@TarasMarat there was zero segway, he bulled into my conversation making it into a dog bottom poking extraveganza. which is his perrogative and was mine to spend time in his company, like i still do. it doesn't make you less entertaining to not know about philosophy, some of the most enjoyable people i've come to know are not very intelligent or educated, but they will listen and enjoy what you have to say whether they fully understand or would even like to hear it if not for your saying it.
@SamySaara i suggested partying a lot keeps me in the company of people who don't care to have conversations i'd find to be more intellectually stimulating, which shows by example that people who party a lot have intellectual thought as well. you can be socially apt and intelligent. i believe they're one in the same. i'm not sure if you were trying to disagree with me or not, but you sort of confirmed what i was commenting on.
@cirosuperiore Technically, science is a part of philosophy (it was called natural philosophy), since it was a way of explaining the world "around" (abstractly used in the case of neurology, I suppose) us using what we can observe with reasonable objectivity. So nothing is a scientific question as opposed to a philosophical question, because the two things aren't in opposition. That said, scientists do sound far less pompous than other kinds of philosophers.
@hillsidePonderer there was a time when philosophy was the science that presumed to study nature. that was the time of Aristotle and Plato and other arm-chair philosophers up to Heidegger or Sartre. None ever contributed anything to the understanding of reality. a shoemaker a blacksmith or a farmer knew infinitely more than any philosopher about matter and nature. Philosophy is a dead subject just like alchemy or astrology.
Ethical philosophy may be their only saving grace.
@cirosuperiore Well if a farmer could explicate the mind-body problem, I'd be most impressed. And if he could not, then perhaps you would be able to do so. The very fact that large questions such as these persist is evidence that philosophy fulfills a very deep need human beings have of framing their questions about the world, whether or not they can be answered scientifically, or indeed, in principal.
@lemerdealepen I wouldn't say philosophy is easy or even that anybody can do it. Most people really suck at it. They in fact see the world as they are told to see it. Most of his work was done before 30. Perhaps he was gay?
Schopenhauer was a bitter, ugly and old man unable to get laid. That easy. He also sucked at the hard sciences, unable to even understand differential equations; no surprise he resorted to doing the easy stuff anybody can do, i. e. philosophy.
The sheer number of You Tube contributors seems to ensure that all of the strange niches that I belong to, which are disregarded by current culture as a whole, somehow still retain a home in the world, here. Thanks to the poster for caring enough to remember these great philosophers and to make these available to those of us former Philosophy students who are lonely for these folks in our past.
This is so great for me, to find this on You Tube. I read all nine volumes of Copleston, but never imagined I could see a video of the man I had read all these years. You Tube is certainly miraculous for those in love with pop culture, but it is an even greater treasure for those of us trying to hunt down parts of our past and/or culture that have fallen out of fashion.
@Theemilduque En realidad, lo más probable es que no existan subtítulos para esta entrevista. Te recuerdo que este programa es de los 70s u 80s y en esa época no existía la TV por cable, y, por lo tanto, los programas no se emitían en otros países y no había necesidad de ponerles subtítulos. Sí hubiera algún programa de computadora para ponerle subtítulos yo mismo los haría, pero no creo que exista.
@SanGuevara same. i was trying to have an interesting discussion last night with an old friend about some of the philosophy lessons i've been picking up on youtube. i don't think i got Spinoza out of my mouth before he interrupted to tell me about a guy on youtube who pokes at dogs bottoms in dog parks for a laugh. i don't look down on him for it, i just wish i had friends i could have a more stimulating conversation with. maybe its because i like to party a lot, wrong friends..
@DerfRellim11 i feel for you man! this stuff is what life is all about, and you try to share it or make sense of it with the people around you and all you hear is, sex, beer, girls, yea!
@TheUndertakerSaysRIP i think you're very right. although i'm not very education philisophically, i feel as though my mind set is quite philisophical, which tends to isolate me from 'hanging out' as much as people my age. i'd rather sit back and think about why people act the way they act and why the world and our reality as we know it is the way it is than talk about the latest episode of jersey shore or someone's status on facebook from friday night.
@DerfRellim11 I know what you mean. I watch mindless things and listen to music on the radio. I think one is a pompous asshole if one can't enjoy normal entertainment, but I struggle to find people that I find fun and funny that also want to talk academically. It's not he wants to talk about that video, it's he probably doesn't care to talk about the videos you watched. I have lowbrow humor but love learning and reading academic work. Difficult finding others with that paradox
@SanGuevara It's because they're losers. Don't worry, my friends are losers too. Not because they don't like Schopenhauer but for not being interested in academic lectures
@ryukXsayu27.....I think these dialogues are very well done, I simply have a problem with Western philosophy in general. I find the cast majority if it unnecessarily complicated and not dissimilar to a mental "pose down". I think that most Western philosohers probably just needed to get laid. Seriously.
@ShubbyBugger I agree with you that the Magee interview is clear and concise...I've actually read it many times in the eponymously entitle Magee book. My comment simply has to do with Western philosophy in general. When the Buddha was asked questions of metaphysical nature, he simply replied "It does not further". The older I get, the more I agree with this statement.
@highlikeafly The Buddhist belief system obviously presuppose a metaphysical assumption such as the cycle of rebirth, and the Buddha himself stated certain metaphysical statements such as impermanence. I personally don't think any belief (whether religious or non-religious) can do without a presupposed understanding or assumption about reality; the only difference is that western philosophy made clear distinction between the pragmatic and objective, which most world-views failed to do.
As much as I enjoy some of these dialogues, and Western philosophy in general, I can't help but feel like most of it is simply masturbation, and a terrible waste of Time.
I've got the book that was published by Magee and i've been searching these programs for so long. Thanks, thanks flame0430. This will help to improve my english and knowledge about philosophy.
How does Schopenhauer's idea of the Will relate to the Selfish Gene meme?
With S. you get the Will, a metaphysical idea that there is a Will that drives us all and all life forms to propagate itself and we serve/surfer for the Will.
In the Selfish Gene, R. Dawkins says it is all about the Gene and well "replicators" such as memes, or cultural 'genes'...
Funny, both of them initiated me into solo philosophical research- Copleston's "History of philosophy" and Maggee with all his books for amateurs in philosophy. Also, my first introduction to Schopenhauer(at that point I was already fascinated by his ideas) begun with Maggee's take in on him "the Story of Philosophy"
@shaman683 Nietzsche was not a Philosopher; or at best was an awful one. He's barely even a scholar (in his writing, that is, for we all know he held chairs), just a hot-minded, extremely insightful, honest and creative author.
I don't understand the point of denying labels to individuals, especially when the label itself is so vague, and the individual in question is so obviously deserving. Nietzsche is a philosopher for various reasons. First, his writings focus heavily on ethics, aesthetics, and religio among other things, which are all commonly considered the greatest themes of philosophy. Second, he clearly has a place in a philosophical tradition. He referenced various philosophers (specifically Sp CONT
(including, but surely not limited to, Spinoza and Schopenhauer) and he is seen as a fore-father of the major philosophical trend of existentialism. Finally, both during his life and afterward, Nietzsche was and is considered an essential philosopher in the tradition, with little legitimate academic dispute of his influence. So basically what I'm saying is, if anyone is a philosopher, Nietzsche is indisputably among them.
Many of you must have only read cliff notes version of "The World as Will and Representaion" because Schopenhauer writes numerous times that he believe in a natural force larger than himself and to difficult to understand.
Schopenhauer hated religion that does not mean he did not beieve in God (a higher being).
However, many you are correct he was not a Christian.
u obviously are the one that NEVER have read it. And if u did u should know he was an atheist, and didnt believe in god at all. he accepted certain elements in religion. But he denied that there is a supreme being. This is COMMON knowledge for everyone who reads philosophy my friend.
Schopenhauer was an Atheist. The natural forces were the forces of nature and causality. That is not a type of god. God would be something outside nature.
On a superficial level perhaps, but his philosophy itself is profoundly religious, and would not have come about if he'd listened to the likes of Dawkins and not read the Upanishads et al.
Scopenhauer was one of first unquestionable atheists among western philospohers. To claim that he believed in any form of personal deity is ridiluos for anyone who has at least read an article on him in some encyclopedia. Sure he wasn't an "atheist" as in a (WRONG) sense of the word that most uneducated people use today, but he certainly was one in any original sense ofthe term.
Actually a godless world is the KEY aspect of his pessimism.
You on the otther hand make him out to be something of a deist- he believed in God, but not in organized religion- WTF???
He wasn't just "not a Christian" he WAS an atheist, Paine, Voltaire, Jefferson were non-denominational believers, people like Karl Jaspers, but Schopenhauer wasn't just a critic of Christianity , pure and simple! Read his essay "on religion", where can you find that he even remotely believed in a deity?
Nietzsche a greater man and bigger risk taker, meaning? Just curious what you have in mind.
I must say I realize while I agree with more pragmatic, grounded, empirical anti-systematic thinkers, I have a fondness for metaphysics and systems and grand philosophies that give us big pictures, even if they are fictitious, merely poetic works. But what's real mean for Nietzsche?
not to be a total internet douche, but you said pragmatic, grounded, empirical and ANTI-SYSTEMATIC. what does this have to do with the prior? that is, anti-systematic thinkers. Please enlighten me.
Did anybody hear the BBC's 'In Our Time' prog on rad4 the other week? It was an hour discussion on Schopenhauer. "At last", I thought. Alas It was weirdly bad.The 3prof's didn't seem to know much about schop.And Oxford prof ,A. C Grayling, was wheeld out yet again. He's a nice guy but not exacty an authority on Schop. Its amazin how much Coples and Magee coverd in such a short time. We wont see their likes again.They say d BBC has dumbed down.Compare that to this 2 c why.Out of space...
The Will goes beyond just representation. Within itself, there are two apriori counter active attributes off Intellect and Form. These are indubious transcendental superflous traits within the empirical world,and reasons with the evil representative Will of Schopenhauer. So, we should not assume that Will is Absolute reprobal. Schopenhauer, on Buddhist principles recognized Maya (Desire of the Will) and Atma (Freedom of the Will). We must remember there is always a balance in NAtuRE.
The Will can only be Phenomenally observed...therefore finitely known- as to its true nature ...right or wrong ppl . Now, since this is so, do we infer that it is an Absolute total evil as Schopenhauer And Fathead8489 ( the armchairphilosopher) wants us to perceive it? ..lol
Pittounikos, I am pleased to find a person to whom Sophocles is not completely remote, but whereas you may be joking about his remark, he certainly wasn't ! Archdeacon, you are close on some of your comments but you need to be revisit your understanding of this era's logic of transcendence lest you conflate unitary vs undifferentiated ' substance' , 'underlying reality ' and thereby elide the noun phenomena. keenly tried though.
1234fyfe, I think you need to 'reviisit', as you put it, an elementary English grammmar book (though I wouldn't have been, in the ordinary course of events, so rude as to say so). The preposition is 'with' not 'vs': you conflate something WITH something else. In any case, 'conflate' doesn't mean 'confuse', it means, in this context, 'fail to distinguish between two senses'. How can I be conflating 'unitary' with 'undifferentiated' when say, quite clearly, 'undifferentiated rather than one'?
Of course it raises the question, is Kant and Schopenhauer's noumena really noumena or is it also part of phenomena? it appears to be a contradicto in adjecto as both Hegel and Nietzsche said
Energy, that the noumenon MANIFESTS as, is phenomenon, but Will is itself noumenon. The noumenon is unknown, will is unknown. You might say that the will is not unknown and that I experience it, but this is not so. I do not, cannot, experience my will anymore than an eye can see itself. I cannot observe myself in the act of willing. Always it is AFTER the act of willing that I percieve it. I AM that will. I AM that noumenon. Therefore I cannot know it or perceive it.
As Coppleston rightly says here, Kant saw (as Schopenhauer did too) that there can only be ONE underlying reality. This follows from the fact that space, time and identity are constructs of the mind (rather than that underlying reality 'transcends' space and time, as he says here). Another point I'd like to make is that Reality in itself is, strictly speaking, UNDIFFERENTIATED rather than 'one' which implies 'many' by which it is contrasted. The 'many' is an illusion, appearance only.
Oh, wretched ephemeral race, children of chance and misery, why do you compel me to tell you what it would be most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is utterly beyond your reach. Not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best for you is this- to die soon. (Sophocles). Only Joking.
Every nation had great artists, thinkers and scientists. So no reason for nationalism,
as one of the former comments tries to foster.
But still, this radical, intelligent "old concrete
head" Schopenhauer touches my soul and
utters things that totally represent my way
of thinking. Maybe that's no good sign for me as a person. At least in our times, where there seems to be no place for people of negative or pessimistic attitude towards life.
And finally Germania can be defined as what is modern day Germany with Alsace and Lorrain perhaps and then some of what is now Poland, populated with the various Germanic tribes of old-Jutes, Saxons, Teutons, Visigoths etc. Greatness is defined intuitivly as men of great talent in the Arts and Sciences, courageous and free and have through their respective works left the world in the light of greater understanding and beauty that previously wasn't there before their impingment upon this world
13point7, a bit much yes? No one suggested it was a competition between the Teuton and the Jew. qqmor, not convincing examples with Spielberg, Frank, Kubrick, entertaining and courageous in their own way, I would not put them on par with the great thinkers, German or Jew. RationalE-you can mention individuals who are many years apart and I think our friend would argue that they have a common backround, that backround being blood and kinship. But he wasn't convincing was he?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Germania has produced the greatest humans the world has known. The lying, thieving turd-people jews have never produced anyone who comes within a 1000 miles of Goethe, Schopenhauer, Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, Luther, Liebniz, Porsche, Benz, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Brahms, Brothers Grimm, Die Brucke, Werner Von Braun, Gutenberg and the list is long. The jews were made out of the afterbirth of life by Satan after God had left the room to scratch himself
There are too many exceptions to your theory about Jews to accept it. Einstein, Offenbach, Heine, Maimonides, Christ, Anne Frank, Freud, Spinoza, Marx, Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, Mahler, Mendelssohn just to name a few.
"Germania has produced the greatest humans the world has known." Define "greatness" and "Germania", you list individuals centuries apart from one another, they do not have a common background. Also you spelled "Leibniz" wrong. Also you are an idiot.
I am a pragmatist myself. If you play the language game however, spelling is relevant to indicate the degree you except conformity, and also for preciseness.
My comment was motivated by the obviously bigoted remarks by 13.7 Carl Sagan billions and had to throw in a red herring.
I really doubt that Schopenhauer's intention was "conceptual mastery over world of phenomena" as Copleston says (5:18). Schopenhauer it seems to me is weary of concepts and abstractions of reason and more concerned with deeper less rational understanding. The striving for "conceptual mastery" I find more prescient in Nietzsche, the great linguistic artiste that he was.
I agree, it was an odd thing for Coppleston to say about Schopenhauer, that 'conceptual mastery over the world of phenomena' was his intention. Aren't all philosophers after a conceptual understanding of the world? In any case, Schopenhauer's intention was to understand not so much the world of phenomena as the reality behind it, the noumenon. Nor was he after a mere conceptual understanding. On the contrary, the insight he attains has profound life-changing consequencies.
One must admit that there is a mystical imperative to the will that checks and nulls it from its temporal empirical nature. Thus we do not have to deviate by giving in to this "Evil will" of Schopenhauer.
OK, fair enough. What do you think he means by there being a 'mystical imperative' to the Schopenhauerian Will? Presumably you understood something by it to be able to disagree with it. Incidentally I thought you were bullshitting because you didn't say exactly WHAT you didn't 'admit' and WHY you didn't admit it - just saying you disagree and nothing else isn't contributing anything to the debate.
What? He said that I MUST admit that there is a mystical imperative and I proved him wrong in a single sentence by not admitting. Quite brilliant if you ask me. Jealous?
As for what I think he means; I'm sure it's some kind of Kantian religious nonsense that I need to waste my time on. If Schopenhauer didn't predate Darwin or genetics, than he would have called the Will, "the genetic impulse to survive and replicate". If there was a mechanism to, "check and null" that impulse we'd all be dead.
Well, it's hardly brilliant just to say, 'I don't not [sic] admit that', without saying what specifically you don't admit, let alone on what grounds you don't admit it. People aren't to know you were challenging him on the 'must' bit - they aren't mind readers. Look, I'm not defending SirMelanin. He isn't much cop at articulating his ideas, and you've got to use a large measure of imagination intuiting what he means (if he means anything at all).
Sir, maybe its your sense of reason and not my articulation thats in question here. An imperative is the conscious force of the Will that can and does excercise its "Good"-- reacting against its so-called necessary "Evil", which stems from a temporal attribute of material desire. Even, Schopenhauer would have seen this. Once again, Im not questioning the reality of a transcendental Will but the Absolute character of its Will and purpose for Universal order and a highly complex genetic code
I understood what you meant by an imperative. It was the 'mystical' bit that I couldn't make much sense of. Anyway, Will cannot act against itself anymore than a bird can fly over itself. It can only cease its striving, which was Schopenhauer's solution to the pain and suffering in the world c.f Buddhism. By the way, what do you mean by 'even' Schopenhauer? There is no 'Good' that the Will can excercise that can end the suffering other than cessation.
The Will is not some animalistic impulse that has no control or understanding of itself. We must remember that there is an undeniable conscious force that is intelligent and responsible for bringing this Representation ( the Universe) into clear view or some master programmer has all the answers. So, how can we infer that absolute will has a blind drive and only through art or death does it comes to rest or peace within itself. We are only finite beings and cannot introspect absolute will.
It's not JUST some animalistic impulse, for Will is in everything: in pig, tree, jellyfish, bacterium, photon...in human unconsious as well as, yes, conscious, but just as conscious and unconscious are fundamentally one, so all else is fundamentally ONE. The conscious is a mere patina on the vast, dark, fathomless Noumenal Will beneath. S. himself called it blind. It devours Itself. Few today would hold with you such an optimistic Enlightenment position - Habermas perhaps. How 'undeniable'?
Well, the will IS noumenal (as Western philosophers would say, rather than 'mystical'). We don't 'give in' to the will, for we ARE the will. The Will is our uttermost essence, our Being. S. talks a lot about the Will being blind. It stumbles on, driven by desire, insatiable striving, without purpose - a pretty grim picture of reality, I know. It is also irrational said S. (prefiguring Freud).
Thanks for this video. How hard it is to translate Schopenhauer into English. Much is lost in translation I believe. "Representation" for example is surely not the correct terminology for "Vorstellung" although it may be somewhat better than "idea". Any other suggestions?
It's the same issue as with Nietzsche. The best books would contain some commentary on odd words. However, it is not very conceivable that it is fundamentally impossible to understand these terms, sufficiently defined in English.
It is difficult to suggest an adequate English term to convey what 'Vortellung' expresses. What Schopenhauer was trying to convey was the nature of the world of appearances, the phenomenal world: it is a mental construct, as Kant held it to be. I actuallly prefer 'idea' to 'representation' for phenomena do not represent or stand for Will, nor is there a causal relationship; rather the two are aspects of the same thing (Schopenhauer is really a dual aspect theorist). How about: 'phenomena'?
It appears through the course of the videos that Copleston has a deep dislike for Schopenhauer's philosophy. And perhaps that's not so surprising, considering that he was a realist and a Jesuit.
Yes, its like the 'collapse of the wavefunction', the observation, is a transposition of reality into forms necessary for understanding (the equipment design; particle or wave), while before, was unconfined and undefined by those a-prior forms. Same with QM entanglement of two systems.
It seems that in accordance with Kant's Kritik (1st book) and Schopenhauer's ideas (The worls as will and representation) it is not only QED that agrees , but also Quantum Relativity's cornerstone yncertainty principle.
Reality can not be represented as it is in itself (Noumenal reality), within the confines of an object (mind) less complicated than itself. To be known, reality must conform to a-priori conditions of understanding; forms under which reality is understood.
The result, phenomenal reality cannot be considered independent of an observer, and includes conceptual artifacts not discoverable in reality apart from an observer; space, time, causality. We get a sense of this in quantum electrodynamics.
Reality can not be represented as it is in itself (Noumenal reality), within the confines of an object (mind) less complicated than itself. To be known, reality must conform to a-priori conditions of understanding; forms under which reality is understood.
The result, phenomenal reality cannot be considered independent of an observer, and includes conceptual artifacts not discoverable in reality apart from an observer; space, time, causality. We get a sense of this in quantum electrodynamics.
I wonder if Copleston is actually a "History of Philosophy" in that in its analysis of Philosophy it shows how the events of philosophy have affected what has come after, while Russell's is rather an indepth analysis of all philosophical thought that came before him and not an analysis of its affects. In any case Schopenhauer is still being disregarded by many in the Philosophical community and its an outrage. GO OUT AND BUY 'The World as Will and Representation'
His history of Philosophy is dry and tedious; but much more preferable to Russell's 'History of Western of Philosophy' which is lamentable in the extreme.
Interesting thinker. I didnt realize he was an atheist.
CommunistWarrior1917 1 week ago
@TarasMarat there was zero segway, he bulled into my conversation making it into a dog bottom poking extraveganza. which is his perrogative and was mine to spend time in his company, like i still do. it doesn't make you less entertaining to not know about philosophy, some of the most enjoyable people i've come to know are not very intelligent or educated, but they will listen and enjoy what you have to say whether they fully understand or would even like to hear it if not for your saying it.
DerfRellim11 4 weeks ago
@SamySaara i suggested partying a lot keeps me in the company of people who don't care to have conversations i'd find to be more intellectually stimulating, which shows by example that people who party a lot have intellectual thought as well. you can be socially apt and intelligent. i believe they're one in the same. i'm not sure if you were trying to disagree with me or not, but you sort of confirmed what i was commenting on.
DerfRellim11 1 month ago
Philosophy is the intellectual thoughts and behaviours of an individual.
Hoobifta 1 month ago
the subject / object discussion is such a crock...please leave that up to the neurologists, and neuropsychologists and not to philosophy.
the world of experience is a scientific questions not a philosophical question.
cirosuperiore 1 month ago
@cirosuperiore Technically, science is a part of philosophy (it was called natural philosophy), since it was a way of explaining the world "around" (abstractly used in the case of neurology, I suppose) us using what we can observe with reasonable objectivity. So nothing is a scientific question as opposed to a philosophical question, because the two things aren't in opposition. That said, scientists do sound far less pompous than other kinds of philosophers.
hillsidePonderer 1 month ago
@hillsidePonderer there was a time when philosophy was the science that presumed to study nature. that was the time of Aristotle and Plato and other arm-chair philosophers up to Heidegger or Sartre. None ever contributed anything to the understanding of reality. a shoemaker a blacksmith or a farmer knew infinitely more than any philosopher about matter and nature. Philosophy is a dead subject just like alchemy or astrology.
Ethical philosophy may be their only saving grace.
cirosuperiore 1 month ago
@cirosuperiore Well if a farmer could explicate the mind-body problem, I'd be most impressed. And if he could not, then perhaps you would be able to do so. The very fact that large questions such as these persist is evidence that philosophy fulfills a very deep need human beings have of framing their questions about the world, whether or not they can be answered scientifically, or indeed, in principal.
PapaWilk 1 month ago in playlist Frederick Copleston on Schopenhauer
@lemerdealepen I wouldn't say philosophy is easy or even that anybody can do it. Most people really suck at it. They in fact see the world as they are told to see it. Most of his work was done before 30. Perhaps he was gay?
joshuadc82 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Schopenhauer was a bitter, ugly and old man unable to get laid. That easy. He also sucked at the hard sciences, unable to even understand differential equations; no surprise he resorted to doing the easy stuff anybody can do, i. e. philosophy.
LeMerdealepen 4 months ago
i dont understand the guest :S i like the host more!! :D
goldfishcarnival 5 months ago
The sheer number of You Tube contributors seems to ensure that all of the strange niches that I belong to, which are disregarded by current culture as a whole, somehow still retain a home in the world, here. Thanks to the poster for caring enough to remember these great philosophers and to make these available to those of us former Philosophy students who are lonely for these folks in our past.
melvinbrand 6 months ago 2
@melvinbrand Your use of english it is deplorable.
teetsanbeer 4 months ago
@melvinbrand Oh, I should not laugh... How immature of me!
maaskeimorgen 4 months ago
This is so great for me, to find this on You Tube. I read all nine volumes of Copleston, but never imagined I could see a video of the man I had read all these years. You Tube is certainly miraculous for those in love with pop culture, but it is an even greater treasure for those of us trying to hunt down parts of our past and/or culture that have fallen out of fashion.
melvinbrand 6 months ago
SanGuevara your friends should look at you strangely when you watch Paris Hilton's sex tapes and other youtube garbage:)
turockandar 7 months ago
fuk u coppelstoooon
joerussoe2 8 months ago
a genius, a tyrant, the diary of a misogynist or a lover of woman kind, or chloroform, if she says NO. he said i love to make love.
TheBlindPig1 8 months ago
I am really happy to see all of the views that these videos get!
TheDavid2222 8 months ago
Comment removed
alliant 8 months ago
Comment removed
alliant 8 months ago
Comment removed
alliant 8 months ago
5:42
He starded from the premises of a manual cunt?
oknarbtal 9 months ago 2
@oknarbtal You got that from Aleister Crowley.....
If not then you got it from pure reason.
Phavonic 8 months ago
@Phavonic
I pretty much dislike the charlatan you've mentioned.
Pure reason, then.
oknarbtal 8 months ago 2
Quién le puede poner subtítulos?
Theemilduque 10 months ago
@Theemilduque Yo lo haría se alguien me explica como
childericking 4 months ago
@Theemilduque En realidad, lo más probable es que no existan subtítulos para esta entrevista. Te recuerdo que este programa es de los 70s u 80s y en esa época no existía la TV por cable, y, por lo tanto, los programas no se emitían en otros países y no había necesidad de ponerles subtítulos. Sí hubiera algún programa de computadora para ponerle subtítulos yo mismo los haría, pero no creo que exista.
childericking 2 months ago
Lol @ 4:28 he looks thrilled to be there.
mach1man22 1 year ago
Schopenhauer was just fatigued...Ha ha. Go Nietzsche
alexnewby 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus christ is king of earth
bass109 1 year ago
My friends look at me strangely when I watch this kind of stuff. ^_^;;
SanGuevara 1 year ago 30
@SanGuevara they're retards
DIOCULA 1 year ago
@SanGuevara same. i was trying to have an interesting discussion last night with an old friend about some of the philosophy lessons i've been picking up on youtube. i don't think i got Spinoza out of my mouth before he interrupted to tell me about a guy on youtube who pokes at dogs bottoms in dog parks for a laugh. i don't look down on him for it, i just wish i had friends i could have a more stimulating conversation with. maybe its because i like to party a lot, wrong friends..
DerfRellim11 6 months ago 10
@DerfRellim11 i feel for you man! this stuff is what life is all about, and you try to share it or make sense of it with the people around you and all you hear is, sex, beer, girls, yea!
slash20062006 6 months ago
@slash20062006 right? i mean, i love those things, but they have a time and place:)
DerfRellim11 6 months ago
Comment removed
dnemonstro 4 months ago
@DerfRellim11 that is so true... that is why philosophical minded people often isolate themselves....
TheUndertakerSaysRIP 3 months ago in playlist Arthur Schopenhauer
@TheUndertakerSaysRIP i think you're very right. although i'm not very education philisophically, i feel as though my mind set is quite philisophical, which tends to isolate me from 'hanging out' as much as people my age. i'd rather sit back and think about why people act the way they act and why the world and our reality as we know it is the way it is than talk about the latest episode of jersey shore or someone's status on facebook from friday night.
DerfRellim11 3 months ago
@DerfRellim11 I know what you mean. I watch mindless things and listen to music on the radio. I think one is a pompous asshole if one can't enjoy normal entertainment, but I struggle to find people that I find fun and funny that also want to talk academically. It's not he wants to talk about that video, it's he probably doesn't care to talk about the videos you watched. I have lowbrow humor but love learning and reading academic work. Difficult finding others with that paradox
Tucknrollgrampa 3 months ago
@DerfRellim11 Dude sometimes I feel like people find me tedious because I like to talk intellectually. I feel like Socrates at parties
SwordInAir 2 months ago
@SwordInAir How very pretentious
StephenRoddy 2 months ago
@SwordInAir Well judging from your tone, I'm pretty sure you are no Socrates..."dude"
airsplat490 1 month ago
@airsplat490 Lol
SwordInAir 1 month ago
@SwordInAir My experiences are quite similar.. I'm from Manchester too.
Incognitoification1 1 month ago
@SanGuevara
My friends don't even look at me.
WhatExactlyisAJoke 6 months ago 2
@SanGuevara It's because they're losers. Don't worry, my friends are losers too. Not because they don't like Schopenhauer but for not being interested in academic lectures
Tucknrollgrampa 3 months ago
...apologies for my terrible typing.
highlikeafly 1 year ago
@ryukXsayu27.....I think these dialogues are very well done, I simply have a problem with Western philosophy in general. I find the cast majority if it unnecessarily complicated and not dissimilar to a mental "pose down". I think that most Western philosohers probably just needed to get laid. Seriously.
highlikeafly 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like this video. Thank you for your sharing. Hope to see next your video.
many9662 1 year ago
Your video is great. I like it. Thank you for your sharing.
many9662 1 year ago
@ShubbyBugger I agree with you that the Magee interview is clear and concise...I've actually read it many times in the eponymously entitle Magee book. My comment simply has to do with Western philosophy in general. When the Buddha was asked questions of metaphysical nature, he simply replied "It does not further". The older I get, the more I agree with this statement.
highlikeafly 1 year ago
@highlikeafly The Buddhist belief system obviously presuppose a metaphysical assumption such as the cycle of rebirth, and the Buddha himself stated certain metaphysical statements such as impermanence. I personally don't think any belief (whether religious or non-religious) can do without a presupposed understanding or assumption about reality; the only difference is that western philosophy made clear distinction between the pragmatic and objective, which most world-views failed to do.
philonous09 1 year ago
@philonous09
philonous09 1 year ago
As much as I enjoy some of these dialogues, and Western philosophy in general, I can't help but feel like most of it is simply masturbation, and a terrible waste of Time.
highlikeafly 1 year ago
@highlikeafly It's terribly clear exposition of the history of philosophy. I would listen again.
ShoobyBugger 1 year ago
@highlikeafly Dear oh dear...
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@highlikeafly The dialogues, or Western philosophy?
ryukXsayu27 1 year ago
@highlikeafly
Haha. you are right my friend. often it is. we play with our words more then we play with Time
alliant 9 months ago
I just remembered that Copleston debated Bertrand Russell over the existence of God.
alifeofreason 1 year ago
I've got the book that was published by Magee and i've been searching these programs for so long. Thanks, thanks flame0430. This will help to improve my english and knowledge about philosophy.
txikilin 1 year ago
conceptual mastery,, wowl;';
aidinbm 1 year ago
QUESTION:
How does Schopenhauer's idea of the Will relate to the Selfish Gene meme?
With S. you get the Will, a metaphysical idea that there is a Will that drives us all and all life forms to propagate itself and we serve/surfer for the Will.
In the Selfish Gene, R. Dawkins says it is all about the Gene and well "replicators" such as memes, or cultural 'genes'...
S2Cents 1 year ago
Funny, both of them initiated me into solo philosophical research- Copleston's "History of philosophy" and Maggee with all his books for amateurs in philosophy. Also, my first introduction to Schopenhauer(at that point I was already fascinated by his ideas) begun with Maggee's take in on him "the Story of Philosophy"
BalijoGadniStvore 1 year ago
Nietzsche said he considered Schopenhauer a greater philosopher than himself.
shaman683 1 year ago
@shaman683 Nietzsche was not a Philosopher; or at best was an awful one. He's barely even a scholar (in his writing, that is, for we all know he held chairs), just a hot-minded, extremely insightful, honest and creative author.
jezmuff 1 year ago
@jezmuff Why don't you consider nietzsche a philosopher or a bad one?
philosopheDeMaelstro 1 year ago
@jezmuff
I don't understand the point of denying labels to individuals, especially when the label itself is so vague, and the individual in question is so obviously deserving. Nietzsche is a philosopher for various reasons. First, his writings focus heavily on ethics, aesthetics, and religio among other things, which are all commonly considered the greatest themes of philosophy. Second, he clearly has a place in a philosophical tradition. He referenced various philosophers (specifically Sp CONT
Nonoyawns 1 year ago
@Nonoyawns
(including, but surely not limited to, Spinoza and Schopenhauer) and he is seen as a fore-father of the major philosophical trend of existentialism. Finally, both during his life and afterward, Nietzsche was and is considered an essential philosopher in the tradition, with little legitimate academic dispute of his influence. So basically what I'm saying is, if anyone is a philosopher, Nietzsche is indisputably among them.
Nonoyawns 1 year ago
@jezmuff Or perhaps you yourself are no philosopher at all or an awful one, at best? Quite the claim, I would say.
ShoobyBugger 1 year ago
he is a good philosopher. But in my view Nietzsche is the greater man, and a much bigger risk taker then Schopenhauer
xARMINIUSx 2 years ago
@xARMINIUSx
Many of you must have only read cliff notes version of "The World as Will and Representaion" because Schopenhauer writes numerous times that he believe in a natural force larger than himself and to difficult to understand.
Schopenhauer hated religion that does not mean he did not beieve in God (a higher being).
However, many you are correct he was not a Christian.
AfricansAgainstObama 2 years ago
u obviously are the one that NEVER have read it. And if u did u should know he was an atheist, and didnt believe in god at all. he accepted certain elements in religion. But he denied that there is a supreme being. This is COMMON knowledge for everyone who reads philosophy my friend.
xARMINIUSx 2 years ago
Schopenhauer was an Atheist. The natural forces were the forces of nature and causality. That is not a type of god. God would be something outside nature.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 year ago
On a superficial level perhaps, but his philosophy itself is profoundly religious, and would not have come about if he'd listened to the likes of Dawkins and not read the Upanishads et al.
egapnala65 1 year ago
@AfricansAgainstObama
Scopenhauer was one of first unquestionable atheists among western philospohers. To claim that he believed in any form of personal deity is ridiluos for anyone who has at least read an article on him in some encyclopedia. Sure he wasn't an "atheist" as in a (WRONG) sense of the word that most uneducated people use today, but he certainly was one in any original sense ofthe term.
Actually a godless world is the KEY aspect of his pessimism.
BalijoGadniStvore 1 year ago
@AfricansAgainstObama
You on the otther hand make him out to be something of a deist- he believed in God, but not in organized religion- WTF???
He wasn't just "not a Christian" he WAS an atheist, Paine, Voltaire, Jefferson were non-denominational believers, people like Karl Jaspers, but Schopenhauer wasn't just a critic of Christianity , pure and simple! Read his essay "on religion", where can you find that he even remotely believed in a deity?
BalijoGadniStvore 1 year ago
@xARMINIUSx
Nietzsche a greater man and bigger risk taker, meaning? Just curious what you have in mind.
I must say I realize while I agree with more pragmatic, grounded, empirical anti-systematic thinkers, I have a fondness for metaphysics and systems and grand philosophies that give us big pictures, even if they are fictitious, merely poetic works. But what's real mean for Nietzsche?
S2Cents 1 year ago
@S2Cents
not to be a total internet douche, but you said pragmatic, grounded, empirical and ANTI-SYSTEMATIC. what does this have to do with the prior? that is, anti-systematic thinkers. Please enlighten me.
elpapaya94 1 year ago
@elpapaya94
I don't know.
S2Cents 1 year ago
I thought Schopenhauer was a Christian?
AfricansAgainstObama 2 years ago
you're thinking kierkergaard, you moron
greeniem 2 years ago
@greeniem
You are a small and angry man. Sucks to be you.
AfricansAgainstObama 2 years ago
Schopenhauer was an open atheist
TheEcumenator 2 years ago
he excepted Christian ascese, but he denied all the rest. So he was an atheist
xARMINIUSx 2 years ago
Schopenhauer rocks!
Fanfardon 2 years ago
Flame0430, you have my deepest gratitude for this and all your other priceless uploads.
stef1871987 2 years ago
WHAT IS THE WORD HE SAYS @ 0:09 "MUST BE FREE FROM THE -----OF FASHION"?
Thanx
TitanYa315 2 years ago
I think he says "...vulgaries of fashion".
alfsal67 2 years ago
The word McGee says is 'Vagaries'. Although he does pronounce it in a rather odd way!
In this context I take his meaning to be that philosophical investigation should remain unmoved by the erratic and unpredictable currents of fashion.
Re The other answer you have been offered - 'Vulgaries' is not a word, I'm afraid!
5Magenta 2 years ago
Vagaries... I believe...English accent hard to tell
SirMelanin 2 years ago
Comment removed
SirMelanin 2 years ago
"vagaries of fashion"
bkishar 2 years ago
@TitanYa315
"bewares", I guess?
DrMerkwuerdichliebe 2 years ago
Did anybody hear the BBC's 'In Our Time' prog on rad4 the other week? It was an hour discussion on Schopenhauer. "At last", I thought. Alas It was weirdly bad.The 3prof's didn't seem to know much about schop.And Oxford prof ,A. C Grayling, was wheeld out yet again. He's a nice guy but not exacty an authority on Schop. Its amazin how much Coples and Magee coverd in such a short time. We wont see their likes again.They say d BBC has dumbed down.Compare that to this 2 c why.Out of space...
Pittounikos 2 years ago
The Will goes beyond just representation. Within itself, there are two apriori counter active attributes off Intellect and Form. These are indubious transcendental superflous traits within the empirical world,and reasons with the evil representative Will of Schopenhauer. So, we should not assume that Will is Absolute reprobal. Schopenhauer, on Buddhist principles recognized Maya (Desire of the Will) and Atma (Freedom of the Will). We must remember there is always a balance in NAtuRE.
SirMelanin 2 years ago
No es que la voluntad vaya más allá de la representación, más bien allí donde termina la representación comienza la voluntad y viceversa.
Nietzschopenhauer 2 years ago
Vorstellung = representation... hardly. There is more to it than that!
Nostatementinthename 2 years ago
The Will can only be Phenomenally observed...therefore finitely known- as to its true nature ...right or wrong ppl . Now, since this is so, do we infer that it is an Absolute total evil as Schopenhauer And Fathead8489 ( the armchairphilosopher) wants us to perceive it? ..lol
SirMelanin 2 years ago
Comment removed
SirMelanin 2 years ago
Pittounikos, I am pleased to find a person to whom Sophocles is not completely remote, but whereas you may be joking about his remark, he certainly wasn't ! Archdeacon, you are close on some of your comments but you need to be revisit your understanding of this era's logic of transcendence lest you conflate unitary vs undifferentiated ' substance' , 'underlying reality ' and thereby elide the noun phenomena. keenly tried though.
dr j pfeiffer st johns college oxford uk
1234fyfe 2 years ago
Never mind telling me what I need to 'revisit', just address my argument. WHAT exactly do you dispute and WHY?
archdeaconj 2 years ago
1234fyfe, I think you need to 'reviisit', as you put it, an elementary English grammmar book (though I wouldn't have been, in the ordinary course of events, so rude as to say so). The preposition is 'with' not 'vs': you conflate something WITH something else. In any case, 'conflate' doesn't mean 'confuse', it means, in this context, 'fail to distinguish between two senses'. How can I be conflating 'unitary' with 'undifferentiated' when say, quite clearly, 'undifferentiated rather than one'?
archdeaconj 2 years ago
Of course it raises the question, is Kant and Schopenhauer's noumena really noumena or is it also part of phenomena? it appears to be a contradicto in adjecto as both Hegel and Nietzsche said
celebrei 2 years ago
Energy, that the noumenon MANIFESTS as, is phenomenon, but Will is itself noumenon. The noumenon is unknown, will is unknown. You might say that the will is not unknown and that I experience it, but this is not so. I do not, cannot, experience my will anymore than an eye can see itself. I cannot observe myself in the act of willing. Always it is AFTER the act of willing that I percieve it. I AM that will. I AM that noumenon. Therefore I cannot know it or perceive it.
archdeaconj 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
absolutely brilliant!
sipistoo7 2 years ago
absolutely brilliant!
sipistoo7 2 years ago
absolutely brilliant
sipistoo7 2 years ago
As Coppleston rightly says here, Kant saw (as Schopenhauer did too) that there can only be ONE underlying reality. This follows from the fact that space, time and identity are constructs of the mind (rather than that underlying reality 'transcends' space and time, as he says here). Another point I'd like to make is that Reality in itself is, strictly speaking, UNDIFFERENTIATED rather than 'one' which implies 'many' by which it is contrasted. The 'many' is an illusion, appearance only.
archdeaconj 2 years ago
To much Will in the comments section, not enough Idea.
"Anne Frank is a stretch." --What THE F__K!
barrywinehousexp 2 years ago
Oh, wretched ephemeral race, children of chance and misery, why do you compel me to tell you what it would be most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is utterly beyond your reach. Not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best for you is this- to die soon. (Sophocles). Only Joking.
Pittounikos 2 years ago
Brilliant!!!
alukkkard 2 years ago
Comment removed
WISEBL00D 2 years ago
in espanish ...please
TheDarkmoon777 2 years ago
Comment removed
Pittounikos 2 years ago
Everytime i see a picture of the older Schopenhauer i cant get the image of him throwing a lady down a flight of stairs out of my head. Hilarious.
clusterherpes 2 years ago 11
he was only alleged to have done it. i dont think he ever confessed..
dankerer 2 years ago
I wouldn't be surprised if he did it
alukkkard 2 years ago
@clusterherpes Aww man you're so cool. I thought nobody else had read that story XD
bobdy9988 11 months ago
Every nation had great artists, thinkers and scientists. So no reason for nationalism,
as one of the former comments tries to foster.
But still, this radical, intelligent "old concrete
head" Schopenhauer touches my soul and
utters things that totally represent my way
of thinking. Maybe that's no good sign for me as a person. At least in our times, where there seems to be no place for people of negative or pessimistic attitude towards life.
HerrSchopenhauer 2 years ago 2
I feel you man! And one wonders why this world is all f--- up? Schopenhauerians are scarce yet I can't see any other reality than the one he exposed.
alukkkard 2 years ago
"Take your weapon and strike me down!" -Frederick Copleston
NatrualWonder 2 years ago
And finally Germania can be defined as what is modern day Germany with Alsace and Lorrain perhaps and then some of what is now Poland, populated with the various Germanic tribes of old-Jutes, Saxons, Teutons, Visigoths etc. Greatness is defined intuitivly as men of great talent in the Arts and Sciences, courageous and free and have through their respective works left the world in the light of greater understanding and beauty that previously wasn't there before their impingment upon this world
owenline 2 years ago
13point7, a bit much yes? No one suggested it was a competition between the Teuton and the Jew. qqmor, not convincing examples with Spielberg, Frank, Kubrick, entertaining and courageous in their own way, I would not put them on par with the great thinkers, German or Jew. RationalE-you can mention individuals who are many years apart and I think our friend would argue that they have a common backround, that backround being blood and kinship. But he wasn't convincing was he?
owenline 2 years ago
i cant interview myself...hahaha...sure you can..hahaah
chaniwie 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
taikoking 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Germania has produced the greatest humans the world has known. The lying, thieving turd-people jews have never produced anyone who comes within a 1000 miles of Goethe, Schopenhauer, Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, Luther, Liebniz, Porsche, Benz, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Brahms, Brothers Grimm, Die Brucke, Werner Von Braun, Gutenberg and the list is long. The jews were made out of the afterbirth of life by Satan after God had left the room to scratch himself
13point7billions 2 years ago
There are too many exceptions to your theory about Jews to accept it. Einstein, Offenbach, Heine, Maimonides, Christ, Anne Frank, Freud, Spinoza, Marx, Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, Mahler, Mendelssohn just to name a few.
qqmor 2 years ago 2
"Germania has produced the greatest humans the world has known." Define "greatness" and "Germania", you list individuals centuries apart from one another, they do not have a common background. Also you spelled "Leibniz" wrong. Also you are an idiot.
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
spelling has no relevance in anything.
mountebank1 2 years ago
I am a pragmatist myself. If you play the language game however, spelling is relevant to indicate the degree you except conformity, and also for preciseness.
My comment was motivated by the obviously bigoted remarks by 13.7 Carl Sagan billions and had to throw in a red herring.
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
Anne Frank is a stretch.
BigBossIsBack 2 years ago
Thanks for putting this up, very insightful and informative.
tyefelix 2 years ago
I really doubt that Schopenhauer's intention was "conceptual mastery over world of phenomena" as Copleston says (5:18). Schopenhauer it seems to me is weary of concepts and abstractions of reason and more concerned with deeper less rational understanding. The striving for "conceptual mastery" I find more prescient in Nietzsche, the great linguistic artiste that he was.
ejgiv 2 years ago
I agree, it was an odd thing for Coppleston to say about Schopenhauer, that 'conceptual mastery over the world of phenomena' was his intention. Aren't all philosophers after a conceptual understanding of the world? In any case, Schopenhauer's intention was to understand not so much the world of phenomena as the reality behind it, the noumenon. Nor was he after a mere conceptual understanding. On the contrary, the insight he attains has profound life-changing consequencies.
archdeaconj 2 years ago
One must admit that there is a mystical imperative to the will that checks and nulls it from its temporal empirical nature. Thus we do not have to deviate by giving in to this "Evil will" of Schopenhauer.
SirMelanin 2 years ago
I don't not admit that.
fathead8489 2 years ago
Don't admit what, exactly? I think you're bullshitting.
archdeaconj 2 years ago
I don't admit that there is a, "mystical imperative" as SirMelanin. That to me is total bullshit.
fathead8489 2 years ago
OK, fair enough. What do you think he means by there being a 'mystical imperative' to the Schopenhauerian Will? Presumably you understood something by it to be able to disagree with it. Incidentally I thought you were bullshitting because you didn't say exactly WHAT you didn't 'admit' and WHY you didn't admit it - just saying you disagree and nothing else isn't contributing anything to the debate.
archdeaconj 2 years ago
What? He said that I MUST admit that there is a mystical imperative and I proved him wrong in a single sentence by not admitting. Quite brilliant if you ask me. Jealous?
As for what I think he means; I'm sure it's some kind of Kantian religious nonsense that I need to waste my time on. If Schopenhauer didn't predate Darwin or genetics, than he would have called the Will, "the genetic impulse to survive and replicate". If there was a mechanism to, "check and null" that impulse we'd all be dead.
fathead8489 2 years ago
Well, it's hardly brilliant just to say, 'I don't not [sic] admit that', without saying what specifically you don't admit, let alone on what grounds you don't admit it. People aren't to know you were challenging him on the 'must' bit - they aren't mind readers. Look, I'm not defending SirMelanin. He isn't much cop at articulating his ideas, and you've got to use a large measure of imagination intuiting what he means (if he means anything at all).
archdeaconj 2 years ago
He knows what I mean. That's all the matters. My retort was incomprehensible devious.
fathead8489 2 years ago
Sir, maybe its your sense of reason and not my articulation thats in question here. An imperative is the conscious force of the Will that can and does excercise its "Good"-- reacting against its so-called necessary "Evil", which stems from a temporal attribute of material desire. Even, Schopenhauer would have seen this. Once again, Im not questioning the reality of a transcendental Will but the Absolute character of its Will and purpose for Universal order and a highly complex genetic code
SirMelanin 2 years ago
I understood what you meant by an imperative. It was the 'mystical' bit that I couldn't make much sense of. Anyway, Will cannot act against itself anymore than a bird can fly over itself. It can only cease its striving, which was Schopenhauer's solution to the pain and suffering in the world c.f Buddhism. By the way, what do you mean by 'even' Schopenhauer? There is no 'Good' that the Will can excercise that can end the suffering other than cessation.
archdeaconj 2 years ago
The Will is not some animalistic impulse that has no control or understanding of itself. We must remember that there is an undeniable conscious force that is intelligent and responsible for bringing this Representation ( the Universe) into clear view or some master programmer has all the answers. So, how can we infer that absolute will has a blind drive and only through art or death does it comes to rest or peace within itself. We are only finite beings and cannot introspect absolute will.
SirMelanin 2 years ago
It's not JUST some animalistic impulse, for Will is in everything: in pig, tree, jellyfish, bacterium, photon...in human unconsious as well as, yes, conscious, but just as conscious and unconscious are fundamentally one, so all else is fundamentally ONE. The conscious is a mere patina on the vast, dark, fathomless Noumenal Will beneath. S. himself called it blind. It devours Itself. Few today would hold with you such an optimistic Enlightenment position - Habermas perhaps. How 'undeniable'?
archdeaconj 2 years ago
Well, the will IS noumenal (as Western philosophers would say, rather than 'mystical'). We don't 'give in' to the will, for we ARE the will. The Will is our uttermost essence, our Being. S. talks a lot about the Will being blind. It stumbles on, driven by desire, insatiable striving, without purpose - a pretty grim picture of reality, I know. It is also irrational said S. (prefiguring Freud).
archdeaconj 2 years ago
Comment removed
Kev95682 3 years ago
Thanks for this video. How hard it is to translate Schopenhauer into English. Much is lost in translation I believe. "Representation" for example is surely not the correct terminology for "Vorstellung" although it may be somewhat better than "idea". Any other suggestions?
ejgiv 3 years ago
It's the same issue as with Nietzsche. The best books would contain some commentary on odd words. However, it is not very conceivable that it is fundamentally impossible to understand these terms, sufficiently defined in English.
LiberalVichy 2 years ago
It is difficult to suggest an adequate English term to convey what 'Vortellung' expresses. What Schopenhauer was trying to convey was the nature of the world of appearances, the phenomenal world: it is a mental construct, as Kant held it to be. I actuallly prefer 'idea' to 'representation' for phenomena do not represent or stand for Will, nor is there a causal relationship; rather the two are aspects of the same thing (Schopenhauer is really a dual aspect theorist). How about: 'phenomena'?
archdeaconj 2 years ago
It appears through the course of the videos that Copleston has a deep dislike for Schopenhauer's philosophy. And perhaps that's not so surprising, considering that he was a realist and a Jesuit.
CredereAude 3 years ago
Yes, its like the 'collapse of the wavefunction', the observation, is a transposition of reality into forms necessary for understanding (the equipment design; particle or wave), while before, was unconfined and undefined by those a-prior forms. Same with QM entanglement of two systems.
Noumenal1 3 years ago
It seems that in accordance with Kant's Kritik (1st book) and Schopenhauer's ideas (The worls as will and representation) it is not only QED that agrees , but also Quantum Relativity's cornerstone yncertainty principle.
athenstatler 3 years ago
Reality can not be represented as it is in itself (Noumenal reality), within the confines of an object (mind) less complicated than itself. To be known, reality must conform to a-priori conditions of understanding; forms under which reality is understood.
The result, phenomenal reality cannot be considered independent of an observer, and includes conceptual artifacts not discoverable in reality apart from an observer; space, time, causality. We get a sense of this in quantum electrodynamics.
Noumenal1 3 years ago
Reality can not be represented as it is in itself (Noumenal reality), within the confines of an object (mind) less complicated than itself. To be known, reality must conform to a-priori conditions of understanding; forms under which reality is understood.
The result, phenomenal reality cannot be considered independent of an observer, and includes conceptual artifacts not discoverable in reality apart from an observer; space, time, causality. We get a sense of this in quantum electrodynamics.
Noumenal1 3 years ago
The opening music is so bizarre.
GeorgesBarras 3 years ago
I wonder if Copleston is actually a "History of Philosophy" in that in its analysis of Philosophy it shows how the events of philosophy have affected what has come after, while Russell's is rather an indepth analysis of all philosophical thought that came before him and not an analysis of its affects. In any case Schopenhauer is still being disregarded by many in the Philosophical community and its an outrage. GO OUT AND BUY 'The World as Will and Representation'
Stalin661 3 years ago
I always love the mini biography before dealing with the philosophical ideas . . . it shows the philosopher as a ongoing work of intellectual 'art'
theinternetscholar 3 years ago
Copleston - bored windbag - not good for tv....lol.
dojufitz 3 years ago
As soon as I saw him i was tempted to stop watching.
GeorgesBarras 3 years ago
Flame0430, I really appreciate all your Bryan Magee posts. You've provided a real service with these. Thanks!!!
stevecic 3 years ago 3
Good old Copleston, the Thomas Aquinas loving jesuit. His history of philosophy will never be surpassed.
raffen79 3 years ago 8
Indeed.
Fike2308 3 years ago 3
His history of Philosophy is dry and tedious; but much more preferable to Russell's 'History of Western of Philosophy' which is lamentable in the extreme.
debyte 3 years ago
I don't think it is dry at all. It's not an action movie, it's a scholarly work.
rootberg 3 years ago
I agree, I'm not sure what critics who call his work "dry" expect from a scholarly history of philosophy.
spawnfan101 3 years ago