It's been stated a lot that Schopenhauer's theory of salvation is contradictory- , in salvation one apparently denies and thus transcends the will via the use of cognition. Yet how can we deny and transcend the essence of what we are (i.e. will)?
However, is denial of the will really contradictory; is it really about cognition? — jancanc
If Will is what brings dissatisfaction, will-lessness is what brings the salvation. The cognition comes from a sort of recognition of what is happening. The hard part is trying to get rid of that which essentially causes the very world to exist in its subject-object form, and thus the "illusion" of a the very world itself. Somehow getting to a state of "nothing" without "willing" it. This is why really achieving "Enlightenment" is so hard in Buddhism I wold presume. Same type of deal — schopenhauer1
However, is it a result not of cognition, but of intuitive knowledge? And in Schopenhauer, we can tease these two out as being disparate? — jancanc
I remember reading about a Catholic saint who was so passive the account said "it seemed he had no will of his own". Buddhists aren't the only ones who know this — Gregory
Yet how can we deny and transcend the essence of what we are (i.e. will)?
However, is denial of the will really contradictory — jancanc
The cause is greater than the effect. — Gregory
Or, perhaps the effect is greater than the cause. Of course, we might could try to define 'greater'. — 3017amen
Is nothingness, or is somethingness, logically necessary? — 3017amen
Amazing question.. I believe I'd say that nothingness is necessary and the world contingent, but the contingent has solidity, so if a stick hits my head there seems to be a necessity there in feeling pain. Ultimately though the world is not necessary and we can enter into the necessary by following our Will. — Gregory
1. Explain what you mean by "nothingness is necessary" .
2. Explain what you mean by " we can enter into the necessary by following our Will." — 3017amen
Yet how can we deny and transcend the essence of what we are (i.e. will)? — jancanc
Amazing question.. I believe I'd say that nothingness is necessary — Gregory
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.