14 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes, he rejects a telelogical conception of the universe. So what? This is irrelevant to the claim that he thinks reason does not exist.
When you say 'the rest of the article,' I assume you mean passages such as this:
"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 ...[text shortened]... arity of Schopenhauer's view and the characterization I have asserted. I'm just saying.
14 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBummer.🙁
When you say 'the rest of the article,' I assume you mean passages such as this:
"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 ...[text shortened]... arity of Schopenhauer's view and the characterization I have asserted. I'm just saying.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by bbarrWithout truth, what is reason? And yes, I agree that his work stands in contradiction to his finding: using reason to convince others that reason does not (cannot) exist.
Yes, he rejects a telelogical conception of the universe. So what? This is irrelevant to the claim that he thinks reason does not exist.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHStay focused, Freaky. What's Premise 1 of your argument?
Sorry: things got a little hectic again up in here, leaving little time for a more involved debate such as this represents.
As no one has been able to offer an alternative view to mechanistic materialism, can we assume that the majority atheistic explanation for the physical universe is MM?
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSchopenhauer wasn't a skeptic about truth either, and he never claimed that reason does not (or cannot) exist. Look, you're simply wrong about this point. You've never read Schopenhauer and you've misunderstood what you're cribbed from the internet. If you'd like to make yourself look more foolish, please continue...
Without truth, what is reason? And yes, I agree that his work stands in contradiction to his finding: using reason to convince others that reason does not (cannot) exist.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by bbarrAlthough you may be knee-deep in academia and your position is never to be questioned, if the choice comes down to what you continue to assert Schopenhauer is saying and what Schopenhauer is clearly saying, I'll go with the latter over the former.
Schopenhauer wasn't a skeptic about truth either, and he never claimed that reason does not (or cannot) exist. Look, you're simply wrong about this point. You've never read Schopenhauer and you've misunderstood what you're cribbed from the internet. If you'd like to make yourself look more foolish, please continue...
For instance:
"The primordial will is a blind unreasoning impulse to self-preservation."
http://www.radicalacademy.com/philschopenhauer.htm
When you say that he wasn't a skeptic about truth, you are clearly playing to the gallery. This is a man who claimed there is no knowledge. Without knowledge, obviously there can be no truth. Either you have something of substance to contribute, or not. Here's a suggestion: play the ball where it lays.
15 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe problem here is just that you don't understand what Schopenhauer is saying.
Although you may be knee-deep in academia and your position is never to be questioned, if the choice comes down to what you continue to assert Schopenhauer is saying and what Schopenhauer is clearly saying, I'll go with the latter over the former.
For instance:
"The primordial will is a blind unreasoning impulse to self-preservation."
http://www.rad hing of substance to contribute, or not. Here's a suggestion: play the ball where it lays.
When he claims that the "primordial will is a blind, unreasoning impulse to self-preservation" he is not claiming that reason does not exist. Rather, he is claiming that our fundamental impulses to live, our basic motivations, are non-rational. But he also claims that we can mediate the suffering caused by our primordial will to live by the use of reason; that we can employ reason to constrain our fundamental impulses. In other words, reason can effect our motivations and our will.
Further, in the very source you cited, the following is claimed:
"Once consciousness is attained, knowledge appears as the representation of the world."
Schopenhauer is here claiming that knowledge is possible once creatures are capable of representing the world to themselves. If I have a mental representation of the world around me, and that representation is accurate, and I have reason to believe that representation is accurate, then I have knowledge. This is actually a fairly traditional philosophical view.
Please note that the above quote directly contradicts your assertion that Schopenhauer claimed there is no knowledge.
Finally, you are in error when you claim that without knowledge there can be no truth. Knowledge is not a necessary condition for truth, but rather truth is a necessary condition for knowledge. If there were no truth there could be no knowledge, but there certainly can be truth in the absence of knowledge. It is completely compatible with P being true that nobody believes P (or is capable of believing P) and hence that nobody knows (or could know) P.
Please desist now, lest you humiliate yourself further.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by bbarrRather, he is claiming that our fundamental impulses to live, our basic motivations, are non-rational.
The problem here is just that you don't understand what Schopenhauer is saying.
When he claims that the "primordial will is a blind, unreasoning impulse to self-preservation" he is not claiming that reason does not exist. Rather, he is claiming that our fundamental impulses to live, our basic motivations, are non-rational. But he also claims that ...[text shortened]... obody knows (or could know) P.
Please desist now, lest you humiliate yourself further.
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 Schopenhauer claimed there is no knowledge.
Again, without taking anything away from the thousands of dollars spent on your higher edu-ma-cation, I must defer to Schopenhauer's own words for their meaning. Despite your contortions otherwise, his concepts are fairly straightforward.
Finally, you are in error when you claim that without knowledge there can be no truth.
Not exactly what was said, but heck! what's a few mischaracterizations among friends, right? Truth without the ability to ascertain it is useless, like an underground water source in the desert: who cares? Knowledge is the shovel. Schopenhauer said there was no knowledge. No knowledge, no shovel. No shovel, no water. No water, no truth.
Please desist now, lest you humiliate yourself further.
That's typical of your giving nature: always looking out for the little guy.
16 Nov 06
Originally posted by dottewellI'd say the following quotes are more representative with what I've been asserting regarding Art's take on the world than the slivers otherwise provided.
Ah, so you've read The World as Will and Representation?
It sounds like you skipped the "and Representation" part.
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods."
"The fundament upon which all our knowledge and learning rests is the inexplicable."
"They tell us that suicide is the greatest piece of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person."
"The chief of all remedies for a troubled mind is the feeling that among the blessings which Nature gives to man there is none greater than an opportune death; and the best of it is that every one of us can avail himself of it."
16 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe clownish behavior continues. Good grief.
Not exactly what was said, but heck! what's a few mischaracterizations among friends, right? Truth without the ability to ascertain it is useless, like an underground water source in the desert: who cares? Knowledge is the shovel. Schopenhauer said there was no knowledge. No knowledge, no shovel. No shovel, no water. No water, no truth.
The shovel/water analogy is silly in this context. The only thing I'll say about it is that one's inability to dig down toward a possible water source does not have any necessary connection with whether or not such water exists.