Society/Culture The Philosophy Thread: Schopenhauer

[Gethelred]

Alright.

This thread is for discussion of individual philosophers or philosophies. First up with be Arthur Schopenhauer, known for The World as Will and Representation and The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Should conversation die down on Schopenhauer, a poll will be placed at the top of the thread after posters have provided suggestions for who the next philosopher should be, and you can vote on the candidate you wish to talk about. A biography and introduction to the resident philosopher's ideas will be provided by one of the people who voted for the philosopher when the thread changes.

Mods will try and be as permissive as we can, but philosophers must be able to be discussed within forum rules. We're not doing Alfred Baeumier, for example.

Go nuts from here. dorianyates, Episode IV (or anyone else) let me know if this is roughly what you were thinking or if you have any suggestions.

 

[dorianyates]

Why is it with the rise of Jordan Peterson he espouses Nietzsche and yet no discussion of Schopenhauer?
To me Schopenhauer speaks more truth and the greater moral message. To ease one’s will through art and in particular music seems better than trying to master or better something/someone?
I’m interested in any ones thoughts on Schopenhauer as he seems a bit neglected in this age

 

[Episode IV]

Why is it with the rise of Jordan Peterson he espouses Nietzsche and yet no discussion of Schopenhauer?
To me Schopenhauer speaks more truth and the greater moral message. To ease one’s will through art and in particular music seems better than trying to master or better something/someone?
I’m interested in any ones thoughts on Schopenhauer as he seems a bit neglected in this age

That's a good question. The simple and most obvious answer is probably that there are only a very few who have actually read Nietzsche, but fewer still who have read Schopenhauer (not counting WikiQuote). For a variety of reasons, Nietzsche appears to me to be more accessible, particularly to younger or more passionate readers. Both had a similar respect for a few things, such as Buddhism and, as you've mentioned, music - but saw them slightly differently in some respects and came to differing conclusions.
If I were to try to encapsulate the difference in a single impression, I'd say that Schopenhauer was more fatalistic, stoic, or perhaps even nihilistic than Nietzsche, and following from that I'd posit the modern world would be more receptive to Nietzsche, as stoicism is no longer in vogue.
But I should also make it clear at this point that I myself have read significantly more of Nietzsche than I have Schopenhauer, and I am not speaking as any great authority on the latter as a comparison.

On that thought, I'll present two poems by Dylan Thomas as a basis for comparison:
"Do not go gentle into that good night" and "In my craft or sullen art".
Which would you consider inspired by a reading of Schopenhauer the night before, and which Nietzsche?
Note that I'm not in any way trying to insinuate that Thomas was inspired by either one, but simply presenting two works by the same author in a seemingly different mood. One of the two, I'd say, is far more widely known, and might be an indicator of public sympathy toward the respective philosophies.

I may be misrepresenting Schopenhauer here. As I said I'm not all that conversant with him.
Did you have anything in mind written by him to use as a point of reference?

 

[dorianyates]

That's a good question. The simple and most obvious answer is probably that there are only a very few who have actually read Nietzsche, but fewer still who have read Schopenhauer (not counting WikiQuote). For a variety of reasons, Nietzsche appears to me to be more accessible, particularly to younger or more passionate readers. Both had a similar respect for a few things, such as Buddhism and, as you've mentioned, music - but saw them slightly differently in some respects and came to differing conclusions.
If I were to try to encapsulate the difference in a single impression, I'd say that Schopenhauer was more fatalistic, stoic, or perhaps even nihilistic than Nietzsche, and following from that I'd posit the modern world would be more receptive to Nietzsche, as stoicism is no longer in vogue.
But I should also make it clear at this point that I myself have read significantly more of Nietzsche than I have Schopenhauer, and I am not speaking as any great authority on the latter as a comparison.

On that thought, I'll present two poems by Dylan Thomas as a basis for comparison:
"Do not go gentle into that good night" and "In my craft or sullen art".
Which would you consider inspired by a reading of Schopenhauer the night before, and which Nietzsche?
Note that I'm not in any way trying to insinuate that Thomas was inspired by either one, but simply presenting two works by the same author in a seemingly different mood. One of the two, I'd say, is far more widely known, and might be an indicator of public sympathy toward the respective philosophies.

I may be misrepresenting Schopenhauer here. As I said I'm not all that conversant with him.
Did you have anything in mind written

That's a good question. The simple and most obvious answer is probably that there are only a very few who have actually read Nietzsche, but fewer still who have read Schopenhauer (not counting WikiQuote). For a variety of reasons, Nietzsche appears to me to be more accessible, particularly to younger or more passionate readers. Both had a similar respect for a few things, such as Buddhism and, as you've mentioned, music - but saw them slightly differently in some respects and came to differing conclusions.
If I were to try to encapsulate the difference in a single impression, I'd say that Schopenhauer was more fatalistic, stoic, or perhaps even nihilistic than Nietzsche, and following from that I'd posit the modern world would be more receptive to Nietzsche, as stoicism is no longer in vogue.
But I should also make it clear at this point that I myself have read significantly more of Nietzsche than I have Schopenhauer, and I am not speaking as any great authority on the latter as a comparison.

On that thought, I'll present two poems by Dylan Thomas as a basis for comparison:
"Do not go gentle into that good night" and "In my craft or sullen art".
Which would you consider inspired by a reading of Schopenhauer the night before, and which Nietzsche?
Note that I'm not in any way trying to insinuate that Thomas was inspired by either one, but simply presenting two works by the same author in a seemingly different mood. One of the two, I'd say, is far more widely known, and might be an indicator of public sympathy toward the respective philosophies.

I may be misrepresenting Schopenhauer here. As I said I'm not all that conversant with him.
Did you have anything in mind written by him to use as a point of reference?

Thanks for taking the time to reply like that.
The World as Will and Idea is the book I’ve read as well as some of his essays.
When I was in my 20’s I tried to read Beyond Good and Evil and couldn’t make sense of it. I’ll try reading it again soon.

 

[barreness]

I reckon shcopenhauer is good at expressing the absurdity and pain of life, wouldn't recommend him for women though lol

Peterson is more jungian imo, but their archetype obsession thing never really took me so ya know

Murray Bookchin/Alan Watts/Douglas Adams should all get more love

 

[Episode IV]

Thanks for taking the time to reply like that.

My pleasure. I hope I did the topic some justice, something I'm unsure of.
I've been thinking about it on and off, for a couple of days now... refreshing to be led somewhere off the beaten path. I might come back to it at some point, time and motivation permitting.

The World as Will and Idea is the book I’ve read as well as some of his essays.
When I was in my 20’s I tried to read Beyond Good and Evil and couldn’t make sense of it. I’ll try reading it again soon.

On my reading list.
Try "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" first. Not saying it's any easier to read, but if you have a literary bent, it serves as more of a story, an explosion of ideas, for which "Beyond Good and Evil" serves more as an explanatory text. That's my take, anyway. For what it's worth, I didn't read Nietzsche until I was in my thirties.

Murray Bookchin/Alan Watts/Douglas Adams should all get more love

Haven't run across the first two, but rest assured Adams holds a special place in my life.
Canada banned HHGG, of course. Well, at least one school did.

 

[dorianyates]

My pleasure. I hope I did the topic some justice, something I'm unsure of.
I've been thinking about it on and off, for a couple of days now... refreshing to be led somewhere off the beaten path. I might come back to it at some point, time and motivation permitting.

On my reading list.
Try "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" first. Not saying it's any easier to read, but if you have a literary bent, it serves as more of a story, an explosion of ideas, for which "Beyond Good and Evil" serves more as an explanatory text. That's my take, anyway. For what it's worth, I didn't read Nietzsche until I was in my thirties.


Haven't run across the first two, but rest assured Adams holds a special place in my life.
Canada banned HHGG, of course. Well, at least one school did.

What are your thoughts on the Superman theory of Nietzsche?
Have you read or seen The Great Gatsby?
It seems he embodies the ideal of the Superman and yet fails - that is why I love the book and film so much.
Is that what Fitzgerald was trying to express? A rejection of Gatsby trying to become more of himself?

 

[dorianyates]

I reckon shcopenhauer is good at expressing the absurdity and pain of life, wouldn't recommend him for women though lol

Peterson is more jungian imo, but their archetype obsession thing never really took me so ya know

Murray Bookchin/Alan Watts/Douglas Adams should all get more love

Se my below quote to you your fellow Freo fan. I’m interested in your thougts also

 

[dorianyates]

All truth passes through three phases; first it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.

 

[dorianyates]

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genious hits a target no one else can see.

 

[Episode IV]

What are your thoughts on the Superman theory of Nietzsche?
Have you read or seen The Great Gatsby?
It seems he embodies the ideal of the Superman and yet fails - that is why I love the book and film so much.
Is that what Fitzgerald was trying to express? A rejection of Gatsby trying to become more of himself?

I've read Gatsby and seen the film, but I've never even thought of Gatsby in terms of Nietzsche and the concept of Ubermensch.
Phew...

Know what? Rather than addressing your questions directly, I'm going to use this thread (in this post at least) to do something I'm often accused of... go off on wild tangents and waffle on about something that may or may not be related to your questions.

Fair warning:
I'm going to have a bit of fun with it. Hope that doesn't cause offence.

Don't know if you've ever read Orson Scott Card, specifically the series starting with "Ender's Game". It's been a while for me but over the course of those books the idea of truth relative to man and his lifespan, how one arrives at truth, and man's nature of being an individual as part of a collective of individuals is developed over time, culminating in a conversation between Ender himself and a... sentient tree.

I'm mentioning this because, aside from those books being a really entertaining read, they bring to mind the thought that when speaking about philosophers from earlier times, they were subject in no small manner to the vagaries of the time, and to more importantly, the availability and ease of transmission of information, the first being subject to the second.

Those vagaries, again subject to information, and the exponential growth of information in general, have not only resulted in the dilletante being largely a thing of the past with regard to mastery, but also in the notion that, while we "stand on the shoulders of giants", as it were, there are also more who can not, or refuse to, make the climb to those shoulders at all... being either incapable, too lazy, or never seeing or accepting the Giant is a real Giant at all.
How dare that Giant exist. Are we not all Equal? I'm as tall as he.

Humanity has so many sources of information to draw upon now that making sense of it all, coming to a coherent and pragmatically useful philosophy, is more problematic than ever.
Worth bearing in mind, too, that Nietzsche himself died before he ever "completed" his masterwork, so to speak, of which his earlier writings were only a part... which is another reason I mentioned Also Sprach Zarathustra, because it was a sort of encapsulation in many chapters of a journey, which was to be expounded upon later. Nietzsche up and died before that masterwork was completed (apparently) in much the same manner as George R R Martin might do before we ever find out if the end of the books is going to be as disappointing as the end of the GoT TV series was. You listening, George? Probably not. Mr Martin has made it clear more than once he is not beholden to his fans. Ubermensch, or annoying git?

So. That being said, I'm careful with regard to the use of the word "Superman" when interpreting Nietzsche. There are inherent difficulties in translation for any text from one language to another; those problems are compounded with regard to the subject of philosophy, often comprised of nebulous and difficult to understand ideas (which is obviously (to me) one of the fun things about it), and also the use of older forms of expression when examining the words of those who have written before our own times.
So the first thing here is to consider the concept of the Uber(mensch) when translated to "super", "over", "beyond" and similar terms, under the caveat that while those terms are synonymous with each other in this context, they are not identical. Mensch itself does not necessarily translate directly to "man". There are many examples of this problem in Nietzsche's writings. "Werk" being another. Hell, even "Also" (as in Sprach Zarathustra) is confusing to English speaking readers when first encountering it. In German, also means "so" and also "thus" - depending on interpretation.
Then we need to further consider that Nietzsche was writing in the 19th century. English words have changed in meaning over the course of the last century alone, so have (presumably) German words.

Language...

Reading philosophy, particularly that of preceding generations, is fraught with pitfalls hindering real understanding. Therefore mastery over both English and German, in addition to those changes since the late 19th century, are a requirement before one can even begin a full reading with a view to a personal understanding rather than relying upon other's interpretations.
It's easy to translate a few words in the form of a direct quote, bereft of context; less so to understand a quote within that context, much less a full volume of writing. Here's something on that:

Private Site

longsworde.wordpress.com

Which might lead to something like this. First two minutes covering the bit I'm thinking of:



With respect to this, it is the concept of "mastery", with respect to the mastery of man over man (as opposed to craft or work) which is probably the most problematic theme in his works.

All truth passes through three phases; first it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.

Schopenhauer. Yes indeed.
First and second not necessarily in that order, ridicule might be considered a form of violence if one were sensitive enough (in the modern West, that is actually becoming the case, particularly if something is to be gained by way of redress if one can convincingly present it in such a light), and the third relies upon an eventual unfolding of events in such a manner as to "prove" truth... requiring time.
Is truth an absolute? Subjective, objective? If subjective, how do we recognize it given the shortness of our own lifespans?
The Founding Fathers in the USA once wrote "we hold these truths as self-evident". Is that acceptance or insistence?

......

This is Strauss's attempt to translate Nietzsche - in music.
A part of the reason I'm posting this is that, given Schopenhauer believed music to be the highest form of art (from what I've been reading since your initial post), in that it represented the expression of the will itself, directly, rather than indirectly or representatively, I've been putting some thought into that.

Somewhat tongue in cheek, I'll note that Schopenhauer never was exposed to video. Does it complement Music, is it subject to it, or, if video and music together are a "new" form of art, is the sum greater than its parts?
I'm wondering how important it is that we are able to "see" the mastery of the musicians as well as hearing them. I'd say no, I don't need to - but it certainly is complementary, ney?
(How much) does music, as an expression of will, or the highest form of art, require mastery in order to effectively express Will?

Also Sprach Zarathustra. It's a half hour long. About as long as it took me to write chunks of this post I later cut out.

 

[Engimal v3]

Great movie

 

[dorianyates]

I've read Gatsby and seen the film, but I've never even thought of Gatsby in terms of Nietzsche and the concept of Ubermensch.
Phew...

Know what? Rather than addressing your questions directly, I'm going to use this thread (in this post at least) to do something I'm often accused of... go off on wild tangents and waffle on about something that may or may not be related to your questions.

Fair warning:
I'm going to have a bit of fun with it. Hope that doesn't cause offence.

Don't know if you've ever read Orson Scott Card, specifically the series starting with "Ender's Game". It's been a while for me but over the course of those books the idea of truth relative to man and his lifespan, how one arrives at truth, and man's nature of being an individual as part of a collective of individuals is developed over time, culminating in a conversation between Ender himself and a... sentient tree.

I'm mentioning this because, aside from those books being a really entertaining read, they bring to mind the thought that when speaking about philosophers from earlier times, they were subject in no small manner to the vagaries of the time, and to more importantly, the availability and ease of transmission of information, the first being subject to the second.

Those vagaries, again subject to information, and the exponential growth of information in general, have not only resulted in the dilletante being largely a thing of the past with regard to mastery, but also in the notion that, while we "stand on the shoulders of giants", as it were, there are also more who can not, or refuse to, make the climb to those shoulders at all... being either incapable, too lazy, or never seeing or accepting the Giant is a real Giant at all.
How dare that Giant exist. Are we not all Equal? I'm as tall as he.

Humanity has so many sources of information to draw upon now that making sense of it all, coming to a coherent and pragmatically useful philosophy, is more problematic than ever.
Worth bearing in mind, too, that Nietzsche himself died before he ever "completed" his masterwork, so to speak, of which his earlier writings were only a part... which is another reason I mentioned Also Sprach Zarathustra, because it was a sort of encapsulation in many chapters of a journey, which was to be expounded upon later. Nietzsche up and died before that masterwork was completed (apparently) in much the same manner as George R R Martin might do before we ever find out if the end of the books is going to be as disappointing as the end of the GoT TV series was. You listening, George? Probably not. Mr Martin has made it clear more than once he is not beholden to his fans. Ubermensch, or annoying git?

So. That being said, I'm careful with regard to the use of the word "Superman" when interpreting Nietzsche. There are inherent difficulties in translation for any text from one language to another; those problems are compounded with regard to the subject of philosophy, often comprised of nebulous and difficult to understand ideas (which is obviously (to me) one of the fun things about it), and also the use of older forms of expression when examining the words of those who have written before our own times.
So the first thing here is to consider the concept of the Uber(mensch) when translated to "super", "over", "beyond" and similar terms, under the caveat that while those terms are synonymous with each other in this context, they are not identical. Mensch itself does not necessarily translate directly to "man". There are many examples of this problem in Nietzsche's writings. "Werk" being another. Hell, even "Also" (as in Sprach Zarathustra) is confusing to English speaking readers when first encountering it. In German, also means "so" and also "thus" - depending on interpretation.
Then we need to further consider that Nietzsche was writing in the 19th century. English words have changed in meaning over the course of the last century alone, so have (presumably) German words.

Language...

Reading philosophy, particularly that of preceding generations, is fraught with pitfalls hindering real understanding. Therefore mastery over both English and German, in addition to those changes since the late 19th century, are a requirement before one can even begin a full reading with a view to a personal understanding rather than relying upon other's interpretations.
It's easy to translate a few words in the form of a direct quote, bereft of context; less so to understand a quote within that context, much less a full volume of writing. Here's something on that:

Private Site

longsworde.wordpress.com

Which might lead to something like this. First two minutes covering the bit I'm thinking of:



With respect to this, it is the concept of "mastery", with respect to the mastery of man over man (as opposed to craft or work) which is probably the most problematic theme in his works.


Schopenhauer. Yes indeed.
First and second not necessarily in that order, ridicule might be considered a form of violence if one were sensitive enough (in the modern West, that is actually becoming the case, particularly if something is to be gained by way of redress if one can convincingly present it in such a light), and the third relies upon an eventual unfolding of events in such a manner as to "prove" truth... requiring time.
Is truth an absolute? Subjective, objective? If subjective, how do we recognize it given the shortness of our own lifespans?
The Founding Fathers in the USA once wrote "we hold these truths as self-evident". Is that acceptance or insistence?

......

This is Strauss's attempt to translate Nietzsche - in music.
A part of the reason I'm posting this is that, given Schopenhauer believed music to be the highest form of art (from what I've been reading since your initial post), in that it represented the expression of the will itself, directly, rather than indirectly or representatively, I've been putting some thought into that.

Somewhat tongue in cheek, I'll note that Schopenhauer never was exposed to video. Does it complement Music, is it subject to it, or, if video and music together are a "new" form of art, is the sum greater than its parts?
I'm wondering how important it is that we are able to "see" the mastery of the musicians as well as hearing them. I'd say no, I don't need to - but it certainly is complementary, ney?
(How much) does music, as an expression of will, or the highest form of art, require mastery in order to effectively express Will?

Also Sprach Zarathustra. It's a half hour long. About as long as it took me to write chunks of this post I later cut out.

I really appreciate your response.
My talking about Gatsby - I don’t believe i’m the only one to see similarities between the story and Nietzsche’s theory of Superman - although it may be wrong.
I will read Thus Spoke Zarathustra when I’m on leave in September. I have only watched YouTube etc to try and gain an understanding of the concept to help my reading.
If you read The World as Will and Idea I’m convinced you will prefer Schopenhauer and will look forward to discussing it with you and I’ll ask you questions about Nietzsche to help my understanding

 

[ferball]

Great thread.

 

[Episode IV]

Great thread.

It is. I've been trying to figure out ways to keep it alive despite not having read Schopenhauer (in detail). Unfortunately, current circumstances dictate that any in-depth reading of Schopenhauer on my part will not occur within any acceptable time frame.
I have had one idea, but I've been sitting on it.

dorianyates is quite right though, there is a considerable amount of chatter on the net regarding Gatsby and Nietzsche's Ubermensch. I've been reading some of it.

 

[dorianyates]

When I look at this thread and compare it To Ask a Christian or an Atheist as it is now, it reminds of when Schopenhauer held his class at the same time as the popular Hegel - he had no students attend and subsequently left.
For this thread to survive I want posters to try and connect popular culture discussion ie like I tried to do with Nietzsche and the Great Gatsby (I love both the book and film) with philosophers.

 

[dorianyates]

Maybe a point of discussion could be what films or novels of popular culture can teach philosophy?
From memory I would say The Matrix is deeply philosophical - comparisons with Plato’s The Allegory of the Cave.
Other books I’ll have to reread and discuss I think with philosophical meanings - Victory by Joseph Conrad, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Gattaca.
Maybe this thread needs to be more than just Schopenhauer and a philosophy thread instead?

 

[Gethelred]

Maybe a point of discussion could be what films or novels of popular culture can teach philosophy?
From memory I would say The Matrix is deeply philosophical - comparisons with Plato’s The Allegory of the Cave.
Other books I’ll have to reread and discuss I think with philosophical meanings - Victory by Joseph Conrad, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Gattaca.
Maybe this thread needs to be more than just Schopenhauer and a philosophy thread instead?

If you want to start a thread, feel free.

Could be a philosopher of the week thread, in which we rotate the philosopher and the required reading.

 

[dorianyates]

If you want to start a thread, feel free.

Could be a philosopher of the week thread, in which we rotate the philosopher and the required reading.

Episode 4 seems more qualified than me to do it. I think the scope of just Schopenhauer is too narrow. I think a philosophy thread is needed rather than a debate about the truths of the Bible.

 

[ferball]

Maybe a point of discussion could be what films or novels of popular culture can teach philosophy?
From memory I would say The Matrix is deeply philosophical - comparisons with Plato’s The Allegory of the Cave.
Other books I’ll have to reread and discuss I think with philosophical meanings - Victory by Joseph Conrad, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Gattaca.
Maybe this thread needs to be more than just Schopenhauer and a philosophy thread instead?

The Matrix was also an exploration of gnosticism.

Probably of Buddhism too.

 

[dorianyates]

The Matrix was also an exploration of gnosticism.

Probably of Buddhism too.

What do you think of Buddhism and Schopenhauer?

 

[dorianyates]

The Matrix was also an exploration of gnosticism.

Probably of Buddhism too.

What are your thoughts on a more general philosophy thread?
There seem to be quite a few posters with a good deal of knowledge who could contribute

 

[ferball]

What are your thoughts on a more general philosophy thread?
There seem to be quite a few posters with a good deal of knowledge who could contribute

Yeah it would be good.

I'd be into it, dunno about how much knowledge I'd add tho.

 

[ferball]

Dunno alot about Schopenhauer. But I'm starting to get into him thanks to this thread.

The matrix explores the ideas of maya and samsara - Indian concepts about the illusory nature of reaity or at least our interpretations and understandings of it. They turn up in Jainism, Hinsuism and Buddhism.

The idea that the world, or at least our interaction with it is an illusion.

This idea gets reflected in some scientific thinking too. Perhaps the best model I've come across (cos its modern I spose) is that expressed by Donald Hoffman with his interface theory of perception.

A goal of perception is to estimate true properties of the world. A goal of
categorization is to classify its structure. Aeons of evolution have shaped
our senses to this end. These three assumptions motivate much work on
human perception. I here argue, on evolutionary grounds, that all three are
false. Instead, our perceptions constitute a species-specific user interface
that guides behavior in a niche. Just as the icons of a PC’s interface hide
the complexity of the computer, so our perceptions usefully hide the com-
plexity of the world, and guide adaptive behavior. This interface theory of
perception offers a framework, motivated by evolution, to guide research in
object categorization. This framework informs a new class of evolutionary
games, called interface games, in which pithy perceptions often drive true
perceptions to extinction.

https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf

This is almost straight up science, not philosophy (I guess thats an arguable point tho) but it leads in the same direction as ideas like Maya, Samsara and the concept of world as appearance.

Think about the tools we use to extend our perceptual capacity far enough to truly understand the universe. Things like the CERN facility and the Hubble and James Webb orbital telescopes. How far removed from the realities of the world for an organism trying to survive they are. They're devices that extend our ability to sense the universe to a level so far beyond what a naked human eye or skin will experience and they provide models of reality that are absolutely useless in terms of survival.

Same with DNA, biochemistry, electron microscopes and biochemical processes we follow in labs to understand the nature of viruses, physiology etc etc.

This stuff literally backs up these ideas that our original perceptions are flawed and don't understand the true nature of reality.

 

[ferball]

Actually thinking about it ... they do provide a potential survival benefit - modern medicine and the potential of deal with catastrophic extinction events like asteroid impacts but they are very far removed forom the day to day survival needs of every organism on earth. Including us.