IMMORTALITY: A DIALOGUE - Arthur Schopenhauer

[andersoncouncilpf]

This dialogue is much like that of two teenagers talking about concepts they haven't clearly thought about before...

[mintoo2cool]

woah! it was like a awaking in my mind ...

[Karosive]

I adore these namez

[sintissimo]

or a leaf

[eeiiiinn]

S. was heavily influenced by Vedanta and Hinduism, which however had only just begun to be brought into Western culture, and often, badly translated

[jerryhello100]

I love how he smack talks Hegel. It's like a Tupac, Biggy, or an, East coast, West coast Rap battle.

[eydos]

I think that Schopenhauer's notion of "will" has a lot of common with the notion of the "survival instinct" in biology. Both are substantively indestructible while the phenomena they represent is at hand. Therefore the metaphysical concept of the will - I think - its much more analogue with what we find as motivation beyond the living, than with anything in physics might entail. Yet of course this can be reduced to the most basic of determinations. Life goes on without you. You are not essential

[DramatisPenzionae]

Of course.

Have you read "the world as..."?

[BarbarasUrates]

I agree

[jackchief]

GreyZone7...no need to get defensive, Im just trying to have a discussion. Now, I see what you're saying but the fact is, there only appears to be a contradiction because you are falsley appying theistic notions where there are none. not once in this dialouge does he speak of the soul (as you implied in your 1st post), and if you listen to the authors note it is indestructabilty which the dialouge is about - not immortality. I can only imagine he refrained from the word for this very reason.

[GreyZone7]

However, than you have to define the difference between 'indestructabilty" and 'immortality'.

What could possibly remain after the end of the body if not what is commonly refered to as 'Soul'.

What exactly is it that is 'indestructable' and how could this be explained physically and biologically and not metaphysically. Note : i am using the term 'metaphysical' in the sense of 'supernatural' or 'unexplainable'. Sometimes 'Metaphysics' is used as a Synonym for Philosophy; e.g. with Hegel.

[alliant]

@jackchief

but I mean it's reasonable to assume that these particular instances of Will, such as You or I, are ultimately deriving from 1 source? the Will itself is obviously a synonym of God, no?

[eeiiiinn]

@alliant -- yes and no.. depends what you intend by God. As to "one source" -- how many sources are in your body? Is your body one, or many?

[alliant]

@eeiiiinn

the body is 'in reality' deriving from the single source as all other things are. the brain seems to measure and devide the number of sources in the world often as a compulsive habit of mind. I think all philosophy is tip-toeing around this idea. the Absolute, One, God, Nature. And I mean to signify these words with no object, but rather a subjective experience of true wholeness and timlessness. the subjective experience derives, somehow, from this source.

[alliant]

@eeiiiinn

so to take the second point more carefully, I would maybe say that the body is one source only in a context where we need to view it as such. and the nature of experience is such that this is an apparently necessary phenomenon, the compelling idea that my body ends here, external world begins here. the more you tune out of ideas and into sensation, this seems to be a harder thing to measure.

[eeiiiinn]

@alliant Well said! Alan Watts used to say, "If i am my foot, i am the sun."

[jackchief]

GreyZone7... I consider myself very well aquainted with schopenhauer, which means i cannot let what you just said be passed by in silence. First off, schopenhauer was an atheist. No wishful thinking here, in fact he follows a sctrict line of reasoning which you can find in his main work, world as will and rep.

[GreyZone7]

Obviously, you didn't understand what I said (or you didn't understand what S. talked about in "Unzerstörbarkeit des Wesens". I pointed at the S. obvious contradiction between his atheism and his conviction of the indestructability of  the being which IS a metaphysical belief because it has no root in Physics. I recommend you reread Schopenhauer till you grasp that concept.

[jackchief]

What he is saying is that there is the immenent, which applies to phenomonon, and the transcendent, which applies to the thing-in-itself. If you remember Schop. was a Kantian, and Kant showed that time and space, rather than being properties of reality or the thing-in-itself are really only determinations of our understanding. They cannot be derived from experience, as Locke would have imagined. They do not belong to the objects of experience, but occur a priori.

[jackchief]

Essentially, for Kant the thing-in-itself, being free from the forms of our understanding (i.e., space and time) is free also from plurality, and is indivisible. Meaning the inner most kernel of our being- the thing in itself- which schop. calls the will, does not conform to time and space, hence its immortality. Whats important is that our individuality is an illusion caused in part by our understanding, which imposes on the world time and space.

[xenokrates9]

there is also absolutely no evidence for the non-existence of a higher spirit ;-and Schopenhauer was an agnostic he kept everything open, just came to reasonable conclusions through observation (Alles klar?)

[BankofSpirit]

answer to majority of questions put forth from one to another should be mu, especially to loaded questions. Truth is not in no or yes, yet is always in mu. Most say um when caught w/o words, searching for the right words from another. Um is to not know, mu is alive with wit, potential wisdom. Mu is eternal & unique w/i each yet most use wit of others or um, they use the experience/words of others, steal thoughts, claim as own. If Phd were a word it'd certainly be Fudd, "Elmer", peace

[warwize]

a german spin on hindu/buddhist thought

[warwize]

which I like a lot!

[GreyZone7]

There is absolutely no evidence for the existance of a Spirit, the Soul, whatsoever. All this talk of the 'immortal Soul' derives from whishful thinking and fear of death and not from empirical evidence.

Even Schopenhauer was mistaken here. He was a metaphysicist despite being an atheist.

[mrfatd]

its sad that the insane sophistries of kierkegaard, sartre and foucauld get more academic attention than this brilliant man

[StrongAgnostic1]

@mrfatd

It's Foucault.

[spanishtrouble]

@mrfatd The normative is usually far from the best.

[wahnano]

Great mind.

[Lamarckianism]

No wonder this guy is considered a giant in Philosophy. Great perspectives.

[tireiron]

One of my favorites...simply beautiful!

[anthonymilessee]

typical arbitrary nonsense from autonomous thought.

[BigBossIsBack]

A paper blade cuts nothing but itself, fool.

[samuelx41]

its not that its nonsense, you just dont have the ability to understand.

[wahnano]

LA ILA ILA LA  1

[MatthewLeee]

This guy thought what I was thinking about a few days ago.

[EinFremderAusElea]

"On the theory of the indestructability of our true being through death."

What is wrong with that? Can't you understand it? I certainly can. (Wie sollte ich's auch nicht verstehen.)

[ssssaintmarcus]

@EinFremderAusElea +1 for Near Death Experiences