😅 yeah, who was the interviewer here? Bryan Magee is the one who is a lot closer to Schopenhauer's worldview, though, while Coppleston seems more of a medieval philosopher after Thomas Aquinas.
I do not quite understand how Schopenhauer passes from the proposition "My body is objectified Will", or "my body is the appearece of which Will is the reality" to the proposition "All objects in thr world (including inanimate objects) are objectified Will. It also is not clear to me how Schoenhauer arrives at the conclusion that whatever is not Representation must therefore be will only by identifying willing as the proper activity of the self.
Copleston was a major influence on me. I earned a philosophy degree in part thru his inspiration.
Excellent discussion, thanks for posting.
Despite stated intentions, a good bit of Bryan interviewing himself here. All interesting nonetheless.
😅 yeah, who was the interviewer here? Bryan Magee is the one who is a lot closer to Schopenhauer's worldview, though, while Coppleston seems more of a medieval philosopher after Thomas Aquinas.
Copleston was a genius. His history of philosophy is still the standard in English.
I’m amazed Schopenhauer could come up with something in his twenties and not deviate from it the rest of his life.
Did he do anything interesting ?
Copleston's thoughts on Aristotle are disappointing.
Compare them with Pierre Aubenque's to see the difference.
Can you give a brief insight into the differences?
I do not quite understand how Schopenhauer passes from the proposition "My body is objectified Will", or "my body is the appearece of which Will is the reality" to the proposition "All objects in thr world (including inanimate objects) are objectified Will. It also is not clear to me how Schoenhauer arrives at the conclusion that whatever is not Representation must therefore be will only by identifying willing as the proper activity of the self.
please provide document and page refs for the propostitions
A theist...there is no genius in wishful thinking