19 Nov 06
1 edit
I wasn't being specific enough, it appears. This is the post I am asking you to address.
Here is a quote from the source that you just read. This quote has already been provided, but--- just for giggles--- let's review it again.
"It is also frightening and pandemonic: he maintains that the world as it is in itself (sometimes he crucially adds, “for us&rdquo😉 is an endless striving and blind impulse with no end in view, devoid of knowledge, lawless, absolutely free, entirely self-determining and almighty."
[all emphasis added]
Please explain the words emboldened within this partial summary of AS' position. When you're done with that, explain how that is any different than what I have maintained since the first appearance of his name herein.
19 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour confusion arises from your misunderstanding of 'in itself' which was addressed by Pawny.
Jacked up.
The key concept for Schopenhauer is the notion of 'noumenon.'
I'm not going to hold your hand on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
In other words, all Schopenhauer was saying was that the world (and not its constituents) was
a mindless, non-rational thing over which we, as rational creatures, are called to strive and
through our reason and knowledge, overcome the baser non-rational urges we entertain.
Nemesio
19 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn the unlikely event that you do manage to prove that reason does not exist, how are you then going to use it to discount evolution?
Taking the thought previously posted within the "What's wrong with evolution" thread, I asserted that reason itself is reason enough to discount evolution and/or happenstance as the cause of life as we know it.
Or had you forgotten/given up your original point?
19 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThese are justifications both. I think the line you're taking is looking back in hindsight; you justify after the effect, but not seperating that process from the initial state. We're talking about states of knowledge and in that sense if the beliefs are created at t1 then the knowledge of truth is at t2. So misapprehensions and intuitions are both justifications for belief, they may lead to the assertion of truth or of falsity at t2, but at t1 they are both justifications since it is impossible to say we have knowledge of truth at t1. The strength of this justification and how it warrants belief is a matter of aesthetics or quality, but justification it is nonetheless. So what we have is three categories: unjustified belief, justified belief based on truth and justified belief based on falsehoods, the last two only confirmed as such at t2.
[b]Do you mistakenly mean knowledge is a neccessary condition of truth?
No; I have already said that truth exists whether or not we know it. Knowledge is what is required to determine whether what we hold is truth. This ties into the next question.
There's no such thing as an unjustified belief which is based on falsehood or truth.
How would one describe misapprehensions, or intuitiveness?[/b]
19 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH[/b]Freaky, you clearly understand something about Schopenhauer's account of the world as will. But you don't seemed to have grasped that he also accounted for the world as representation.
I wasn't being specific enough, it appears. This is the post I am asking you to address.
Here is a quote from the source that you just read. This quote has already been provided, but--- just for giggles--- let's review it again.
"It is also frightening and pandemonic: he maintains that [b]the world as it is in itself (sometimes he crucially adds, “ s any different than what I have maintained since the first appearance of his name herein.
While the world as will may be "an endless striving and blind impulse with no end in view", the same cannot be said of the world as representation. Very roughly, we do not experience the world in this way; on the contrary, we experience it as ordered in accordance with the principle of sufficient reason.
For this reason alone, to say Schopenhauer thought "reason did not exist" is to ignore precisely half of the foundation of his philosophy. If we are talking about whether Schopenhauer thought knowledge did not exist, a similar point can be made. He also thought we could have some knowledge/experience of the world as will, through our nature/desires/etc.
There is no point simply repeating quotes where Schopenhauer is talking about the world as will. It's not the complete picture.
19 Nov 06
Originally posted by NemesioApparently the parenthetical part of that summary (sometimes he crucially adds, “for us&rdquo😉 is meaningless. Holding my hand is unnecessary, but thanks for the offer. Simply respond to how others have summarized AS, and--- if possible--- reconcile that response with your repetitive charges. As you have shown so far, that response is not likely to see the light of day anytime soon.
Your confusion arises from your misunderstanding of 'in itself' which was addressed by Pawny.
The key concept for Schopenhauer is the notion of 'noumenon.'
I'm not going to hold your hand on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
In other words, all Schopenhauer was saying was that the world (and not its constituents) was
a mindless, non-ra ...[text shortened]... gh our reason and knowledge, overcome the baser non-rational urges we entertain.
Nemesio
"a mindless, non-rational thing over which we, as rational creatures, are called to strive and through our reason and knowledge, overcome the baser non-rational urges we entertain."
Absolute rubbish, completely unsubstantiated by his writings. The man was a pessimist, remember? He held that the only success was the successful resistance to the will to live. And you have the compunction to say my understanding is flawed? The cheek.
19 Nov 06
Originally posted by Ian68Actually, it is rather difficult to focus on the original point with all these sidebars. As already stated, however, AS' view more or less confirms the lack of reason in an atheistic worldview. But I digress.
In the unlikely event that you do manage to prove that reason does not exist, how are you then going to use it to discount evolution?
Or had you forgotten/given up your original point?
20 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think you do need your hand held; that the 'in itself' isn't a particularly big clue for you
Apparently the parenthetical part of that summary (sometimes he crucially adds, “for us&rdquo😉 is meaningless. Holding my hand is unnecessary, but thanks for the offer. Simply respond to how others have summarized AS, and--- if possible--- reconcile that response with your repetitive charges. As you have shown so far, that response is not likely to see the l ...[text shortened]... will to live[/i]. And you have the compunction to say my understanding is flawed? The cheek.
(instead you focus on and subsequently misinterpret the function of 'for us'😉 is beyond my
ability to help, largely because it's like trying to force the proverbial horse to drink.
I see you take my answer (which you solicited) and simply insult it without providing any
counterclaim. Yes, he was a pessimist, holding that people were generally disinclined to
transcend their non-rational selves (a perspective which you are bearing out to be true).
Yes, your understanding is almost diametrically opposed to Schopenhauer's view. I, among
many, have tried to show you, but you stubbornly refuse.
In fact, from experience, the only text which you have misread more grossly that Schopenhauer's
is the Bible, although now you're giving that a run for its money.
I've provided an answer. I'm sorry you don't like it. Since you seem to be insatiable (and still
ignorantly sticking to your guns on this irrelevant sidebar), I propose (a second time) that you
move on with your own 'argument' (although I suspect that this Schopenhauer sidebar is
your way of weaseling out of making any sort of positive claims of your own).
I'd love to be proven wrong, though.
Nemesio
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn the original conditions set by you, the very act of giving a good-faith response should have
Therefore, you respond to the post and then we'll get back to the regularly scheduled mayhem.
been enough to trigger the continuing of your argument. I have given you three responses.
If the conditions had been 'a response that Freaky found acceptable,' I never would have
accepted, since it is patently clear that the four of us are utterly unable to convince you that
what Schopenhauer wrote reflects what we (and the website you cited) assert it does.
So, are you going to make good on the agreement you offered, or are you going to move the
goalposts?
Nemesio
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt is reason itself which defines the atheistic viewpoint. You have no reason to believe in God, but not pink, invisible, flying unicorns. I do however. It's called parsimony.
Actually, it is rather difficult to focus on the original point with all these sidebars. As already stated, however, AS' view more or less confirms the lack of reason in an atheistic worldview. But I digress.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI thought parsimony would lead to a belief in neither! Surely you didn't imply that there is more reason to believe in God than pink, invisible, flying unicorns based on parsimony?
It is reason itself which defines the atheistic viewpoint. You have no reason to believe in God, but not pink, invisible, flying unicorns. I do however. It's called parsimony.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry. I meant "I have a reason to make a distinction between real and unreal things".
I thought parsimony would lead to a belief in neither! Surely you didn't imply that there is more reason to believe in God than pink, invisible, flying unicorns based on parsimony?