I had a philosophy class that ended on Schopenhauer. Most of my fellow students thought that it was bad to end on him because it seems like a downer, but not me. I experimented with the philosophy and watched my depression evaporate into nothing. I encourage others to study Schopenhauer, especially those that I know have had a hard life.
When reading Schopenhauer, I was in the beginning of my depression, it got worse, but I just could not stop reading it, because everything he says makes sense! Life is not pretty, we are constantly mislead by the media/Hollywood that everything has a happy ending... In several occasions I was surprised to find that I had come to the same conclusions that him. He is my favorite philosopher by far.
The God or the universe or whatever, will let us believe whatever we want to...and will give us the experiences we need to continue believing it... I highly recommend being an optimist...
@@jennifermcclean1308 optimism is toxic. Toxic optimism. No you CAN'T be "anything you want to be". That ridiculousness has led many to suicide/ ruin. there are limits to EVERYTHING.
Imagine if Schopenhauer were around now?! he would be hating on Hollywood, the materialism which is WAY worse than in his time.and I don't think he'd be too thrilled with women specifically western women.
The Academy of Ideas is just sheer joy.My two most persistent guides have been Schopenhaur and Gautama,and these ideas in combination with the impeccable choice of Art offers me reasonably long stretches of liberation.Thanks-I needed that!
My favorite synthesis of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche is Carl Jung. Jung's idea of shadow projection onto the "other" perfectly illuminates the inner origin of self vs. other antagonisms. As a projection of this shadow--this thing lurking in me that I prefer to see and condemn in you--onto an "other," who can then be safely and conveniently annihilated, or sacrificed, like any common scape goat, I find that my own personality undergoes an agonizing split. More than any other mundane suffering of mere frustration or dissatisfaction, this basic split induces an intense inner strife and a consequent desire to reintegrate the personality, to experience one's self in its full totality. But in this strife lies a paradox, for the cause is also its own effect: the anxiety of the conflict is the very impetus to projection of one's darkness onto the other, an unconscious strategy which never satiates but instead only maintains and amplifies the conflict. A feedback loop of suffering thus arises. To disrupt this cycle requires becoming conscious of our own undesirable traits, thereby withdrawing the projection of one's darkness from its object in the face of the other. Compassion can only take place in the absence of hypocrisy, which first requires knowledge of one's hypocrisy. There is no compassion in those who condemn in others that which they do themselves. Empathy, the feeling that we suffer together, is at the heart of compassion. Hence the old command to love one's enemy, for in doing so we recognize ourselves as capable of that which we despise. It is thus by reconciling ourselves to those we loathe that we find reconciliation with ourselves, and the source of self-loathing disappears. It's a rather simple task: take an honest inventory of those areas of your life in which you may be a hypocrite, expand your consciousness into that domain by vocalizing or confessing it (speech is a higher form of consciousness than mere recognition), and expand it further by patiently and persistently seeking to reconcile yourself to those whom you may have counted as enemies. Simple but not easy. If you ask who really wants to go to his enemy and in humility make that agonizing expression of his own faults, I can only answer, Those who seek the "peace that passeth all understanding." Thales, the great pre-socratic Greek philosopher, counted as first among the Seven Wise Men of the ancient world and remembered as the one who calculated the height of the pyramids by measuring their shadow at the same time that his shadow was equal to his own height, was once asked how to live a virtuous life. He had a very simple answer: by not doing ourselves what we blame in others. The wisdom of his answer becomes apparent when you remember that virtue for the ancients referred to a harmonious condition of the soul. That condition is the jewel awaiting those who make reconciliation the overriding passion of their lives. "I was commanded to love my enemy, and I obeyed, and began loving myself"
@@Ganesh-op6wc I think they meant that they are not great, but if they were given a list at the end of every video that they could reference they would become great. Since then, I imagine they found out that Academy of Ideas has a full blown website and that the names of the persons talked about can be put into a search engine. They are now great.
GeorgeK.Lichtenberg said once- Everyone is a genius at least once a year. The real geniuses simply have their bright ideas closer together. With Arthur Schopenhauer bright points go just one after another. Sence attached to each sentence of his writing. He is genius.
I was really big on Nietzsche, but now I'm convinced Schopenhauer is wiser. As a writer, cultural critic and psychologist, Nietzsche is sublime - but he is also very dangerous. His ego-driven philosophy strenghtens your will and thus your suffering in the long term. Schopenhauer's and Buddha's wisdom is the exact opposite of Nietzsche: it's ego-less. Only when a person aligns himself with the true reality of the world, that is when he realises he means nothing in a grand scheme of things (for his ego is an illusion), is he really free.
“Main thought! The individual himself is a fallacy. Everything which happens in us is in itself something else which we do not know. ‘The individual’ is merely a sum of conscious feelings and judgments and misconceptions, a belief, a piece of the true life system or many pieces thought together and spun together, a ‘unity’, that doesn’t hold together. We are buds on a single tree-what do we know about what can become of us from the interests of the tree! But we have a consciousness as though we would and should be everything, a phantasy of ‘I’ and all ‘not I.’ Stop feeling oneself as this phantastic ego! Learn gradually to discard the supposed individual! Discover the fallacies of the ego! Recognize egoism as fallacy! The opposite is not to be understood as altruism! This would be love of other supposed individuals! No! Get beyond ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’! Experience cosmically!” ― Nietzsche, Kritische Studienausgabe
Žan Hozjan Nietzsche thought suffering made us stronger, he didn't want to lessen our suffering but show us that we can use it to make us better humans.
Greg Perez-Greene the purpose of suffering is not to be "unhappy", but to learn from mistakes and proceed through life consciously. Being "unhappy" does not disqualify us in being better person.
Syriusz666 no, the purpose of suffering is not to be unhappy, but unhappiness is the result. Rather, suffering is unhappiness. Is it better to be a good person through suffering or a happy person?
Good ol' Schops with his stark perspectives and unflinching insight despite abject pessimism, first and favourite philosopher I have read, pretty much opened the door to the world of philosophy for me. I also like how he also went and foretold his own fame in his talks of posterity and whatnot. Similarly Nietzsche also did as well with his quote "Some men are born posthumously". As a long time lurker of this channel I felt compelled, by demons and the Will no doubt, to comment and say how great these fantastic videos of yours are! And I'm sure a lot of famous philosophers would approve of these videos too if they were alive today. Now to wait for a video hopefully on Camus.
@@robertsavigne7123 yeah you're right i guess that he wasn't the one who did so well at simplicity, think that's owed to the dude making this video. Like you say the human experience and aspects of life sort of stuff is what i like, i guess
"He is ready to annihilate the whole world, in order to maintain his own self, that drop in the ocean, a little longer." Most RUclips / Facebook arguments.
@@danieledemedici3217 if you did it correctly you would not be able to regret it, if you regret it it means you desired not to have done it and so, you became a victim to will. Therefore you never successfully abolished will.
Phibes Lives If you like Schopenhauer, i would recommend to you to read the works of contemporary, South African philosopher David Benatar of the University of Cape Town, particularly, his masterpiece "Better never to have been". Very much in the same vein as Schopenhauer, he tries to articulate logically the reasoning against bringing more life in to the world.
Omg that's beautiful, "genius is the intellect that has become unfaithful to it's destiny." Its a damn shame we aren't all geniuses even though given the human consciousness apparatus it seems denial of the will to live/truth seeking is it's sole design.
I don't know, but something about his view calms me. It is like, for at least once, someone is not trying to sell you an idea; only trying to describe things as best as he can.
A very good job explaining complex ideas in very simple terms to any interested beginner; however, to appreciate Schopenhauer must read him directly, Schopenhauer is 'un-summarize-able'. And even though he wrote about pessimism and human suffering, misery, etc... reading Schopenhauer, there is an underlying sense of humor, making fun & mocking the beliefs of the human animal in general... a burlesque attitude towards dogma, arrogance, superstition, and unfounded beliefs; no wonder he wasn't favored by establishment theoreticians, and was shunned for a long while... in essence he makes one question everything and think for oneself.
Schopenhauer is a God! The sooner you admit this, the better your life will be. Everybody who is "name-dropping" Nietzsche to appear smart at cocktail parties hasn't even heard of Schopenhauer yet!
Looks like mysticism is the next step for me. Since there is no fixing the world, and thus no point in striving, it seems that self-destruction is the best answer.
I like it that Schopenhauer allows his reasoning to take thinking beyond the traditional horizons and boundaries of philosophy, with his conception of mysticism. It indicates that the corpus of Schopenhauer might be something of a bridge between traditional philosophy and its internal resource, and what lies outwith the limits of that philosophy. I'm minded to qualify Schopenhauer's thinking with a more positive view of what he rather dismisses as enslaved to will. Using Nietzsche's idea of thinking that is merely life-enhancing; while viewing such enhancing as legitimate in its own terms.
Suicide is the ultimate rebellion against the will to live, thus also suffering. To eradicate life (at least human life), will be therefore (according to Shoupenhauer) be the most honorable action, to end suffering as we know it. Or as he ended his philosophy, in a more humble and positive manner.
Excellent videos, I find Shopenhauer's work no more than brilliant and wise nonsense.. In many regards we are still at ground 0 in understanding the complex reality that we living humans are surrounded. But we need people like him to lay the ground for the future
To sum it up, winning the lottery will not silence the will and the suffering, our anticipation of future pleasure powerfully focus us into an fantasy/illusion detached from reality
Note Schopenhauer's focus on contemplation of beauty as an individual's highest activity with Plato's ultimate striving of eros toward the form of the beautiful itself.
that depends on how you see it. I am happy chasing it, tryng to supass myself as a proof f my superiority. I know it means nothing but if i can be happy ike that and it is useful in some way then ill take it. It's like an endless game in which you have only one life and need to get the highest score posible before dying.
Happiness is impossible because happiness is the absent of happiness since there is no happiness higher than rest. Break the flower tipped arrows of Mara and death will never touch me again. Painful is birth; Painful is death; Painful is birth and death over and over again. He who crosses over to the other shore becomes arhat; Other people run up and down on this shore from death to death.
I can't help but to think the views of most philosophers are net to being intelligent and reasonable, also strongly driven by their personalities and almost by default a personal view, next to a rational analysis. This is one of the many things that makes philosophy also an art. Deeply personal views on reality.
Has anyone had success with silencing their will? I’ve only been capable of harmonizing my wills (more or less). Recently, I’ve been viewing the “silencing” of the will as self-negating.
Arthur Schopenhauer speaks like this: What can a poor man give ? 1. Wisdom 2. Compassion because Compassion is das basis of morality. That is de essence of my ethics.
Buddha called it...the healthy middle ground (Middle Way) between asceticism and hedonism is moderation. Herein lies the function of boredom...it's a rest, a pause, to clear space for new curiosities and creation. To master this dance is called enlightenment.
So how about we actually start putting Schopenhauer's ideas into practice as a society? First of all, let's ban advertising. Let's put in some strict rules regarding procreation and try to reduce the population to a manageable number. Less people means less wars, less suffering, less poverty. And lastly, let's try to slowly modify the biosphere so that it only includes plants, herbivores, bacteria and insects. Let's steer nature away from being a carnivorous bloodbath. Who's with me?
Didn't you read the part about the impossibility of alleviating suffering? It's an impossibility so long as the will dictates one's destiny. Is not your will behind this form of totalitarianism?
Although I'm a big fan of Schope and find large aspects of his philosophy incredibly insightful, I like many other fans find the pessimistic sides of his philosophy experientially fallible and somewhat biased. I also never liked that he didn't practice the ascetic life he preached of as the only way of escaping the will, but all n all schope is the man
Because anyone who has experienced long term contentment, or even those who see the silver lining in everything and are perfectly happy with existence no matter what comes their way (we all know ppl like this) can testify that his views on existence, tho insightful, are over-generalized and obviously coming from a pessimistic man who failed to see the beauty of transitory existence. The old saying "life isn't the destination, it's the journey" would somewut ameliorate Schope's philosophy, saying in essence that cyclical striving is what it's all about. I enjoy striving for goals whether or not they are accomplished, and always setting newer, higher ones. Nietzsche in my opinion would agree
Thanks for these on Schopenhauer. Very clearly presented for the depth of his wisdom - which points to that of Buddha actually. Of course it is Kant who got this going for him too - and not to mention all the saints and wise ones for thousands of years before who saw this in their own cultural ways. It is understandable how many will think that it is so unforgivably 'pessimistic' when they have no idea of Eastern thought, and especially Buddhism, where this is addressed clearly and directly as 'Dukkha' or unavoidable unsatisfactoriness until awakening. Certainly not the first time that Westerner's have accused this way of understanding as death embracing, nihilistic and so on. He might have used some qualifiers and yet he gets the point across in a way that cannot be ignored. Westerner's are utterly materialistic and so will suffer for it unavoidably until their religion, Scientism, eases off the one miracle it avows. Anyway...well done here.
+Lloyd Brown I am copy pasting a rather long series of questions/one main question as I am at an impasse of sorts. I inducted that you may be more familiar with mysticism or eastern philosophy and would invite you to answer from that perspective if it is one you like. Here is the copy/paste, thank you for your time: Thought I'd get your thoughts on something, i'm going to ask another poster as well. I would ask for a non-troll genuine answer if able as I am at a pivotal mindset and at the end [hopefully] of a decade long drug addiction used to remedy a depression and existential agony that just appeared within me around puberty. I arrived to a similar conclusion as Schopenhauer but instead through skepticism, mostly epistemological skepticism. Over fifteen to twenty years I sought and took in information and data and went from the christian by enculturation at twelve to the buddhist at fifteen, taoist next, amalgamation of eastern philosophies at twenty but found these to heavily focused on faith. After studying anthrolopology in college [and philosophy independently] I discovered david hume. Through skepticism one can follow the rabbit hole to a negative knowledge as spoken in the quote at the end. If schopenhauer is correct, and the buddhist and taoist for that matter, what would the purpose be to being empty? If said emptiness is the truest result of a happy or complete human being, why would one remain alive once that state is reached? Wouldn't the lack of the will to live be most expressed in suicide? Additionally, if the emptiness is a state that can be intellectually known and understood and it having no purpose but existence [[same as one with the will]] but devoid of the misery [and exuberance] of life, would that life then exist not to exist? Wouldn't that be wasteful? As opposed to say, one will retains but perhaps attempts to retrain and control their will, for the purpose of experience and interchanging experience of reality shared when emotions and wills enact upon the purposeless individual which by sharing their wills actually finds purpose within rather than without? Apologies if i am not stating this very well, I picture Captain Kirk from Star Trek when spock's brother preaches a similar end to egoism and kirk replies "I NEED MY PAIN". If we are to be empty one way or the other, doesn't it help create our own meaning, existentially, to allow ourselves these feelings and experiences as an answer and retort to the abomination of the will? If not, what reason do we have not just commit suicide as a one last ditch effort to take free will by the reins and truly make a choice with consequences? I know thats a bit much and leaves out other parts of my thinking. I used to want to be enlightened...but now I don't think so, what's the point to being enlightened if it essentially disconnects one's individuality to the point that there is no reason to act upon the world and if there is no reason to act upon the world what reason is there to be alive at all? sorry again, i'm in a right state I guess. I came to you first because I understand the previous comment as being one devoid of critical thinking/ reasoning [not an insult to you sir or madame if you read this, just stating facts as can best be described] but you were very resounding in your backlack, probably for emphasis' sake. I would ask, if you are up to it, to help me out of the programming of errors. I am wrong, tell me please, and tell me why so I may fix it. The objectivity of skepticism becomes lost in the lonliness of the subjective mind's cell, as if seeing all of the universe is contracted into a paralysis to have part of life within it. Thanks you for your time, all peace always amig@ [this will be copy pasted to a few others in hopes at better achieving something out of the discussion by increasing odds by increasing output]
The will as explained by schoppenhauer is what Nisargadatta calls ' beingness' or Iamness '. Although schoppenhauer never believed that humanity cannot be saved from this vicious will permanently , Maharaj and other jnanis liberated themselves from this and reached a state from which world is seen as sat - chit - ananda.If schoppenhauer could somehow knew the permanent way out , it would have changed his pessimistic outlook towards existence.
If you watched this and do resolve to liberate yourself from the will, do not ignore the last things that were mentioned! Understand that Schopenhauer's works are actually a limited echo of the much more full and complete Buddhist doctrine. As hinted in this video, philosophy can only carry this pursuit so far and, from then on, the true path is one of ancient dogma and tradition. Get into reading the Pali Canon and get into practice. Do not be so quick to brush off the more supernatural teachings of kamma (karma), samsara or rebirth as though it is merely superstitious nonsense of the times. You'll actually find them to be missing pieces in Schopenhauer's puzzle. Also, do not let despair consume you
Can anyone help me out? I often trip myself with such philosophical thoughts, but later doubt myself whether I'm right in my thoughts or that such philosophical reasonings are meaningless.
@@patricvlobo7503 All philosophy and "theories" are expressions of dualistic and discursive thinking. All dualistic thinking is relative and NOT "ultimate truth". "Ultimate truth" can only be found "beyond" discursive thought, ie, transcending dualism of "this and that". Anything that relates to dualistic thinking is only "true" insofar as it is "useful" in that domain. But usefulness is not an ultimate truth; at most, it can only be a relative truth or "phenomenal" truth. You can't arrive at ultimate truth by thinking or through your sense experience. You must do what the buddhists/mystics do: meditate. Experience the "reality" before dualism arises. What is THAT?
Simply amazing, this described the past three years of my life perfectly. I would be considered a genius by Schopenhauer and then I became compassionate towards everyone because I knew we were essentially the same and then realized that it is simply pointless because of the underlying system of the universe which led me to become a Will-Denier. The only differences were the names I assigned to these things...
The coolest thing I always find myself going back to in philosophy is the idea or paradox of self reference. None of us would know anything about ourselves if it were not for others. And they wouldn't know anything if it wasn't for you. It always seems we are begging our own questions in a way. Like we 'know' the answers but can't express them in actuality because they are only understood relatively. The question always seems to be, "did you tell me the answer or did i come up with(understood) it after you told me?"
So was the ending a revelation to religious people/ordinary people to move into the pursuit of knowledge and self improvement through mysticism and philosophy if they rejected the idea of asceticism and all it entails. But would the individual be fully met and charismatic with life at that point or fall into a sense of depravity after seeing all and hearing all, wouldn't the will thats inempt in all arise again. Strange to hear that sort of conclusion from an atheist who said that even God would be stuck in this constant war against suffering with the Demonic tendancies(will of the world). Damn i need to read some of his books to get a full understanding am lost
Was Schopenhauer getting that egoism from Stirner, or was that a commonly used word at that time? I thought Stirner was the first person to use the term like that.
I find Schopenhauer's philosophy very angering, especially how it demonizes the will. I personally feel that it is one's own perspective of will which may or may not perpetuate suffering. If one embraces not only the pleasures of life but also its pains, and one accepts their will and the will of all others with delight and not with disdain, then one can be relatively free of suffering in the long-term and rejoice in life and striving, regardless of pain or pleasure.
Well, this is just an idea, but it may have something to do with how a person handles pain. When any average person feels pain of any kind (physical, emotional, etc.) the natural reaction is to retract from that pain because we seem to naturally seek out things that are 'pleasurable,' or at least, we avoid things that are harmful to us (an example of the Will at work). If a person were to train themselves to find pleasure in pain and not retract from it (in not necessarily a sadomasochistic way lol) they wouldn't feel the need to avoid pain or seek pleasure since they'd find pleasure in all things and thus find pleasure in the Will since the Will is considered the thing which manifests all pain, suffering and conflict. I feel that Arthur Schopenhauer demonizes the Will because, from the very beginning, he establishes that 'life is suffering' and it is because of his already inherently pessimistic views that he would inevitably come to the conclusion that the Will is something demonic. He could have come to a different conclusion if he had a different perspective to start out with.
I understand Schopenhauer's idea of will as the biological urge of (human) beings to survive, fulfilling basic needs, both "animal" (food, mating, shelter) and "human" (getting rid of boredom, reach goals, etc). So in order to do something of greater importance, we must go beyond the will, and act not just for the sake of our human desires (wellbeing money, sex, fame, etc), but for a greater goal.
Chris Solomon I agree, and would like to add that The Will is not just working on fulfilling material desires, but it also is the very power behind human spiritual evolution. That same Will is also having Schopenhauer write philosophy. The Will is not the problem, it is the transmutation of it to higher realms of being in our own life her in this world. The same energy for sex can be transmuted into philosophy art and spiritual practice. The Will is energy. It is how we make use of it in our life that decides if we end up chasing after a heroin fix... or spiritual bliss.
fineartist Exactly! I've also been doing quite a bit of reading on the philosophy of aesthetics, namely from Schopenhauer's, Nietzsche's and even Kant's ideas on aesthetic experience, and so to expand further on what you said, I really do think that art, music, philosophy and literature can help us transcend suffering. These things don't "negate" the will, but are accomplished *through* willing. As Nietzsche said, "It is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified," meaning that the arts are really what give life meaning, what give our lives direction and what makes sense out of the senselessness of suffering. To direct one's Will toward these things is to unlock hidden potential - the potential to rise out of the pitfalls of the human condition.
+Chris Solomon I think you are right. I've always wanted to cheat life and avoid its pains and only rejoice in its pleasures, only to find that this leads to more suffering on the whole, that is to say to get more pleasure out of life one must embrace its pains too (but no more than it is necessary). In a way, I see my past thinking as testing the limits of how much pain one may avoid before it (avoidance/lack of pain) gets in the way of further pleasure--a task of maximization. This is why, I realized, most people who are happy happen to be those who do not shun pain as much, while those who do avoid it almost completely are often unhappy. So allowing some pain to penetrate your life is an ingredient for happiness.
one thing. I do not think all animals are stuck in the present. possibly no animals. I would suppose they all have some capacity of memory. to which extent i don’t know.
The conscience within a so called animal, is beyond the masses capability to simply be in service to the ineffable. One can reach out as the right hand, yet the CONsumers comforts CONsumption has the taking the left path.
I feel like Schopenhauer is the definition of taking the red pill. It’s seeing things for what they are , or in seeing the bigger picture for as far as one can see. I don’t feel goals are bad, but you Can fool yourself by being a slave to your goals. I feel comfort in knowing that everyone is suffering. But you suffer much more by clinging to life and not being able to be indifferent to it.
I wonder if the will has in mind "propagation," or just the *practice* of propagation. Or perhaps from the perspective of the gonads the distinction is immaterial.
It requires a lot of will to destroy your will... and in the end, the desire to rid yourself of this will, is no different from any other desires. The end goal of this desire is also no different, to perceive the world as 'nothing', to be free from 'will' is the same as the concept of heaven, escape from suffering. The core motivation to rid yourself of desire or 'will' is the same as to getting a diploma or a dream job or something like that. For theese you also have to deny conflicting desires, and to rid yourself of desire itself is just a more extreme form of it. In conclusion, the desire to rid yourself of diseres is the biggest, the purest manifestation of desire and for this reason the most extreme form of 'will' - the whole thing you were trying to run away from. I am not a competent person, the only dirrect ideas of Schopenhauer I consumed were from this video and the other one, so thats just my two cents, if you know why I am wrong, please tell. and sorry for bad english, not a native language of mine.
@@sunilrampuria7906 Does it realy matter what part of you 'will' originates from if the problem and the goal and the will it self is the same for both? are not both the instincts and the deeper thoughts and reflections are part of you?
-What is the will trying to do with things that aren't orgainc and alive? how do they "strive" ?? -Why do some things/animals..etc are affected by the will more or less than another? -How can we say that the will tries to assure something (a drive behind the world) and that it's not just a rule (how we view physics) and yet it's not something that's conciously driving the world, if it's concious it wouldn't be conflicting itself right? -He considers that organic and inorganic things aren't different, but then for example why is the will of an animal separate from (might go against) the will of another animal, we're all atoms going about. why is this animal an entity different from the other?
I think your last question holds the answers to all the other questions. So from last to first these are my views: -The will of one animal is NOT separate from the will of another. This idea of separation exists only in the phenomenal world, that which we perceive in terms of space,time and causality. Beyond these, in the realm of things in themselves, there is only Will. So, for Schopenhauer the Will that is inside you or a single atom is the same Will that is inside Mt.Everest or some insignificant fallen leaf(hence it is always Will and not will) .. It is all the same thing manifested in different ways. It is all ONE as the video says. - And since it has nothing else to go against, all that it does is feed upon itself and propagate further.. which is exactly 'striving','urging' or the desire for more.. a mad drive to just exist...In that sense, it can very well be called a rule or the essence of everything or the kernel of life. - I do not have a clear answer to why some manifestations of Will are higher and others lower. Maybe, this hierarchy is a model that Will manifested just as it created all other things in the phenomenal world to propagate itself. The whole 'system' is just its way/method of reproducing and keep on living. - The inorganic Mt.Everest or the fallen leaf is just as important to keep this system intact and running. This divide of non-living and living is to the intellect alone. The world (and the entire universe,if you will) in its totality is still a LIVING entity even if all that's left of it is a little plant that can reproduce. The inorganic parts of the universe are supporting this life and hence can be all be viewed as Will. note : None of my views are absolute. I haven't even read much of Schopenhauer. But I think I understand the basic idea of it very well.
I had a philosophy class that ended on Schopenhauer. Most of my fellow students thought that it was bad to end on him because it seems like a downer, but not me. I experimented with the philosophy and watched my depression evaporate into nothing. I encourage others to study Schopenhauer, especially those that I know have had a hard life.
I completely agree. He’s frowned upon and seen as a downer but since reading and analyzing his work my depression has slowly faded away.
When reading Schopenhauer, I was in the beginning of my depression, it got worse, but I just could not stop reading it, because everything he says makes sense!
Life is not pretty, we are constantly mislead by the media/Hollywood that everything has a happy ending...
In several occasions I was surprised to find that I had come to the same conclusions that him.
He is my favorite philosopher by far.
paulohyp resonates with me. Good luck to you and cheers!
The God or the universe or whatever, will let us believe whatever we want to...and will give us the experiences we need to continue believing it... I highly recommend being an optimist...
@@jennifermcclean1308 optimism is toxic. Toxic optimism. No you CAN'T be "anything you want to be". That ridiculousness has led many to suicide/ ruin.
there are limits to EVERYTHING.
@@johnhalder6599 The real trick is maintaining both ideas at the same time..
Imagine if Schopenhauer were around now?! he would be hating on Hollywood, the materialism which is WAY worse than in his time.and I don't think he'd be too thrilled with women specifically western women.
The Academy of Ideas is just sheer joy.My two most persistent guides have been Schopenhaur and Gautama,and these ideas in combination with the impeccable choice of Art offers me reasonably long stretches of liberation.Thanks-I needed that!
Much of Schopenhauer's thinking seems to resonate with the 4 noble truths of Buddhism. That desire is the beginning of suffering.
Totally agree bro
It is, Schopenhauer thought is influenced by buddhism
Schopenhauer clearly attempted nofap
Suffering is perhaps underrated. It is different from boredom.
@@lukehunnable He was ascetic so I bet he did.
My favorite synthesis of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche is Carl Jung. Jung's idea of shadow projection onto the "other" perfectly illuminates the inner origin of self vs. other antagonisms. As a projection of this shadow--this thing lurking in me that I prefer to see and condemn in you--onto an "other," who can then be safely and conveniently annihilated, or sacrificed, like any common scape goat, I find that my own personality undergoes an agonizing split. More than any other mundane suffering of mere frustration or dissatisfaction, this basic split induces an intense inner strife and a consequent desire to reintegrate the personality, to experience one's self in its full totality. But in this strife lies a paradox, for the cause is also its own effect: the anxiety of the conflict is the very impetus to projection of one's darkness onto the other, an unconscious strategy which never satiates but instead only maintains and amplifies the conflict. A feedback loop of suffering thus arises. To disrupt this cycle requires becoming conscious of our own undesirable traits, thereby withdrawing the projection of one's darkness from its object in the face of the other. Compassion can only take place in the absence of hypocrisy, which first requires knowledge of one's hypocrisy. There is no compassion in those who condemn in others that which they do themselves. Empathy, the feeling that we suffer together, is at the heart of compassion. Hence the old command to love one's enemy, for in doing so we recognize ourselves as capable of that which we despise. It is thus by reconciling ourselves to those we loathe that we find reconciliation with ourselves, and the source of self-loathing disappears. It's a rather simple task: take an honest inventory of those areas of your life in which you may be a hypocrite, expand your consciousness into that domain by vocalizing or confessing it (speech is a higher form of consciousness than mere recognition), and expand it further by patiently and persistently seeking to reconcile yourself to those whom you may have counted as enemies. Simple but not easy. If you ask who really wants to go to his enemy and in humility make that agonizing expression of his own faults, I can only answer, Those who seek the "peace that passeth all understanding."
Thales, the great pre-socratic Greek philosopher, counted as first among the Seven Wise Men of the ancient world and remembered as the one who calculated the height of the pyramids by measuring their shadow at the same time that his shadow was equal to his own height, was once asked how to live a virtuous life. He had a very simple answer: by not doing ourselves what we blame in others. The wisdom of his answer becomes apparent when you remember that virtue for the ancients referred to a harmonious condition of the soul. That condition is the jewel awaiting those who make reconciliation the overriding passion of their lives.
"I was commanded to love my enemy, and I obeyed, and began loving myself"
Pure gold
wow
man!!!!! Any Additional Readings you recommend?
I would be great if you gave a reading list at the end of every video. A sort of springboard for further inquiry
*It
*dick.
cocke and balles.
@@Ganesh-op6wc I think they meant that they are not great, but if they were given a list at the end of every video that they could reference they would become great.
Since then, I imagine they found out that Academy of Ideas has a full blown website and that the names of the persons talked about can be put into a search engine.
They are now great.
GeorgeK.Lichtenberg said once- Everyone is a genius at least once a year. The real geniuses simply have their bright ideas closer together. With Arthur Schopenhauer bright points go just one after another. Sence attached to each sentence of his writing. He is genius.
@Ed M Good practical question. Maybe the answer is extensive peer review. Not prefect, but close.
I was really big on Nietzsche, but now I'm convinced Schopenhauer is wiser. As a writer, cultural critic and psychologist, Nietzsche is sublime - but he is also very dangerous. His ego-driven philosophy strenghtens your will and thus your suffering in the long term.
Schopenhauer's and Buddha's wisdom is the exact opposite of Nietzsche: it's ego-less. Only when a person aligns himself with the true reality of the world, that is when he realises he means nothing in a grand scheme of things (for his ego is an illusion), is he really free.
“Main thought! The individual himself is a fallacy. Everything which happens in us is in itself something else which we do not know. ‘The individual’ is merely a sum of conscious feelings and judgments and misconceptions, a belief, a piece of the true life system or many pieces thought together and spun together, a ‘unity’, that doesn’t hold together. We are buds on a single tree-what do we know about what can become of us from the interests of the tree! But we have a consciousness as though we would and should be everything, a phantasy of ‘I’ and all ‘not I.’ Stop feeling oneself as this phantastic ego! Learn gradually to discard the supposed individual! Discover the fallacies of the ego! Recognize egoism as fallacy! The opposite is not to be understood as altruism! This would be love of other supposed individuals! No! Get beyond ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’! Experience cosmically!”
― Nietzsche, Kritische Studienausgabe
Žan Hozjan Nietzsche thought suffering made us stronger, he didn't want to lessen our suffering but show us that we can use it to make us better humans.
Dalton Daugherty what is the purpose in being a "better human" if we are more unhappy?
Greg Perez-Greene the purpose of suffering is not to be "unhappy", but to learn from mistakes and proceed through life consciously. Being "unhappy" does not disqualify us in being better person.
Syriusz666 no, the purpose of suffering is not to be unhappy, but unhappiness is the result. Rather, suffering is unhappiness. Is it better to be a good person through suffering or a happy person?
Good ol' Schops with his stark perspectives and unflinching insight despite abject pessimism, first and favourite philosopher I have read, pretty much opened the door to the world of philosophy for me.
I also like how he also went and foretold his own fame in his talks of posterity and whatnot.
Similarly Nietzsche also did as well with his quote "Some men are born posthumously".
As a long time lurker of this channel I felt compelled, by demons and the Will no doubt, to comment and say how great these fantastic videos of yours are! And I'm sure a lot of famous philosophers would approve of these videos too if they were alive today.
Now to wait for a video hopefully on Camus.
Schopenhauer is officially the king of philosophers.
*cough* Hegel *cough*
(But let's be honest, they're both important)
@@nightmare_automata I get why you say hegel because he is very grand, but i love schopey's simplicity and penetrating insights
@@BanterrClaus I wouldn’t say simplicity but I do love his perspective on the aspects of life, the human experience and ethics
@@robertsavigne7123 yeah you're right i guess that he wasn't the one who did so well at simplicity, think that's owed to the dude making this video. Like you say the human experience and aspects of life sort of stuff is what i like, i guess
I agree. This is because he has the rare honesty and humility to acknowledge and laud his predecessors (whom the world continues to marginalise.)
These videos are excellent! I really feel like my brain is getting a good workout. Feels good! Thanks.
coldaziceee I appreciate the comment!
+coldaziceee Try... Math.
cant stand math...
"He is ready to annihilate the whole world, in order to maintain his own self, that drop in the ocean, a little longer."
Most RUclips / Facebook arguments.
Reminds me of Hume's older line 'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.'
You Kant handle the truth ,sorry ,had to say it.
Doing great, speaking the points . . . A lot of info in a few words . . . a king of teaching
My mind: time to deny the will.
My body: 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Don't do it. You will regret it, like I did.
@@danieledemedici3217 Can you elaborate ?
@@danieledemedici3217 if you did it correctly you would not be able to regret it, if you regret it it means you desired not to have done it and so, you became a victim to will. Therefore you never successfully abolished will.
“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone," - Blaise pascal.
@Said Eli I concur
Schopenhauer is my favorite philosopher, and the one I relate to the closest.
Phibes Lives If you like Schopenhauer, i would recommend to you to read the works of contemporary, South African philosopher David Benatar of the University of Cape Town, particularly, his masterpiece "Better never to have been". Very much in the same vein as Schopenhauer, he tries to articulate logically the reasoning against bringing more life in to the world.
@@javierfernandez1126 Better to never have been is my conviction as well.
This was one of the best, most easily understandable summaries I have ever heard. Well done!
Omg that's beautiful, "genius is the intellect that has become unfaithful to it's destiny." Its a damn shame we aren't all geniuses even though given the human consciousness apparatus it seems denial of the will to live/truth seeking is it's sole design.
Thank you your RUclips channel and discussion of different philosophers I find to be the most helpful.
Reading Schopenhauer felt like reading an expanded and enhanced version of Ecclesiastes, and like looking in a mirror.
I don't know, but something about his view calms me. It is like, for at least once, someone is not trying to sell you an idea; only trying to describe things as best as he can.
Literally buddhism minus the reincarnation
Excellent summary of this great philosopher. ..keep up the good work.
Pessimistic?? I think not. It is the truth - simple and pure.
"Is not pessimism, is realism"
The truth according to whom? I don’t think a philosophy is “true”
The fact that you call it true shows you are a moron!
@@JJ-rr7pc why? Seems reasonable
martina k Because he incorrectly states a priori
A very good job explaining complex ideas in very simple terms to any interested beginner; however, to appreciate Schopenhauer must read him directly, Schopenhauer is 'un-summarize-able'. And even though he wrote about pessimism and human suffering, misery, etc... reading Schopenhauer, there is an underlying sense of humor, making fun & mocking the beliefs of the human animal in general... a burlesque attitude towards dogma, arrogance, superstition, and unfounded beliefs; no wonder he wasn't favored by establishment theoreticians, and was shunned for a long while... in essence he makes one question everything and think for oneself.
Thank you for putting out brain food for society! This is awesome!
If I may recommend doing a video about a philosophy that I have not yet seen on this channel, it would be that of Protagoras and Relativism.
Top class presentstion...
Best video ever, thank you so much!
Schopenhauer is a God! The sooner you admit this, the better your life will be. Everybody who is "name-dropping" Nietzsche to appear smart at cocktail parties hasn't even heard of Schopenhauer yet!
Schopenhauer layin it down!!
+Broccoli Kant and Shope be kickin' ass; Ima go over to their house an' smoke some broccoli!
Looks like mysticism is the next step for me. Since there is no fixing the world, and thus no point in striving, it seems that self-destruction is the best answer.
I love your channel. You do great work.
I love you mr.arthur schopenhauer.
This video deserves more attention!
Very nice presentation. His views rather conflicting with my own. Enlightening! Thank you
Yes! Shopenhauer is the Real guru.
I guess my monkey brain couldn’t handle that last quote but the rest of this seemed simple enough and honestly not as intense as I expected. I like it
The connection to theravada Buddhism is acknowledgeable, I wonder if Schopenhour was exposed to Buddhist philosophy
Chris Shuttleworth He was; it's said he kept a bust of both Kant and the Buddha in his office.
yes he was. Maybe the first western philosopher to explore Buddhism and Hinduism
Spirituality is the way to go
"Genuis is an intellect that has become unfaithful to its destiny"
Evolutionary Psychology anyone?
Wow. Thanks so much for these videos.
Thanks a lot. That was very informative on the basics of Shopenhauer's ethics!
Brilliant presentation!
Very very well done video as always
I like it that Schopenhauer allows his reasoning to take thinking beyond the traditional horizons and boundaries of philosophy, with his conception of mysticism. It indicates that the corpus of Schopenhauer might be something of a bridge between traditional philosophy and its internal resource, and what lies outwith the limits of that philosophy.
I'm minded to qualify Schopenhauer's thinking with a more positive view of what he rather dismisses as enslaved to will. Using Nietzsche's idea of thinking that is merely life-enhancing; while viewing such enhancing as legitimate in its own terms.
Suicide is the ultimate rebellion against the will to live, thus also suffering. To eradicate life (at least human life), will be therefore (according to Shoupenhauer) be the most honorable action, to end suffering as we know it.
Or as he ended his philosophy, in a more humble and positive manner.
Nice.........Please,keep up the good work!
Excellent.
Can you good sir please tell me which books you used as a source for making lecture about Schopenhauer?Thank you for your good work
the beauty of existence, which mysticism is the petals, science is the stem, the mind is the seed and the roots are the heart.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 15:11
quite eye-opening.
Excellent videos, I find Shopenhauer's work no more than brilliant and wise nonsense.. In many regards we are still at ground 0 in understanding the complex reality that we living humans are surrounded. But we need people like him to lay the ground for the future
To sum it up, winning the lottery will not silence the will and the suffering, our anticipation of future pleasure powerfully focus us into an fantasy/illusion detached from reality
Note Schopenhauer's focus on contemplation of beauty as an individual's highest activity with Plato's ultimate striving of eros toward the form of the beautiful itself.
Pessimistic but realistic...
This is so true. We are all delusional... Happiness will never come no matter what you do or obtain...
that depends on how you see it. I am happy chasing it, tryng to supass myself as a proof f my superiority. I know it means nothing but if i can be happy ike that and it is useful in some way then ill take it. It's like an endless game in which you have only one life and need to get the highest score posible before dying.
Laharl Krichevskoy OK Nietzsche
Laharl Krichevskoy
Are the Obermensch?
Happiness is a temporary state of mind, and easily explained in biology. Finding meaning in life is the way, not happiness.
Depressingly true.
Very good! :)
Happiness is impossible because happiness is the absent of happiness since there is no happiness higher than rest.
Break the flower tipped arrows of Mara and death will never touch me again.
Painful is birth;
Painful is death;
Painful is birth and death over and over again.
He who crosses over to the other shore becomes arhat;
Other people run up and down on this shore from death to death.
I can't help but to think the views of most philosophers are net to being intelligent and reasonable, also strongly driven by their personalities and almost by default a personal view, next to a rational analysis. This is one of the many things that makes philosophy also an art. Deeply personal views on reality.
Please create philosophical videos on 'Eastern philosophy '(Vedanta,Buddhism etc).
Whoa good one- he dropped the mic 😳
Mind blown!!
Has anyone had success with silencing their will? I’ve only been capable of harmonizing my wills (more or less). Recently, I’ve been viewing the “silencing” of the will as self-negating.
That's what it all leads to.. salvation of mind, and transcendence of self
Arthur Schopenhauer speaks like this:
What can a poor man give ?
1. Wisdom
2. Compassion because
Compassion is das basis of morality.
That is de essence of my ethics.
great vid
Brilliant.
Buddha called it...the healthy middle ground (Middle Way) between asceticism and hedonism is moderation. Herein lies the function of boredom...it's a rest, a pause, to clear space for new curiosities and creation. To master this dance is called enlightenment.
The only critic i could do to this video is that it needs the exact referencesof the quotes. That would be helpful.
Thank you.
Old video i know, but did anyone else start laughing at around the 5:30 mark?
Why not publish transcripts of all the videos? they are perfect
So how about we actually start putting Schopenhauer's ideas into practice as a society? First of all, let's ban advertising. Let's put in some strict rules regarding procreation and try to reduce the population to a manageable number. Less people means less wars, less suffering, less poverty. And lastly, let's try to slowly modify the biosphere so that it only includes plants, herbivores, bacteria and insects. Let's steer nature away from being a carnivorous bloodbath. Who's with me?
me
Anti Natalism
Didn't you read the part about the impossibility of alleviating suffering? It's an impossibility so long as the will dictates one's destiny. Is not your will behind this form of totalitarianism?
Although I'm a big fan of Schope and find large aspects of his philosophy incredibly insightful, I like many other fans find the pessimistic sides of his philosophy experientially fallible and somewhat biased. I also never liked that he didn't practice the ascetic life he preached of as the only way of escaping the will, but all n all schope is the man
"pessimistic sides of his philosophy experientially fallible and somewhat biased"
why do you/them think they are experimentally fallible and biased?
Because anyone who has experienced long term contentment, or even those who see the silver lining in everything and are perfectly happy with existence no matter what comes their way (we all know ppl like this) can testify that his views on existence, tho insightful, are over-generalized and obviously coming from a pessimistic man who failed to see the beauty of transitory existence. The old saying "life isn't the destination, it's the journey" would somewut ameliorate Schope's philosophy, saying in essence that cyclical striving is what it's all about. I enjoy striving for goals whether or not they are accomplished, and always setting newer, higher ones. Nietzsche in my opinion would agree
Thanks for these on Schopenhauer. Very clearly presented for the depth of his wisdom - which points to that of Buddha actually. Of course it is Kant who got this going for him too - and not to mention all the saints and wise ones for thousands of years before who saw this in their own cultural ways. It is understandable how many will think that it is so unforgivably 'pessimistic' when they have no idea of Eastern thought, and especially Buddhism, where this is addressed clearly and directly as 'Dukkha' or unavoidable unsatisfactoriness until awakening. Certainly not the first time that Westerner's have accused this way of understanding as death embracing, nihilistic and so on. He might have used some qualifiers and yet he gets the point across in a way that cannot be ignored. Westerner's are utterly materialistic and so will suffer for it unavoidably until their religion, Scientism, eases off the one miracle it avows. Anyway...well done here.
+Lloyd Brown I am copy pasting a rather long series of questions/one main question as I am at an impasse of sorts. I inducted that you may be more familiar with mysticism or eastern philosophy and would invite you to answer from that perspective if it is one you like. Here is the copy/paste, thank you for your time:
Thought I'd get your thoughts on something, i'm going to ask another
poster as well. I would ask for a non-troll genuine answer if able as I
am at a pivotal mindset and at the end [hopefully] of a decade long drug
addiction used to remedy a depression and existential agony that just
appeared within me around puberty. I arrived to a similar conclusion as
Schopenhauer but instead through skepticism, mostly epistemological
skepticism. Over fifteen to twenty years I sought and took in
information and data and went from the christian by enculturation at
twelve to the buddhist at fifteen, taoist next, amalgamation of eastern
philosophies at twenty but found these to heavily focused on faith.
After studying anthrolopology in college [and philosophy independently] I
discovered david hume. Through skepticism one can follow the rabbit
hole to a negative knowledge as spoken in the quote at the end. If
schopenhauer is correct, and the buddhist and taoist for that matter,
what would the purpose be to being empty? If said emptiness is the
truest result of a happy or complete human being, why would one remain
alive once that state is reached? Wouldn't the lack of the will to live
be most expressed in suicide?
Additionally, if the emptiness is a state that can be intellectually known and understood and it having no purpose but existence [[same as one with the will]] but devoid of the misery [and exuberance] of life, would that life then exist not to exist? Wouldn't that be wasteful? As opposed to say, one will retains but perhaps attempts to retrain and control their will, for the purpose of experience and interchanging experience of reality shared when emotions and wills enact upon the purposeless individual which by sharing their wills actually finds purpose within rather than without? Apologies if i am not stating this very well, I picture Captain Kirk from Star Trek when spock's brother preaches a similar end to egoism and kirk replies "I NEED MY PAIN". If we are to be empty one way or the other, doesn't it help create our own meaning, existentially, to allow ourselves these feelings and experiences as an answer and retort to the abomination of the will? If not, what reason do we have not just commit suicide as a one last ditch effort to take free will by the reins and truly make a choice with consequences?
I know thats a bit much and leaves out other parts of my thinking. I used to want to be enlightened...but now I don't think so, what's the point to being enlightened if it essentially disconnects one's individuality to the point that there is no reason to act upon the world and if there is no reason to act upon the world what reason is there to be alive at all?
sorry again, i'm in a right state I guess. I came to you first because I understand the previous comment as being one devoid of critical thinking/ reasoning [not an insult to you sir or madame if you read this, just stating facts as can best be described] but you were very resounding in your backlack, probably for emphasis' sake. I would ask, if you are up to it, to help me out of the programming of errors. I am wrong, tell me please, and tell me why so I may fix it. The objectivity of skepticism becomes lost in the lonliness of the subjective mind's cell, as if seeing all of the universe is contracted into a paralysis to have part of life within it. Thanks you for your time, all peace always amig@ [this will be copy pasted to a few others in hopes at better achieving something out of the discussion by increasing odds by increasing output]
+Flywheel Best to you.
i am new to reading schopenhauer i need book recommendations pls
Essays and Aphorisms is a collection of quotes by Arthur himself. It's quite good
@@sliceofbread29yrago52 thanks a lot:)
The will as explained by schoppenhauer is what Nisargadatta calls ' beingness' or Iamness '. Although schoppenhauer never believed that humanity cannot be saved from this vicious will permanently , Maharaj and other jnanis liberated themselves from this and reached a state from which world is seen as sat - chit - ananda.If schoppenhauer could somehow knew the permanent way out , it would have changed his pessimistic outlook towards existence.
His ideas resonate with me. Which of his books should I start with?
If you watched this and do resolve to liberate yourself from the will, do not ignore the last things that were mentioned! Understand that Schopenhauer's works are actually a limited echo of the much more full and complete Buddhist doctrine. As hinted in this video, philosophy can only carry this pursuit so far and, from then on, the true path is one of ancient dogma and tradition.
Get into reading the Pali Canon and get into practice. Do not be so quick to brush off the more supernatural teachings of kamma (karma), samsara or rebirth as though it is merely superstitious nonsense of the times. You'll actually find them to be missing pieces in Schopenhauer's puzzle. Also, do not let despair consume you
Can anyone help me out?
I often trip myself with such philosophical thoughts, but later doubt myself whether I'm right in my thoughts or that such philosophical reasonings are meaningless.
What's the question?
@@Octavus5 How can I fundamentally know something (a theory or philosophy) to be true?
@@patricvlobo7503 All philosophy and "theories" are expressions of dualistic and discursive thinking. All dualistic thinking is relative and NOT "ultimate truth". "Ultimate truth" can only be found "beyond" discursive thought, ie, transcending dualism of "this and that".
Anything that relates to dualistic thinking is only "true" insofar as it is "useful" in that domain. But usefulness is not an ultimate truth; at most, it can only be a relative truth or "phenomenal" truth.
You can't arrive at ultimate truth by thinking or through your sense experience. You must do what the buddhists/mystics do: meditate. Experience the "reality" before dualism arises. What is THAT?
Does that really happen though? Cuz even when im listening to a beautiful piece of music or watching a brilliant film im still thinking of myself.
Then you're not listening.
@@Croot_Music Deep. And true.
While it might be difficult to come to terms with his philosophy it is legitimizing and believe or not comforting.
Simply amazing, this described the past three years of my life perfectly. I would be considered a genius by Schopenhauer and then I became compassionate towards everyone because I knew we were essentially the same and then realized that it is simply pointless because of the underlying system of the universe which led me to become a Will-Denier. The only differences were the names I assigned to these things...
The coolest thing I always find myself going back to in philosophy is the idea or paradox of self reference. None of us would know anything about ourselves if it were not for others. And they wouldn't know anything if it wasn't for you. It always seems we are begging our own questions in a way. Like we 'know' the answers but can't express them in actuality because they are only understood relatively. The question always seems to be, "did you tell me the answer or did i come up with(understood) it after you told me?"
NonverbalShoe
You are the point.
what you feel is meaning
what is the measure of the Being?
this is all in his book the will as representation right?
The Denial of the Will might be more like the struggle with an Addiction.
So was the ending a revelation to religious people/ordinary people to move into the pursuit of knowledge and self improvement through mysticism and philosophy if they rejected the idea of asceticism and all it entails. But would the individual be fully met and charismatic with life at that point or fall into a sense of depravity after seeing all and hearing all, wouldn't the will thats inempt in all arise again. Strange to hear that sort of conclusion from an atheist who said that even God would be stuck in this constant war against suffering with the Demonic tendancies(will of the world). Damn i need to read some of his books to get a full understanding am lost
The best thing about Schopenhauer is his dislike of being around people.
Was Schopenhauer getting that egoism from Stirner, or was that a commonly used word at that time? I thought Stirner was the first person to use the term like that.
Good question. 'The Ego and It's Own' by Stirner was first published in 1844 (the same year as Schopenhauer's 'The World as Will and Representation.'
I find Schopenhauer's philosophy very angering, especially how it demonizes the will. I personally feel that it is one's own perspective of will which may or may not perpetuate suffering. If one embraces not only the pleasures of life but also its pains, and one accepts their will and the will of all others with delight and not with disdain, then one can be relatively free of suffering in the long-term and rejoice in life and striving, regardless of pain or pleasure.
Well, this is just an idea, but it may have something to do with how a person handles pain. When any average person feels pain of any kind (physical, emotional, etc.) the natural reaction is to retract from that pain because we seem to naturally seek out things that are 'pleasurable,' or at least, we avoid things that are harmful to us (an example of the Will at work). If a person were to train themselves to find pleasure in pain and not retract from it (in not necessarily a sadomasochistic way lol) they wouldn't feel the need to avoid pain or seek pleasure since they'd find pleasure in all things and thus find pleasure in the Will since the Will is considered the thing which manifests all pain, suffering and conflict.
I feel that Arthur Schopenhauer demonizes the Will because, from the very beginning, he establishes that 'life is suffering' and it is because of his already inherently pessimistic views that he would inevitably come to the conclusion that the Will is something demonic. He could have come to a different conclusion if he had a different perspective to start out with.
I understand Schopenhauer's idea of will as the biological urge of (human) beings to survive, fulfilling basic needs, both "animal" (food, mating, shelter) and "human" (getting rid of boredom, reach goals, etc). So in order to do something of greater importance, we must go beyond the will, and act not just for the sake of our human desires (wellbeing money, sex, fame, etc), but for a greater goal.
Chris Solomon I agree, and would like to add that The Will is not just working on fulfilling material desires, but it also is the very power behind human spiritual evolution. That same Will is also having Schopenhauer write philosophy. The Will is not the problem, it is the transmutation of it to higher realms of being in our own life her in this world. The same energy for sex can be transmuted into philosophy art and spiritual practice. The Will is energy. It is how we make use of it in our life that decides if we end up chasing after a heroin fix... or spiritual bliss.
fineartist Exactly! I've also been doing quite a bit of reading on the philosophy of aesthetics, namely from Schopenhauer's, Nietzsche's and even Kant's ideas on aesthetic experience, and so to expand further on what you said, I really do think that art, music, philosophy and literature can help us transcend suffering. These things don't "negate" the will, but are accomplished *through* willing. As Nietzsche said, "It is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified," meaning that the arts are really what give life meaning, what give our lives direction and what makes sense out of the senselessness of suffering. To direct one's Will toward these things is to unlock hidden potential - the potential to rise out of the pitfalls of the human condition.
+Chris Solomon I think you are right. I've always wanted to cheat life and avoid its pains and only rejoice in its pleasures, only to find that this leads to more suffering on the whole, that is to say to get more pleasure out of life one must embrace its pains too (but no more than it is necessary). In a way, I see my past thinking as testing the limits of how much pain one may avoid before it (avoidance/lack of pain) gets in the way of further pleasure--a task of maximization. This is why, I realized, most people who are happy happen to be those who do not shun pain as much, while those who do avoid it almost completely are often unhappy. So allowing some pain to penetrate your life is an ingredient for happiness.
May be they are bound to be smaller projections because they rely heavily on language, limit themselves to language, and keep practice out their scope
one thing. I do not think all animals are stuck in the present. possibly no animals. I would suppose they all have some capacity of memory. to which extent i don’t know.
Dispelling, what is prescribed as a good moUrning, wills one into a perpetual happy new NOWWON.
The conscience within a so called animal, is beyond the masses capability to simply be in service to the ineffable. One can reach out as the right hand, yet the CONsumers comforts CONsumption has the taking the left path.
I feel like Schopenhauer is the definition of taking the red pill. It’s seeing things for what they are , or in seeing the bigger picture for as far as one can see. I don’t feel goals are bad, but you Can fool yourself by being a slave to your goals. I feel comfort in knowing that everyone is suffering. But you suffer much more by clinging to life and not being able to be indifferent to it.
*black pill
I wonder if the will has in mind "propagation," or just the *practice* of propagation. Or perhaps from the perspective of the gonads the distinction is immaterial.
It requires a lot of will to destroy your will... and in the end, the desire to rid yourself of this will, is no different from any other desires. The end goal of this desire is also no different, to perceive the world as 'nothing', to be free from 'will' is the same as the concept of heaven, escape from suffering. The core motivation to rid yourself of desire or 'will' is the same as to getting a diploma or a dream job or something like that. For theese you also have to deny conflicting desires, and to rid yourself of desire itself is just a more extreme form of it. In conclusion, the desire to rid yourself of diseres is the biggest, the purest manifestation of desire and for this reason the most extreme form of 'will' - the whole thing you were trying to run away from. I am not a competent person, the only dirrect ideas of Schopenhauer I consumed were from this video and the other one, so thats just my two cents, if you know why I am wrong, please tell. and sorry for bad english, not a native language of mine.
The difference between the two will stems from the fact that one originates from instincts and one from deeper thoughts and reflections.
@@sunilrampuria7906 Does it realy matter what part of you 'will' originates from if the problem and the goal and the will it self is the same for both? are not both the instincts and the deeper thoughts and reflections are part of you?
-What is the will trying to do with things that aren't orgainc and alive? how do they "strive" ??
-Why do some things/animals..etc are affected by the will more or less than another?
-How can we say that the will tries to assure something (a drive behind the world) and that it's not just a rule (how we view physics) and yet it's not something that's conciously driving the world, if it's concious it wouldn't be conflicting itself right?
-He considers that organic and inorganic things aren't different, but then for example why is the will of an animal separate from (might go against) the will of another animal, we're all atoms going about. why is this animal an entity different from the other?
I think your last question holds the answers to all the other questions. So from last to first these are my views:
-The will of one animal is NOT separate from the will of another. This idea of separation exists only in the phenomenal world, that which we perceive in terms of space,time and causality. Beyond these, in the realm of things in themselves, there is only Will. So, for Schopenhauer the Will that is inside you or a single atom is the same Will that is inside Mt.Everest or some insignificant fallen leaf(hence it is always Will and not will) .. It is all the same thing manifested in different ways. It is all ONE as the video says.
- And since it has nothing else to go against, all that it does is feed upon itself and propagate further.. which is exactly 'striving','urging' or the desire for more.. a mad drive to just exist...In that sense, it can very well be called a rule or the essence of everything or the kernel of life.
- I do not have a clear answer to why some manifestations of Will are higher and others lower. Maybe, this hierarchy is a model that Will manifested just as it created all other things in the phenomenal world to propagate itself. The whole 'system' is just its way/method of reproducing and keep on living.
- The inorganic Mt.Everest or the fallen leaf is just as important to keep this system intact and running. This divide of non-living and living is to the intellect alone. The world (and the entire universe,if you will) in its totality is still a LIVING entity even if all that's left of it is a little plant that can reproduce. The inorganic parts of the universe are supporting this life and hence can be all be viewed as Will.
note : None of my views are absolute. I haven't even read much of Schopenhauer. But I think I understand the basic idea of it very well.
>women, money, and burgers
This channel is so accurate.
The state of mind does exist