Frederick Copleston on Schopenhauer: Section 1

Schopenhauer

This program examines the systematic, philosophical pessimism of Arthur Schopenhauer and its emphasis on infraconsciousness, or will, as the irrational motivating force in human nature. Distinguished philosophical historian Frederick Copleston discusses Schopenhauer's theory of underlying reality as experienced through the inner self. On a larger scale, the concept of will is ultimately defined as energy, which is judged to be central to scientific explanations of what drives the universe.

Section: 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGwSe0ZptV0

Section 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiSaACnYA44

Section 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLsut3X_Ofw

Section 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKaqhCWXgSA

Section 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoUzTcelt6Q

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bryan
• Magee
• Frederick
• Copleston
• Continental
• Philosophy
• Will
• Pessimism

[SanGuevara]

My friends look at me strangely when I watch this kind of stuff. ^_^;;

[DerfRellim11]

@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]

@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.

[TarasMarat]

@DerfRellim11

The most entertaining people are the sort who can switch seamlessly between talking about, say, Spinoza; to talking about, say, poking dogs butts.

[DerfRellim11]

@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.

[SamySaara]

@DerfRellim11 in my experience the guys who look at asinine youtube videos are the guys who like to party a lot. the fact that you "like to party a lot" does not really suggest that you're the type of person who's looking for stimulating conversation often... conversation of the intelligent variety anyway.

[SamySaara]

@cirosuperiore alchemy and astrology do not play a role in modern day government. philosophy always has.

"ethical philosophy may be their only saving grace"? what does that even mean? you're speaking of moral philosophy like it hasn't existed for millenniums. you clearly believe in philosophy. just because certain aspects of philosophy seem futile to you doesn't mean philosophy in general is a waste of time.

[SamySaara]

@cirosuperiore cirosuperiore speaks as if philosophy never had a role in politics, law or ethics. this is a laughable oversight on your part. and to suggest that the world experience is purely scientific is to negate the fact that even the most prominent scientists were also philosophers. albert einstein even quotes schopenhauer himself in his credo.

[PapaWilk]

@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.

[cirosuperiore]

@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.

[Incognitoification1]

@SwordInAir My experiences are quite similar.. I'm from Manchester too.

[hillsidePonderer]

@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.