Two aspect theories and ontological dependence

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Danzr
New Trial Member
Posts: 12
Joined: September 6th, 2017, 11:30 am

Two aspect theories and ontological dependence

Post by Danzr » October 17th, 2017, 11:02 pm

Schopenhauer claimed that the world is will (as thing-in-itself) and representation (appearance).
He does not think the will causes our representations. He thinks that the will and representations are one and the same reality, seen from different perspectives; "two sides of one coin", so to speak. The world as will and representation, not the world of will and world of representation.

Is this "two-aspect" theory consistent with an ontological dependence relationship? there is an ontological dependence of things in the empirical world representational world) on the will? or is it a mutual/reciprocal ontological dependence?

Burning ghost
Posts: 2625
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Two aspect theories and ontological dependence

Post by Burning ghost » October 18th, 2017, 12:37 am

I don't understand what you are asking. Can you possibly present some examples or express the question more thoroughly please?
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Danzr
New Trial Member
Posts: 12
Joined: September 6th, 2017, 11:30 am

Re: Two aspect theories and ontological dependence

Post by Danzr » October 18th, 2017, 1:16 am

Burning ghost wrote:I don't understand what you are asking. Can you possibly present some examples or express the question more thoroughly please?
So one interpretation of Kant's phenomenon/noumenon distinction is that noumenon causes phenomena. Phenomena are ontologically dependent on noumena for their existence. Without noumeonon there is no phenomena.

Now Schop says the thing-in-itelf ("noumenon") does not cause our mental representations. Representations and the will are two sides of the same coin, (representations mutually presuppose a subject/object division).... So we look at our hand. It is an object (a representation). But at the same time we have inner access to our hand, we are inside our hand (the will).

I'm trying to see how this fits with ontological dependence.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Two aspect theories and ontological dependence

Post by Spectrum » October 18th, 2017, 4:37 am

I've read Schopenhauer long ago.
As far as I remember from my flow-chart, in points;
  • 1. The Will is a Primordial ‘blind’ Force 18-29 Haldane-Kemp.
    2. This blind force is filter through the individual's Will-to-Live -54, thing-in-itself, Principle Individuationis -23 and
    3. from there it expresses through various elements and channels that culminate in representations.
    4. These various elements comprised of a priori and a posteriori elements.
    5. The a priori elements are space, time, causation, action, matter, instincts, understanding, perception and various cognitive systems.
    6. Representation are 3 types, SUBJECT Vorstellung, Intuitive, Abstract [reason] vorstellung.
From the above there is no mutual/reciprocal ontological dependence between the Will and Representations. The Will is merely a blind primordial force.
What is mutual is between the a priori elements and the a posteriori elements.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Lena01
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: October 25th, 2017, 8:49 am

Re: Two aspect theories and ontological dependence

Post by Lena01 » October 25th, 2017, 8:54 am

Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 316
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Two aspect theories and ontological dependence

Post by SimpleGuy » November 16th, 2017, 1:39 pm

This is exactly the point it is a different metaphysical theory of beeing in time. He simply separates the physical world from the spritual world and claims through will power adopted by shopenhauer by imitation of the meditation of the hindus , the both worlds interact with each other. This is certainly something one needs to get used to. Once adopted it's a totally different sight to the world than the mostly materialistic philosophies you tend to accept.

-- Updated November 16th, 2017, 1:44 pm to add the following --

Different philosophical views tend to model the interaction of the human mind with the physical world in different ways. According to the philosophy one uses the settings are compatible or not.

Post Reply