Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Omkara]

Who's read The World as Will And Representation?

I'm working through it right now.

[VanIslander]

I did in an undergrad Existentialism & Phenomenology class over 15 years ago as part of my philosophy degree.

Since then I've studied his work only partially and in association with other philosophers I mastered in grad school:

I know my Nietzsche and Wittgenstein.

Let's talk.

[Omkara]

Did you read his Fourfold Root of The Principle of Sufficient Reason before going through The World as Will? I have not, as Schopenhauer himself recommends every few pages.

I'm pushing through to get a general sense of the work, and then I may read Fourfold and then The World as Will again.

[Mint]

Read it a long time ago. Changed my life. I'm gonna read it again now that you've brought it back to mind, cheers.

[Omkara]

Yeah, Schopenhauer suggests that the work be read at least twice.

I think I may. There are tough parts that I haven't even begun to grasp, but which will make more sense once I've gotten a wider perspective on his system.

In particular, though his prose is sharp and clear, I find it difficult to grasp his sections on mathematics and pure reason.

He speaks of arithmetic as being temporal, and of geometry as being spacial.

I get that geometry is spacial; but I can't grasp clearly how arithmetic is in every case grounded in time.

I better understand when he speaks of perception and understanding; I have more difficulty when he speaks of reason and knowledge.

Still, when he brings me to an insight, it is brilliant and worth pushing through the more difficult sections. I think it will be worth reading twice.

I'm still early into the work, about 80 pages in, so I've much ground to develop in my thinking of him.

What parts did you find most useful and interesting?

[Omkara]

He quotes, "It is not poverty which pains, but strong desire."

That seems a better starting point.

[Omkara]

The Giants of Philosophy - Arthur Schopenhauer - 01/18

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=The+Giants+of+Philosophy+-+Arthur+Schopenhauer+-+01%2F18&aq=f

[cdninkorea]

I did my undergrad in philosophy too, but I focused on the academics (Mill, Bentham, etc.) and Greeks (Aristotle, the Epicureans, etc.). Too bad because I wish I could contribute...

[Mint]

Wow.
I listened to those tapes in high school.
The opening melody struck a chord of hatred down my nervous system.

Wonder if I could find a use for that aggression?

[Mint]

Fourfold Root in .pdf from us archive website:

http://ia311515.us.archive.org/2/items/onthefourfoldroo00schouoft/onthefourfoldroo00schouoft.pdf

[tfunk]

OP, I'm not familiar with the work. Can you give an overview of one of the arguments he makes?

[Omkara]

Thanks for the link.

As for his basic argument:

His primary point of departure is where Kant leaves off. Kant divided reality into two parts: Phenomena and the unknowable "Thing-in-Itself."

We can only know phenomena. What we know of phenomena is necessarily conditioned by the senses and the knowing mind. The thing-in-itself cannot be known since by the time we have any sense data, it is already put into the forms which are the necessary conditions for any possible experience.

Schopenhauer accepts this to an important degree, but goes further. He calls the thing-in-itself the Will. But the will is unknowable by the forms of knowing.

The will is subject. But the subject cannot know itself as subject, but only as object; for, the forms of knowledge are objective forms.

All objects are a consequence of the forms of knowing. This includes the body. The body is for the subject an object, known through the forms (space, time, causality). But unlike other objects, the subject senses itself both as object and as will.

The will is the subject, and known only by effect. We can reason from the effect, to the cause; but by then, it is object.

Still, this unknowable will is the nearest thing, so to speak.

There is no causal relationship between body and the will. They are one and the same.

The hands are objectified will. The stomach, objectified hunger, etc. Therefore, the human form is expression of this unknowable will.

[Gatsby]

[Omkara]

[quote="Gatsby"]

[Omkara]

Ahh. . .it is precisely this point on which Schopenhauer differs with Kant.

For Kant, the thing-in-itself is absolutely unknowable. For Schopenhauer, as will, it is indirectly knowable, by effect.

Will is the motive force. I can act, knowing not my will. After I bring to fruition this act, there arises a joy (the effect), by which my will becomes known to me.

Yet, known, the will becomes an object for the subject, which remains unconscious, unknown--or at least, partially known.

This is where Freud is presupposed.