"There is only one inborn erroneous notion ... that we exist in order to be happy ... So long as we persist in this inborn error ... the world seems to us full of contradictions. For at every step, in great things and small, we are bound to experience that the world and life are certainly not arranged for the purpose of maintaining a happy existence ... hence the countenances of almost all elderly persons wear the expression of ... disappointment."
That is Arthur Schopenhauer, a rather pessimistic philosopher. But is it all pessimism, that he has to tell us? Fortunately not, for I am retireing not and dont feel disappointed at all..^_^
Like Kant Schopenhauer makes a distinction between our representations of the external world and Das Ding an Sich (the Thing as such). This means that the world is my representation. However I can not have representations of the world in any way I like. There is an enforcing power, which I experience in myself, a striving power, my will.
In our consciousness this striving power manifests itself as will, but according to Schopenhauer you find this principle all through nature, in the dead as well as in the living nature. It sounds like the Aristotelian teleology, which is the striving force in the univers.
The human will is driven by motives, but as such this will is blind and dumb. It is the striving to exist, which is active in everything, and this is also the source of endless suffering in the world: everyone and everthing fights for survival and in the living nature not a single desire is defintely satisfied, and all this without any reason or goal. Doesn't this sound like Hobbes or as a prelude to Darwin?
The will isnt just dumb and blind, it is also unfree. In nature we see this will as it shows itself in the phenomenon of causality. Like causes enforce effects in nature, so is the human will determined by motives. I can not at one and the same moment want somethiing and want the opposite too. I even can't want to want.
And here we are at a point by which Schopenhauer was fascinated from the beginning and about which he wrote his disertation: the law of sufficient reason. This law says that everything has a cause. A typical rationalist ontological view.
Schopenhauer observed as an elementary condition, that to employ the principle of sufficient reason, we must think about something in particular that stands in need of explanation. This indicated to him that at the root of our epistemological situation, we must assume the presence of a subject that thinks about some object to be explained.
From this, he concluded that the general root of the principle of sufficient reason is the distinction between subject and object that we must presuppose as a condition for the very enterprise of looking for explanations and as a condition for knowledge in general.
So for Schopenhauer we live in a deterministic world. Is there a way out? Our mind can't think around the categories, which Kant had introduced,thence is causally constrianed.
He came up with a curious answer. We should strive for an absolute negation of the will in a world where everything that is gifted with consciousness is driven by egoistic motives. So infinite unselfishness, which ultimately would result in mercy for the other and even the negation of the will to live.This, probably, would free us from our egoistic motives, and set us free.
Schopenhauer recognizes this attitude in christian ascese, in buddhism and in the Oepanisjads, in religions which see the world as a vale of tears.
And because many of you have attended so many classes up to now I want to conclude with a quote from Schopenhauer:
"A man’s face as a rule says more, and more interesting things, than his mouth, for it is a compendium of everything his mouth will ever say, in that it is the monogram of all this man’s thoughts and aspirations."
An Intro...
[13:06] Herman Bergson: Did anyone hear from Maph recently?
[13:06] Gemma Cleanslate: i have not
[13:06] AristotleVon Doobie: I have not
[13:07] Gemma Cleanslate: since i went away
[13:07] Herman Bergson: I checked the grouplist..he is not in it..
[13:07] AristotleVon Doobie: No!
[13:07] AristotleVon Doobie: wow
[13:07] Gemma Cleanslate: he is still on my friend's list so i will ask!!!
[13:08] Herman Bergson: double checked...he isnt in the list...
[13:09] AristotleVon Doobie: Well you can only have so many groups
[13:09] Gemma Cleanslate: true
[13:09] Gemma Cleanslate: i just sent off an im
[13:09] Gemma Cleanslate: let's see if he answers
[13:09] Gemma Cleanslate: He ususally does
[13:09] Herman Bergson: Is he online Gemma?
[13:09] Gemma Cleanslate: no
[13:09] Herman Bergson: ah..
[13:09] Gemma Cleanslate: i do nto see him on line often
[13:10] Herman Bergson: Well let's turn to Schopenhauer then....:-)
[13:11] Herman Bergson: let me begin with a quote form his work:
The Discussion
[13:20] Herman Bergson: So much on Schopenhauer....
[13:20] Rasana Destiny face scrunches with thought
[13:20] AristotleVon Doobie: It is a wonder that Schonpenhaur was not suicidal and that he live to be 72 years old.
[13:20] Siena Masala: he was realistic and pragmatic I feel
[13:20] AristotleVon Doobie: yet he denied himself pleasure
[13:21] Herman Bergson: Yes indeed Aristotle, but there was a discrepancy in his life between his philosophy and lifestyle.
[13:21] Herman Bergson: He didnt deny himself any pleasure...
[13:21] Siena Masala: however - the face idea does not hold true - gravity plays it part
[13:21] Siena Masala: and genes
[13:21] AristotleVon Doobie: oh then a hypocrite
[13:22] Herman Bergson: you are hard in your judgement Aristotle..:-)
[13:22] Siena Masala: an observer and thinker - some people avoid more difficulties than others that is all
[13:22] arabella Ella: some people may derive pleasure from denial or passive resistance
[13:22] AristotleVon Doobie: well one should practice what one preaches and obviously he did not
[13:22] Herman Bergson: Yes..I recognize his way of thinking..
[13:22] Ze Novikov: Does he make a distiction between passions and will?
[13:22] Herman Bergson: when I was 18 I wrote an essay....
[13:23] AristotleVon Doobie: Well Arabella, that brings up a ring of fire with pleasure
[13:23] arabella Ella: a ring of fire?
[13:23] Herman Bergson: and my main conclusion was that not to exist was the best way of existence..
[13:23] Siena Masala: time and experience change our persective and hence our judgements
[13:23] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:23] AristotleVon Doobie: yes is pain is pleasure then pain should be shunned
[13:23] Herman Bergson: I didnt read anything about passions related to Schopenhauer
[13:24] Siena Masala: surly that is tortology - how can you not exist unless you had previously existed
[13:24] Herman Bergson: yes..I am still here Siena..^_^
[13:24] Ze Novikov: so how do feel about what you wrote at 18 now?
[13:24] arabella Ella: but aristotle it could be more a sort of intrinsic satisfaction type of pleasure rather than carnal pleasure
[13:24] Mickorod Renard: i think he was a romantic
[13:24] Siena Masala: lol
[13:24] Herman Bergson: I am still here Siena ^_^
[13:24] AristotleVon Doobie: Was Shopenhaur only speaking of carnal delights?
[13:25] Herman Bergson: He was a romatic indeed...
[13:26] Herman Bergson: And Ze..to answer your question...not easy....
[13:26] Ze Novikov: ummm
[13:26] Ze Novikov: I would imagine so..
[13:26] Herman Bergson: in a way I still think the same
[13:26] AristotleVon Doobie: Suppression of pleasure does not sound romantic to me
[13:27] Mickorod Renard: i think he wished to suppress pain, or strife
[13:27] Ze Novikov: does not the romantic yearn for fulfillment something that cannot happen?
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: I thought he said that pleasure was unacheiveable
[13:27] Herman Bergson: Yes Mickorod...he didnt like the world, I think
[13:28] Herman Bergson: Let me point your attention on a more important thing he brought up...
[13:28] Mickorod Renard: maybe we get caught in the materialistic ways which cause strife
[13:29] Siena Masala: the world (by this I mean the sum of all the decisions taken by human) will naturally lead to denial of pleasure for some people.
[13:29] Mickorod Renard: and like budhists they try to shake them off
[13:29] Herman Bergson: ok..let's focus on a more important epistemologicla issue...
[13:29] arabella Ella: if everyone constantly pursued pleasure and only pleasure it would be a very egoistical world
[13:29] Mickorod Renard: to free thought
[13:30] Siena Masala: but shouldnt we confront the material world rather than deny its existence
[13:30] Herman Bergson: ________________
[13:30] Herman Bergson:
[13:30] Herman Bergson: ** Silence plz ***
[13:30] Herman Bergson: ________________
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: I suppose that I shall remain a hedonist
[13:30] Herman Bergson: ^_^
[13:30] Herman Bergson: I said an epistemological issue....
[13:30] Herman Bergson: yes..this material world....that is the issue....
[13:31] Herman Bergson: we have two unsolved situations now....
[13:31] Cailleach Shan: Hi... sorry I'm late.... botched the time change!!
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: join the crowd
[13:31] Herman Bergson: on the one hand the empiricists who just accept the existence of an external world which is the cause of our sensory input
[13:32] Herman Bergson: on the other hand we now have met Kant, Schelling and Schopehauer who use another model...
[13:33] Herman Bergson: they postulate a working of the mind on the sensory impressions...that is...the mind creates order in the flux of sensory impression
[13:33] Herman Bergson: this implies that we have no knowledge of what causes these sensory impressions...
[13:34] Herman Bergson: Schopenhauer ads a new element to the discussion...
[13:34] Ze Novikov: internal verses external "order"
[13:34] Herman Bergson: He sees this relation as a relation between subject and object
[13:34] Siena Masala: the mind interpret the sensory impressions the brain stores them
[13:35] Herman Bergson: where the object is in fact our representation....Vorstellung
[13:35] Herman Bergson: We''ll see in future philosophers a major interest in this subject - object relation
[13:35] arabella Ella: could you expand on the last part please herman?
[13:36] Herman Bergson: Husserl's phenomenology will be the culmination of this debate, I think
[13:36] Herman Bergson: Well...
[13:37] Herman Bergson: what the German philosophers fascinated was the analysis of the subject.....which Kant started,,,,with his categories of the Reine Vernunft...
[13:37] Siena Masala: ok tonight I experienced a small migrain - and i could not see parts of objects for a while - did that mean they didnt exist?
[13:38] Herman Bergson: and the analysis of the object....which Kant started too by declaring that it is sensory input shaped by the categories of the mind
[13:39] Herman Bergson: object permanence is i critical issue
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: He admits that noumena is singular but phenomena is multiple
[13:40] Ze Novikov: so then how are the catgories formed?
[13:40] Herman Bergson: Just look at the historical development....
[13:40] arabella Ella: sounds like only minds exist for schopenhauer which makes him a bit of solipsist or am i wrong herman?
[13:40] Herman Bergson: we come from a period in which it wasnt a matter of debate whether there was a real world or not....God created one....
[13:41] Herman Bergson: and now more than 500 years later we are in trouble epistemologically
[13:41] Herman Bergson: solipsim is always around arabella
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: :) Rodney
[13:42] Rodney Handrick: hi Ari
[13:42] Herman Bergson: now with Hume and Kant we have (dont forget Berkely) to come up with a proof that there is something real outside or besides our sensory experiences
[13:42] Siena Masala: i understood that there are relations within the storage addresses of impressions gained from our senses and experience and from those relations we are able to synthisis new ideas or impressions - and reach desisions
[13:43] Herman Bergson: Europe has discovered the mind....
[13:43] Herman Bergson: Yes Siena..that you read by Hume for instance
[13:45] Herman Bergson: But we still have to answer the question What causes our sensory experiences....how does it look like...Das Ding an Sich as Kant called it
[13:45] arabella Ella: what do you mean herman Europe has discovered the mind?
[13:46] Herman Bergson: Well....after the Scolastics where reality was just God's creation, with Hume and Kant epistemology got imprisoned in the mind.
[13:46] Herman Bergson: Europe became aware of the fact that all we have is only in our mind....what is outside..we dont know
[13:47] Herman Bergson: But take care....
[13:47] Herman Bergson: hold on..
[13:47] Siena Masala: one moto i always taught my students is that 'Life is not Schopenhaureist?
[13:47] Siena Masala: not fair*
[13:47] Herman Bergson: this is the philosophical, the epistemological approach of a problem..
[13:47] Herman Bergson: it is an attempt to create a logical argumentation...
[13:48] Herman Bergson: that is something completely different from our daily life....
[13:48] You decline Cyberdelic Club from A group member named Gemma Cleanslate.
[13:49] Herman Bergson: What is Schopenhauerist, Siena
[13:49] Siena Masala: sorry the lag deleted my sentence
[13:50] Mickorod Renard: are we moving towards transendental revelation?
[13:50] Siena Masala: i meant to say 'does that make me a Schopenhauerist
[13:51] Rasana Destiny: bye all
[13:51] arabella Ella: herman there also appears to be some sort of certainty of that which we know of our own mind or thoughts ... altho whehther it is certain or not is another matter
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: Bye Rasana
[13:51] Herman Bergson: Yes Arabella that was the rationalist position....
[13:52] Herman Bergson: which started with Descartes and his ideas , claire et distincte
[13:52] Siena Masala: as we are sentinal beings Arabella - we own our mind
[13:52] arabella Ella: sentient you mean Siena?
[13:52] Siena Masala: whatever
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: I am afraid i have to leave ealy today too. I have a meeting at the newspaper.Everyone seems to like the same hours:-)))
[13:53] Herman Bergson: lol...I am the sentinal of my mind
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: I think my mind owns me
[13:53] Cailleach Shan: Bye Gemma
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Gem
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: bye all
[13:53] Herman Bergson: Bye Gemma
[13:53] arabella Ella: bye gemma
[13:53] Rodney Handrick: Bye Gemma
[13:53] Siena Masala: is this a spelling competition - if so I will lose
[13:53] Mickorod Renard: i loose mine sometimes
[13:53] Ze Novikov: bb
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: oops
[13:53] Herman Bergson: BYe ZE ^_^
[13:53] arabella Ella: sorry siena i was only trying to see whether i understood you so it was just a clarification
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Ze
[13:54] Siena Masala: np ara
[13:54] Herman Bergson: Well..to conclude our discussion...I would advise you to reread this discussion.
[13:55] Herman Bergson: I have pointed out a few important issues that will show up in the future, I mean with the coming philosophers
[13:55] Rodney Handrick: ok
[13:55] arabella Ella: fantastic ty herman
[13:55] Mickorod Renard: yea herman ty
[13:55] arabella Ella: do you know who is next on your list pls?
[13:56] Cailleach Shan: My mind says there are happy bubble floating around today.
[13:56] Cailleach Shan: bubbles
[13:56] Siena Masala: Thank you Herman
[13:56] Herman Bergson: mark the subject - object problem and the existence of an external world as the questions of the future
[13:56] Siena Masala: goodddyyy
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you Prof....I am afraid that Schopenhauers perrimism is hard to get past to find any jewels.
[13:56] Mickorod Renard: wow, my mind may crash
[13:56] Rodney Handrick: hmm...now that's an interesting topic
[13:57] Rodney Handrick: what...not enough ram Mickorod
[13:57] Herman Bergson: lol
[13:57] Cailleach Shan: At least he creates a polarity that you can measure your happiness against.
[13:57] Mickorod Renard: i like him now,,,,schopenhauer
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: Yes Cail
[13:58] Mickorod Renard: yeh, bit close to overload
[13:58] Herman Bergson: He is worth reading...
[13:58] Siena Masala: he is my kind of guy - he doesnot expect too much
[13:58] Herman Bergson: Yes indeed Siena
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: Well I personaly expect it all
[13:58] Cailleach Shan: lol me too.
[13:59] Siena Masala: hahaha is there an optimistic philospher Herman?
[13:59] Herman Bergson: Oh yes..I am...^_^
[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: but I do get denied LOL
[13:59] Mickorod Renard: i think u gotta undress it to see the real reality
[13:59] Siena Masala: lol :))
[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: sometimes
[13:59] Siena Masala: hahha
[13:59] hope63 Shepherd: sienna.. tell me the name of a philosopher who is not opètimistic.. lol
[13:59] Herman Bergson: To the bone Mickorod?
[13:59] arabella Ella: thank God for optimistic philosophers like Herman
[14:00] AristotleVon Doobie: YES
[14:00] Mickorod Renard: no just to the skin
[14:00] herman Bergson smiles
[14:00] Mickorod Renard: grin
[14:01] Herman Bergson: ok.everybody strips now...Lol...to show mickorod the real world...:-)
[14:01] hope63 Shepherd: they all tell you we shouildn't believe.. but they all believe in what they say. now if that isn't optimist..lol
[14:01] Cailleach Shan: HAHAHAHAHA.......Get real Herman.
[14:01] Herman Bergson: nice one Hope..:-)
[14:01] AristotleVon Doobie: well that will definetly disprove Schopenhaur
[14:01] Siena Masala: pass - I will leave it to your imaginations
[14:01] Mickorod Renard: he he he
[14:01] Herman Bergson: I agree Siena...
[14:01] Wife Stepford is Offline
[14:02] Siena Masala: :)
[14:02] AristotleVon Doobie: well our imaginations....isnt that what it is all about?
[14:02] Siena Masala: that is why I said it ari
[14:02] Mickorod Renard: too right
[14:02] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[14:02] Siena Masala: :)
[14:02] Herman Bergson: Well after this frivolous conclusions....thank you all...^_^
[14:03] AristotleVon Doobie: Thanks again Herman
[14:03] Siena Masala: c
[14:03] CONNIE Eichel: ty prof :))
[14:03] arabella Ella: thank you so much again Herman
[14:03] Mickorod Renard: thankyou herman great again
[14:03] arabella Ella: bye everyone!
[14:03] hope63 Shepherd: ari.. think hard.. imaginmation.. image -- conclusions .. you got a word full of thoughts to be spent ,..
[14:03] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Arabella
[14:03] Herman Bergson: thank you all
[14:03] Mickorod Renard: bye folks
[14:03] Siena Masala: yes very enlightening thanks all
[14:03] Rodney Handrick: Bye Arabella
[14:03] CONNIE Eichel: bye ara
[14:03] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Mick
[14:03] CONNIE Eichel: bye mick
[14:03] Rodney Handrick: Bye Mick
[14:03] Mickorod Renard: bye
[14:03] Cailleach Shan: Bey
[14:04] Rodney Handrick: Thanks Herman
[14:04] Herman Bergson: My pleasure Rodney
[14:04] hope63 Shepherd: sorry herman,an.. can't see you.. but did you follow the demands of the crowd and undress.. i'll relog for that :)
[14:04] Herman Bergson: LOL...you dont need to relog Hope
[14:04] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL
[14:04] AristotleVon Doobie: use your imagaination
[14:04] Siena Masala: ciaooooooooo byeeeee
[14:05] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Siena
[14:05] Herman Bergson: Bye Siena
[14:05] AristotleVon Doobie: take care
[14:05] hope63 Shepherd: well. usually it takes me 15 minutes to relog.. and i don't want you to catch cold lol
[14:05] Rodney Handrick: bye
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment