Schopenhauer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2024
- Schopenhauer’s work prefigured important developments in philosophy, psychology, and political thought. On the two-hundredth anniversary of the publication of his 'The World as Will and Representation', we examine the life and work of Arthur Schopenhauer. How can we better understand his relationship with Eastern philosophy? How can his work help us address current questions in art and ethics? And what can he teach us about human suffering?
Speakers
Christine Battersby, Reader Emerita in Philosophy, University of Warwick
Christopher Janaway, Professor of Philosophy, University of Southampton
Christopher Ryan, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Education, London Metropolitan University
Chair
Danielle Sands, Fellow, Forum for Philosophy & Lecturer in Comparative Literature and Culture, Royal Holloway, University of London
Recorded on 7 May 2019 at the LSE
More information: www.philosophy-forum.org
Dr Julian Johnson was way ahead of his time in America. I suggest people look up ishwar puri on radha soami path. Schopenhauer was right this is a dark world full of fear which is another word for stress . A world full of constant take or be taken, jealously and greed
The irony of a woman discussing Schopenhauer in subjective terms is apparently lost on Christine.
Isn't it cute? 😅
lol
Of discussing anything other than handbags or haircuts😊
She is very much afraid to sound to positive on Schopenhauer. Seems to be afraid to lose her university job.
@@roodborstkalf9664 - what job? She retired yonks ago.
The constant and regular negative judgement by one of the panel is peculiar.
I'm here for chris
The Will is an impersonal energy or a Godhead. Quacademics continue to broadcast received opinions from others of learned ignorance. The only reason Schopenhauer used the Will-terminology was because he didn’t want any religious undertones or dogmatic overtones. The one guy who mentioned “The All” is on point.
I think “the one guy” is called Christopher either way
The term "pessimism" is not mentioned in World as Will and Idea.
Women seethe and cope when talking about Schopenhauer.
Learned more from the comments section than the convo. I think they need to read Bernardo Kastrup on Schopenhauer.
couldn't agree more.
Thanks Chris.
As a philosophical discussion this is really miserable of course. But it's also very instructive in a way - it shows very well the position of Schopenhauer in modern world. Today he is regarded as some dangerous punk, enfant terrible. And he doesn't deserve any serious analysis.
A short summary of the conversation:
- Schop said that life is pain and not worth living.
- Ahahaha
- He also said that women are not beautiful and not smart.
- Ahahaha
- He also must have been a favorite philosopher of Hitler
- He was also very incosistent in his views
- He wrote a lot about Will but that's some incoherent gibberish
- But, alright, he is somewhat entertaining to read.
I'm not sure why they are making fun of him.
Just because he doesn't pass the misoginy-racism-etc check? Or is it that pessimism looks so weird today? Or maybe philosophy at large is not ok, not practical enough?
Anyway I wonder what these speakers are doing in their universities. Are they interested in philosophy at all?
Time stamps would be very helpful
Very fair assessment of Schopenhauer's philosophy. Thank you.
just read Schopenhauer's books...ignore these opinions by commentators unless you're really bored and lazy
once the idiiot fool started COUGHING AT 5 MINUTES IN, I DEPARTED😂
I agree
Based
He’s right, Nietzsche only side steps Schopenhauer. Nietzsche couldn’t handle the gravity of Schopenhauer’s insights, so he manipulated them to his own Will. Lol naturally.
Well said. Later philosophers kept citing Nietzsche as ‘the death blow’ to Schopenhauer’s ideas.
But when I read Nietzsche, to see what all the fuss was about, I was shocked that anybody thought this was a deathblow at all.
Schopenhauer had already predicted and defeated Nietzsche’s “objection” in the _Parerga_ , in the section titled “of the ascent-to and descent-from the will-to-live.”
Literally every critique Nietzsche had, was deflated by Schopenhauer there.
I will have to be charitable and assume that Nietzsche hadn’t discovered this, and had only focused on Schopenhauer’s chief work.
After all, there was no internet back then. No Amazon. Maybe Nietzsche never found the Parerga
@@Sprite_525
I think the only criticism thats needed for pessimism is that it sounds like its for depressed people trying to intellectualize the hole in their heart. But thats just me a layman absurdists view
@@juanpablomontalvo4715 I will agree with you, that's a very layman view. Schopenhauer brought forth an undeniable truth... most simply can not accept this truth, it's much easier to just call it "pessimism"... when it actually is simply called reality.
@@Sprite_525 I was reading Nietzsche’s Untimely Meditations, “Schopenhauer as Educator” specifically, and he quotes from the Parerga and even proclaims that he was one of those readers of Schopenhauer who after reading the first page went on the read every page Schopenhauer ever wrote. I find the Nietzsche’s criticism to fall flat in some places but I don’t recall Schopenhauer ever prescribing that we should turn the will against itself, rather he just described that this is “holy”. I am still young and dipping my toes into philosophy, so if my interpretation is far off please let me know, but Nietzsche, to me, seems to recognize that the will is striving endlessly and finds it pointless to try and negate what we are rather than participate in it. I even found it interesting reading the section in WAWAR Vol. 1 where Schopenhauer describes the strength a man would need to affirm life, only to see this idea repeated in The Gay Science and Zarathustra! Whichever way you go, I don’t know that either Schopenhauer or Nietzsche would find it objectively incorrect.
I detest the notion that Schopenhauer influenced Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
If anything it was Hegel, the nemesis of Schopenhauer
@@Sprite_525 Yes. Schopenhauer really despised Hegel. Although I do believe he did have some degree of respect for his originality. Hegelianism definitely gave Schopenhauer something to chew on.
Christine is seemingly incapable of unbiased evaluation
He literally never “contradicted” himself. The guy was a genius. Seriously. 🤦♂️ Read Decoding Schopenhauer’s Metaphysics by the great Bernardo Kastrup. It might as well be the Schopenhauer for dummies. Lol
1. Schopenhauer never read an English translation of the Upanishads. Instead, he read a Latin translation of a Persian translation, which he referred to as the "Upnakhad" in the German original, possibly a corruption through multiple translations. English translators in India were not the middle man here.
2. Schopenhauer was not Hitler's favourite philosopher. Hitler did not read philosophy. Hitler did not read. The closest contact Hitler had with philosophy was when Friedrich Nietsche's sister Elisabeth, an ardent Nazi all her life from before Nazism ever even existed, gave Hitler Friedrich's walking cane as present. Friedrich, dead and gone for more than 30 years at that point, was in no position to object. The idea that Nietzsche was somehow more of an anti-semite than other German people of his time was mainly due to the extensive edits, alterations and interpolation that Elisabeth undertook in his work when he was dead. Those falsehoods were discovered and rectified in the 1980s, but his reputation as being something of a precursor of the Nazi philosophy persists.
Whether Schopenhauer was anti-semitic or not is a separate point to be discussed. What does the term even mean for a man who was born in 1788? He criticises the Jewish origin story but only as part of what he repeatedly considers "Teutonico-Christian stupidity". You can call that antisemitism if you like.
There are other things, but I'm not going to bother. It must be said, however, that it is a little surprising to see three academics rely so heavily on speculation and conjecture.
I tend to agree with Shopenhauer's pessimist philosophy despite being a misogynist. However, what a fool he was for not meditating, as he had wasted the life on intellectualizing everything.
Imagine calling someone like Schopenhauer a fool.
@@thomasfischer9259 LOL... I can't.
Its not pronounced "Schoppenhauer" its "Schoooooopenhauer" if you have a "pp" the o is pronounced like you say it. Even germans get it wrong. But with one "p" its a long "o".
Thanks for uploading
Well, there’s a cultural permission to mispronounce names, you know.
From Japan to France, it’s assumed that you keep the native style of speaking, and they laugh at you if you try to fully say every sound in the term in the foreign style of speaking.
@@Sprite_525 True to an extent, but there's a really annoying regular mispronouncing of foreign names in the UK. I say that as a Brit lol.
The truth would seem pessimistic to an optimist just as it would seem optimistic to a pessimist. These descriptions aren’t helpful.
41:10 _"Possibly the most extreme misogynist in the history of western philosophy"_
Absurd claim. On a consistent gender-egalitarian lens, you can read him as being sweeping and unfair to _men too._ Plenty of misandry in his chapter on women, but modern readers are trained to pick up on the misogynistic aspects only. For instance, his claim that life ought to feel less onerous for women than for men. He holds that women are designed for a more comfortable, easygoing, nurture-driven existence. Right after, he adds that neither sex should necessarily end up living happier/sadder lives on the whole compared to the other, but this isn't fully satisfactory. Why should men feel like they're shouldering a greater share of life's burdens and worries, much less form beliefs that it's proper to do so? The answer is Nature: the very force he cautions against when it comes to countless non-gendered themes/situations.
Then there's his criticisms of institutionalized monogamy, in the same chapter. He exposes real issues (of the day) with monogamous life, but curiously he only points to the detrimental effects this has on women. Just think about that epoch. We can reasonably speculate that his proposed alternatives would have benefitted women on the whole, but this would've almost certainly come at a great cost to most men. Reread the chapter with this in mind and you'll doubtless agree. Well, not doubtless. A genuine misandrist will fail to see the point.
His misandry doesn't negate his misogyny does it? And since Western philosophy is filled to the brim with misogyny we aren't really interested in the fact that sometimes we might find a woman hater who is also, occasionally (probably after being rejected), a man hater too.
Why would I want to hear a woman discussing Schopenhauer. it is beyond a woman's understanding to discuss these things
@atomicsoda2 -Did that make you feel all big and manly to say that? You must be extremely insecure in your own intelligence/intellect to have to say such a silly thing.
I disagree with Schop on many things, but I have yet to find another singular intellect even remotely close to this guy. Anyone on his level has almost surely been influenced by him.
Schopenhauer may have indeed been Hitler's favorite philosopher, Hitler mentions him with respect in Mein Kampf and also straight up copy-pasted some of his wisdom for his speeches. But so what? If anything that doesn't lower Schopenhauer, but raises Hitler, maybe he wasn't a complete and utter devil (a great example of global species-wide splitting). Oh no, am I going to jail now!?
It pains me to hear the constant misapprehension of Buddhism, the Buddha and indeed all englightened sages by Western philosophers including Schopenhaur. He needed to fully investigate AND EXPLAIN the insights, experiences and ultimate state of minds of these seers as a fundamental human phenomena, and in a sense a universal human phenomena as it relates to the basis of all religions, which until the last two centuries was a universal and defining aspect of all human cultures since the dawn of time. Now what is this thing? (And to answer, opinions are without value) - no major Western philosopher ever discovered it (perhaps Jung trod near it)? All we get is speculative theories, to put it kindly - worthless and ignorant opinions, to put it more precisely. Schopenhauer needed to EXPLAIN the Buddha not interpret or summerally describe him.
That’s a false demand. Schopenhauer himself said that sages didn’t have to be philosophers for full legitimacy, and philosophers didn’t have to do the reverse.
Just as a Google Maps programmer doesn’t have to drive NASCAR, and a master driver doesn’t need to program driving apps.
Most “Buddhism” is also bad at explaining Buddhism, so they’re not off the hook either. At all. The suttas have almost zero resemblance to ANY of the available teachings.
How can women study shaupenhauer after reading what he said about them it’s ironic