Schopenhauers Will and perception
- Navarro
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 6:56 am
Schopenhauers Will and perception
Lets say I look at a flower. I was through WILL that I made myself look at that flower. Is that what he means? Would this classify Schopenhauer as an idealist?
A qoute I don't really comprehend, are:
"Schopenhauer thought that music was the only art that did not merely copy ideas, but actually embodied the will itself." Why would music "embody" the Will? The experience of sound (and therefore music) is one of Lockes secondary qualities, I don't see why it would stand out in Schopenhauers theory of the Will.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Schopenhauers Will and perception
-
- Posts: 174
- Joined: June 11th, 2014, 2:32 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Karl Popper
Re: Schopenhauers Will and perception
Navarro wrote:Locke theorized that we percieve objects through primary and secondary qualities. Have I misunderstood Schopenhauer, or does he try to explain this through Will as the thing-in-itself, and if so, how?
Lets say I look at a flower. I was through WILL that I made myself look at that flower. Is that what he means? Would this classify Schopenhauer as an idealist?
A qoute I don't really comprehend, are:
"Schopenhauer thought that music was the only art that did not merely copy ideas, but actually embodied the will itself." Why would music "embody" the Will? The experience of sound (and therefore music) is one of Lockes secondary qualities, I don't see why it would stand out in Schopenhauers theory of the Will.
When Schopenhauer says "Will" or "the thing-in-itself" he has as slightly different ideas then previous philosophers in regards to epistemology. Kant was a huge influence on Schopenhauer's thought but differed in how one can obtain knowledge. Kant separated the world into two distinct classifications: firstly, the Noumea: That which is separate from experience and where knowledge cannot be gained through the senses. This one is important because for Kant the thing-in-itself, or the true essence of something resides in the noumenal world and cannot be known. The second half is the phenomena. This is the world we experience and one in which sense data gives us information about. For Kant this is as close as we can get to understanding the world because we are limited to our sense data.
Schopenhauer made a distinction when it came to the two and, in a way, merged them together. For Schopenhauer the thing-in-itself is the Will and everything in the universe is this thing called the "Will". He took this idea and claimed that all living things strive for something and that our physical attributes (the phenomena) are just projections in time, space and causality of the true essence of the being, i.e the "Will". For example, the mouth of an animal is a phenomenal representation of the striving of that living being to eat and by understanding that concept we can gain knowledge of the noumenal world by its representation in the phenomenal world. Basically the will, according to Schopenhauer, is not the same as free will or individual action but Will is the essence of the universe. plants grow taller and move towards the sun, animals hunt and search for potential mates etc. There is an underlying striving that is separate from our own individual choices. Your flower example is a good way to show the difference. One can choose to look at a flower but it is separate from your individual action that the flower will be aesthetically pleasing. Or, I could will to have a hamburger but I cannot will to need or strive for food.
Now to music. Schopenhauer believed music was the only art that embodied the will itself for a few reasons but mainly because music doesn't rely on visual representations of the world and that it is part of the make up of the universe itself. A lot of this goes back to the concept of the music of the spheres and that music is mathematical and therefore is representing a noumenal aspect of the world that a painting could not represent.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Schopenhauers Will and perception
The Ancient school states that the soul is the moist principle from which phenomena or the state of perpetual flux arises. The will is what Kant said “it” is intuition and the “big Will” contains our intuition. Of course it all precedes the theory of the unconscious mind. There is Aristotle treatise on the soul and Philoponus made a “symphony” of which others derive definitions. What is new? If I were a giant, the Universe would be very small and only visible under a microscope. I will find a growing, changing dot. Obviously, it might be alive and therefore some type of will might be possible within. Can a dot in a line be immaterial and therefore separate? At the mass/wave boundary consciousness might really be the thing in itself if there is no mass. In the flux, it is the thing in the thing. Or perhaps just one more thing that has nothing to do with “it”. Our consciousness might want to be the language of the flux that speaks with many voices. It is a one to many relationship or a one reality to the many interpretations.
2023/2024 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