Frederick Copleston on Schopenhauer: Section 2

[suddenlyitsobvious]

...whereas ANYBODY could have composed CharlesDilkes' post.

Someone equipped with ACTUAL intelligence would have formulated a more interesting reply.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

And then whining about quantity. FIVE POST. What a scandal!

Eew! How often I've seen this!

Isn't it amazing how 99% of those drooling about a philospher can't even hold a conversation?

It's PATHETIC.

They actually think that the mere act of claiming they are very much into Copleston, or Derrida, or some other promoted anally-retentive 'thinker', will actually ensure they themselves will be considered 'very intelligent'.

Note how MY POST evidences intellectual activity taking place,...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

*just about able to state certain philosphers are extremely interesting

[StephenRoddy]

Copleston say's that Schoppenhauers "access to the noumenal" was through the body.

That's not really true.

It's more that his access to the noumenal was through the human experience of reality. Even at that, the closest you could ever get was to bypass platonic ideals through artistic contemplation.

[goldfishcarnival]

the guest just confuses me :S

[suddenlyitsobvious]

Bryan Magee is a lot more interesting to listen to than his host. I find Copleston so far defensive and remarkably uncommunicative and certainly not inspired. In fact his knowledge seems to be of the dry, authoritative, egotistical kind, lacking the spontaneous, ever-expanding flow of true inspiration and connectedness.

He certainly doesn't seem to be brilliant...

[arch8887]

@suddenlyitsobvious Bryan Magee IS the host.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@arch8887

Yes, I know. Though I'm not French, I live and function there, and since I'm not a native anglophone either, I boldly supposed that the English would, as the French, have both meanings to the word 'host' (French: hôte): the one who receives or the one being received. Strangely enough, the word has both senses in French and people understand which one is indicated by the context. I erroneously presumed English would have the same double use for this word...

[CharlesDilkes]

@suddenlyitsobvious Well, the reason is that Magee, at the point of this documentary being aired, was one of the few English writers to have published a definitive account of Scopenhauer's philosophy; Copleston is a historian of ideas, so he only wrote passing accounts about Schopenhauer - so in short, Magee knows a lot more about the subject than Copleston. But Copleston is 'brilliant' - he's a brilliant historian, you should read him.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@CharlesDilkes

'brilliant'

Well, it is my opinion that philosophy in general is much characterized by an extreme poverty of true inspiration and connectedness to our humanity and everything that could be seen as 'universal', which has provoked by compensation an apparently

impressive but ultimately void -not to say completely relativistic = nihilistic- accumulation of the most exorbitantly pompous endeavours that strike me as quite toxic, such as 'deconstruction' fi, ...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@CharlesDilkes

(2)

...a development largely owned by promoted jewish intellectuals/philosophers who use the increasingly absurd discipline to vent their existential depression & shape the collective using the most insane theoretical concoctions that

ALWAYS aim to strip all sense of the absolute away -while the masses & many of philosophy's adepts, who are typically very preoccupied with 'being smart',

behold in awe, clapping their hands -not unlike the masses in the tale of 'The...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@CharlesDilkes

(3)

...Emperor's New Clothes, little aware that substantively the egomaniacal concoctions they so admire are completely void, and increasingly so with each passing decade, the progression being, as always, an exponential one.

The only interest philosphy holds to me is that its developing trends inform me about the history of (the corruption of) thought, and consequently, the relatively recent history of human consciousness and therefore, of society.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@CharlesDilkes

(4)

I certainly don't expect to find, or have ever found anything there

informing me about the nature of reality or providing an answer to any crucial question.

In sum, the discipline is tedious enough as it is and I certainly wouldn't spend precious time on a guy like Copleston, when my discernment has already informed me, through visual cues about his persona, body language and general demeanour, as well as through a processing of the (lack of) substance he ...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@CharlesDilkes

(5)

...communicates, unless absolutely necessary. He's obviously a pompous egomaniac -meaning creativity or true intelligence is excluded.

Mind you, his works might be more interesting than suggested by this interview because they are often/typically 'edited' -if you can take a hint, but I see no reason for exploring it at this point.

If you opine though he has made some brilliant connections between historical ideas, I certainly wouldn't mind hearing which ones...

[CharlesDilkes]

@suddenlyitsobvious Five posts that I think say more about you than anything else. I'd be so bold as to say that you don't really know enough about philosophy as a discipline to make the sort of diatribe you've just made.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@CharlesDilkes

Meaning you are just about able to suggest state philosophers are extremely interesting -allowing you to bask in their glory and suggest you are yourself one of the priveleged humans equipped with sufficient intelligence to grasp their work- but you can't actually make a substantive observation.

How very typical...

[CharlesDilkes]

@suddenlyitsobvious God, how pretentious. If anyone has the ego I think it's you.

[rabbitwho]

Why does there need to be two people?

Person 1. Explain a point

Person 2. Agree or Disagree

Person one: ignore what he said and move on to the next point.

[chazwyman]

This is British TV at its best.

I do not believe that US TV would ever countenance such a project.

Two guys and deep thoughts unadorned.

[chazwyman]

This is British TV at its best.

[grahamlaur]

Two aging British guys in suits sitting on a couch talking slowly about philosophy. Sounds pretty dire in print, but this is actually pretty fascinating.

[bambamgo98]

@grahamlaur

These discussions (from the 1987 series) are actualy available in print, and are found in a book published by Oxford University Press titled The Great Philosophers. And very fascinating these transcripts are to read as a companion to the video interviews!

[MrGongonzo]

Magee I ment darn it  messed up my joke

[MrGongonzo]

Perhaps Fredrick CAN interview himself, what a trip :) peace

[Bangell99]

That room needed re-decorating.

[kurtmandos66]

this is old peoples tv at its peak.

[890buddha]

they keep saying cunt, or was it kant.

[jerryhello100]

Isn't Magee adorable. That white hair, those big glasses, his countenance in all its conscientious glory.

[147yearsplustruelove]

So long as we remember that the universe is ultimately a mystery, but that we can, none the less conceive of ideas, build thing, improve life quality, and find meaning in our lives I think we can better spare ourselves from pessimistic and nihilistic thinking, as well as expand upon our values- to relate this to Schopnehauer, I think of A) Kant & Eastern Thought's influence on him, and his influence on the likes of Nietzsche and Wittgenstien, et cetera

[cosmicelore]

quite honestly I consider the wave of "new atheists" to be detrimental to atheism itself, the arguments presented by Dawkins,Hitchens,Dennett, Harris, etc. add up to one gigantic straw man attack against theism and religion, that's why more sensible atheists like Ruse, Bagginni and others stir away from their lot

[kwballzandy]

break down there arguments, show where there wrong

but you can't because they are right

the so called "sensible atheists" are weak of conviction, and wish to not challenge cultural norms

if this is "detrimental to atheism" because it is impolite or not sensitive to theists, good

theists don't care if your hitchens or ruse, they think your going to hell either way

besides speaking unequivocally lets people know they are not alone in they're ideas

[cosmicelore]

yes but no instant of time existed prior to it, nor was there anything physically prior to the initial singularity, the antiquated idea that an infinite amount of time existed which Russell held was proven false by modern cosmology and theoretical physics, so I think Copleston's position then regarding the discussion of the origin and cause of the universe is plausible and valid

[mentalistor]

"yes but no instant of time existed prior to it, nor was there anything physically prior to the initial singularity"

i dont see how this isnt just pure speculation.

[cosmicelore]

not a gratuitous one however

[gunman806]

The theory of the Big Bang only comments on the initial conditions of this universe, it has nothing to say about what might have preceded it. The latter question will probably never progress beyond the realm of speculation.

[cosmicelore]

the difference between the physicalist/ naturalist and the theist concerning scientific discoveries lies on the metaphysical implications regarding it, the former seeing none the latter seeing one, like how the scientific community is divided between the view of guided(theistic) and unguided evolution, I however find scientific discoveries compatible with both world views, neither superior to the other

[gunman806]

Right, because we're all aware that geneticists and evolutionary biologists are engaged in a heated debate concerning whether or not evolution is a teleological process. Not that consensus implies truth, I do think it's important to avoid dishonesty. If you feel inclined to draw unsound conclusions based on your ideology from descriptive and predictive scientific models, please do. Don't expect anyone to regard them as being anything more than silly.

[cosmicelore]

by what epistemic category would you define "unsoundness" in theistic conclusions regarding scientific discoveries? of course as I've said naturalism regards metaphysical ideas regarding existence as empty, though naturalism, physicalism and scientism are in themselves also beliefs/attitudes regarding science but they are not "science" themselves

[gunman806]

Unsound in the sense that you're committing large leaps of faith. I don't know and don't particularly care if scientific models reflect the universe as it is, I simply regard the process as being useful.

[147yearsplustruelove]

And considering such things as 1) certainty and 2) what we are supposed to do with ourselves, what does it come down to between us? Being a matter if choice in beliefs, thoughts and actions- are we happy with ourselves and society? If so, how do we maintain and enrich it? If not, how can we make it better? All of this tends to matter much more to me than conventional logic, science, and such.  Attitude, values, intelligence, love et cetera

[mightyafrowhitey]

@cosmicelore I never realized that the scientific community was "divided" between theists and evolutionists, especially since even most of the small number of religious biologists agree with the facts of evolution.

[jezmuff]

@mightyafrowhitey I would not say it's as much a division as a distinction between a vast, proud and overwhelming majority of intelligent men and a weak, intellectually narrow minded, short sighted and indoctrinated few cowering in their corner.

[cosmicelore]

I'm a philosophy major and Fr. Copleston's "A History of Philosophy" is the most complete summary of Western philosophy available, In his debate with Russell, I agree that Russell was being evasive of the questions raised by Copleston concerning the existence of the universe, Russell still had the antiquated notion then of the stationary model of the universe, which is proven false by the current big bang cosmological model, the universe was "never always there"

[mentalistor]

I would actually question the notion that a former condition of the universe, known as singularity, which scientific methods are admittedly unable to describe can easily be equaled with 'non-existence' or 'the universe not being there'. that seems to me to be purely arbitrary

[chazwyman]

@cosmicelore Big Bang does not demand an absolute beginning.

1) We cannot say if the bang was big enough to be total, 2) we can't say there was nothing there already. I suspect Dark matter will one day answer what was already present at the Big Bang.

Science might look for the necessary but its finding are contingent on revision by new discoveries. That is the lesson of the history of science

[ejgiv]

I think that Copelston overlooks the clear differentiation between abstract knowledge stemming from reason (Vernunft) and the higher faculty (that we share with animals ) of the intellect or understanding (Verstand). Abstract knowledge, the terms,concepts and language in general that he and Wittgenstein so cherish are the basis of knowledge of course, but only give us part of the picture. There is a higher perception which exists only here and now - nunc stans.

[Thresholds]

Magee pwns here.

[TheEcumenator]

:o

My goodness Copleston is amazing!

[WISEBL00D]

Hum.... Dr Magee dilutes the concepts, renders them intelligeble and then invites the thoughts of an antediluvian to render them more intelligible...?

I expect he simply enjoyed the debate..

[birlisa1]

Both have written great books on Schopenhauer, but I think Dr. Magee now is a bigger authority on the philosophy of Schopenhauer than the catolic Copleston

[ManilaSyndicate]

Who's the host and who's the guest? ( lol )

Heh, Magee probably thought, "Having this guy as a guest was a mistake".

[PedroAlonsoLopez]

Its Copleston. You couldn't have a better guy for this show.

[t0kt0k]

Schopenhauer prefiguring the universal wave function?

[adrianeaglrck]

to many fags on the internet posting

[blunthelloblunthello]

Complete focus at 8:10.

[debyte]

The greatest aesthetic philosopher, art as an escape from the drudgery of quotidian existence

[lutzie200]

But art only affords a momentary escape, and not possible for any but a few with special sensitivity. I also like loss of the willing self through the sublime in nature - and his exquisite description of freedom from willing through asceticism.

[suren1946]

I'm Hindu, and I love Schopenhauer's philosophy because he's one of the few who acknowledges Eastern philosophy for what it is. Frijof Capra did in his TAO OF PHYSICS, as did many others, but besides S. Radhakrishnan, no other philosopher per has done so...

[archdeaconj]

Well yes, there's an affinity between Schopenhauer's metaphysics and Eastern mystical thought but also, as you point out, with the findings of modern physics. Schopenhauer, in the tradition of Western philosophy, arrived at his insights through pure reason, while physics, as Capra showed, arrived at insights barely distinguishable from them, by empirical means. This itself is amazing and merits philosophical inquiry. I am not familiar with Radhakrishnan. Could you tell me a little about him?

[Questfortruth86]

The a priori method is sound no matter what modern day mystics proclaim.

[archdeaconj]

Can you expand on this? What do you mean by the 'a priori method'? Do you mean the use of pure reason to arrive at truth?

[0neironaut]

hehheh this is less Frederick Copleston on Schopenhauer as much as it is Bryan Magee on Shopenhauer!

[DJAnihilist]

That's what I was thinking. lol. Copleston looks like he's just letting Magee show off.

[vertex21]

^_^ Copleston's not making it easy for him though!

[lebannen21]

Copleston bothers me. jaja

[Pro2726]

this is because Bryan Magee himself most associates himself with the ideas of Schopenhauer, which is why he is able to see far more clearly through his eyes than those of the other philosophers who's ideas he presents in these broadcasts........

[Islam4Life7]

I agree...I came to hear Copleston! I consider him to be one of the greatest 20th c. philosopher.

[TheIsFactor]

Schoppy is da bomb. "Pessimistic," "Realist" whatever.  interesting.

[ieBrazil]

I'm reading, you know, the World as Will and Representation, Critique of Kantian philosophy, and Schopenhauer is great, for sure. He a reall erudicto! He know it all.

Tnx a lot for doing the job of uploading. Great work.

ieBr

[DJLorenzen]

Schopenhauer is the man. The brain is powerful. Unbelievable he could reason his way to all that.

[nochnoipetux]

Brilliant! Thank you for uploading.