• ENOAH
    494
    For Schopenhauer, this is through the negation of the will, while in Buddhism, it is through the elimination of craving and the attainment of nirvāṇa.Wayfarer

    Sorry Wayfarer, I just noted your reveal. Thank you. And I see that you might note (not unlike Gnoman) that The "division" is not ontological, between Will and Suffering, but rather a "choice." Suffering does "emerge out of" the Will, but one might "attempt" to "avoid" it by negating the will.

    I would only suggest that negating the will (ground of being) does seem impossible (as Schopenhauer the forum member has been pressing with kindness). It would make more sense if the "resolution" to suffering is negating the projections which (I believe to be) its "locus."

    But things are more clear now in that I understand where I diverge.
  • Shawn
    12.7k
    In the OP, ↪Shawn found Schop's "denial of the will to live" unacceptable.Gnomon

    Yes, I would like to elaborate on why I find it unacceptable. How is one to deny the will to live? Doesn't this imbue a persons life or deny their adaptability to the environment they are in?

    Compare and contrast the Darwinian notion of the survival of the fittest with Schopenhauer's notion of the denial of the will to live?
  • ENOAH
    494
    Not exactly, look at our conversation right above:schopenhauer1

    Below is from your conversation above. That is the very point I "think" I am concerned about. Seems to me I should pause again. :smile: Sorry.

    But then when one is "denying the Will", is one employing "higher Will" to deny the "lower Will"? And then this starts to unravel... And then you get to bring in those fun Sanskrit and Pali terms to placate it.schopenhauer1
  • ENOAH
    494
    Genius poor guy.
    15m
    frank

    No doubt
  • schopenhauer1
    10k
    I mean to say, for me the two categories summarized as X and Y are ontologically(?) separate. The one being, "Being", the other being a modified "reality" mediated or projected solely by the emergence of human minds. If I am mistaken, and for all of these philosophies, X and Y are indivisible (I.e. suffering cannot be isolated to Mind or resolved in being, independent of mind), then why are they consistently spoken of as if one is the ground of being and the other projections of Mind?ENOAH

    I think that is a great point, and I think it valid. I think the question is a legitimate one that stands.. And goes right back to a conversation I had with Wayferer in a previous thread... I'd have to look to find it, but it was the one I sent you a little while ago.

    It does seem like if Schopenhauer is offering a dual-aspected world, that indeed, Will is not the "true" or "primary" but simply the "flip-side", but he keeps discussing the Representation as "Illusion", as if it is NOT double-aspected but rather epiphenomenal, that is to say somehow "emergent from". However, this second interpretation would seem to be false under his own pretenses regarding the co-occurrence of both. There can be no prior or "originary", only BOTH being one and the same.

    This can perhaps recovered in a couple ways, but these attempts are more just hypothesis...And it may answer my previous question about "denial" to @Wayfarer just above...

    First off, no ONE manifestation/representation can ever be "Will itself", as Will is the WHOLE superstructure.. All that exists.

    However, perhaps as a manifestation of Will, one can become a sort of Will-less individual. Don't ask me what or how that looks.. It seems impossible, bit would be something like an individuated aspect of Will knowing its own nature first-hand, without the mediation. Again, I have no idea what that really means.

    So "denying" the will is "more weighted" of the noumenal understanding rather than the phenomenal presentation. It isn't "becoming one with Will" per se, because that is an impossibility.. It is the manifestation, understanding its own nature as much as a manifestation can.. I guess. And if that sounds really woo woo.. it is to me as well.. I'm just trying my best to work with what a I got in terms of Will and "denial of Will" ... and what that means.
  • ENOAH
    494
    Representation as "Illusion", as if it is NOT double-aspected but rather epiphenomenal, that is to say somehow "emergent from". However, this second interpretation would seem to be false under his own pretenses regarding the co-occurrence of both. There can be no prior or "originary", only BOTH being one and the same.schopenhauer1

    I get why ultimately they must just be Will (I have in mind, none of the nuances peculiar to each philosopher. Most basic: will=ground of being; representation=those projections emerging there"from").

    But.

    Is it possible to conceive of the projections (phenomena/mind/becoming) as epiphenomenal, ultimately not "real;" and so, there is ultimately only one, but the projections are nevertheless

    1) existent (though fleeting and empty, like shadow paintings)
    2) effective against the real. Like a Fictional story can cause one to really cry. It effects reality while maintaining its status as Fictional
    3) avoidable, or at least, tune-out-able by a process of attuning to the Will (drive for survival) without attention to the projections (desire and suffering)
    ?
  • schopenhauer1
    10k
    Is it possible to conceive of the projections (phenomena/mind/becoming) as epiphenomenal, ultimately not "real;" and so, there is ultimately only one, but the projections are nevertheless

    1) existent (though fleeting and empty, like shadow paintings)
    2) effective against the real. Like a Fictional story can cause one to really cry. It effects reality while maintaining its status as Fictional
    3) avoidable, or at least, tune-out-able by a process of attuning to the Will (drive for survival) without attention to the projections (desire and suffering)
    ?
    ENOAH

    That is indeed a way to look at it, but I have problems with it...

    Whence the illusion? If you say that it is secondary, and not somehow, ONE AND THE SAME, then you are trying to say that there is some sort of temporal and causal succession (first there was Will, and then there was Idea/Representation). That doesn't seem to make sense.

    It also makes no sense to say that Will CAUSED Representation, as causation is purely in the phenomenal world of Representation, but cannot be said of Will itself.
  • ENOAH
    494
    also makes no sense to say that Will CAUSED Representationschopenhauer1

    Totally agree. I thought I was framing it in a way conceding to an orthodox view. Causation is misapplied. (But there is the added problem which I concede that this applies not just to applying "cause" to any relationship with Reality, but to everything expressed, rendering all of this moot.)


    Whence the illusion?schopenhauer1

    This is a far more serious problem. What resolves it for me, is undoubtedly not Schopenhauerian. A simple answer is best for now. The question may be posed as what makes the projections not just an extension of what is real? The answer is in their structure/nature(?). While the Universe is formed of matter and energy, as are all of the organisms including their brain functions, Mind emerged as something other; it is structured by Representations that now move in accordance with their own laws and mechanics (as opposed to the rest of "us" bound by the laws of nature).

    I won't get into the how and wherefore of it. But for me, this epiphenomenom has an affect on our will, our natural selves, to the point of superimposing an "I" upon it. And yet, it is not Real.
  • schopenhauer1
    10k
    This is a far more serious problem. What resolves it for me, is undoubtedly not Schopenhauerian. A simple answer is best for now. The question may be posed as what makes the projections not just an extension of what is real? The answer is in their structure/nature(?). While the Universe is formed of matter and energy, as are all of the organisms including their brain functions, Mind emerged as something other; it is structured by Representations that now move in accordance with their own laws and mechanics (as opposed to the rest of "us" bound by the laws of nature).

    I won't get into the how and wherefore of it. But for me, this epiphenomenom has an affect on our will, our natural selves, to the point of superimposing an "I" upon it. And yet, it is not Real.
    ENOAH

    This all sounds like an attempt to square the circle here. Something I also struggle with in Schopenhauer. That is, how is the multiplicity the same as the unity. It just starts sounding more absurd.. I proposed a Higher Will (will denied), and Lower Will (will manifested), but this makes no sense if all is One Will.

    Then it also starts looking like early forms of trinitarian justifications.. same substance different modes, or whathaveyou. This also will not do.

    Rather, the only way I can interpret it is that Will literally IS the illusions. It is NOT primary/originary/more REAL than the illusions. Rather, illusions simply IS WILL as it is carried out.

    However, I still don't know where Denial of Will comes into play. "What" that is, is beyond me. But it's the same problem as Buddhism's desire for no desire. And I am sure there are plenty of clever ways to get around it..
  • ENOAH
    494
    Will literally IS the illusions.schopenhauer1

    Hard pill to swallow...hence the squaring of the circle. You may be right, more universally than just this.

    still don't know where Denial of Will comes into play.schopenhauer1

    One thing for sure, it can't be accomplished using the tools of the "illusion" no matter how entangled with the will. Right?
  • schopenhauer1
    10k
    One thing for sure, it can't be accomplished using the tools of the "illusion" no matter how entangled with the will. Right?ENOAH

    I just don't even know what "denial of the Will" even means in this context. There is no fit.

    This is why I said it is something akin to the Representation knowing its essence more familiarly? So where the ordinary mode is to be caught up in the world of phenomenon, the enlightened person is the least "caught up", though still in the world, as the phenomenal doesn't just disappear altogether.

    It's not a satisfying answer though.

    But as to Will BEING Illusion (not prior to it or more Real than it), I think we should continue that discussion. I am not sure how, but if you have ideas, I will hear it out.

    Edit: The only way I can characterize it is that it is "double-aspected" like the double-aspect theories of consciousness contend that material is mental to some extent, not that material causes mental.
  • Wayfarer
    21k
    He's not saying this law is a feature of the universe, it's a feature of thought. We can't think beyond it, so it's like a signpost of the border of thought.frank

    That is along the same lines as the 'critical reflection' in the SEP entry that I mention above. But I'd say, it's deeper than a feature of thought, it is inextricably part of organic life, as all living things strive to survive (although only humans come along and ask why.)

    definitely he (Schop.) places suffering in the category of the real being, and unlike Buddhism, not in the category of Maya/Samsara/Karma. That is, suffering for S. is not restricted to the "illusions" but also Buddha Nature (if that and S's "will" are similarly the ground of real being).ENOAH

    I'd be very careful at this point. First, 'Buddhanature' was not something S. ever would have encountered even despite what knowledge of Buddhism he had, as it is part of a set of Buddhist doctrines that weren't translated until much later. Second, look again at the reply to S1 above, from the SEP entry on Schopenhauer. It suggests he's not really positing 'Will' as a philosophical absolute, as a kind of 'blind God' (which sounds more like H P Lovecraft :yikes: ) but more as an inevitable condition of existence, something that drives living beings to continually crave to exist and to continue, without their really understanding why.

    Without getting into all the intricacies of Buddhist philosophy, which are considerable, one of the basic formulations is called the 'chain of dependent origination' (Pratītyasamutpāda), shared by all schools. The driving factors are ignorance, greed and hatred (depicted iconographically as a rooster, pig and snake chasing each other in a circle). So ignorance is what causes beings to be born in the realm of Saṃsāra (with the caveat that in Mahāyāna Buddhism, the bodhisattva may be voluntarily born out of compassion for the sake of suffering beings). But ignorance has no intrinsic reality. And that actually converges (oddly enough) with a religious teaching associated with Augustine, 'evil as privation of the good' - in the same way that illness is simply the absence of health, or a hole the absence of ground, evil or ignorance has no intrinsic being, although it appears totally real to those afflicted by it.
  • ENOAH
    494
    the ordinary mode is to be caught up in the world of phenomenon, the enlightened person is the least "caught up", though still in the world, as the phenomenal doesn't just disappear altogether.schopenhauer1

    That is definitely the most Reasonable view. You cannot achieve anything outside of the phenomenal because there is no refuge in so called reality. The two are inextricably one. Thus, enlightened necessarily is enlightened as to the predicament, and willing (deliberate use) to carry on as unattached as possible (ironically using that very willing to detach from willing. A problem I see resolved differently).

    But we share in the pith of it. Wu Wei.


    I think we should continue that discussion. I am not sure how, but if you have ideas, I will hear it out.schopenhauer1

    :up:


    it is that it is "double-aspected"schopenhauer1

    And I would see that ("double-aspected") as an "aspect" of the projections, rooted in a primeval structure, difference. Because Mind exploded once difference became habituated into real consciousness*, we have this problem to grapple with in the first place. Not this but that is recognized as the root of the projections (representations) by Vedanta/ Mahayana (I can't speak of Theravada) and Western philosophy.

    What is the "nature" of this will/representations dichotomy? Right? You say "double-aspected" which is consistent with Schopenhauer and, I might concede conventional reasoning. It applies the autonomous requirement of difference. Not this but that.

    I too necessarily employ the structure difference. I say there is only will, like you, but the second aspect is does not beling tobthe will. The second is Fictional (illusion) because it is projected, and it isn't what anything else is or has ever been. It is truly new and other. But has no enduring structure, just empty signs in motion triggering feeling, action, sky scrapers, nuclear bombs, and this very dialogue.


    *(I'll use the language I'm familiar with. Know that I am aware of their "flaws" within the context of this discussion)
  • schopenhauer1
    10k
    I too necessarily employ the structure difference. I say there is only will, like you, but the second aspect is does not beling tobthe will. The second is Fictional (illusion) because it is projected, and it isn't what anything else is or has ever been. It is truly new and other. But has no enduring structure, just empty signs in motion triggering feeling, action, sky scrapers, nuclear bombs, and this very dialogue.ENOAH

    But then how can anything be "projected" as if it proceeds from something. This is all language of the phenomenal which would be inappropriate as it is the language of causation, duration, temporality, and causality. This is the language of the Phenomenal world applied to the Noumenal.

    Rather, it would make more sense that the Noumenal is simply the Representation in its other aspect, one that we cannot know except by way of intellectualization. I guess the Enlightened person "knows" it in some mystical sense.
  • ENOAH
    494
    not something S. ever would have encountered even despite what knowledge of Buddhism he had, as it is part of a set of Buddhist doctrines that weren't translated until much later.Wayfarer

    Ok. Ive never considered that for Schopenhauer, yet I sensed he wasn't a Buddhist Scholar or anything even for his time. But maybe from what you've made clear, he was well versed given the resources.

    Will' as a philosophical absolute, as a kind of 'blind God' (which sounds more like H P Lovecraft :yikes: ) but more as an inevitable condition of existence, something that drives living beings to continually crave to exist and to continue, without their really understanding why.Wayfarer

    Ok. Yes. You are correct to clarify. I originally "brought" his "will" into a category with Being recognizing I wasn’t being true to Schopenhauer but neglecting to be clear.

    If not Will for Schopenhauer, then what would he have "equated" with, say, Brahman or whatever stage of Buddhist translations' version of Tathagatagharba(?), or even Spinoza's Monism/God? What would Schopenhauer call that? Or is it utterly absent and there is only will and Representation, and will is not a being but a drive?
  • Shawn
    12.7k
    If not Will for Schopenhauer, then what would he have "equated" with, say, Brahman or whatever stage of Buddhist translations' version of Tathagatagharba(?), or even Spinoza's Monism/God? What would Schopenhauer call that? Or is it utterly absent and there is only will and Representation, and will is not a being but a drive?ENOAH

    Well, Freud, who was heavily influenced by Schopenhauer, alluded to the ID as the wellspring of desire and arousal. Boredom isn't such a negative thing with how this whole industrialized psychological programming went crazy with advertisements and our beloved dopamine nation. Endless, really.
  • Wayfarer
    21k
    If not Will for Schopenhauer, then what would he have "equated" with, say, Brahman or whatever stage of Buddhist translations' version of Tathagatagharba(?), or even Spinoza's Monism/God? What would Schopenhauer call that? Or is it utterly absent and there is only will and Representation, and will is not a being but a drive?ENOAH

    They're difficult questions, but I'd be careful about reification. Buddhanature is not any kind of entity or thing, but the latent capacity for enlightenment. Perhaps more like a 'principle'. Buddhism in particular is very sensitive to 'objectification'. So, 'will is not a being but a drive' is much nearer the mark.
  • ENOAH
    494
    then how can anything be "projected" as if it proceeds from somethingschopenhauer1

    Right. Words are inevitably problematic. All the more so when I do not share your knowledge of the technical. Projections is misleading. Here's an oversimpified description of the process. Representations are constructed by the Body to trigger feelings and actions. The feelings and actions are real but we are attuned to the representations as though they are real.
    In the spirit of further oversimplifying, one time, hypothetically before thd hypothetical emergence of mind, the brain would construct a representation of a tiger when a certain twig snapped to trigger the Body to run. Mind is a universe of such representations.

    it would make more sense that the Noumenal is simply the Representation in its other aspect, one that we cannot know.schopenhauer1

    It might. If I am stretching, then it would. If I am not, that it resolves the cannot know with the answer, well "know" is not a category of truth anyway, that's why it can't be known.
  • ENOAH
    494
    Buddhanature is not any kind of entity or thing, but the latent capacity for enlightenmentWayfarer

    Understood. So for Schopenhauer there is nothing like Brahman or another monistic ultimate reality besides Will which is more like a drive? Sorry, that's what I was wondering.
  • ENOAH
    494
    Freud, who was heavily influenced by Schopenhauer, alluded to the ID as the wellspring of desire and arousal.Shawn

    Oh. Would Schopenhauer have seen the Will as Freud's ID?

    If so, there is nothing redeeming in us at the root? But where does reason or rationality fit in?
1234Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.