Apparently Schopenhauer's theory of compassion is mutually antagonistic with his theory of salvation.
Briefly stated: compassion requires stimulation of the will (to help another) but salvation requires cessation of the will.
However, Schopenhauer said that both compassion and renunciation come from the same source (intuitively recognizing that all beings are metaphysically one) and they have the same result (denial of the individual egoistic will).
Thus how can two things which are "mutually exclusive" both come from the same source and have the same result? Seems strange — jancanc
Perhaps this can be solved thus: (I think you are intimating at this) In renunciation and compassion willing does continue, but willing-to-live ceases. Both renunciation and compassion require the denial of individual egoistic willing, but in both cases willing goes on. If one's body exists, it must will! — jancanc
Also, all the ascetic saints Schopenhauer talks about in WWR are very compassionate beings, Jesus, Buddha, etc. — jancanc
compassion requires stimulation of the will (to help another) but salvation requires cessation of the will. — jancanc
I see salvation as the supersession of compassion. — Noble Dust
Salvation is an action. — Noble Dust
so how can Salvation be an action, per se? — jancanc
"Will-less action" can only be a metaphoric expression — jancanc
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.