Introduction to Schopenhauer - The World as Will
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Become a Supporting Member and get access to exclusive videos: academyofideas...
========
Recommended Readings:
The Philosophy of Schopenhauer - Bryan Magee -amzn.to/1WR5FHv (affiliate link)
The World as Will and Representation - amzn.to/1WR65xJ (affiliate link)
Schopenhauer: Robert Wicks - amzn.to/1TKwk5t (affiliate link)
===================================================
In this video we investigate the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer's claim that "the world is will".
===================================================
Support us on Patreon: / academyofideas
Get the transcript: academyofideas....
==================================================
![ARGENTINA vs. CHILE [3-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 7](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/De3AWmXzhuA/mqdefault.jpg)
I completed my Master's Thesis on Schopenhauer, and I am compelled to praise your video. Schopenhauer's ideas difficult to clearly explain. You've done a wonderful job here.
He is correct.
@@samwayes even worse, a Danzig Bag boy...
Hey can I read it
I'd be interested in reading it as well
@piggypigpig If he just wrote a Master's Thesis, I'm fine with him "bragging" (which I don't think he was even doing). He's absolutely earned the right to take pride in what he's done.
Shoep and Camus are my touchstones against suicide.
I appreciate their empathy in the light of wretched existence.
Same, dude. They're such a gift.
Deep
Edgy af...
☝️ no one asked for your input
One must imagine sisypus as happy
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer
Amen
Then study the difference between a conservative and a mass consumer.
Then study the difference between a conservative and a mass consumer.
That's just one reason that I love the guy..
And those wet markets in Asia are what, an example of Eastern compassion and civility?
Schopenhauer simply admits that we are in hell, and that while we're here the best we can do is want nothing as much as possible, and in the face of a world of suffering resign ourselves to the quiet contemplation of music and trees happily knowing it doesn't last forever.
but still..wanting not to want can be pretty hellish
Now listen to Everywhere at the End of Time.
@@turgorojare575 wanting is as easy to set aside as a hat hen ou realize your soul is at stake.
@@turgorojare575 wanting is as easy to set aside as a hat when youu realize your soul is at stake.
Beautifully captured in a comment. Bravo fellow human. 🤌🌲
The video was easy to understand, but also fast-paced to a degree that one would not get bored, but constantly think along to the represented ideas. Thank you.
I study currently the philosophy of Yoga and Vedanta and they tell basically the same. Everything we percieve by the senses is interpreted by the mind. Every concept is conceived in the mind. And the mind derives from (and is guided by) the Will of Life. Objective reality does't exist if there's noone to perceive it (the subject). So nothing exists but the Will or Consciousness.
Thats exactly where Schopenhauer extracted his ideas from, likewise in some part I see a lot of Avicenna in Kant also.
Objective reality is that which doesn't go away when nothing is left to observe it.
So we will never know how reality works. Science has proven the mere act of observation changes the results of tests. We literally cannot know reality for what it truly is.
Is there reality, something objective outside the mind? Yes. It’s the whole “if a tree falls in the wood and no ones there, does it make a sound.”
Experience may interpret reality, but a reality is there nonetheless, even if the person is blind deaf and dumb.
@@SDSen schopy learnt about eastern philosophy after he wrote his book
@Myrmadon no, only the 'world' as we know it. 'earth' is not a noumenal concept, without interpretation, it is just there; with no outside names, attributes, or anything.
First class; I especially like the articulation and delivery of the English Language. You’re very easy to understand and follow, very confident and contagious. I would, moreover, like to see you attain a post at our university to train some of our professors how to deliver a lecture properly.
Many thanks
Sir Patrick.
This is a brilliant RUclips channel! When I was a teen with angst and depression I always wanted to write a book at that time about how depressing life actually is. And after some actions I was in a hospital with one of them "stations" so I somehow found Arthur Schopenhauer and realised, no need, he wrote everything that I wanted to say... and I also share the same birthday too
You did a praise-worthy job explaining Schopenhauer. And you were careful to respect his "thinking" at all time. When you were not sure about something Schopenhauer may have said or thought, you said so. Applause!
I observe that philosophies and religions share a commonality -- both give us differing answers to the riddles of existence. For this reason, I see religion and philosophy as being the same coin in the sense that one is Heads, one is Tails, but the same coin nevertheless. In my opinion, however, philosophy is so much more "kind" and generally more "reasonable" and more "sane" than is religion..
Thank you! That was a very lucid comment, I appreciate it.
I enjoyed reading the distinction you drew between philosophy and religion and I am assuredly in agreement. If I may, I would like to cut out the verbiage and get to the core of the matter. Philosophy is honest enquiry. Religion is dishonest dishonest enquiry designed to gain ownership of your mind with the ultimate goal of cashing in on your financial assets.
The most beautiful thing I've ever read on youtube my entire life. I must, however, offer an amendment. What you described as religion was merely Abrahamic
+Tony Learner Funny enough, religions of past seem to not only have philosophies but seem to point at the stars describing their "heavenly" movements. Was eye opening when I saw that. Perhaps less so the religion and more so the books and "mythologies" by which they were based on.
You should read Nietzsche or Jung. While it's obvious that religion and philosophy come from the same boat, you'll understand that the nature of every information is subjectiv and thus not true. Which is why that religion simply can't be true. Yet this information about how our conciousness itself works is a philosophical description yet rather the only "objectiv" information we can achieve threwout the pure logical thinking nature that is us. So, NO, religion and philosophy are not the same coin. Religion is simply a subjectiv construct and philosophy a concious explaination from within.
for the many dear Schopenhauer friends here: It is really a great pleasure for me to see how many fans this wonderful author still has today. One more thing : His poodle was called "ATMA" - that means world soul in Sanskrit ! And one must not forget that Schopenhauer was a friend of the congenial Spaniard Balthasar Gracian, whose main work "Oraculo manual y arte de prudencia" (Huersca a. d. 1647) he has wonderfully, yes fgast one would like to say lovingly translated into German. Who would like to get to know him better, this book of the ingenious Jesiuten is warmly recommended. He will be able to learn a lot of wise from it and see that the world has not changed - or hardly changed - for almost 375 years (!!). And why: Because the
man always remains the same ! Your Don Alfredo (aka Al Schmidt).
Kant and Schopenhauer were brilliant. Thank you for this explanation, first time watching a video on metaphysics where I finally got the whole dicotomy between Rationalism, Empiricism and Idealism.
Arthur Schopenhauer wakes up and gets up at 7 every morning and then he takes a bath.
He drinks a cup of strong coffee
But no breakfast.
He reads and writes until 1111.
Then he plays his das flute for 33 minutes.
He goes out for lunch and then
returns to his room to read and write until 4-
He goes out for a 2 hours walk around Frankfurt,
Regardless of the weather.
He would-
And nothing would stop him.
After dinner,
He goes to das theater
And then sleeps early.
Really how do you know ?
Just finished reading "The wisdom of life." Great philosopher!
Whomever wrote this introduction and illustrated it, did a very good job explaining complex ideas in very simple terms to any interested beginner; Thank you. Schopenhauer a most superb thinker, even though he wrote about pessimism and the state of human suffering, reading him, I always feel an underlying sense of humor, making fun of man, woman, the human animal in general, and a burlesque attitude towards dogma, arrogance, superstition, and unfounded beliefs; no wonder he wasn't favored by status quo and establishment theorists. Even though he didn't have access to future scientific knowledge of the human central & peripheral nervous system, however, based on keen thinking, observing and experiencing, and building on the ideas of other great thinkers and scientists of his time and the past, I think his contributions to the humanities, in the language of his time, are exquisite, exceptional and invaluable.
We are manifestations of Will - Condemned to a lifetime of misery, pain and suffering. Love it - but why are so many in a blissful denial?
Because it doesn't matter
What a wonderful presentation of fantastic ideas. I love how we get these great ideas from Kant, Leibniz, Hume and Schopenhauer. I would really recommend looking at an 'Eastern' philosophy known as the 'kashmiri Trika'. As the Enlightenment aimed to be without a presentation of a 'divine' element - nonetheless Kant posited a transcendental reality. Buddhist and Vedic thought all posit a transcendental aspect. Likewise the Kashmiri Triaka does this. It also posits several 'Tattva' or 'universal principles'. These have been compared to Kants 'categories'. Not only this but the Kashmiri Trika is inextricably bound with personal growth, in the form of meditation, ie. it offers us a vehicle to experience this true knowing and true being. One of the methods is essentially the same as found in Buddhist practice and facilitates our going beyond thought. Really worth having a look at! Thanks for great video!
I have not read his work on will and idea. Just this intro gave me chills. Thanks. Will definitely be reading his work now.
I love and praise the person behind these videos, u make my day, thank u,. Continue making great things 🤗
This video is very structured and one of the better few out there that presents Schopenhauer in a clear and easy-to-understand way!
Kay El quatsch
This is the kind of video I had to stop what I was doing, log in, come here and like it. This is an extremly good explanation.
Unlike other RUclips channels,u make the subject simple ..Great job
Excellent lecture. Schopenhauer can be a bit confusing at times, but you lay out his ideas quite well. Can't wait for the part on his ethics.
Interesting at 1:11, Van Gogh's painting of the old man with his head in his hands - it surely does look like Schopenhauer in his Saturday clothes.
Superb, albeit brief, presentation on my longtime favorite philosopher. Can hardly wait for the next part.
The Holy spirit is given to us as a helper ,that's our conscience . Not demonic.
Great explanation; I tried reading The World as Will and Representation but found it impenetrable and exhausting. Thanks for this.
Thanks, will do
same
Thank you very much for this video. I’ve been re-reading pp. 14-17 of the World as Will and Representation and find Schopenhauer’s extended-paragraph criticism of idealism and “realism” rather hard to follow!
Well done! Anyone who didn't appreciate this video must not have had sufficient prior knowledge to grasp it! 🤓
Will, as thought of by Schopenhauer, can be thought of as the forces of nature, i.e., the "will/desire" to interact with other matter.
sort of... more like an invisible river that your in, an undertow that carries you to survive, reproduce, and keep evolving and adapting. your personal thoughts, dreams, happiness and sadness are just a distraction from this truth. we believe we have free will, but we don't, we all are dragged along with the river 'the will".
this includes everything from a human to a bacterial disease, all the same.
sadly, the human has managed to evolve far enough to be able to reflect on this unpleasant truth.
So, it only leaves two options- physical suicide... or psychological suicide such as religion, consumerism, etc.
Albert Camus has the only decent answer to this human problem as far as I can tell... embrace the absurdity of life for what it is.
Well, after that, I guess try and enjoy your day my fellow screwed human friend. lol
You explained Schopenhauers ideas very well and made it easy to understand. Nice.
Un-fukng-believable!
This topic specifically it's mind blowing.
Way better than any other videos on Schopenhauer out there, thanks.
A timeless classic video production
Another excellent, marvelous lecture! You've already covered Nietzsche and is now covering schopenhauer, which are my two favorite thinkers, so, this, I might say, is greatly appreciated.
Thanks a lot for your videos man! In my institute (Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India), there is a huge demand for videos from your channel!
In a sense though this is all just a problem of the ego. For getting eaten by a dog and then a tiger is not inherently bad, but only is perceived to be so. Same goes for sysiphus, he is in a situation not inherently bad or good though to label it as either is what causes the suffering. Even in the most intense pain, one can find pleasure if they lay themself bare to it. It is a momentous task yes, but that one is most worthy. Give yourself to the world in any form it takes upon you and accept it for what it is. Get rid of the idea that "you" exist. Lose yourself in the dance.
Brilliant Video. Thank you. IMO Schopenhauer was the greatest, the most honest and most rational of all our Philosophers. Had Antinatalism been a movement in his time he would have been one. If you read Studies in Pessimism you will know I'm correct.
An optimist sees the glass half full, the pessimist sees the same glass half empty and Schopenhauer always sees the glass as it is. He is realist, not pessimist.
He sees that there is no glass as such
I think we should see the full half of the cup but not ignore the issues of the world
As Rust Cohle said in True Detective, he's a realist but in philosophical terms, a pessimist. There's a difference between the philosophical and colloquial definitions.
An optimist is often guided by religious and/or idealist assumptions to see the universe in a non-pessimistic/realistic/factual light. Like Leibniz was an optimist but unlike pessimists, he starts off by making an assumption that a benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God exits as a creator.
Pessimists don't make this assumption and this makes their worldview seem bleaker in comparison.
You're *_not_* an optimist or pessimist based solely on how you view the world. It's determined also by how you act, assuming you act coherently. If you see the glass as half-full and you move on, good for you. That's a positive attitude. Now, if you see _every_ glass as half-full and you don't surrender to despair and decide to die, you either are a masochist or very positive. To see *all* the suffering in the world and press on in spite of it could indicate a few things:
1. You're a masochist and/or sadist.
2. You're a strong and _hopeful_ person (what good would it do you to live on in such a world if it were irredeemable?).
3. You just haven't considered what follows logically.
He was definitely a pessimist, not in the sense that he was pessimistic as an emotion but he was a philosophical pessimist.
Its about time you did Schopenhauer!! ;-)
Thank you for your contribution to humanity. It is more than most.
Loved it, thank you for the in depth coverage of his ideas.
The Will also has striking parallels to the chinese idea of Tao.
Can you elaborate ? How do you see Schop's "Will" as parallel to the Tao ? Tao or "The Way" or in practice the 'way of balance'; it "Is" or "isness" or short hand 'it is what it it'. "Beingness". Whereas the goal is to become one with the Tao : The "Will" as presented above is to be escaped from. I do see the similarity of Buddhism and Schopenhauer's Will in that 'life is suffering' and we should seek to end suffering or escape it. You could almost substitute the Will for the Ego in Buddhism. Also Hinduism seeking to escape the endless wheel of life and death by evolving spiritually through repetitive incarnations. I don't know Schopenhauer but in the video it is stated that it is desirable to escape the Will but it doesn't suggest how to do that (yet). Reminds me of Freud's ego/ID concept used to explain our mind (self) via dichotomy. An invention. The ego is to be subdued in psychology as well as in (a different way in) Buddhism. Like 'ego' is the source of all evil. In the presentation Will seems a awful lot like 'ego' in Buddhism and ID in Freud. If you don't mind using artificial concepts and dichotomies to understand reality . Eastern philosophies / religious thought depict reality as all one thing in different forms (which relates to Zen ; Yin Yang in which reality and the way we perceive it appears to be separate things but in essence are all only one thing (and "thou are that" as Joseph Campbell might say or as the Tao would say; or even the Upanishads).
There are lot's of connections to be made : Darwin and the misrepresented "survival of species" ie., survival of the fittest. The Will appears as part of the drive to survive but can't distinguish survival from conquest. According to Wikipedia "...the object of spiritual practice is to 'become one with the tao' (Tao Te Ching) or to harmonise one's will with Nature (cf. Stoicism) in order to achieve 'effortless action' (Wu wei). This involves meditative and moral practices." (Wikipedia). 'Virtue is an intrinsic concept in Taoism.' Morality aside for the moment : Taoism seems to want to take advantage the subtle cues in the reality we perceive 'out there' (in reality land ; so to speak) and the reality we perceive within. Existence is a metaphor within a paradox within an enigma. We are constantly trying to make sense of it. The Tao seems to say 'observe' and existence will reveal it's truth to you. Buddhism ; be quiet and know (rein in the ego and the truth will reveal itself in silence). All metaphors ; concepts, to simplify something that is beyond our understanding. As Yang to this Yin ; western thought tends to try and over complicate things to the point of nonsense. It's quite a statement to be making that a genius of the caliber of Schopenhauer is spouting nonsense so I will duck and cover now. The "Will" in Schop's diatribe seems to be the 'devil that made me do it' ! The Will is to be cut out, exercised ; like Freud's ID. While Jung suggested embracing the shadow and integrating rather than rejecting parts of ourselves that we deem unacceptable. Of course Jung studied Eastern thought, philosophy, religion/ mysticism. There is much that is very Taoist in nature in Jung's thought.
I've always found it problematic to cut out a part or parts of the self for exile or extermination or repression. The idea that there are integral aspects of our being which we perceive to be holding us back from real spiritual advancement is a little hard for me to accept. The fact is that we have all the spiritual enlightenment we can use if we just realize and know it or as some would say 'awaken' to it. That there are good guys and bad guys within us and the bad needs to be eliminated and the good inflated just tells me we don't understand these aspects of ourselves well enough and I also have a problem tossing out something I might need later. It seems to me that whatever we find in there ; it belongs to us and there is a reason and purpose for it that we simply need to figure out the optimal use for. "Chi" or life force or flow of universal energy is part of learning the Tao. It is rather an inclusive concept as opposed to a dichotomy as western thought tends to lean towards. So, finding a parallel between The Tao and the Will seems to me a difficult yet important matter.
Will is the Ego that Buddha wants to allow yet go beyond ; the little self (the false self) as opposed to connecting with the greater enlightened (true) self where you see and understand your connection to all things. Where you connect to God Consciousness ; if you will. Will is the evil / ID self that Freud wanted to expose and repress. Will is the hero of Nietzsche's scenario and he says revel in it. There is a certain sense that nothing is true in heaven or earth yet willing makes it so. It is largely to the benefit of those who espouse it but there is an entire school of thought or neo/ 'commercialized' spirituality that claims that you will your reality into being. There is some support for this idea in the field of Quantum Mechanics (theories). The double slit theory in which it is shown that the consciousness (will) of the observer effects the outcome of the experiment. If the mind (or will) can effect the behavior of quantum particles is it far fetched to speculate about the possibilities surrounding the super collider experiments in which scientists are searching to understand the point at which nothing becomes something ; is it possible that it will turn out that the Will will have some effect there ? I would suspect as anyone would that the Tao and Quantum Physics have a lot in common. Where our consciousness has a connection or interrelationship is yet to be discovered ; I hope we are on the threshold.
Grounded: Centered: Balanced.
Your Voice is pretty Sweet and awesome
2020 existence brought me here.
Jewish Supremacy brought me here..
@@someguyio3654 Well hopefully you continue to use these resources learn and move away from such childish thoughts.
@@jakenorton7854 Over a million Iraqi’s are dead because of a document called, “clean break” which was written by dual-Israeli Citizens over at a think-tank called, project for a New American Century which not only set the Bush Administration’s Policy in the Middle East but Obama as well. Seems you could stand to do some research as to whom sets genocidal policy in the Middle East. Or you could just regularly read Haaretz, The Times of Israel, etc.. They openly brag about Jewish Power but that would take a commitment or self-responsibility to be an ETHICAL.... Informed citizen, clearly you are not willing but everyone receives judgment at some point.
Very nice! One can hear that you truly put passion and work into those videos!
“Kant is notoriously difficult to understand and there is still no general consensus as to the meaning of many important aspects of his philosophy.”
This is a good thing because it gives people more opportunity to think for themselves.
People have infinite opportunity to think for themselves.
The only thing that divides men, is to which degree does one exercise their will.
Magnificent summery of a somewhat life denying philosophy ! Schopenhauer stated that you must not even WILL suicide because in that desire your are still enthralled by an illusion of your Will. For Friedrich Nietzsche Schopenhauer had succumbed to that Circe of Nirvana a form of life denying and volitional nihilism that in itself was just a form of wanting in order to escape suffering. I find your work has been a great consolation during the pandemic. Thank you
Great video, I really enjoyed it.
Spinoza's "pantheism," however, as I understand it, is not a very good example for the kind of pantheism Schopenhauer is talking about (unless he directly points to Spinoza himself in his works, in which case I think should be taken with a grain of salt) because his concept of God/nature/substance is a little bit more complicated than typical -theism. Spinoza's god is not benevolent in a traditional sense. Its benevolence doesn't have a regular positive moral quality, in a similar sense that for Augustine evil is a privation of good. It's like saying being healthy is better than being sick, but healthiness (of the body) doesn't necessarily mean morally good. Its benevolence is not a deliberate, personal, benevolence like that of the Abrahamic God who would take notice of evil and possibly intervene. Everything is in Spinoza's god "necessarily," meaning that god doesn't have a choice or a purpose but to be and cause everything (the act of creation is not something that god decided somewhere in time), much like our blood doesn't make a decision to carry oxygen - but of course this is a good thing, otherwise we're dead. So in the example with the turtle corpses and the dogs and so forth, for Spinoza it wouldn't be evil at all, in fact, it is necessary, and therefore good. Evil for Spinoza means something quite different, which I won't get into here because it's too long and also I don't feel confident enough to explain it (maybe you can make a video of it!). If anything, Spinoza's god is similar to Schopenhauer's Will. In fact, I immediately thought of Spinoza while listening to this and was pleasantly surprised that you mentioned him. I think Schopenhauer must have encountered Spinoza's philosophy, and perhaps misinterpreted him, maybe even deliberately straying away from him. Speaking of Eastern philosophy, people have also linked Spinoza to the Vedanta, and I don't think he was ever aware of that. I think Schopenhauer is pessimistic of Spinoza, yet at the same time cannot but embrace him somehow. Interesting dynamic. again, this is only my reading of it and I might be very, very wrong.
Anyway thanks for the very informative and entertaining video.
Agreed. I vaguely recall Spinoza describing God/Nature as indifferent to life. It just is.
He does reference directly Spinoza though.
They meant the same. Spinoza can more likely be described as a panentheistic rather than pantheistic...as for schoppy, he hit the nail on the head..only if people who ‘seek’ truth for once actually stop romanticising their innate ‘will to live’ and be ready to accept what is as is without attaching labels...
You guys did an awesome job. Post more on more philosophers and philosophies. I dont know how to say thanks.
Your videos are worth more than gold
Masterpiece - The World as Will and Idea. What a book! I will always remember the mornings reading this over coffee and cereal.
What is more beautiful than growing from your pain? Existence and sustenance are not enough to sustain life. For humans, there needs to be hope, beauty and growth otherwise you lose the will to live. Everything innately strives for growth, not merely existence. We don't fear dying itself, we fear dying in an insignificant way. Feeling that our lives didn't matter and our existence was meaningless. The closest way I can express what it means to truly exist and to grow is that we have an innate drive to express our innate nature to the fullest extent. To continually reach for perceived potential when it is infinite.
So i take that in the second part, you will elaborate how Arthur saw Sublime Art as one of the ways to escape The Will, right?
Reason is always contrasting, if you do not try to get over it, it is not reason! Concept is a purpose of manifestation, manifestation is a reality and peace phenomenon to which is constantly building in being torn down, like the body. Concept can rationalize, therefore, notion things on momentarily in a subjective basis, forming a pseudo-reality within the mind to which the body organizes to find what can be rationalized in a product of its power of notion.
Brilliance, my brother of the universe
+in2dionysus Perhaps there are terms that I'm not familiar with in their use such as "notion". Are you saying that reason is a form of rationalizing a belief or concept? Because Reason is dual in nature, meaning that one thought cannot exist without being contrasted with its opposite? Hence whatever concept that is brought up, one being a concept of an object, can only be pseudo-reality (map of reality) and not reality itself?
Trying to understand what's being said.
great summary. Schopenhauer is the first philosopher I'v read cover to cover slowly. I found his views convincing and inline with my intuition. His pessimism is comforting and liberating. Who would you recommend I read next?
"Forever reading; never to be read." - guilty :D
My pessimistic taste in philosophers brought me here
i would call it a realistic non-sugar coated taste.
@@serenity748 Pessimism =/= realism
Origins my friend. A good start usually ends inadequate and a bad start leads to a better end. Ideally speaking, if you aren't killed or die young in which case Schopenhauer's representation and pessimism come to pass.
Penis 🧐
And remember that Schopenhauer was wealthy. Wealth really does not relieve suffering. Often it increases it. "Godliness with contentment is great gain."
Princess Diana said “They say it is better to be poor and happy than rich and miserable, but how about a compromise like moderately rich and just moody?” always loved that.
You should really do more videos. This right here is awesome.
Buckminster Fuller stated, "I seem to be a verb." To me, this is the truth, we are not a noun, nor an adjective, these are but temporary subjective labels. But we can say, definitively, that we are a verb, we cannot help but be in action, even in our deepest, most still meditations. Truth is fluid, forever changing, no matter how slowly. Truth is not an "is" but a "do."
The thing-in-itself must be self-existent - further, by definition, it is that which what makes the object "what-it-is", it is therefore identity. The reason that we cannot find it according to Kant is that it is invisible - invisible identities are completely irrational. In other words, what makes a table a table is invisible - so we are free to see a table as our bathroom. What makes a table appear as a table or qualify to be a table cannot be invisible. Identity is obviously a function of the mind (based on common agreement) - not a material-physical aspect of an object.
Makes very sense to me. It is also a good explanation of the ontology of quantum physics.
Terrific video
Reality is like a closed book. All the information is there, all at once, all the time. To gain this information we have to read through it one page at a time, and create a mental space for the information to take place in. Except being human limits our ability to read all of the information, so we come as close as we’re able to. So being human is not about experiencing a complete reality, but to consciously interpret reality to the best of our ability. So whether or not this is pointless just comes down to would you rather not read the book at all?
The only objective things in themselves are the clashing of wills
+Donza Thompson Nice.
+Donza Thompson then the good life is simply...leave society ...now or later
Donza - What you've stated is unknowable from our limited perspective.
'Misery and vanity' - has he been watching Love Island!
🤣
Ok so I got most of the first half, basically saying that objective reality can't be experienced, but I got totally lost after that. Could someone explain?
Everything comes from Ideas and agreements, individual and collective. Collective because we are all one, just fragmented and under a veil of forgetfulness.
Become a Supporting Member and get access to exclusive videos: academyofideas.com/members/
========
Recommended Readings:
The World as Will and Representation - Arthur Schopenhauer - amzn.to/1WR65xJ (affiliate link)
The Philosophy of Schopenhauer - Bryan Magee -amzn.to/1WR5FHv (affiliate link)
Schopenhauer: Robert Wicks - amzn.to/1TKwk5t (affiliate link)
Do you know if someone ever researched Kant's distinction between phenomena and things-in-themselves sociolinguistically, i.e. of the German language?
In relation to e.g. the word 'Zukunft', future in English. Which in German consists of 'zu', towards and 'kunft' which is derived from coming, like in 'ankunft' meaning arrival. This makes Schopenhauer's 'Vorstellung' something that people find placed before them. Which makes Vorstellungen fundamentally different from 'representations', as those are 're-presentations'. Related to the future in English, which is what is about to be.
Because the future in German always comes towards you, space and time are inescapable in German. Not because of anything else than that in German the future always comes towards you.
Has this line of hypothesizing ever been researched?
Fantastic overview. I am working right now in a lectures course on die welt als wille und vorstellung. You did a splendid job in your summary and that in such a short video too. Gut gemacht :)
I am just a wet clump of neurons with some venturous tendrials of sensorys hanging about. Unique perspective of experiences remembered. Inspired clay.
Thank You for this! Really Good Job. And I thought Nietcheze was Dark and Disturbing.. This guy was A Madman.
Although I don't agree with Schopenhauer's philosophy, this video is very helpful and well done... Thanks!
Kant saw the interpretation through language as a way of 'phenominising' reality. Without spacetime no imagining of course. Of course he couldn't have known that all materials are interactive half lives in quantum physics, apart from DNA material. The experience of DNA in spacetime is eventually finite in our deaths, whilst being conscious of its temporary nature, we evolve in our assessment.
One of the few great philosophy channels on RUclips, great video
Does it make sense that most thinker's only know they think?
In my opinion; our life will be in such a way we think of ourselves. We are such an universe within an universe, and it all begins with our perceptions of things. If we keep a positive attitude; it all works out, but if we remain negative; things will seem going against us. We become what we think of ourselves.
Lazy thinking
I wonder. In planets such as mars, Jupiter or mercury where we currently don't have proof of life, it therefore suffices that it is mostly inorganic material that makes up these planets. Would schoppy still consider it as part of will to life governing the phenomena and or experience of these inorganic material considering they are manifestations of the will? And to that extent, are they and how would the domain of nourishment and propagation work for them? When rain falls on the ground into the land can that qualify as an act of nourishment just that to us sentient manifestations of the will to life it isn't obvious to us? I guess what I'm asking is does the characteristics of nourishment and propagation still apply to inorganic material as manifestations of the will?
nice one...can't wait for the next part :)
Simple explanation of the will to live. We see life everywhere. Say all this life is because of will to live. Then consider things that don't have will to live, well since they don't have a will to live, they perish! So what remains is will to live.
your voice sounds much happier than recent videos :D
According to Hume all knowledge is subjective so this will include his statement as well and this is enough to invalidate and make his statement and empiricism untrue because the statement "all knowledge is subjective" is in itself subjective and not to be taken as the truth regarding the authenticity of knowledge because how could we rely on something that is subjective in it's nature(his statement that every knowledge is subjective) to determine if anything is objective or not,I think an alternative way of approaching this is maybe knowledge is only subjective when we can't separate feelings and emotions from reasoning, and thus making us believe that we think when we are merely influenced by feelings,I have a question and if anyone could shed some light on it that I would be pleased, if all knowledge is subjective than how de we manage to build buildings with using geometry laws.does that mean that the geometry laws that enable us to make buildings is subjective knowledge and it is not objective knowledge even though it manages to make buildings stand and not fall?
Wonder arises because the world is such a miserable wretched place ? I can think of a lot of things that stimulates my sense of wonder : Misery is not one of them.
Wonder impels philosophising ? Only true philosophers are impelled or compelled to philosophize : No one else need apply.
Tormented by melancholy ? Aren't we all !
Oasis of peace in the tragic and wretched desert of life ? Beware of philosophers bearing gifts !
Shed a ray of light in the darkness of this miserable world : To be trapped in a world of delusion and wretched misery in which there is no escape from an abusive dictatorial Will and the only way out is to renounce all hope of enjoying those things that bring joy and contentment in a 'normal' life : Well, that's not exactly a 'ray of light' to me !
If you are stupid ; life is not a puzzle ; it is what it is ; nothing more ; nothing less ? Do I have that right ? (It would seem that the world is not that miserable to the stupid).
Physical reality has no independent existence (there is no objective knowledge) or:
What can we know (for certain) beyond our personal point of view ?
Transcendental Idealism is a very cool title for a very desperate and depressing scenario. ( The experiential phenomenal world of observable appearances vs knowing the essence of reality). Kant was big on those 'categories' . We can never know the essence of reality. That smacks of giving up prematurely ;while philosophy is still in it's infancy. Isn't that the very thing they are working on with those super colliders ?
Space, time, causality are mental constructs we use to try and explain existence. Knowledge seems to come down to using a construct to explain a construct . Sort of like doing the same math problem over and over expecting different results. We can dance around the truth but never actually experience it. Does it really add to our knowledge to understand someone elses construct ? One can describe and theorize to the nth and still not directly experience the truth of reality. Still we benefit from advances associated with the efforts to understand. I suspect someone invented velcro while trying to understand God. It seems like each new advance is more of a vertical move or sidetrack that brings us no closer to the truth and leaves us in a state of even more wanting. That's 'torment' ! Knowing that we may never know what we really want to know. We are a far cry from the intellect and technological abilities of the first human beings but we are less than infants in the cosmic dimension of reality.
The body is a construct of the Will. I experience existence within this body: It is the only thing I can experience directly; the only thing I can 'know' for certain; therefore I exist ("I think therefore I am" with a twist). Is that not a contradiction ? If the body is a construct ; it's still a construct whether it was created by the Will or by some other (mental) means.
Isn't Schopenhauer's theory here simply another Will driven construct designed to win him heroic praise for solving the enigma of life as he so boastfully claims to do.
Aren't melancholy, despair, torment, and misery ending in an unfulfilled life and death also delusional constructs ?
It's disturbing that there is a madman running around in our heads named Will that is making our lives living hells. Again ; just a construct trying to make sense out of things that seem to make no sense.
If there is no separate reality how could the Will have a seemingly separate identity and agenda (I'm thinking 'demon', devil or even the concept of the Tao ; separate yet one). How do we know the Will is not just another delusional construct ? If the Will is at the core of everything ; all existence ; the reason (although he never says this) for everything that would suggest that Will is not just a part of everything and we a part of it but that all and everything "is" Will. If that is the case and Will creates and permeates all of existence then there is no real escape possible. We are more than symbiotic we are fully integrated and any release from Will is only an illusion. He seems to suggest that we are Will not just a puppet of the will by stating that everything is one thing. Would that not include us and if not doesn't that presume a separate reality ?
If the inner experience is the only thing we can know with certainty it doesn't necessarily follow that our perceptions and analysis of that inner experience is always accurate (ask any psychologist). There could be more going on in there than we are or can be aware of or other things happening that affect the Will in various ways. Striving, achieving, failing, learning, accomplishing, winning, loosing, etc., not always bad things. The cliche' ; strife builds character. Nietzsche would say 'what doesn't kill you makes you strong' (or something similar). Certain Christian sects claim that it's necessary to suffer to get closer to God. Bunkum and whowie ; but there are different ways to perceive the same experience and it doesn't always have to be 'all is misery and suffering'.
The world is a representation created by our minds.
Everything that exists is dependent on an observing mind (brain) for its existence. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it ; it never happened. In fact there is no forest ; no tree ; no sound until or unless there is someone to observe them. There is no separate reality from what we experience with our senses which is created by our brains . Example : I decide to drive across country to DisneyLand. My brain is creating everything I experience. The car I'm driving in, the scenery along the way , the animals I see or run over on the way, the people with me in the car .....everything. Why then doesn't DisneyLand magically pop up in the middle of Kansas as I'm getting so tired of driving through an endless wasteland. Apparently my mind has created DisneyLand and Walt Disney as well. No matter how many times I do it or how monotonously boring it is between Missouri and California ; DisneyLand is always a 2000 mile drive and is always in Anaheim CA. If my mind can manipulate reality you would think at least once it would place Disneyland a couple of blocks down the street ! Especially if my Will is working at maximum capacity. Am I doing something wrong ?
If everything that exists is only a construct of our minds then we don't exist either we are merely a construct of our or someone/ thing elses mind. If there is no separate objective reality ; nothing exists. Everything you think is only a construct of a construct of a construct and so on. None of this has ever happened, is happening or ever will happen. As if we were creating a video game within a video game as we go. Within a video game, within a video game ; ad infinitum . A turtle upon another turtle ad infinitum (Hindu myth of the creation of the world).
Seems to me that 'consciousness' is the core force behind all existence instead of Will. Will seems more like a tool that allows consciousness to evolve. Again ; what is determining that both Will and consciousness are not themselves constructs of the mind used to create the illusion of reality ? If there is a Universal Consciousness at the core of existence then we could just be constructs of that UC which creates and watches us like a tv sitcom. It would not be far fetched to imagine a super consciousness creating a body and imbuing it with interesting characteristics like we would create an animated Barbie doll and give it character and personality and the ability to contemplate itself and the nature of existence. Give it limited free will in a rather deterministic environment. All constructs so it would never really know or have the ability to know it was just a construct nor could it experience the essence of the Universal Mind ; no more than a robot can fathom the true nature of human emotions. Point is ; you could just as easily substitute 'consciousness' with a will to evolve for Will with a consciousness and a need to survive.
The Will as the demonic core of all existence seems a bit ludacris. Why have to impose an ethical imperative on an otherwise indifferent, agnostic concept ? Schopenhauer admits that our point of view may be limited (or mistaken): It could be within the bounds of his philosophy that we are being too hard on The Will by accusing it of all evil. It could be that the Will is not the only culprit nor even the correct object of our rebuke. Point of view is fallible ; but it cannot be fallible if Schopenhauer's logic is correct. It seems that the one thing we would have to know with absolute certainty is that the Will (as he describes it) exists, that it is evil (demonic), and is the core of all existence and the root of all suffering. There are conflicting theories on that. The Will (as Schopenhauer describes it) seems to be an entity / non entity with a will and existence of it's own: A force of nature that is not natural like the devil or evil. A god-like entity which governs but is not subject to or governed by the laws of reality as we understand them.
He is not saying Will is a construct but that it is the core of all beingness and existence. The way out of this dilemma is "Mysticism" or the desire and practice of attempting to connect with God, pure consciousness, ultimate consciousness, universal consciousness, the oneness of everything, the Tao, the field or whatever you wish to call it and the 'bliss' that accompanies this process. He doesn't say this is further self delusion or the mere trading of one delusion for another or just another construct we create to delude ourselves. He says that it is the 'only' fall back position. To abolishes the Will one must transcending conceptualization : Realizes that chasing after dreams and desires of attainment is a dead end. In other words get off the grid and stop caring about all the things average everyday people consider vital to life. Schopenhauer points out that average everyday people view the aesthetic as an empty shell ; 'nothing'. The aesthetic views the world as nothing but that's not entirely correct if you go back and note that one other small glimmer of hope was offered which allows for at least a momentary reprieve from the driving Will. Beauty ! In music, art, nature or wherever ; possibly even creating : I see no reason why an aesthetic advanced to the mystic stage would not continue to enjoy those moments of bliss. Real time moments ; the only time that is real or exists; right this moment ; right now. I guess bliss has to happen accidentally otherwise one could be driven by Will to experience bliss.
I could also see how beauty could become as unimportant and indifferent an experience as everything else. Nothing might seem as important as contemplating God ; the eternal source etc .... but even that could become a stagnated boredom . The seeking of God or becoming a Mystic would seem to be Will driven as well. The will to transcend conceptualization ; the will to end suffering, or just the will to transcend and live on a higher plain of existence or the will to transcend in order to make striving for goal attainment (or life in general) easier; less of a burden. The current and recent trends of commercialized spirituality seems to offer this as an option. Become your own guru, become enlightened, transcend in order to clean up in business and fulfill all of your desires. Transend and become rich beyond your wildest dreams. Interesting : Become rich and powerful by giving up your will and desire to become rich and powerful. Who wouldn't wish to denounce the social order while at the same time living a life of wealth and luxury ? Look to the examples: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi : Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church ; and scores of others who have made millions off the salvation of their followers ; true believers.
Schopenhauer is correct in that there hardly seems to be anything that isn't will driven in some respect but there seems to be a qualitative difference. Those who manage to use the will to best advantage can have an amazingly exciting, lucrative, crazy good and satisfying life. I have reservations that the successful are as unhappy and miserable as Schop would suggest some of whom seem to have the ability to balance Will and Mysticism to their optimal degree. Wouldn't it be better or at least just as good as becoming a full on aesthetic to realize, understand, and use successfully the power of the Will and balance it with the same dedication to mysticism and transcending conceptualization ? It seems plausible that if one understands the insatiable nature of the Will that one might take measures to circumvent it. We manage our will all the time. It seems to get easier as we mature. We stop wanting things we can't have and we have probably succeeded at acquiring some of the things we can have. Will doesn't seem to be the all powerful, omnipotent entity Schopenhauer portrays it to be but rather an aspect of our self we have to learn to manage.
Azsorious I guess everyone has their favorite. I liked Hegel and no surprise ; Marx too. After all they are just Philosophers ; Thinkers. I can't bring myself to get too disgruntled with someone who chooses the 'thinking life'. I'm fond of Nietzsche (the uberman) and he wouldn't have been the same without Hegel to kick around. I suppose if I had to pick one to dislike it would be Kant. I always get this claustrophobic feeling when reading Kant (albeit it's been a long time); as if he were thinking me in to tinier and tinier little boxes until I disappear altogether . Reductive instead of expansive ; I guess. He seemed to waive the 'moral imperative' in my face like an overly strict priest. Reminded me of Plato ; a little too Republican for my tastes. I always liked to think that Socrates would not have approved of Plato and that Plato took the opportunity to put words into Socrates mouth. But still, it is what it is.
Azsorious Define "life" (just kidding)
Something tells me they were both wrong (again facetious ). I don't think I could give up my asceticism long enough to know it they were right.
Azsorious I'll see your Nietzsche and rraise you two Hegel's :
"“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
"Governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deducted from it."
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
"The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom".
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
***** JC : I missed some of your other comments and had to go back and read them.
Your point that we should discard philosophies that lead to destructive results when abused by others ; I would have to dispute. Because Marx took Hegel's theories and created Socialism and Stalin and others took Socialism and corrupted it to the extreme is no reason to discard Hegel. I have found Hegel very useful over the years. In fact; I found Hegel's Philosophy very comparable to Buddhism when I did a paper on Eastern and 'Western thought. The concept of Yin and Yang being very similar to Hegel's synthesis, antithesis, and synthesis. It is mostly the dialectic that Marx latches onto not so much the whole of Hegelian thought. I suppose you could include 'alienation' and the synthesis ideas at some point as well. That leaves a massive volume of incomprehensible logic which Hegel felt imperative untouched by Marx. I'm sure there are some examples of the use of Hegelian thought for the good albeit I couldn't point to any specific examples at the moment. I can't think of anything as big and widespread as Socialism anyway. I would think it a mistake to blame Hegel or Marx for the death of millions at the hands of totalitarian dictators who only used the term "Socialism" to legitimize murder. They never implemented Socialism as it was meant to be done. The west called 'Soviet style Communism' , Socialism as a negative propaganda tool to discredit them; and the Soviets called themselves 'Socialist' (also propaganda) to try to align themselves with other Socialist style governments seeking credibility but neither used the term accurately. So, you can't rightly claim that 'Socialism' killed millions.
We have also killed millions in the name of Capitalism but we don't blame John Adams or Alexander Hamilton for their contributions to the definition of that term. I would have to argue that we would all be less for banning anyones thought because they were misused by the unscrupulous.
When asked I tell people I'm more of a Buddhist because it's too complicated to explain my spirituality . It's eclectic and not aligned with any organized religion. My practice includes elements of Hinduism; American Indian Shamanic ; Kabala , Brain and scientific research , the Tarot, Astrology, Taoism, Alchemy, the study of every esoteric thought and practice I could find, even though I've fully rejected it as a religion I still use elements of Christianity and Philosophy of course. In the process I've played with comparisons of Nietzsche, Hegel, and Buddhism (as well as others) and found the similarities striking. I've tried several forms of meditation including Zen but I'm partial to 'Transcendental Meditation' as that is what I learned first. However , I don't meditate much anymore nor do I consider myself a seeker any longer either. I mention all this as the idea of "truth" was brought up and in my experience it is definitely possible to find truth on many levels. Once you find it enough you sort of remain in a continual meditative state (for me anyway; I haven't' found it that necessary to meditate much any more; at all in fact ; though I'm sure I would if there were a need to). For the reason I was meditating in the first place was to find truth. Once you do ; you acquire 'the (or 'a') "knowing" (nosis, or gnostic). I would have to say that it was a combination of Philosophy (reason and logic) and "non logic" ,esoteric (accepting the enigmatic contradiction, the irrational, paradox of existence as having a "truth" as well). Or in other words : Thesis : Logic , Antithesis ; Non-logic, Synthesis ; Knowing.
It is the coming into contact of your mind with that which can't be put into words . I would hesitate calling it "God" because it is so far beyond the concept of God in traditional organized religion. That concept is just as close as anyone has come to a word for it but there isn't a word or concept which could in any stretch of imagination encompass it. It just "IS" as the Buddhists might say. I apologise for sounding a little preachy here. I think that gets the point across so I will stop there.
While I believe that we are all connected I also believe that we are all also "islands unto ourselves" ; that's one of those esoteric contradictions that you have to wrap your head around. We are all essentially alone yet we are also never alone completely and you have to come to be ok with both. While we all may have a tribe to belong to whether we have found it or not ; when in society ; we are among the unenlightened and so can be nothing but alone. While we interact with accepted sociability we realize that it is rare to find another enlightened island and most others we come in contact with are lost in their own social norm matrix. They are part of the herd and do not value freedom and individuality. They value conformity and obedience to the artificial laws of society and religion which they mistakenly confuse with the laws of the Conscious Universe.
" But this is the point where Hegel confused his followers, and split them into Left and Right wings. Hegel saw an even higher consciousness than Revealed Religion Consciousness, and so, to some extent, transcended religion, which convinced some novices that he was an atheist, and convinced others that he had a higher vision of Christ than the average minister." (philosophy.eserver.org/hegel-summary.html) This is an interpretation .
Hegel was concernrd with Spiritual Consciousness and Enlightenment which drew me to his thought.
To a Christian ; I'm an atheist: To the secularist I'm an acetic. " Ah you live as a monk or something?" Yes, or something !
Compassion is overrated so I'm not sure I'd be accepted among a community of monks. I have no compassion for the corporation or the state for example and if you follow whatever obtuse logic led the U.S., Supreme Court to declare that a corporation and by extension the state is a person or those who believe that 'we the people ' are the state or the government then I'd have to disabuse the notion of compassion 'for all' as most religious doctrine would hold. I'm not a joiner and I'm antagonistic towards the existing social power structure I very much agree with Libertarian ideals of individualism and Freedom but I would not fit into a Libertarian Utopia. I would very much want to limit the excesses of Capitalism but hate the inertia and inefficiency of Socialism. I would feel right at home with Marx but I'm more of a Trotskyite.That leaves Anarchy (the original meaning) and pure /enlightened Democracy as my final choice. Only within those bounds would I consider compassion realistic or even necessary (genuine).
Declaring the Corporate State to be a person is just another means of declaring the ownership of the population by the Corporate State and demanding fealty to the State in a coercive manner. It ensures the States power and thus conformity, obedience and loyalty to the State. I cannot , in good conscious , have compassion for that.
Azsorious Capitalism is an economic theory which informs and orders the society. Socialism is a theory of social order which informs and orders the economy. I have heard and argued myself that both Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems. There are also different forms of both. You are correct to make such distinctions. For example; State Capitalism; Corporate Capitalism and Welfare Capitalism may all have different purpose and goals. A pure Capitalism ; I would agree; is an economic system (theory of). Maximise profits, buy and sell, free trade; private ownership of the means of production ; accumulation of wealth ; competition. It does somewhat fall into the category of ideology if you define ideology as follow: "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy." Since the forefathers were most concerned about the freedom to do business and taxation on that business w/out representation ; I'd say 'Capitalism' complies with being the basis of a political theory or governmental policy.
It would be unfair to label Socialism a Utopian theory and Capitalism not. Capitalism may one day fail as miserably as most Socialist type efforts have. Socialism has never existed in its purest form (possible exceptions Native American Indians, Quakers, Mennonites, Shakers, a few Utopian or communal experiments). Partial socialism works quite well in the Scandinavian countries and even the U.S..
Human Nature is a fickle mistress. Humans are both selfish and competitive And social and altruistic; often at the same time. ' human nature can be regarded as both a source of norms of conduct or ways of life, as well as presenting obstacles or constraints on living a good life" (Wikipedia). I really don't believe any socio-political economic system effectively considers human nature. For some it is totally against human nature to live within a controlled structure. Others would give up all freedom and submit to oppression for the security. Rousseau would point out that we give up a portion of our freedom for the privilege of living in society which contracts to provide our security (paraphrase). I would suggest that we give our consent against our will (Nietzsche's 'will') because we would will ourselves maximum freedom. While consent is voluntary it's against our nature to submit. In the final analysis it is balance we seek both in our nature and in the social systems which govern us. We want equity, justice and liberty ;why would we ever ask for anything less ?
I certainly can, will and do ascribe ethical considerations to Capitalism. Even more so to Corporate State Capitalism which is what we have in the U.S.. Since 'consumerism' is integral to Capitalism (a core apparatus) and has gone far beyond mere subsistence in proportion to the point of being a cult ; it can be called a "cultural ideology". Consumerism being the core of Corporate State Capitalism qualifies it (Capitalism) as being an ideology in my book.
I guess Libertarianism would be the foremost proponent of laze fair Capitalism and is a political ideology that also promotes maximizing profit and wealth to be the essence of freedom. They are so much the same that I would call it the use of Capitalism to create an ideology thus making Capitalism a quasi-ideological theory in a sense. I would site Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan as examples of Libertarian Capitalist Ideologist. They were also advocates of Republic (not Democracy). Add to that elitist, oligarchic plutocratic Republic which is actually the form of government we have in the U.S. ;which perpetuates itself via Capitalism and you have another reason to consider Capitalism at least an integral part of an ideology. In other words: Capitalism is so wrapped up in the government of the United States that it's hard to tell one from the other ; they are symbiotic.
In many respects Socialism is more agreeable with human nature than Capitalism . I like that some things are state owned and operated. Utilities, State Parks, Highways. If it wasn't for State Parks ; corporations would have trashed all that long ago; Utilities would cost twice or more than they do; and the only roads you would likely have are those some rich guy decided to build from his house to the grocery store. I want Social Security, Unemployment, Medicare, and welfare if I ever need it. In fact ; Socialism maximizes my freedoms in many ways which Capitalism cannot.
Socialism is no more a disease than Capitalism is . They both have good and bad aspects . As a pragmatist I want to use the best of both. I'm not throwing Socialism under the buss because it has been unfairly associated with corrupt and cruel misuse. Capitalist propaganda doesn't work any better than Socialist propaganda. I'm not so brainwashed with the social patriotic conditioning and propaganda that I can't accept things that do work.
Greed ! Are you kidding ; there is nothing on earth more greedy than a successful capitalist. In the U.S. you get all the Justice you can pay for.
"While there's capitalism, there'll be socialism, because there is always a response to injustice."
Ed Miliband
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
John Maynard Keynes
"Capitalism is an organized system to guarantee that greed becomes the primary force of our economic system and allows the few at the top to get very wealthy and has the rest of us riding around thinking we can be that way, too - if we just work hard enough, sell enough Tupperware and Amway products, we can get a pink Cadillac."
Michael Moore
"The Tea Party people say they're angry about socialism, but maybe they're really angry about capitalism. If there's a sense of being looked down upon, it's that sense of failure that's built into a system that assures everyone they can make it to the top, but then reserves the top for only a tiny fraction of the strivers."
Gail Collins
Poetry to my ears.
4:56 & just thereafter: the statement from Kant should end in "...otherwise than as a phenomenon." The word, phenomenon, is singular. The word, phenomena, is plural. No big deal except to those (such as I) who read & write "standard English."
Wish I could concentrate on anything for more than 10 minutes man, philosophy is so interesting but my mind just goes in all these directions without forming any sort of conclusion to my thoughts.
Stop seeking the conclusion
Thank you for providing me with more evidence that I have been the Worlds most imposing philosopher in human history. You will obtain a copy of my Unified Field Understanding, the map of the Conscious Universe, by Mavro Syvannah. In so as Arthur calls it Will, I call it anti-entropic fields and by so doing give you the opportunity to learn how this works to cause the opportunist living being. Schopenhauer 's time space will is actually relative to the singularity at the center of everything alive. It is blissful to know how relative physics change as time space retreats from each singularity. These truths reveal the true nature of dimensions.
This is probably the TOUGHEST subject matter that could be approached in the realm of philosophical ideas. God bless you for attempting it! You guys are definitely a God-send.
I'll see your introduction to Schopenhauer video, and raise you a video only about Kant.
I have all those ideas already , today i know about this philosopher . Wish i lived during his time , i have knowledge and messeges to reveal
Great video! Thank you for taking the time to give the background and basis for Schopenhauer's philosophy. One critique however: I'm not sure that Spinoza's view on the universe was that it is a manifestation of a separate omniscient, omnipotent god nor is that the position of pantheism, however as I understand it, Sponoza's pantheism has as its central tenet that everything is God (no separation, no omniscient man-like fatherly being). This then would include the will of man or the will of the universe. So I do not think that Spinoza and Schopenhauer are opposed to one another. It would be very interesting to hear what spinoza thought of will being the very essence of existence. I tend to think, he would agree.
Spinoza's god: ruclips.net/video/nPMxbiKUPX8/видео.html
It’s Kannt as in c*nt but with an clear A, not Kahnt.
There is a difference between space and time as the general fact of the passage of nature, and the mathematical representation of space and time using lines and points
Schopenhauer as this video's narrator has presented that Schopenhauer, takes reason where it will as it addresses the experiencing in which it is embedded. That re-presentation makes Schopenhauer's thinking of interest to me, whereas before listening to and watching this video I was disinterested in Schopenhauer because seeing him through the prism of some parody of a fragment of his thinking.
Can't wait for the next one!
Schopenhauer is my favorite philosopher, probably more so than Nietzsche .
Took me Nietzsche to lead me to Schopenhauer
"The world is not a piece of machinery and animals are not manufactured for our use. Such views should be left to synagogues and philosophical lecture-rooms, which in essence are not so very different." - Arthur Schopenhauer
"The will is....demonic." That pretty much is the lesson that you should take from this.
Spinoza believed in God. But his way of presenting God as the thing in itself itself is not necessarily in conflict in some ways with Schopenhauer. Spinoza doesn't seem to assume that God, as in say the Bible, appears out of nowhere, something we assume. So he is like the later Heidegger, replacing God with Will (Dasein etc for Heidegger, someone suggested 'energy' might be a better term). That this noumenon underlies all things kind of echoes Spinoza's "pantheism" which is not so much...although as a teenager I somehow combined Wordsworth's poetry with an idea of God being something in an through all things. His reaction to the world is similar to that of Darwin who was also deeply aware of the endless suffering in nature and the cruelty of humans. However a lot of these beliefs are affected by the very subject he and Kant talk or. A more optimistic subject finds something joyous in that world. The trouble is that can lead (especially with the distortion of Nietzsche's writings) to such Nihilist ideologies that combine these Wills and Darwinism towards...well we have seen the results in the 29th Century. However maybe this too is the subject simply taking a position about things. So if you eliminate the pessimistic (who cares if Old Will is a Devil who hates us all [considering how many things pan out not too silly an assumption]; if you or we take pessimism out and avoid the nothingness [for now] we can all be absurdly jolly or at least content....But Schopenhauer is interesting and this is an interesting discussion of his work and life. It is interesting the number of RUclipss on philosophy....
man this was so enlightening
Is there a mathematical analysis of representation? A way to measure it would be a sufficient mathematical analysis of the term since we would understand quite a bit of it. If representations are only personal images then it is not an interesting object. If it can be ordered along a continuum from less to more, whatever less is for you (quality, morality, reproducibility, vividness, etc.) then we could do interesting things to understand representations. Take reproducibility; the probability that two representations are judged to be equivalent, according to pre-established criteria. For example, the number pi is represented in the mind of at least one mathematician as a transcendental number, according to mathematical criteria, is exactly the same representation in the mind of all mathematicians. In fact, the entire edifice of mathematics, with its ballrooms, chapels, gardens, has exactly the same representation in the minds of all mathematicians when talking about the rooms they know of that huge mansion.
A measurement model for reproducibility of representtions is the probability of two random vignettes being judged equivalent. The higher the probability the better the representation.