Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?
- Danzr
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: September 6th, 2017, 11:30 am
Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?
How can a person be both compassionate and a "will-denier"? Compassion requires willing/activity of will, yet Schopenhauer said the greatest good was to renounce the will? Seems the two-compassion and denial of the will- are mutually exclusive ideals.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?
I've read [seriously] Schopenhauer long ago.Danzr wrote:Anyone got any opinions on Schopenhauer's ethics; the inconsistencies contained therein?
How can a person be both compassionate and a "will-denier"? Compassion requires willing/activity of will, yet Schopenhauer said the greatest good was to renounce the will? Seems the two-compassion and denial of the will- are mutually exclusive ideals.
To Schopenhauer, the Will is central to this thesis, so it is unlikely he would have agreed with denying the Will in general. Perhaps there is some context to it.
The Will is the core driver of life and it can trigger the good or the evil at different levels in the mind.
Do you have any reference from his original books or articles.yet Schopenhauer said the greatest good was to renounce the will?
- Danzr
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: September 6th, 2017, 11:30 am
Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?
For instance, In The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer states that “moral virtues [borne of compassion] are not really the ultimate end, but only a step towards salvation via denial of the will-to-live”; these virtues are a “means of advancing self-renunciation, and accordingly of denying the will-to-live” (Volume 2, 606)Spectrum wrote:I've read [seriously] Schopenhauer long ago.Danzr wrote:Anyone got any opinions on Schopenhauer's ethics; the inconsistencies contained therein?
How can a person be both compassionate and a "will-denier"? Compassion requires willing/activity of will, yet Schopenhauer said the greatest good was to renounce the will? Seems the two-compassion and denial of the will- are mutually exclusive ideals.
To Schopenhauer, the Will is central to this thesis, so it is unlikely he would have agreed with denying the Will in general. Perhaps there is some context to it.
The Will is the core driver of life and it can trigger the good or the evil at different levels in the mind.
Do you have any reference from his original books or articles.yet Schopenhauer said the greatest good was to renounce the will?
So denying the will means not-willing at all. Yet compassion, and altruistic conduct, seems to need willing. Seems contradictory?
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?
Schopenhauer's Will is hierarchical, i.e.
- 1. Will - the primordial blind force
2. Individual Will to Live - preservation of the species.
3. The various expression of the Will.
Since Schopenhauer has described his philosophy of the Will in parallel to Buddhism and Hinduism, we can deliberate the point you quoted in terms of these philosophy.
The Will-to-live [driven by the core universal Will] is heavily tied to the instincts and various impulses that strive to enable to individual to survive.
Denying the will-to-live do not mean stop living [eating, sex, etc.] but rather the individual should not allow the will-to-live [instincts and various negative impulses] to dominate the individual life. This is similar to the concept of 'detachment' in Buddhism.
So denying the will-to-live do not mean not-willing at all.
The core Will is still pulsating and driving but does so without grasping and attachment by the ego or self. This is a sort of renunciation which is not exactly asceticism btw.
Personally I do not agree with Schopenhauer in the sense that the Universal Will is the ultimate. I am more inclined towards the 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' of Buddhism which Schopenhauer has problem understanding where he was haunted by possible solipsism.
- Danzr
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: September 6th, 2017, 11:30 am
Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?
Thanks for the reply!Spectrum wrote:I have the Payne [last page is 475] and Haldane copy but I cannot find your quote in page 606 of Haldane's.
Schopenhauer's Will is hierarchical, i.e.
Denying the will-to-live [individual] do not meant denying the Will [universal].
- 1. Will - the primordial blind force
2. Individual Will to Live - preservation of the species.
3. The various expression of the Will.
Since Schopenhauer has described his philosophy of the Will in parallel to Buddhism and Hinduism, we can deliberate the point you quoted in terms of these philosophy.
The Will-to-live [driven by the core universal Will] is heavily tied to the instincts and various impulses that strive to enable to individual to survive.
Denying the will-to-live do not mean stop living [eating, sex, etc.] but rather the individual should not allow the will-to-live [instincts and various negative impulses] to dominate the individual life. This is similar to the concept of 'detachment' in Buddhism.
So denying the will-to-live do not mean not-willing at all.
The core Will is still pulsating and driving but does so without grasping and attachment by the ego or self. This is a sort of renunciation which is not exactly asceticism btw.
Personally I do not agree with Schopenhauer in the sense that the Universal Will is the ultimate. I am more inclined towards the 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' of Buddhism which Schopenhauer has problem understanding where he was haunted by possible solipsism.
I only go by the Payne edition, do not have the Haldane version, sorry. I can't see my previous reply now but the quotes (I think) were "“compassion not really the ultimate end, but only a step towards [salvation via denial of the will-to-live]” ( Volume 2, p. 606), and that such virtues are a “means of advancing self-renunciation, and accordingly of denying the will-to-live” (Vol. 2, p. 606). I hope I had the correct citations in my previous reply.
Thank you for your astute observations. This is basically the kind of "solution" I found too. Making a distinction between "willing-to-live" and "willing".
However, problems still remain (at least prima facie). Schopenhauer uses “the will-to-live” and “the will” interchangeably: the will always strives at existence, whether in the human subject or in inorganic phenomena (see Volume 1. Payne edition, p. 275). So your (1.) i.e. "Will as primordial blind force" (or Will as thing-in-itself"), still entails a striving for existence; or incessant activity.
So compassion= willing-to-live (or at least some type of willing) and denial/resignation= not willing-to-live (but maybe some type of willing goes on)
Also, he specifically states the the ascetic subject (who is on the way towards salvation) is “careful not to let his will attach itself to anything, and tries to steel himself with the greatest indifference toward all things” (Volume 1, p. 407).
So if this ascetic is "indifferent toward all things" it seems like he is opposed to the compassionate person who helps others. It seems contradictory.
Also when you say "This is a sort of renunciation which is not exactly asceticism btw" what exactly do you mean?
Thanks again for your answer!
- Phenomexistentialist
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: May 12th, 2017, 6:26 am
Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?
- “moral virtues [borne of compassion] are not really the ultimate end, but only a step towards salvation via denial of the will-to-live”; these virtues are a “means of advancing self-renunciation, and accordingly of denying the will-to-live” (Volume 2, 606)
Note the first statement of pg 606.But in the second place, these moral virtues are a means of advancing self-renunciation, and according of denying the will-to-live. pg 606 Payne
As you can see from this quote, the will-to-live is portrayed as a delusion which need to be avoided. As I had mentioned this will-to-live engages the instincts and when combine with other elements [ego, etc.] lead to lust, gluttony, avarice, all sorts of evil and sufferings. This is why moral virtues [e.g. compassion, empathy, love, etc.] are necessary to advance self-renunciation, i.e. denying the will-to-live.Now if we consider the will-to-live as a whole and objectively, we have to think of it, according to what have been said, as involved in a delusion.
As I had mentioned the WILL drives the will-to-live which operate at different sub-levels.
For example the WILL drives hunger but the will-to-live deceive the self into glutony, or the WILL drive sex, but the will-to-live steer the self towards lust. Thus moral virtues [driven by the WILL are necessary] to deny this aspect of the will-to-live to ensure happiness and optimal survival.
In most Eastern philosophies, there are seemingly contradictions because those who do not understand conflate the different perspectives and context of the terms used.
For example note the famous Bruce Lee's Fighting without Fighting, or Action without Action.
What the above entails is allowing the underlying WILL to flow freely without interceptions by the selfish ego [will-to-live].
As the Gita would state, 'do not be attached the the fruits of actions while in action' i.e. act spontaneously and optimally without selfish thoughts.
I believe renunciation is often used in two senses, i.e.
1. Renounce all attachment to normal life and be an ascetic living in a mountain cave from civilization.
2. Renunciation of the will-to-live which involve interaction with life but with detachment, -
action without action, i.e. spontaneous actions that do not evolve selfish egoistic thoughts for purely personal interests, pride, etc.
I meant to say, renunciation do not solely meant 1 above but could be 2 depending on the context.
Btw, I read Schopenhauer long time ago, so I only have a general idea but because I am also very familiar with Eastern Philosophies that Schopenhauer is very agreeable with, I am able to recall his central theme. I probably would need a month to reread the two volumes.
Schopenhauer only has limited access to Buddhism and Hinduism in German during his time and location, thus his understanding of these Eastern Philosophies is also limited and ultimately he appear to be quite lost in them.
-- Updated Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:40 pm to add the following --
Schopenhauer mentioned 'pessimism' in various context.Phenomexistentialist wrote:I'm generally a pessimist about life but not in the specifically Schopenhaurian sense.
In his real life, he enjoyed the company of women, travels, likes music, condemn suicide and seem to be hedonistic.
Schopenhauer may be repeating phrases like 'deny the will-to-live' but he did not mean give up living at all, but what he was driving at was the concept of enlightenment, 'Chop Wood Carry Water' i.e. live life in the NOW.
- Danzr
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: September 6th, 2017, 11:30 am
Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?
Schopenhauer mentioned 'pessimism' in various context.Spectrum wrote:You quoted the following;The closest I find in page 606 is:
- “moral virtues [borne of compassion] are not really the ultimate end, but only a step towards salvation via denial of the will-to-live”; these virtues are a “means of advancing self-renunciation, and accordingly of denying the will-to-live” (Volume 2, 606)
Note the first statement of pg 606.But in the second place, these moral virtues are a means of advancing self-renunciation, and according of denying the will-to-live. pg 606 PayneAs you can see from this quote, the will-to-live is portrayed as a delusion which need to be avoided. As I had mentioned this will-to-live engages the instincts and when combine with other elements [ego, etc.] lead to lust, gluttony, avarice, all sorts of evil and sufferings. This is why moral virtues [e.g. compassion, empathy, love, etc.] are necessary to advance self-renunciation, i.e. denying the will-to-live.Now if we consider the will-to-live as a whole and objectively, we have to think of it, according to what have been said, as involved in a delusion.
As I had mentioned the WILL drives the will-to-live which operate at different sub-levels.
For example the WILL drives hunger but the will-to-live deceive the self into glutony, or the WILL drive sex, but the will-to-live steer the self towards lust. Thus moral virtues [driven by the WILL are necessary] to deny this aspect of the will-to-live to ensure happiness and optimal survival.
In most Eastern philosophies, there are seemingly contradictions because those who do not understand conflate the different perspectives and context of the terms used.
For example note the famous Bruce Lee's Fighting without Fighting, or Action without Action.
What the above entails is allowing the underlying WILL to flow freely without interceptions by the selfish ego [will-to-live].
As the Gita would state, 'do not be attached the the fruits of actions while in action' i.e. act spontaneously and optimally without selfish thoughts.
I believe renunciation is often used in two senses, i.e.
1. Renounce all attachment to normal life and be an ascetic living in a mountain cave from civilization.
2. Renunciation of the will-to-live which involve interaction with life but with detachment, -
action without action, i.e. spontaneous actions that do not evolve selfish egoistic thoughts for purely personal interests, pride, etc.
I meant to say, renunciation do not solely meant 1 above but could be 2 depending on the context.
Btw, I read Schopenhauer long time ago, so I only have a general idea but because I am also very familiar with Eastern Philosophies that Schopenhauer is very agreeable with, I am able to recall his central theme. I probably would need a month to reread the two volumes.
Schopenhauer only has limited access to Buddhism and Hinduism in German during his time and location, thus his understanding of these Eastern Philosophies is also limited and ultimately he appear to be quite lost in them.
-- Updated Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:40 pm to add the following --
Phenomexistentialist wrote:I'm generally a pessimist about life but not in the specifically Schopenhaurian sense.
In his real life, he enjoyed the company of women, travels, likes music, condemn suicide and seem to be hedonistic.
Thankyou again, great answer. I do understand what you mean. And I assume that to Schopenhauer respect you mean renunciation in the second sense.
In such a sense, one may be able to be "indifferent to all things" (in terms of ONE'S OWN EGO ONLY), yet one can still actively help others out of compassion since compassion is also an indifference to all things (in terms of ONE'S OWN EGO ONLY)?
This is why moral virtues [e.g. compassion, empathy, love, etc.] are necessary to advance self-renunciation, i.e. denying the will-to-live.
And essentially you are saying that the moral virtues are denial of the will-to-live, in some way? since they are non-egoistic? So in that way they do advance ultimate renunciation, but also are renunciation on a "smaller scale" (for lack of a better term)?
This contradiction - compassion requires activity, denial requires no activity- is only apparent, then. Both basically require denial of the will-to-live, NOT will?
Thanks again, and I am one of those persons who has not studied a great deal of Eastern thought, I want to more.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Is there any Schopenhauerian's here?
Yes, one has to be "indifferent to all things" re the ego, otherwise one will end up with pride and its related sufferings. Thus one cannot be compassionate and boast about it.Danzr wrote:In such a sense, one may be able to be "indifferent to all things" (in terms of ONE'S OWN EGO ONLY), yet one can still actively help others out of compassion since compassion is also an indifference to all things (in terms of ONE'S OWN EGO ONLY)?
Yes.And essentially you are saying that the moral virtues are denial of the will-to-live, in some way? since they are non-egoistic? So in that way they do advance ultimate renunciation, but also are renunciation on a "smaller scale" (for lack of a better term)?This is why moral virtues [e.g. compassion, empathy, love, etc.] are necessary to advance self-renunciation, i.e. denying the will-to-live.
Yes, both require denial of the will-to-live [not giving up living, btw], NOT the WILL. From what I know re Schopenhauer, nothing can stop the WILL. The will-to-live is at a different sub-level from the WILL and the will-to-live can be modulated [denial] to optimize the well-being of the individual.This contradiction - compassion requires activity, denial requires no activity- is only apparent, then. Both basically require denial of the will-to-live, NOT will?
Getting more acquainted with Eastern philosophies will definitely widen you scope of philosophical thoughts and enhanced your understanding of Schopenhauer's thoughts. Western philosophies are well-organized and systematic but at times can be very rigid.Thanks again, and I am one of those persons who has not studied a great deal of Eastern thought, I want to more.
Schopenhauer's philosophies are very interesting [with many practical examples] and a must read, but ultimately I prefer Kant whom Schopenhauer critiqued heavily -1/4 of volume 1 is on Kant [he misunderstood Kant].
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023