Scan barcode
sidharthvardhan's review
4.0
(Based on my very limited understanding)
Schopenhauer assumes your having knowledge of Kant's philosophical system (I had only read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason) and his own doctoral thesis 'On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason' which I might read next time I want to give this philosopher a try.
It seems to me that philosophers are mostly at their best when (1) When they are criticizing other philosophers (2.) when they are criticizing the ways through which we can 'know' anything.
His argument that very rules of logic were created more out of the convention by Greeks rather than some beautiful epiphany spoke directly to me.
As much as Socrates' dialogues can be amusing and give you food for thought, if you think his use of syllogism to win debates shows he was always right, then you put too much value on logic and reason. The world doesn't have to stand by our rules of logic. Even syllogisms. Hydrogen is combustible, oxygen too - combine them and you get water which is used to fight the fire. syllogism and other such rules of logic are only useful in worlds entirely dependent on such systems like mathematics. And even in mathematics, they don't seem to tell us a lot of new things except the interconnection between different patterns.
As much as I liked maths in school it bothered me to no end that we should have to 'prove' a geometrical theory like that angles of a triangle always adds to 180 degrees because it could be discerned by eyes and often you could use the theory to prove what you had earlier assumed as given. Schopenhauer has some best (and also ironically logically sound) arguments against such reasoning after Kant.
Will and Representation
While I don't agree with the main theory itself which seemed to me like an exercise in creating an idea so minimal that you could use it to explain it everything; it is an interesting book.
You can understand the word 'will' in the same sense as it generally understood - desire, urge, etc. He says that the whole world has a single insatiable will - and it is basically what makes the world move. It is what makes birds create nests for offsprings they don't know yet they will have etc. Now if you know anything about Hindu philosophy, this assumption is important to them too. In fact, the Hindu word for God 'Paramatma' (figuratively 'prime soul') seems to mean as same thing as Schopenhauer's. Of course, you don't see the will in itself, only its representation - which in Hinduism is called 'Maya'. Yes, Schopenhauer was a big fan of Hinduism. Will is what operates behind the bird above and makes it act so (as far as I understand), representation is the bird you see. 'WIll' is me, 'representation' is my body.
Book 1
The representation is held in our mind by the principle of sufficient reason which is basically arguing if something is there / occurs, it must have a cause or reason - another silly convention if you ask me.
What might be interesting to me is the idea of comparing Schopenhauer's theory of will as it manifests itself in living things to theories of Evolution. What Schopenhauer seems to try to explain in the behavior of animals through his idea of that single all-encompassing 'will'; is now probably explained by evolutionary incentives (such as how does an animal know that falling from a height might cause it an injury?). Schopenhauer's treatment of Will as something we are not conscious can be linked to the unconscious in the fields of psychoanalysts like Freud and Jung too.
Book 2
Will is also what called the thing-in-itself (as against its representation in our mind). The whole world is one thing-in-itself and this unity (the one soul or Paramatma) is only seen as a number of entities because of time and space which are two forms of intuition and deceive us into seeing many differ Wills. Outside of time and space, we won't be able to differentiate among different things.
Add in here a lot of pessimism of religious philosophers. Since everything (including non-living things) have a will of itself, everything suffers too. And it must go on suffering till it wills which is why asceticism is awesome.
Not my favorite book.
Book 3
My favorite part.
Kant talks about aesthetics. Art is an improved 'representation' of will's 'representation' in nature - the play within the play. You take a part of the representation of Will - the platonic idea (for example lakes, love, etc) and you contemplate it individually so as to stop willing (lose consciousness of your own desires) for a moment which in turn reduces suffering causing what is called aesthetic pleasure.
We have different capacities for this aesthetic pleasure and having a high capacity of the same makes you 'genius'. A genius then tries to communicate the aesthetic experience by creating copies of these 'ideas'. These copies of ideas are called works of art.
The above theory holds true for all arts (Schopenhauer has interesting things to say about a lot of art forms) with the sole exception of music. Music is not a copy of an idea. It is the same level as the original representation of the 'one' Will itself and yet offering us pleasure. For example when you paint a leave - there is a (level 1) WIll behind leave which can't be seen, (level 2) an original leave (the representation), (level 3) the idea of it in your mind and (level 4) the work of art or the copy of that idea in form of the painting. All arts are at level 4 but music is at level 2 and so closer to will. Despite being so close to the will, it offers just as much pleasure as the other art forms which do so by distancing us from the will.
If something pleases us by being 'beautiful' then it pleases us by tempting and feeding our desires (nudes, chocolates, and artworks depicting them). Like every preacher of asceticism, Schopenhauer too thinks that world is full of suffering and things that satisfy our desires (beautiful things) only tempt stronger desires in us. A 'sublime' pleasure, on the other hand, is derived when we struggle with our natural hostility to the object and this pleasure is thus driven by our getting closer to Will.
Book 4
If you see things at the level of Representation (Maya), you develop egoism and egos clash and hence immoral actions, etc. To someone who sees beyond the representation of WIll, the whole world is One - his or her own suffering is not any different from that of any other; hence compassionate acts come naturally. Schopenhauer talks of suicide in detail which he thinks is basically running away from the problem manifestation of Will or its individual phenomena rather than fighting it which can only be done through asceticism. This book was boring too.
Schopenhauer assumes your having knowledge of Kant's philosophical system (I had only read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason) and his own doctoral thesis 'On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason' which I might read next time I want to give this philosopher a try.
It seems to me that philosophers are mostly at their best when (1) When they are criticizing other philosophers (2.) when they are criticizing the ways through which we can 'know' anything.
His argument that very rules of logic were created more out of the convention by Greeks rather than some beautiful epiphany spoke directly to me.
As much as Socrates' dialogues can be amusing and give you food for thought, if you think his use of syllogism to win debates shows he was always right, then you put too much value on logic and reason. The world doesn't have to stand by our rules of logic. Even syllogisms. Hydrogen is combustible, oxygen too - combine them and you get water which is used to fight the fire. syllogism and other such rules of logic are only useful in worlds entirely dependent on such systems like mathematics. And even in mathematics, they don't seem to tell us a lot of new things except the interconnection between different patterns.
As much as I liked maths in school it bothered me to no end that we should have to 'prove' a geometrical theory like that angles of a triangle always adds to 180 degrees because it could be discerned by eyes and often you could use the theory to prove what you had earlier assumed as given. Schopenhauer has some best (and also ironically logically sound) arguments against such reasoning after Kant.
Will and Representation
While I don't agree with the main theory itself which seemed to me like an exercise in creating an idea so minimal that you could use it to explain it everything; it is an interesting book.
You can understand the word 'will' in the same sense as it generally understood - desire, urge, etc. He says that the whole world has a single insatiable will - and it is basically what makes the world move. It is what makes birds create nests for offsprings they don't know yet they will have etc. Now if you know anything about Hindu philosophy, this assumption is important to them too. In fact, the Hindu word for God 'Paramatma' (figuratively 'prime soul') seems to mean as same thing as Schopenhauer's. Of course, you don't see the will in itself, only its representation - which in Hinduism is called 'Maya'. Yes, Schopenhauer was a big fan of Hinduism. Will is what operates behind the bird above and makes it act so (as far as I understand), representation is the bird you see. 'WIll' is me, 'representation' is my body.
Book 1
The representation is held in our mind by the principle of sufficient reason which is basically arguing if something is there / occurs, it must have a cause or reason - another silly convention if you ask me.
What might be interesting to me is the idea of comparing Schopenhauer's theory of will as it manifests itself in living things to theories of Evolution. What Schopenhauer seems to try to explain in the behavior of animals through his idea of that single all-encompassing 'will'; is now probably explained by evolutionary incentives (such as how does an animal know that falling from a height might cause it an injury?). Schopenhauer's treatment of Will as something we are not conscious can be linked to the unconscious in the fields of psychoanalysts like Freud and Jung too.
Book 2
Will is also what called the thing-in-itself (as against its representation in our mind). The whole world is one thing-in-itself and this unity (the one soul or Paramatma) is only seen as a number of entities because of time and space which are two forms of intuition and deceive us into seeing many differ Wills. Outside of time and space, we won't be able to differentiate among different things.
Add in here a lot of pessimism of religious philosophers. Since everything (including non-living things) have a will of itself, everything suffers too. And it must go on suffering till it wills which is why asceticism is awesome.
Not my favorite book.
Book 3
My favorite part.
Kant talks about aesthetics. Art is an improved 'representation' of will's 'representation' in nature - the play within the play. You take a part of the representation of Will - the platonic idea (for example lakes, love, etc) and you contemplate it individually so as to stop willing (lose consciousness of your own desires) for a moment which in turn reduces suffering causing what is called aesthetic pleasure.
We have different capacities for this aesthetic pleasure and having a high capacity of the same makes you 'genius'. A genius then tries to communicate the aesthetic experience by creating copies of these 'ideas'. These copies of ideas are called works of art.
The above theory holds true for all arts (Schopenhauer has interesting things to say about a lot of art forms) with the sole exception of music. Music is not a copy of an idea. It is the same level as the original representation of the 'one' Will itself and yet offering us pleasure. For example when you paint a leave - there is a (level 1) WIll behind leave which can't be seen, (level 2) an original leave (the representation), (level 3) the idea of it in your mind and (level 4) the work of art or the copy of that idea in form of the painting. All arts are at level 4 but music is at level 2 and so closer to will. Despite being so close to the will, it offers just as much pleasure as the other art forms which do so by distancing us from the will.
If something pleases us by being 'beautiful' then it pleases us by tempting and feeding our desires (nudes, chocolates, and artworks depicting them). Like every preacher of asceticism, Schopenhauer too thinks that world is full of suffering and things that satisfy our desires (beautiful things) only tempt stronger desires in us. A 'sublime' pleasure, on the other hand, is derived when we struggle with our natural hostility to the object and this pleasure is thus driven by our getting closer to Will.
Book 4
If you see things at the level of Representation (Maya), you develop egoism and egos clash and hence immoral actions, etc. To someone who sees beyond the representation of WIll, the whole world is One - his or her own suffering is not any different from that of any other; hence compassionate acts come naturally. Schopenhauer talks of suicide in detail which he thinks is basically running away from the problem manifestation of Will or its individual phenomena rather than fighting it which can only be done through asceticism. This book was boring too.
ladypalma's review against another edition
4.0
Sono molto contenta di aver recuperato questa pietra miliare della filosofia, permettendomi di esplorare un filosofo che ho sempre sottovalutato. In particolare, le considerazioni estetiche sono davvero degne di nota (libro terzo). Bonus: la chiarezza espositiva di Schopenhauer è qualità rara tra i filosofi.
hades9stages's review
3.0
BLEAK. The World as Will and Representation is a philosophical magnum opus by German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. Regarded as one of the most influential philosophical works, it delves into various facets of human existence and perception.
"Life is a constant process of dying."
The book's primary thesis revolves around two fundamental concepts:
˗ˏ✎ The "will" representing the inner essence driving human desires,
˗ˏ✎ And the "representation" depicting the external reality perceived by the mind.
Schopenhauer explores the nature of existence, consciousness, suffering, and the human condition.
Arthur Schopenhauer, born in 1788, was a renowned German philosopher known for his pessimistic views on life and his unique take on philosophy. His work significantly influenced future philosophers, including Nietzsche and Freud.
"The greatest of follies is to sacrifice health for any other kind of happiness."
Common criticisms of Schopenhauer's work revolve around the book's seemingly bleak perspective on life.
You can realise this without even reading the book, by the way Nietzsche's initial encounter with Schopenhauer's pessimistic philosophy played a significant role in shaping his intellectual development.
Schopenhauer's concept of the "will" and his pessimistic view of existence deeply impacted Nietzsche. Schopenhauer's influence on Nietzsche can be seen in Nietzsche's early work, particularly in his writing style and some shared themes, such as the critiques of conventional morality and the exploration of the human condition. Nietzsche's early work The Birth of Tragedy reflects Schopenhauerian themes of pessimism and the tension between the Dionysian and Apollonian aspects of life, echoing Schopenhauer's views on the duality of existence.
At the same time, Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, acknowledged the influence of Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophical ideas on his early intellectual development also. During his formative years, Freud, too, showed interest in Schopenhauer's pessimistic view of human nature and the impact of unconscious forces on human behavior, which resonated with Freud's later work in psychology. Schopenhauer's concept of the unconscious will and his exploration of human drives, particularly in relation to suffering and desire, had a discernible impact on Freud's early thoughts about the unconscious mind. Freud was drawn to Schopenhauer's ideas about the irrational and unconscious motivations guiding human behavior.
But Freud eventually developed his own theories and methods that significantly diverged from Schopenhauer's philosophy. Freud's psychoanalytic theory delved deeper into the exploration of the unconscious mind, emphasising the role of early childhood experiences, the id, ego, and superego, and the significance of repressed desires and conflicts in shaping human behavior. Freud's work, particularly his development of psychoanalysis, moved beyond Schopenhauer's philosophical framework and established a distinct discipline in the field of psychology.
It is partly for this reason that this book does not satisfy me as much as it probably would’ve if I was reading it 100 years prior.
Freud's groundbreaking contributions in psychoanalysis became a departure from Schopenhauer's unfulfilled theories, contributing significantly to the understanding of human psychology and behaviour, and while I give Schopenhauer credit for being a founding father, he really hit a niche area with this work and I find its lack of applications disappointing.
The parts I did find interesting in this book were mostly due to the fact that I’m a bit of a Kant girlie- as of my time reading this book, I’ve also been reading quite a bit about Immanuel Kant and his philosophies. Schopenhauer was deeply influenced by Kant, particularly Kant's transcendental idealism and the distinction between the phenomenal and noumenal worlds.
Schopenhauer adopted and transformed Kant's ideas, especially in relation to the nature of reality and human perception, in developing his own philosophical system. However, Schopenhauer was still critical of certain aspects of Kant's philosophy, and it is this part that I find most interesting. He argued that Kant's work did not delve deeply enough into the metaphysical realm and that Kant failed to recognise the true nature of the world as will, a concept central to Schopenhauer's philosophy.
Schopenhauer believed that he had gone beyond Kant by uncovering the metaphysical concept of the will as the fundamental force underlying all existence:
˗ˏ✎ Kant's philosophy is built on the idea of transcendental idealism, where he argues that knowledge is structured by the mind's inherent categories and forms. He emphasises that our perception and understanding of the world are shaped by these mental structures. Schopenhauer, while initially influenced by Kant's transcendental idealism, departed from it by asserting that the will, not intellect, constitutes the fundamental reality behind phenomena.
˗ˏ✎ Kant posited the existence of the noumenal realm (things as they are in themselves) and the phenomenal realm (things as they appear to us). He argued that the noumenal world is inaccessible to human knowledge. Schopenhauer rejected this distinction, asserting that the will is the underlying reality and the noumenon itself, accessible through introspection and direct experience.
˗ˏ✎ Kant's philosophy centers on the limitations of human knowledge and the structure of experience. Schopenhauer, however, focused on the metaphysical aspects, positing that the will is the true essence of existence, underlying all phenomena.
˗ˏ✎ Kant is known for his deontological ethics based on moral duties and the categorical imperative, emphasising the importance of goodwill and moral obligations derived from reason. Schopenhauer, on the other hand, proposed a pessimistic view of human nature, emphasising compassion as the core of ethics, with a focus on alleviating suffering.
Schopenhauer's ethical emphasis on compassion and will resonate with me to some extent, as I do believe that on a very fundamental level, his basic philosophy is more true to me than that of Kant.
However, the individualistic aspect of Schopenhauer's ethics conflict with my personal belief in the strong need for collective action and societal transformation. I do not want to believe in the need for compassion, as I think it’s a very bleak way of putting things, although I also do not think it’s completely untrue. There’s like a secret third thing that I’m yet to discover.
I’m struggling to word my issues myself, maybe I will come back to this review and expand on my better formed opinion later. But for now, I’m going to say that the empty feeling I get from a lot, but not all, of Schopenhauer, prevents me from being able to fully praise and appreciate this book, because I can’t help but think about all that it is missing.
And as a whole, the complex language in this crazy massive book can be challenging to comprehend, as well as its sexist portrayal of women, which is just as frustrating to digest.
I see that people have also debated the consistency and coherence of his philosophical arguments- I’m not advanced enough to comment or care about this. I didn’t notice anything in this particular volume.
"Life is a constant process of dying."
The book's primary thesis revolves around two fundamental concepts:
˗ˏ✎ The "will" representing the inner essence driving human desires,
˗ˏ✎ And the "representation" depicting the external reality perceived by the mind.
Schopenhauer explores the nature of existence, consciousness, suffering, and the human condition.
Arthur Schopenhauer, born in 1788, was a renowned German philosopher known for his pessimistic views on life and his unique take on philosophy. His work significantly influenced future philosophers, including Nietzsche and Freud.
"The greatest of follies is to sacrifice health for any other kind of happiness."
Common criticisms of Schopenhauer's work revolve around the book's seemingly bleak perspective on life.
You can realise this without even reading the book, by the way Nietzsche's initial encounter with Schopenhauer's pessimistic philosophy played a significant role in shaping his intellectual development.
Schopenhauer's concept of the "will" and his pessimistic view of existence deeply impacted Nietzsche. Schopenhauer's influence on Nietzsche can be seen in Nietzsche's early work, particularly in his writing style and some shared themes, such as the critiques of conventional morality and the exploration of the human condition. Nietzsche's early work The Birth of Tragedy reflects Schopenhauerian themes of pessimism and the tension between the Dionysian and Apollonian aspects of life, echoing Schopenhauer's views on the duality of existence.
At the same time, Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, acknowledged the influence of Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophical ideas on his early intellectual development also. During his formative years, Freud, too, showed interest in Schopenhauer's pessimistic view of human nature and the impact of unconscious forces on human behavior, which resonated with Freud's later work in psychology. Schopenhauer's concept of the unconscious will and his exploration of human drives, particularly in relation to suffering and desire, had a discernible impact on Freud's early thoughts about the unconscious mind. Freud was drawn to Schopenhauer's ideas about the irrational and unconscious motivations guiding human behavior.
But Freud eventually developed his own theories and methods that significantly diverged from Schopenhauer's philosophy. Freud's psychoanalytic theory delved deeper into the exploration of the unconscious mind, emphasising the role of early childhood experiences, the id, ego, and superego, and the significance of repressed desires and conflicts in shaping human behavior. Freud's work, particularly his development of psychoanalysis, moved beyond Schopenhauer's philosophical framework and established a distinct discipline in the field of psychology.
It is partly for this reason that this book does not satisfy me as much as it probably would’ve if I was reading it 100 years prior.
Freud's groundbreaking contributions in psychoanalysis became a departure from Schopenhauer's unfulfilled theories, contributing significantly to the understanding of human psychology and behaviour, and while I give Schopenhauer credit for being a founding father, he really hit a niche area with this work and I find its lack of applications disappointing.
The parts I did find interesting in this book were mostly due to the fact that I’m a bit of a Kant girlie- as of my time reading this book, I’ve also been reading quite a bit about Immanuel Kant and his philosophies. Schopenhauer was deeply influenced by Kant, particularly Kant's transcendental idealism and the distinction between the phenomenal and noumenal worlds.
Schopenhauer adopted and transformed Kant's ideas, especially in relation to the nature of reality and human perception, in developing his own philosophical system. However, Schopenhauer was still critical of certain aspects of Kant's philosophy, and it is this part that I find most interesting. He argued that Kant's work did not delve deeply enough into the metaphysical realm and that Kant failed to recognise the true nature of the world as will, a concept central to Schopenhauer's philosophy.
Schopenhauer believed that he had gone beyond Kant by uncovering the metaphysical concept of the will as the fundamental force underlying all existence:
˗ˏ✎ Kant's philosophy is built on the idea of transcendental idealism, where he argues that knowledge is structured by the mind's inherent categories and forms. He emphasises that our perception and understanding of the world are shaped by these mental structures. Schopenhauer, while initially influenced by Kant's transcendental idealism, departed from it by asserting that the will, not intellect, constitutes the fundamental reality behind phenomena.
˗ˏ✎ Kant posited the existence of the noumenal realm (things as they are in themselves) and the phenomenal realm (things as they appear to us). He argued that the noumenal world is inaccessible to human knowledge. Schopenhauer rejected this distinction, asserting that the will is the underlying reality and the noumenon itself, accessible through introspection and direct experience.
˗ˏ✎ Kant's philosophy centers on the limitations of human knowledge and the structure of experience. Schopenhauer, however, focused on the metaphysical aspects, positing that the will is the true essence of existence, underlying all phenomena.
˗ˏ✎ Kant is known for his deontological ethics based on moral duties and the categorical imperative, emphasising the importance of goodwill and moral obligations derived from reason. Schopenhauer, on the other hand, proposed a pessimistic view of human nature, emphasising compassion as the core of ethics, with a focus on alleviating suffering.
Schopenhauer's ethical emphasis on compassion and will resonate with me to some extent, as I do believe that on a very fundamental level, his basic philosophy is more true to me than that of Kant.
However, the individualistic aspect of Schopenhauer's ethics conflict with my personal belief in the strong need for collective action and societal transformation. I do not want to believe in the need for compassion, as I think it’s a very bleak way of putting things, although I also do not think it’s completely untrue. There’s like a secret third thing that I’m yet to discover.
I’m struggling to word my issues myself, maybe I will come back to this review and expand on my better formed opinion later. But for now, I’m going to say that the empty feeling I get from a lot, but not all, of Schopenhauer, prevents me from being able to fully praise and appreciate this book, because I can’t help but think about all that it is missing.
And as a whole, the complex language in this crazy massive book can be challenging to comprehend, as well as its sexist portrayal of women, which is just as frustrating to digest.
I see that people have also debated the consistency and coherence of his philosophical arguments- I’m not advanced enough to comment or care about this. I didn’t notice anything in this particular volume.
More...