Arthur
Schopenhauer's
1.
What
does Schopenhauer mean by "representation" in #17
and following?
Representations are the perceptions of the world as they appear to us, not as they are in and of themselves and man’s recognition of the ‘inner mechanism of his being, his actions, his movements’—his own phenomenon, is the closest representation of the thing in itself, the Will.
2.
The problem, for Book II, is
expressed in the last
paragraph of #17. What is that problem?
We cannot get at or fully understand the inner nature of things from without, since we are not Will itself. All he is left with is just images and names, mere representations of the drives of the Will.
3.
What, according to S, is the
really real, the
thing-in-itself?
The Will, which is not conditioned by space, time or causality is a blind universal ‘cosmic’ force that endeavors to live within space and time, though it is fundamentally non-rational. The basic forces, such as gravity, are the lowest, or most primary, expressions of the will; man is the highest expression. Nature provides the stage for Will to ‘feed on itself’ as the forms (beings) strive to make a place for the Will in space and time. Instincts are the Will without knowledge, the mind is the servant (or mere instrument) of the Will as it seeks to live and express itself in man. So man is bound by it.
4.
Paraphrase the last 15 lines on
p 125 (in #24).
Self-knowledge, by instrument of mind, of motives and actions gives best insight to what influences causes, so giving indirect knowledge to the nature of the thing in itself, the Will.
5.
Paraphrase the last 13 lines on
p 138 and the top two on p
139. What is he trying to say?
That we
are fated by the Will which places man into the world, to do the will
of the
Will, that is, to survive. Good and evil result not of rational
choices, but by
what the Will wishes as it feasts on itself. (In other words, this is
fatalistic determinism. Freedom is an illusion.)
6. Summarize the basic teaching in the whole of Book II of Die
Welt.
That there is no ultimate purpose or
end in view, other than the will to live; the will to live is all there
really
is. Man is the highest expression of the Will, while the blind forces
that made
him are the lowest.
Arthur
Schopenhauer's Die Welt als Wille
und Vorstellung Books III and IV
7.
On pp 178-79, in
Book III on
aesthetic contemplation, S is trying to describe what that
contemplation is.
Paraphrase what he is saying.
Contemplation for
Schopenhauer is
to completely forget about ourselves as individuals and individual
minds and
wills, so that in this act we become ‘one’ with the object being
perceived.
This gives us brief reprieve from the sufferings of the will, since he
has
become ‘will-less, painless, timeless subject of knowledge.’
8.
In the last 10
lines on p 185,
to the middle of 188 (& ff), S is describing the concept of genius.
What is
genius, according to S?
Genius ‘is the
capacity to remain
in a state of pure perception.’ It is according to Schopenhauer,
complete
objectivity ‘as opposed to the subjective directed at our own person.’
Genius
does not equal imagination nor is it logical. Schopenhauer rejects
Newtonian
physics in favor of Goethe’s color theory which is purely subjective.
(I’m
sorry, but this is silly.)
9.
In the middle
paragraph on p
196, what is saying? And then, what is contemplation (next two
paragraphs)?
Essentially the same
thing that
Buddhism teaches, that all suffering is caused by desires. So if you
wish to
minimize suffering then you must minimize desires, so leading us to the
asceticism that Schopenhauer prescribes to give some faint hope that
suffering
can be alleviated. So in forgetting yourselves in contemplation so
‘abolishing
the kind of knowledge which follows the principle of sufficient
reason,’ you
can reach that painless state, free from the sufferings of the will.
10.
In #40, what does
S mean by
"the charming" in art? (It isn't required, but if you think of it,
attach two picture examples of art that might be considered
"charming" in this sense. Also, two examples of true art that is not charming, but that inspires
aesthetic contemplation.)
Art that
is ‘charming’ excites the will by giving it something that satisfies or
fulfills its desires, like depiction’s of edible objects which can get
you
thinking about food or nudity which excites lust.
That art which inspires aesthetic contemplation
is that
which is created ‘with a truly objective spirit filled with ideal
beauty, not
in the spirit of the subjective, base sensuality.
This seems pretty subjective to me, because I
haven’t a
clue as what Artie liked to eat or what was a turn-on for him.
11.
In #s 57-60 Artie
is showing
that Life is Suffering. What are his reasons for saying that this is
the case?
The
highest being in Schopenhauer’s universe is man, whose long history of
pain and
suffering torture and war make any prospects for hope, in his words,
impossible. The most powerful quote to this effect was “For whence did
Dante
get the material for his hell, if not from this actual world of ours?”
Any
optimism espoused is actually wicked, for it gives hope where hope does
not
lie. I must differ with Schopenhauer’s mistaken understanding of
Christianity
to be both deterministic and pessimistic (but I’m sure that this would
only
create an argument that this is only my interpretation.) If this is the
case,
that men make God in their own image, and then indeed all is hopeless.
Nietzsche recognized that if man came to see the
implications of killing God, an age of nihilism would be ushered in.
But
none-the-less he was optimistic that man was capable of overcoming
without
destroying himself, so coming to define his own values. I think his
optimism
was ungrounded since any such value ends up being self-defined, which
is
circular. So I think Schopenhauer is more consistent in regards to
pessimism in
a God-less universe.
Any pleasure is a fleeting thing, only to be
replaced with
new desires that long to be met. Intellectual power does not give hope
(although I’m having difficulty in understanding then why he made such
a big
deal about genius and aesthetic contemplation then) since these men
tend to
suffer more than stupid men. Being stupid doesn’t help either, because
they are
not able to escape by contemplation but must excite the will by
experiencing
the object. The will is what causes suffering, so exciting it is not a
good
idea.
Lastly, death will claim us all—there is no
escape.
12.
What is Big Art's
definition of
"the good" in # 65? Please explain in your own words what that
definition means.
Good, is
that which conform to the aims of the will—Life. It is only relative to
the
goals of the will as a whole. Anything or action that is egotistical,
untrue,
or optimistic is wicked.
13.
What is "the way
of
asceticism" in # 68?
14. In your view, is Schopenhauer's world view "pessimistic?" What
are your feelings about his philosophy so far?
This work seems to be a blend of Kantian influenced Buddhist philosophy which is extremely pessimistic in its outlook on human life. It is so horrifying in its implications, that if I found any reason to believe that it is true, I should become very depressed. In addition, Artie assumes that ‘evil’ can be known.
There are some positive things to say about Schopenhauer’s philosophy. I think it contains a somewhat realistic view of human nature. Modern man, in his optimistic humanism, believes that man will improve in his behavior through science and technology and the like. Schopenhauer didn’t believe this and I agree with him. Mankind is, if left himself, cursed to repeat the same evils, though perhaps in more technologically advanced ways, and so is forever fated to suffer. The humanistic notion of self-perfectibility is an illusion.
I think also he recognized that there is a volitional aspect to ultimate reality, though I think it irrational to think that it is non-rational in nature, which that statement is weird enough. God did not have to make the world and us, that would create a dependency, but He wanted to.
However, like Kant, Schopenhauer claimed to know with his mind, that reality cannot be known with his mind, but with only the base recognition of the will. So it seems this is a self-defeating proposition. Schopenhauer was, by implication, claiming that the Will is the cause of representations that we experience. The recognition of this comes by way of mind, so how then can an effect be greater than it’s cause? The statement that the cause of reality is non-rational denies the rationality of the mind making the statement. In other words, how can the non-rational will be the cause of a rational mind?