we are a objectification of the will, just like a rock, just like a tree. and like everyone other phenomena, we are a slave to the principle of sufficient reason. So no, if we follow Schopenhauer correctly, its pretty easy to see why hed bee against free will.
We have no control over the noumena, we are an objectification of it
One difference between you and the world is size. And as for will, that is different from will not, unless you mean the name, "Will, "which is the male counterpart to Wilhelmina , who is a character in,"Ugly Betty". Hope this clears matters up.
What I think? You suck. You have no clue about what the hell your talking about. I listened to you for six fucking minutes and you made absolutely no fucking sense. You don't know shit about Schopenhauer and you probably never will. Look dim wit you should have started off with Kant before you read Schopenhauer.
Honestly, I hope you don't have plans on lecturing one day cause some smart kid in the class is going to show you up. That was fucking embarrassing. Stop making videos.Dumb ass.
@futab1000 So it seems apparent that you profess hate...Awesome. I do too, aside from what Schopenhauer thinks regarding our responsibility to have compassion for our "fellow sufferers." Life sucks, and people suck....and nowhere do I see any problem with ridiculing and slamming someone. In fact, I enjoy it. But moreover, I am often inclined to not only ridicule my opponent, but also fantasize about the ways in which I can hurt him. I take Schop's philosophy to heart and discard empathy
Curious if you read Brian Magee's book "The Philosophy of Schopenhauer" . If so, I'm curious given your depth as presented, what you might think about it? I myself have just begun it, and in turn just finsihed another about him from author Julian Young.
i think you're talking out of your ass you ignorant pompous shit.
"we shouldn't assume that any particular philosopher's ideas are only meaningful in one sense" is your own way of clouding your viewers' attention of your lack of knowledge on Schopenhauer. gives you a reason to run your bullshit on the net right? enjoy rambling more nonsense ass hole.
From what I remember of Schopenhauer's Free Will/Determinism theory is that the will in itself is free yet its expression in the phenomenonal world of matter is completely determined.
It seems to me that when the renunciate legitimately ceases to will, the will is transfigured into a ecstatic luminous force of higher consciousness devoid of pressure and pain. Anyway, this has been my experience.
Schopenhauer is a materialist, paradoxically. He's pointing to the same thing Bergson and Heidegger point to later on. Bergson calls it memory/vital impetus and matter, Heidegger Being and Time (where equipment is known in the modes of ready-to-/present-at-hand) Schopenhauer calls will and presentation (vorstellung).
Humans have autonomy but only within the constraints of their own character which is the interface of Schopenhauer's Will and our consciousness. Yes Will is shared, but you also have your own individual Will or character. Will is the Buddhas 'desire' for existence. By desiring to be, you keep yourself within samsara. Only by turning away from the Will can you eventually become free from it- as an Arahant or a saint as in the case of Schopenhauer.
"free will" is free, but not in the conventional sense in which it is understood.
will is free because there is nothing else which limits it. "Will is the lord of all worlds." Even if will IS an oppressor, it would still be free, in the sense that it is not limited. Thus, "free will" does not denote any good quality of the will. This is Schopnehauer's meaning of free will--not the religious sense.
You seem to equate materialism with determinism. Is that intentional, or do you believe a person can be a determinist without being a materialist? (fyi: I am a determinist who is not a materialist.)
Your are talking about the collective. We are a sensor network. Each obseving our own point in space/time, etc...but then it is shared with the network, the collective. We are one my friend. What did you study in college?
i think what Schopenhauer ment is very simple: there is just one will. there is no will, and then a second will that changes the will. the changes are within the one will.
Free will and determinism is not a dichotomy in the literal sense. We have determinism and free will in more or less equal measures and free will exists partially, but not in the absolute sense. Hume pointed out that so-called distinct causes are merely results of infinite processes. Schopenhauer's work on the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason is a good work in which to understand what Hume meant by infinite processes and causes.
Good point about how people shouldn't assume that any philosopher's ideas are only meaningful in one sense. Regardless of what the individual philosophers meant, their ideas can have meaning in a different sense to other people who read their work. I'm not too familiar with Schopenhauer's ideas, though.
Schopenhauer's saying, that "a man can do as he will, but not will as he will," has been an inspiration to me since my youth up, and a continual consolation and unfailing well-spring of patience in the face of the hardships of life, my own and others'. This feeling mercifully mitigates the sense of responsibility which so easily becomes paralyzing, and it prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously;
Einstein notwithstanding, I think we most definitely do have a responsibility to one another. It need not be paralyzing. It can in fact be a catalyst for compassion.
The reason I'm so passionate about it, is this. Sometimes reward and punishment works, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes deterants work, and other times a tumor needs to be removed. Sometimes there is a low leptin receptivity in the hypothalamus and sometimes their is a PPAR-Delta deficiency. Yet, people act as if we are all made perfect in God's image or something. With much suffering as a result. People take other people and themselves far too seriously.**Original idea stolen from Einstein**
we are a objectification of the will, just like a rock, just like a tree. and like everyone other phenomena, we are a slave to the principle of sufficient reason. So no, if we follow Schopenhauer correctly, its pretty easy to see why hed bee against free will.
We have no control over the noumena, we are an objectification of it
SecularNumanist 8 months ago
One difference between you and the world is size. And as for will, that is different from will not, unless you mean the name, "Will, "which is the male counterpart to Wilhelmina , who is a character in,"Ugly Betty". Hope this clears matters up.
TheBlindPig1 11 months ago
What I think? You suck. You have no clue about what the hell your talking about. I listened to you for six fucking minutes and you made absolutely no fucking sense. You don't know shit about Schopenhauer and you probably never will. Look dim wit you should have started off with Kant before you read Schopenhauer.
Honestly, I hope you don't have plans on lecturing one day cause some smart kid in the class is going to show you up. That was fucking embarrassing. Stop making videos.Dumb ass.
futab1000 1 year ago
@futab1000 So it seems apparent that you profess hate...Awesome. I do too, aside from what Schopenhauer thinks regarding our responsibility to have compassion for our "fellow sufferers." Life sucks, and people suck....and nowhere do I see any problem with ridiculing and slamming someone. In fact, I enjoy it. But moreover, I am often inclined to not only ridicule my opponent, but also fantasize about the ways in which I can hurt him. I take Schop's philosophy to heart and discard empathy
driekone 1 year ago
Hey I appreciate you thoughts on philosophy and you other posts. Its better talking about Lady Gaga. Josh @SmallBizPraxis
zoomrealty 1 year ago
Curious if you read Brian Magee's book "The Philosophy of Schopenhauer" . If so, I'm curious given your depth as presented, what you might think about it? I myself have just begun it, and in turn just finsihed another about him from author Julian Young.
philomypillow 1 year ago
i think you're talking out of your ass you ignorant pompous shit.
"we shouldn't assume that any particular philosopher's ideas are only meaningful in one sense" is your own way of clouding your viewers' attention of your lack of knowledge on Schopenhauer. gives you a reason to run your bullshit on the net right? enjoy rambling more nonsense ass hole.
had1223 1 year ago
When you first start talking it sounds like a miniature engine is revving up in the background...
smotpoker86 1 year ago
From what I remember of Schopenhauer's Free Will/Determinism theory is that the will in itself is free yet its expression in the phenomenonal world of matter is completely determined.
It seems to me that when the renunciate legitimately ceases to will, the will is transfigured into a ecstatic luminous force of higher consciousness devoid of pressure and pain. Anyway, this has been my experience.
Psychogenius018 2 years ago
Schopenhauer is a materialist, paradoxically. He's pointing to the same thing Bergson and Heidegger point to later on. Bergson calls it memory/vital impetus and matter, Heidegger Being and Time (where equipment is known in the modes of ready-to-/present-at-hand) Schopenhauer calls will and presentation (vorstellung).
ComplexEmergence 2 years ago
Comment removed
gen6k 2 years ago
cute guy reading
progressionistalex 2 years ago
Schopenhauer as Kick-ass.
Lion117 3 years ago
Humans have autonomy but only within the constraints of their own character which is the interface of Schopenhauer's Will and our consciousness. Yes Will is shared, but you also have your own individual Will or character. Will is the Buddhas 'desire' for existence. By desiring to be, you keep yourself within samsara. Only by turning away from the Will can you eventually become free from it- as an Arahant or a saint as in the case of Schopenhauer.
SOIDOG45 3 years ago
We are puppets on a string called instinct. I believe that was what Schopenhauer meant.
pziebold 3 years ago
"free will" is free, but not in the conventional sense in which it is understood.
will is free because there is nothing else which limits it. "Will is the lord of all worlds." Even if will IS an oppressor, it would still be free, in the sense that it is not limited. Thus, "free will" does not denote any good quality of the will. This is Schopnehauer's meaning of free will--not the religious sense.
will IS causality, according to Schopenhauer.
will is determinism AS phenomenon.
tonikmajor 3 years ago
You seem to equate materialism with determinism. Is that intentional, or do you believe a person can be a determinist without being a materialist? (fyi: I am a determinist who is not a materialist.)
SpiritualAtheist 3 years ago
There are many forms of materialism. I think I am safely called a materialist, though a rare kind (panexperientialist).
I equate any metaphysic that only admits one kind of causality (efficient) into its system with determinism.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
me thinks about that 'participatory epistemology' of tarnas..
richidpraah 3 years ago
Schopenhauer pointed out that the "will" is universal; just as reason is universal in all higher forms of biological life.
pythagoras9 3 years ago
Your are talking about the collective. We are a sensor network. Each obseving our own point in space/time, etc...but then it is shared with the network, the collective. We are one my friend. What did you study in college?
dp
davidpaul8 3 years ago
i studied psychobabble.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
as the physical has form the mental has an I ,the ego may be an illusion, but chalk is chalkey, as the I is personafied ?
cardellacole1 3 years ago
i think what Schopenhauer ment is very simple: there is just one will. there is no will, and then a second will that changes the will. the changes are within the one will.
ran266 3 years ago
Free will and determinism is not a dichotomy in the literal sense. We have determinism and free will in more or less equal measures and free will exists partially, but not in the absolute sense. Hume pointed out that so-called distinct causes are merely results of infinite processes. Schopenhauer's work on the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason is a good work in which to understand what Hume meant by infinite processes and causes.
pythagoras9 3 years ago
Good point about how people shouldn't assume that any philosopher's ideas are only meaningful in one sense. Regardless of what the individual philosophers meant, their ideas can have meaning in a different sense to other people who read their work. I'm not too familiar with Schopenhauer's ideas, though.
HaleyMary 3 years ago
Schopenhauer's saying, that "a man can do as he will, but not will as he will," has been an inspiration to me since my youth up, and a continual consolation and unfailing well-spring of patience in the face of the hardships of life, my own and others'. This feeling mercifully mitigates the sense of responsibility which so easily becomes paralyzing, and it prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously;
- Albert Einstein (The World As I See It)
Rybot9000 3 years ago
Einstein notwithstanding, I think we most definitely do have a responsibility to one another. It need not be paralyzing. It can in fact be a catalyst for compassion.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
The reason I'm so passionate about it, is this. Sometimes reward and punishment works, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes deterants work, and other times a tumor needs to be removed. Sometimes there is a low leptin receptivity in the hypothalamus and sometimes their is a PPAR-Delta deficiency. Yet, people act as if we are all made perfect in God's image or something. With much suffering as a result. People take other people and themselves far too seriously.**Original idea stolen from Einstein**
Rybot9000 3 years ago
rybotjust quickly read about leptin and the 5 rules, you can just know when your reading somthing that makes sence, thanks for that ,
cardellacole1 3 years ago