I'm interested to know how Schopenhauer's philosophy may be thought as paradoxical. All I can think of is that his notion of noumenon or Will as blind undifferentiated striving seems to suggest that all individual wills are a kind of illusion and that they are ultimately one will, and yet there does not seem to be any way to make sense of that conception if the one will is understood to be blind and purposeless.

One thing is the problem of ancestrality (not that Schopenhauer uses that term):

Thus we see, on the one hand, the existence of the whole world necessarily dependent on the first knowing being, however imperfect it be; on the other hand, this first knowing animal just as necessarily wholly dependent on the long chain of causes and effects which has preceded it, and in which it itself appear as a small link. These two contradictory views, to each of which we are lead with equal necessity, might certainly be called an antinomy in our faculty of knowledge. — Schopenhauer, WWR

I don't know if that's the kind of thing Mongrel had in mind, or whether it's relevant to your conversation, but it strikes me as quite paradoxical.

One aspect of the contradiction jamalrob pointed out is duality vs unity. On the one hand it's indubitable that each individual must be related to everything else in the world somehow (temporally, spatially, causally). You are a part of the whole universe (from beginning to end.)

But on the other hand, it's equally indubitable that you somehow stand apart from that world. However you work out what it means that you have apriori knowledge about the basic conceptual framework of the world, there's this: you have a vantage point on it. And we just stepped over into paradox. You are an inextricable element of the world.. and that's you observing the fact.

And the next move is basic Hegel (I think.. you could expand?). Just as cause and effect are interdependent concepts, unity and disunity are. I want to say that trying to pull unity and disunity apart results in the infinite regress of observers.

S doesn't try to solve the paradox. He just gives it a name: multiplicity. When he talks about the rawness of subjective experience, he's preparing to say something pretty startling about who and what you are.

Unrelatedly... N says we should contemplate Napoleon: "the synthesis of Monster and overman." He says Napoleon is the incarnate problem of the aristocratic ideal. I'm trying to figure out what that's supposed to mean.

I'm not an anti-realist in any sense (whatever you meant by it - you did not define it), though there is value in 'being unreal' - it contributing to 'diversity' which is a critical factor in broader survival in a deadly universe (where people walking around in mental fantasies may be the ones who 'survive'). Here I want to bring you (and the world) up to speed on 'good and evil' (and what better place than in a philosophy forum - grass-roots dissemination has its peculiar satisfaction).


ON GOOD AND EVIL

Good and evil are goal-driven. Whatever your goal is, you will define good and evil by it (others may not agree).

Now we get to the deplorable state of philosophy (which is in the toilet). It has offered no Ultimate Objective Value in life - it is still in a wishy-washy, mentally limp-wristed, hazy and nebulous state of affairs, claiming that it can do no better than Subjectivism. That is pathetic, and it is why you asked, "Do you think you are above good and evil?" which would never be asked by an enlightened mind (don't feel bad, we still swim in a sea of philosophical stupidity).

Enter me.

Here is the first Ultimate Objective Value for mankind (I've identified three Objective Values, in descending order): Higher Consciousness (currently embodied in humans). (the other two are, in descending order, 'consciousness' (the level of current animals) and 'non-conscious life' (vegetation and microbes) - their value being based on the assumption that they too can attain higher consciousness status (via biological evolution, or by our interdiction).

Why is an Ultimate Objective (universal) (core) (ultimate) Value so important? (need I ask?) - because it gives us an associated Ultimate Goal of Life (which, in general terms, is to secure the Ultimate Value of Life; and in our specific case, it is to "secure higher consciousness against a harsh and deadly universe").

Now that we have an Ultimate Goal in Life, we can clearly and quickly determine good from evil (both being goal-defined, and we have identified the Ultimate Goal, hence we now have the Ultimate Arbitrator).

So now you can clearly see why saying 'I am above good and evil' is a clueless and foolish statement (born of a clueless and foolish past) (my philosophy is for future minds - I've given-up on my contemporaries).