Meno2
May 16, 2022, 1:35pm
10
I thought better of it not to ask …
Meno2
May 16, 2022, 1:36pm
11
.
I’ll try to infer the reason … may i ?
.
Yeah I’ve taken a pretty deep dive into Schop’s complete works and I don’t recall him accepting reincarnation. He doubts that the soul will be reabsorbed into Brahman at the end of the first volume of The World is Will and Representation based on lack of evidence. Freudian psychoanalysis is based on Schop’s metaphysical will. He doesn’t get the credit he deserves imo.
Meno2
May 16, 2022, 3:20pm
13
But then maybe he used an unconsciously ( or deliberate) irony? Like a lot of those crafty guys back then.
Are you seriously arguing on the basis of absence of evidence? Maybe a lot of stuff.
Meno2
May 16, 2022, 5:17pm
16
I’ll hunch, reverse psychology , …I do think that Shopenhauee used that on his admirers to a degree, to lull them into compliance, as my view of 'him has become a tell tale sign of older philosophers in general, that they used irony to a larger extent tget under their peers subconscious, to form some kind of Chanelle agreement
Am I close ?
Meno2
May 16, 2022, 6:08pm
18
MagsJ:
I’ll hunch, reverse psychology , …I do think that Shopenhauee used that on his admirers to a degree, to lull them into compliance, as my view of 'him has become a tell tale sign of older philosophers in general, that they used irony to a larger extent tget under their peers subconscious, to form some kind of Chanelle agreement
Am I close ?
Not even.
Well here is another possibility, that you may think that Kant used too categirical criteria to slice reason from judgement ( my obsessive two bladed doubletake) leading Schopenhauer to represent the autonomous will and the widening opinions into more and more opinions based on more complex ambiguous choices.
The reasoning, adapting to this disarray resorts to more marginal Grey areas, where the borders are becoming much more grayish, and tenously fixed and rigidly hel on to. The result is a an insecurity, and the wider the gaping hole, the more complex and abstractly do negative sensations to become sensible to the way things really look.
Pretty soon rigid dictatorships of the ego deny access to test their own reality and the God within perishes or, retires .
Closer?
I feel MagsJ if I keep at it, I will get it,.
MagsJ
May 16, 2022, 6:12pm
19
Well here is another possibility, that you may think that Kant used too categirical criteria to slice reason from judgement ( my obsessive two bladed doubletake) leading Schopenhauer to represent the autonomous will and the widening opinions into more and more opinions based on more complex ambiguous choices.
The reasoning, adapting to this disarray resorts to more marginal Grey areas, where the borders are becoming much more grayish, and tenously fixed and rigidly hel on to. The result is a an insecurity, and the wider the gaping hole, the more complex and abstractly do negative sensations to become sensible to the way things really look.
Pretty soon rigid dictatorships of the ego deny access to test their own reality and the God within perishes or, retires .
Closer?
I feel MagsJ if I keep at it, I will get it,.
No.
…and on second-thoughts, stop being my guest.
Meno2
May 16, 2022, 6:30pm
20
But You know it’s not a matter of not being able to get it exactly right, but more a matter of not giving up ON PRINCIPAL.
That’s just the way I am, no quitter. But will desist when feeling that getting the right answer may be detrimental , rather then the other way. But uncertain even about that.
I still feel that our 'intuition here is more comparable than not though.
MagsJ
May 16, 2022, 8:40pm
21
But You know it’s not a matter of not being able to get it exactly right, but more a matter of not giving up ON PRINCIPAL.
That’s just the way I am, no quitter. But will desist when feeling that getting the right answer may be detrimental , rather then the other way. But uncertain even about that.
I still feel that our 'intuition here is more comparable than not though.
I bet you do…
Now let’s stay on-topic, and reply to pertinent posts only.
Meno2
May 16, 2022, 8:47pm
22
Ok mysticism ala Schopenhauer. I think , really that I’m chanelling him right when I think he channeled Kant and concluded that to be a dead end. He turned east out of desperation.
Schopenhauer thought that the value of Kant’s philosophy was principally his distinction between the thing in itself and the phenomenal world in which it appears. The latter he identifies with Plato’s allegory of the cave and the Vedic conception of Maya.
Now as Kant’s separation of the phenomenon from the thing in itself, arrived at in the manner explained above, far surpassed all that preceded it in the depth and thoughtfulness of its conception, it was also exceedingly important in its results. For in it he propounded, quite originally, in a perfectly new way, found from a new side and on a new path, the same truth which Plato never wearies of repeating, and in his language generally expresses thus: This world which appears to the senses has no true being, but only a ceaseless becoming; it is, and it is not, and its comprehension is not so much knowledge as illusion. This is also what he expresses mythically at the beginning of the seventh book of the Republic, the most important passage in all his writings, which has already been referred to in the third book of the present work. He says: Men, firmly chained in a dark cave, see neither the true original light nor real things, but only the meagre light of the fire in the cave and the shadows of real things which pass by the fire behind their backs; yet they think the shadows are the reality, and the determining of the succession of these shadows is true wisdom.
The same truth, again quite differently presented, is also a leading doctrine of the Vedas and Puranas, the doctrine of Mâyâ, by which really nothing else is understood than what Kant calls the phenomenon in opposition to the thing in itself; for the work of Mâyâ is said to be just this visible world in which we are, a summoned enchantment, an inconstant appearance without true being, like an optical illusion or a dream, a veil which surrounds human consciousness, something of which it is equally false and true to say that it is and that it is not.
But Kant not only expressed the same doctrine in a completely new and original way, but raised it to the position of proved and indisputable truth by means of the calmest and most temperate exposition; while both Plato and the Indian philosophers had founded their assertions merely upon a general perception of the world, had advanced them as the direct utterance of their consciousness, and presented them rather mythically and poetically than philosophically and distinctly. In this respect they stand to Kant in the same relation as the Pythagoreans Hicetas, Philolaus, and Aristarchus, who already asserted the movement of the earth round the fixed sun, stand to Copernicus.
Such distinct knowledge and calm, thoughtful exposition of this dream-like nature of the whole world is really the basis of the whole Kantian philosophy; it is its soul and its greatest merit. He accomplished this by taking to pieces the whole machinery of our intellect by means of which the phantasmagoria of the generally, are not to be applied to deduce and explain existence itself that thus the validity of these laws is only relative, i.e., only arises after existence; the world of experience in general is already established and present; that consequently these laws cannot be our guide when we come to the explanation of the existence of the world and of ourselves.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. Delphi Collected Works of Arthur Schopenhauer (Illustrated) (Delphi Series Eight Book 12) (pp. 548-549). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.
Meno2
May 17, 2022, 1:11am
24
And the nomina or the thing In It’self?
If there were reincarnation what would Schopenhauer come back as?
Meno2
May 17, 2022, 5:37pm
26
Maybe, popper? or Augustin reborn, or zizek? Or anyone
Not a toad then?
But, seriously, I haven’t found where Schopenhauer espouses reincarnation. If "mysticism’’ isn’t meant here as a derogatory term as it sometimes is, Fixed Cross might be referring not to Schopenhauer’s “world as representation” but to the metaphysical “world as will” part of his philosophy.
I’m intrigued by the reference to Schopenhauer’s metaphysics as “mysticism”. I think Tillich’s discourse on mysticsm is relevant to the question:
Mystical ways of self-salvation.—Ordinarily, the ontological form of asceticism appears in mysticism. Therefore, we must now deal with the mystical attempts at self-salvation. Since Protestant theologians have often accused mysticism of being only a way to self-salvation, it is necessary to distinguish the different meanings of the term “mystical.” “Mystical” is, first of all, a category which characterizes the divine as being present in experience. In this sense, the mystical is the heart of every religion as religion. A religion which cannot say “God himself is present” becomes a system of moral or doctrinal rules which are not religious, even if they are derived from originally revelatory sources. Mysticism, or the “felt presence of God,” is a category essential to the nature of religion and has nothing to do with self-salvation.
Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology, Volume 2 (p. 83). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Suffice it to say for the moment that critics have compared Schopenhauer’s philosophy with his life and reached different conclusions.
Meno2
May 22, 2022, 4:56pm
29
I’m intrigued by the reference to Schopenhauer’s metaphysics as “mysticism”. I think Tillich’s discourse on mysticsm is relevant to the question:
Mystical ways of self-salvation.—Ordinarily, the ontological form of asceticism appears in mysticism. Therefore, we must now deal with the mystical attempts at self-salvation. Since Protestant theologians have often accused mysticism of being only a way to self-salvation, it is necessary to distinguish the different meanings of the term “mystical.” “Mystical” is, first of all, a category which characterizes the divine as being present in experience. In this sense, the mystical is the heart of every religion as religion. A religion which cannot say “God himself is present” becomes a system of moral or doctrinal rules which are not religious, even if they are derived from originally revelatory sources. Mysticism, or the “felt presence of God,” is a category essential to the nature of religion and has nothing to do with self-salvation.
Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology, Volume 2 (p. 83). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Suffice it to say for the moment that critics have compared Schopenhauer’s philosophy with his life and reached different conclusions.
But how is that deconstruction val8d, or rather how could such validity supported to and by those protesters?
I don’t see an exit sign there.
