is negative and makes them oh so sad, but they are blinded by our self. The most basic problems we still don’t really understand such as sleep and dreams. When will we stop fighting and give in to these facts?
On the radio the other day, I heard a set of complaints by doctors and how they don’t do actual diagnosis any longer. Now, I personally think this is a amazing step in the right direction, being that we are looking for patterns and answers beyond our own senses. I look forward to the day that this is true for all aspects of life. However, I will not stray into what all this pertains in my mind. Just, is this a good thing or and bad one, what do you think?
I like him too. I think lots of people do, coz he writes very well and wins you over to “his side”. I agree very much – but not completely – with his view on the world-as-representation (see my thread of Transcendental Idealism) - but with his key idea about the Will, and various of his miscellaneous bits, I disagree.
The tragedy with Schopenhauer is that he came pre-Darwin, pre-Relativity, pre-Quantum, etc. It’s mainly because of his mistakes wrt these areas that he’s effectively forgotten.
He’s the most insightful, and dare I say, truthful philosopher of them all.
He nailed when he said life is perpetual striving with temporary moments of happiness that quickly descends into boredom. We strive for happiness or satisfaction, and if it ever arrives it is only temporary. We become bored so quickly with it that we strive again for some other satisfaction. I would say every philosophy tries to achieve happiness or satisfaction in some form; Schopenhauer just cut through the rubbish and claimed everyone is essentially after this one thing.
The problem with Schopenhauer is that its much harder to create a watered down version.
He starts WWR with a declaration that no one could possible understand him if they haven’t read pretty much all of Kant as well as his own PHD thesis. Whilst this is clearly an exageragtion, it is heavy going stuff which requires a decent background in transcendtal idealism and the will (or should that be Will) to read the whole of his book carfeully and slowly. WWR doesn’t really make much sense until you’ve finished it, and its not easy going.
The majority of people who know something about Kant or Neitsche have read A-level style summaries, which whilst innacurate kind get the point across and are at least tangible, discussable theories. No such watered down Schopenhaurian arguments exist: simplified Schopenhauer reads like the depressed ramblings of an adolescent.
That said, a lot of his essays and aphorisms are studied by non-philosophers, especially art students and literture students. But by them, he’s known for his eccentric mysogyny and views on suicide etc, rather than for the theory of the Will.
How so? It’s a pretty close summary of book four of World as Will and Representation vol 1. I purposesly didn’t put in his theory of buddhist-style annihilation of the will or the preceding transcendental idealism he sists his argument on because, personally, they’re outdated. It’s odd that he claims The Will is thing in-itself but borrows from the phenomenal world to explain the thing in-itself. It doesn’t add up.
He clearly states the first three books of WWR lead up to not only explain the fourth, but is the whole point of the previous three. I simply paraphrased sections of book four.
. Oh well, I am backing ole boy and have begun to believe this is the problem with us ever understanding cognition. People don’t want to know the truth, it is just to depressing for them. So they ignore and overlook these questions. Additionally, I would like to quote something of Schopenhauer, that is :