Schopenhauers Mysticism

It’s an interesting case, Arthur Schopenhauer. What Ive been noticing recently, reading him again after like, 20 years, is that he is very focussed on Vedic religion and argues for reincarnation, or even argues that it requires no argument, that any sensible person would take it for granted. Weird. At the same time, he comes off arrogantly scorning other kinds of mystical ideas.

So his argument for the endurance of the soul is essentially that when the difference between object and subject is removed, all there is left is the will, which has no such distinction. The will as the Thing In Itself. And then inevitably a new subject-object division occurs centered around the same sort of qualities. But what is it that harbors these qualities in the will?

The light the whiteness of which is not at all transparent.Later; think of any transparently possible color. White not within the range of transperen y( wittgenstein)

But more generally, the decline of the west was conceivable, albeit it by a movement away from the euro center.

Remember America vestpucci sought passage to India .

Wiki:But the breakthrough came on Vespucci’s second trip, when he realized he wasn’t looking at India at all but at an entirely new continent. He verified the fact by following the coast of South America down to within 400 miles of Tierra del Fuego.

So the schopenhaurian mysticism probably could be inferred from relative facts. The Vedas were like gnosticists to connect with. Eurocentrism such a heavy weighed down refutation at the time that the farthest reach of any possible allusion was quite an unimaginable stretc. So the Vedas gave it some romantic notionm

Goethe’s gnosticism is the missing link.*

*“Although Schopenhauer considered colour theory a minor matter, he accepted the invitation out of admiration for Goethe. Nevertheless, these investigations led him to his most important discovery in epistemology: finding a demonstration for the a priori nature of causality.”

_
As I read more, on individual philosophers’ thinking and reasoning, I have come to learn that a) most are from a religious background, and b) most have an interest in the mystic/occult.

Jung was an occultist… who knew? not I, until the other week. Occultism is simply ‘old/archaic knowledge’ that science tries to do away with and make obsolete, but the astute know that science alone is not the answer… science alone, is a recipe for death and disaster.

I did know about the Western-philosophers/Indic-religions connection… they both seem to stem from a common history/past… case in point: I traced my paternal grandmother’s Indic surname to a Germanic surname contained in Pliny’s Germania. ––Another thing they both have in common is the Bigfoot notion… a creature who suspiciously looks like a European great ape, who split from the human lineage about 14 million years ago, known as Dryopithecus Rudapithecus Hungaricus.

Where does Schopenhauer argue for reincarnation?

Schopenhauer does not come out and say it, that man comes back, as the Vedas would have it, he falls in line with more of a reactionary Christian romantic, who is searching for a gnosis, a back glance into a hidden reason.

He was not gnostic, but a resourceful paper coined him 'gnosis-like, and as such, he regarded the foundations of Christianity with suspicious modality of being of ‘evil intent’

As he relied categorically on Kant’s ontology, I feel, not really know, that his journey to the east smelled of a exasperation with older western traditional images which could support the coming techno-scientifically defined, post Enlightenment reality.

That his mysticism ssough an exit in a preferred phenomenologicalky reduced manner, I have no doubt, but again, I have not been able to find any example that treats reincarnation.

He is still in the redemptive mode of trating the body at par with the souk, to be able to transit to a more spirit oriented vire, which freely embraces different bodies worn through changing, karmic filled developing of pyre consciousness. I think he was keenly aware of the need to rescue Descart’s alienated souk from it’s self to fall into a solopsistic nightmare, abd cane to rely on Jabt as a means of support through the duplicity that came to represent modern structural hierarchy, based on an I’ll founded intent.

The East offers him a unitary way to get rid of the body, taking with the gnostic ‘evil’ that is could draw into the other’s orbit of power.

The early motifs were drawn up, but the rest is way beyond my scope, at the moment, especially as later aesthetic representations tried to nail down the spiritually contents of such pre figurations, namely with the Ring of Niebelung.

It’s early and hot here in Miami, just getting up for free breakfast included with the rent abd as the cloudy; dreamy mind is still under the cloud, attention veers toward concern with my partner, whom can not be neglected. Later return .

_
It seems that Schopenhauer believed that every living thing was possessed by a will and that will and suffering was universal, but he did not believe in a soul.

If a soul is a pre-requisite for reincarnation, then [by default] he did not believe in reincarnation.

The Indic religions [Buddhism, most Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, most Paganism] believe in reincarnation …tho some Hindu and Pagan groups only believe in an afterlife.

I, personally, can’t say I’ve ever believed in reincarnation, but in some sort of life (after death), so perhaps Schopenhauer might have believed in some sort of ‘life after death’ rather than the former.

It’s interesting how You reason from a personal belief to the belief of another , and that is reversely argued, compared to a textually reduced conclusion. It reminds of for a point of view which resurrects the cogito ergo sum, as if to bring back the idea that thinking ascertaines existence.

That is still my feeling nowedays, that hermetic reaffirmation into the idea that the soul is basically transpersonal .

Therefore concerns with where the soul goes is unnecessary .

Does that make sense? It can’t and the question is only apparently contradictory in pitting body against mind, and it is neither fallacious. Schopenhauer was on to this dilemma. and that is why partly that he was not the most agreeable fellow.

Thanks… there was a reason for it.

I thought better of it not to ask …

.

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.

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.

Be my guest…

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,.

No.

…and on second-thoughts, stop being my guest.
. . . .

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.