16 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes, for Schopenhauer it is rational to fight the will to live, since he takes this basic motivational impulse to be the source of suffering. Further, even if Schopenhauer is wrong about this, it still doesn't follow that he thought that reason does not exist (which is what you claimed).
[b]Rather, he is claiming that our fundamental impulses to live, our basic motivations, are non-rational.
Sure. And the way to combat that non-rationality is to fight the over-arching will to live, i.e., supression of the will to live. Seems pretty rational, huh.
Please note that the above quote directly contradicts your assertion that ...[text shortened]... lf further.
That's typical of your giving nature: always looking out for the little guy.[/b]
I agree that Schopenhauer's philosophy is accessible if one puts in the time to actually read it. Alas, you haven't done this, and this leads you to claim absurd things (e.g., that Schopenhauer didn't think there was knowledge, despite the fact that the whole first part of The World as Will and Representation is on epistemology, and deals with our knowledge of the empirical world).
I'm hardly misquoting you. This is what you claimed above:
"This is a man who claimed there is no knowledge. Without knowledge, obviously there can be no truth."
In support of your contentions you cited the following article:
http://www.radicalacademy.com/philschopenhauer.htm
But from that same article, we find the following claim:
"Once consciousness is attained, knowledge appears as the representation of the world."
Now you claim that, in pointing out this contradiction, I've mischaracterized you! Either you really are that stupid, or you're just being disingenuous here.
You claimed above that without knowledge there can be no truth. This is what you actually said. Both I and LemonJello has pointed out that this is false. Now, in your metaphorical defense of your previous claim you claim that without knowledge we cannot get to truth. There are two problems with this: First, it is false. I can have true beliefs that fail to qualify as knowledge because conditions of justification aren't met. If our cognitive processes are working properly, we may be very good at forming true beliefs even when we don't have the conceptual faculties necessary to provide justificatory reasons for our beliefs. Hence, we can have beliefs that track the truth even in the absense of having justificatory reasons; that is, even when we don't have knowledge. Second, this metaphorical defense of your previous claim is irrelevant to your previous claim. You didn't claim above that knowledge is necessary in order for us to get to the truth, or in order for truth to be valuable (both false claims, by the way), but rather that without knowledge *obviously* there can be no truth.
I really do have your best interests at heart here. I want you to flourish and be happy. So, again, please stop the nonsense regarding Schopenhauer. You just look like an idiot.
16 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you want a well-substantiated rebuke, the perhaps you should actually read Schopenhauer. Here's an essay of his on the Moral Character of Man:
While I always look forward to your input, don't you think it a little suspicious that the only person actually quoting the man, or citing accepted sources is... little ol' me? More quizzical than that is the appearance of AS in the first place, but diversion does seem to be the name of the game around here.
If I have mischaracterized the man's stance ...[text shortened]... buke. Merely calling something 'bizarre,' does not count toward an acceptable rebuke, BTW.
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/human/chapter5.html
You'll find in this essay that Schopenhauer is neither a skeptic about the existence of knowledge, nor reason, nor truth.
But, since you'll probably not read the actual essay, here's a quote:
"If any desire or passion is aroused in us, we, and in the same way the lower animals, are for the moment filled with this desire; we are all anger, all lust, all fear; and in such moments neither the better consciousness can speak, nor the understanding consider the consequences. But in our case reason allows us even at that moment to see our actions and our life as an unbroken chain,—a chain which connects our earlier resolutions, or, it may be, the future consequences of our action, with the moment of passion which now fills our whole consciousness. It shows us the identity of our person, even when that person is exposed to influences of the most varied kind, and thereby we are enabled to act according to maxims. The lower animal is wanting in this faculty; the passion which seizes it completely dominates it, and can be checked only by another passion—anger, for instance, or lust, by fear; even though the vision that terrifies does not appeal to the senses, but is present in the animal only as a dim memory and imagination. Men, therefore, may be called irrational, if, like the lower animals, they allow themselves to be determined by the moment."
The idea here is clear. What distinguishes humans from the wanton animals is a certain capacity to achieve reflective distance from our first-order emotional states. With reason we can "step back" from our anger, fear, lust, etc. and thereby exert some control on ourselves.
Pretty strange view from a man who thinks that reason doesn't exist, isn't it Freak?
16 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo you can make bald assertions that the 'majority atheistic position'
While I always look forward to your input, don't you think it a little suspicious that the only person actually quoting the man, or citing accepted sources is... little ol' me? More quizzical than that is the appearance of AS in the first place, but diversion does seem to be the name of the game around here.
If I have mischaracterized the man's stance ...[text shortened]... buke. Merely calling something 'bizarre,' does not count toward an acceptable rebuke, BTW.
entails mechanisitc materialism without support, but someone like
me can't shake my head at your perverse misreading of Schopenhauer
(all the while lacking the desire to even begin to try to correct you)?
Maybe you missed bbarr's post, but he quoted Schopenhauer a few
times from the place you cited showing how your conclusions are in
direct contrast with his presentation.
If bbarr wants to take the time to walk you through your error (and so
far you have been unwilling to listen), then may God bless him. You've
offered similarly bizarre readings of Scripture that simply turn me off to
the idea of trying to correct you.
You are the one who is delaying things. The Schopenhauer reference
was a passing observation about the varying perspectives of atheists.
It's a sidebar you entertained -- you could always say 'This sidebar is
not relevant to the discussion at hand' and (finally) move on with
your presentation that reason cannot exist with a mechanisitic
materialistic atheist position.
Nemesio
Edit: I see bbarr has tried again. We'll see if his efforts are rewarded
with recognition of error on your part.
16 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreaky, the way I think most people would interpret "mechanistic" (and you certainly have not done a thing to help clarify what you mean by this term) is something related to total causal determination -- and including the qualification that all phenomena are explicable by physical causes. Now, as bbarr pointed out many, many posts ago: to refute your claim that most atheistic positions are "mechanistic", it is sufficient to note that a majority of atheists endorse libertarian free will (from my experience, this is certainly true). Now I'm asking honestly: what don't you understand about that? This alone is enough to refute your claim that a majority of atheistic positions are MM.
Perhaps you're unclear as to what makes a claim false, or perhaps you prefer to obscure what is plainly being said for unknown benefit. The only claim being made at this point is that the majority atheistic position for explanation of the physical world is mechanistic materialism. Not one person has stepped forward to lay bare that claim as false.
O realm is MM. If that is a false claim, please expose it, as no one else has done so to date.
I also doubt your claim that most atheists are "materialist" as well. Again, unless you clarify, I take materialism to be a claim that all things that actually exist are material, or physical. I'm certainly not a materialist, and I'm not convinced a majority of atheists are materialist. You'll have to convince me.
As an aside, if you actually consider this "first phase" critical to your argument, then your argument is likely to be pretty wacky.
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by bbarrIt is doubtful that you expect one to overlook such lazy thinking. When I say 'without knowledge there can be no truth,' this is not a statement about truth as a reality, but truth as accessible for the one without knowledge. Comically, you then support that statement with your own example of 'conditions of justification.'
Yes, for Schopenhauer it is rational to fight the will to live, since he takes this basic motivational impulse to be the source of suffering. Further, even if Schopenhauer is wrong about this, it still doesn't follow that he thought that reason does not exist (which is what you claimed).
I agree that Schopenhauer's philosophy is accessible if one puts in ...[text shortened]... n, please stop the nonsense regarding Schopenhauer. You just look like an idiot.
Exactly what does one have when in possession of an unjustified belief, if not an unjustified belief? To the objective observer, they may have stumbled upon truth, but for the 'believer,' all they have is a belief. They know not whether it is true, so it has an identical value as all other beliefs. 'Tracking the truth' or not, the unjustified belief based on truth can be no more or less comforting than the unjustified belief based on a lie.
Knowledge is absolutely essential for truth to be accessible. The one without knowledge can never know the truth... the best they can hope for is 'unjustified beliefs.' Truth for the one unable to justify their beliefs may as well be non-existent.
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by bbarrIf you want a well-substantiated rebuke, the perhaps you should actually read Schopenhauer.
If you want a well-substantiated rebuke, the perhaps you should actually read Schopenhauer. Here's an essay of his on the Moral Character of Man:
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/human/chapter5.html
You'll find in this essay that Schopenhauer is neither a skeptic about the existence of knowledge, nor reason, nor truth.
But, ...[text shortened]... y strange view from a man who thinks that reason doesn't exist, isn't it Freak?
Oh, now you're on to something. I've simply been accidentally quoting the man and by happenstance the quotes I've randomly picked have completely supported everything I've attributed to him. Just wait until I actually start reading him!🙄
The idea here is clear.
Crystal, actually. What requires a bit more analytical thought is taking the whole of his ideas and summarizing the overarching theme of his contributions. Certainly, AS goes down many roads, but he has a way of summing things up nicely all on his own:
"Only that which is innate is genuine and will hold water; and every man who wants to achieve something, whether in practical life, in literature, or in art, must follow the rules without knowing them."
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is all backwards. You can certianly have truth, regardless of having knowledge of truth. You can even have justified true belief without having knowledge, but you cannot be said to have knowledge without also having justified true belief.
It is doubtful that you expect one to overlook such lazy thinking. When I say 'without knowledge there can be no truth,' this is not a statement about truth as a reality, but truth as accessible for the one without knowledge. Comically, you then support that statement with your own example of 'conditions of justification.'
Exactly what does one have w ...[text shortened]... iefs.' Truth for the one unable to justify their beliefs may as well be non-existent.
Let's say I had lived in a cave all my life and never seen the sky. I may unjustifiably believe that the sky is blue, but I certainly have no knowledge of the colour of the sky, never having seen it. What I do have, regardless of the the nature of justification is truth. The sky is indeed blue, I am correct, despite my lack of knowledge.
You seem to be labelling truth as knowledge and visa versa.
17 Nov 06
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis quote is from the very same work you cite above.
If you want a well-substantiated rebuke, the perhaps you should actually read Schopenhauer.
Oh, now you're on to something. I've simply been accidentally quoting the man and by happenstance the quotes I've randomly picked have completely supported everything I've attributed to him. Just wait until I actually start reading him!🙄
The idea he in practical life, in literature, or in art, must follow the rules without knowing them."
"Reason deserves to be called a prophet; for in showing us the consequence and effect of our actions in the present, does it not tell us what the future will be? This is precisely why reason is such an excellent power of restraint in moments when we are possessed by some base passion, some fit of anger, some covetous desire, that will lead us to do things whereof we must presently repent."
This is clearly in agreement with the analysis I provided above and clearly contradicts your assinine assertion that Schopenhauer thought reason "does not exist".
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDuly noted.
Thread 55832
'Calling another poster an "idiot" will leave a post subject to immediate removal.'
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by bbarrIt's uncanny how the rule so closely matched the offense. It's almost as if it was intelligently designed to suit the members of the forum. What need for such a rule if there weren't in fact idiots running amok here provoking such statements? This rule could not have arisen by chance.
Duly noted.
17 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnother passage, this from Schopenhauer's On Education:
If you want a well-substantiated rebuke, the perhaps you should actually read Schopenhauer.
Oh, now you're on to something. I've simply been accidentally quoting the man and by happenstance the quotes I've randomly picked have completely supported everything I've attributed to him. Just wait until I actually start reading him!🙄
The idea he in practical life, in literature, or in art, must follow the rules without knowing them."
"To acquire a knowledge of the world might be defined as the aim of all education; and it follows from what I have said that special stress should be laid upon beginning to acquire this knowledge at the right end. As I have shown, this means, in the main, that the particular observation of a thing shall precede the general idea of it; further, that narrow and circumscribed ideas shall come before ideas of a wide range. It means, therefore, that the whole system of education shall follow in the steps that must have been taken by the ideas themselves in the course of their formation. But whenever any of these steps are skipped or left out, the instruction is defective, and the ideas obtained are false; and finally, a distorted view of the world arises, peculiar to the individual himself—a view such as almost everyone entertains for some time, and most men for as long as they live. No one can look into his own mind without seeing that it was only after reaching a very mature age, and in some cases when he least expected it, that he came to a right understanding or a clear view of many matters in his life, that, after all, were not very difficult or complicated. Up till then, they were points in his knowledge of the world which were still obscure, due to his having skipped some particular lesson in those early days of his education, whatever it may have been like—whether artificial and conventional, or of that natural kind which is based upon individual experience."
Pretty strange that somebody skeptical about both reason and knowledge would write a whole article on how best to go about teaching people about the world!
17 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd one last quote, also from On Education, this one seemingly a direct missive from Schopenhauer to you:
If you want a well-substantiated rebuke, the perhaps you should actually read Schopenhauer.
Oh, now you're on to something. I've simply been accidentally quoting the man and by happenstance the quotes I've randomly picked have completely supported everything I've attributed to him. Just wait until I actually start reading him!🙄
The idea he in practical life, in literature, or in art, must follow the rules without knowing them."
"A man sees a great many things when he looks at the world for himself, and he sees them from many sides; but this method of learning is not nearly so short or so quick as the method which employs abstract ideas and makes hasty generalizations about everything. Experience, therefore, will be a long time in correcting preconceived ideas, or perhaps never bring its task to an end; for wherever a man finds that the aspect of things seems to contradict the general ideas he has formed, he will begin by rejecting the evidence it offers as partial and one-sided; nay, he will shut his eyes to it altogether and deny that it stands in any contradiction at all with his preconceived notions, in order that he may thus preserve them uninjured. So it is that many a man carries about a burden of wrong notions all his life long—crotchets, whims, fancies, prejudices, which at last become fixed ideas. The fact is that he has never tried to form his fundamental ideas for himself out of his own experience of life, his own way of looking at the world, because he has taken over his ideas ready-made from other people; and this it is that makes him—as it makes how many others!—so shallow and superficial."
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNot only are idiots running amok, but as individuals they seem to periodically disappear and be replaced by similar versions. You are of course familiar with the names...
It's uncanny how the rule so closely matched the offense. It's almost as if it was intelligently designed to suit the members of the forum. What need for such a rule if there weren't in fact idiots running amok here provoking such statements? This rule could not have arisen by chance.