Say what you want about him but he was a terrific writer. I agree with scholar Urs App that labeling him as a “pessimist” is somewhat denigrating. His whole aim was to offer a solution to the sufferings of the world. Thank you for these lectures.
I suspect that those suffering mightily are disposed to foment troubles in society, but as he supposed, so too do those that have abundance beyond utility, and so instigate strife and tension out of a type of boredom.
The desire for children are a part of the expression of the will driving the would be parent. The idea of leaving progeny to carry on along with the solace of not being alone in the final days is also part of the will because ultimately we are forgotten and we all die alone anyway. No one else can experience death with us even if they wanted to.
Thanks you as always Christopher for these videos, I really enjoy them. I’d like to put a vote in for getting rid of the text on screen. UA-cam has auto subtitles built in anyway. Those can be edited inside UA-cam Studio, as you probably know, to correct any inaccuracies. Of course, these are your videos, it’s your work and entirely your choice. Just wanted to throat a vote in the ring. Thanks again
I disagree. Especially like the text as I can stop the video and go back and read what Anadale has said. Many times reading will provide better understanding than hearing because you can study and analyze the text.
@marktapley7571 thing is though, you can also read the whole thing using the Transcript feature found in UA-cam too. But yes, sure everyone will have their own preferences
It's the only reason anyone would have them, I mean no disrespect to Anadale but, having children because you feel they are a source of joy is a perfect example of this.
That was no doubt the case to some extent in an agrarian system where the family needs more workers. Most people now live in urban environments where children are mostly and expensive nuisance from a practical sense. The couple that spends 200,000 dollars per child plus huge amounts of nurture to get them to adulthood has to be doing it for reasons other than selfishness.
At 10:21, your comment on the preceding quote, "a kind of bold statement" made me laugh out loud! Ah such an understatement! I think one would be wise to approach Shopenhauer with caution. He certainly cuts close to the bone.
It's worth noting perhaps that Arthur certainly had illigitimate children. Two infant girls that are known of died young, but given his permiscuity there would very likely have been others. It's entirely possible he has living descendants today.
While perhaps I agree with many of his conclusions, ie in this case the First Noble Truth of Buddhism is True, I do think Schopenhauer's remarks on two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other, is unconvincing. Immediately my mind goes to herbivores, who as a rule eat much more than carnivores, and I think that the amount of pleasure they as a whole get from their eating may eventually add up in the hedonic calculus to be equal to the suffering of being eaten. And since it's hard to convince me that plants suffer in at all the same way, it may be the case there is some equality there. Either way, I think this is a poor way to argue. We in the modern day, being on the other side of the Industrial and Information revolutions from Schopenhauer, I think have a unique position. Back in his day I think it would have been easier for people to come to the conclusion that pleasure and pain are just bodily feelings with a cognitive component because that's most of all that was available. But today people have an entire circus of pleasures like video games, television, and the like. I think this is also at the heart of Schopenhauer's mistaken notions that art was somehow a relief akin to the relief asceticism brings, albeit more temporary. In his time art in its various forms was just not available on demand. Today being entertained has become an addiction and is available through a button. Schopenhauer had the advantage of most pleasures being just bodily pleasures, and he didn't realize that the pleasure of art or even the intellect followed exactly the same pattern, it was just subtler. There's nothing "higher" about the pleasure of an intellectual insight or that from a piece of music, unless it specifically has the wholesome utility of being an insight that is a next step toward the end of suffering/complete surrender to God and the Truth, in its totality. I think today people have the advantage of seeing the emptiness that indulging in art, entertainment, or even the arbitrary form of intellectual insight can be. Hardly anyone does, mind you, but it's easier to see since it's so available to us. And with this insight, along with the more mundane insight of the vacuousness of more ordinary sense pleasures, I think the case for the First Noble Truth is quite strong despite Schopenhauer's poor argumentation.
Schopenhauer, in rejecting the supernatural, didn’t have the capacity to view suffering through a productive lens, such as redemptive suffering in Catholicism. And so his conclusion was that of pessimism... Reminds me of what St paul said in 1 Corinthians 1: For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles
Say what you want about him but he was a terrific writer. I agree with scholar Urs App that labeling him as a “pessimist” is somewhat denigrating. His whole aim was to offer a solution to the sufferings of the world. Thank you for these lectures.
This is surprisingly healing? Especially the parts about boredom, accepting the reality of suffering, and life as a mere ripple.
Thank you for your readings.
I have found this video just at the right time thanks for uploading it I am going to listen to it as the first thing in the morning.
I suspect that those suffering mightily are disposed to foment troubles in society, but as he supposed, so too do those that have abundance beyond utility, and so instigate strife and tension out of a type of boredom.
The desire for children are a part of the expression of the will driving the would be parent. The idea of leaving progeny to carry on along with the solace of not being alone in the final days is also part of the will because ultimately we are forgotten and we all die alone anyway. No one else can experience death with us even if they wanted to.
Thanks you as always Christopher for these videos, I really enjoy them. I’d like to put a vote in for getting rid of the text on screen. UA-cam has auto subtitles built in anyway. Those can be edited inside UA-cam Studio, as you probably know, to correct any inaccuracies. Of course, these are your videos, it’s your work and entirely your choice. Just wanted to throat a vote in the ring. Thanks again
I disagree. Especially like the text as I can stop the video and go back and read what Anadale has said. Many times reading will provide better understanding than hearing because you can study and analyze the text.
@marktapley7571 thing is though, you can also read the whole thing using the Transcript feature found in UA-cam too. But yes, sure everyone will have their own preferences
The foundation of Buddhism is the four Noble truths. First one: there is suffering; it's universal. The last truth is the way out of suffering.
People have kids for selfish reasons. I don't see any way around that.
It's the only reason anyone would have them, I mean no disrespect to Anadale but, having children because you feel they are a source of joy is a perfect example of this.
That was no doubt the case to some extent in an agrarian system where the family needs more workers. Most people now live in urban environments where children are mostly and expensive nuisance from a practical sense. The couple that spends 200,000 dollars per child plus huge amounts of nurture to get them to adulthood has to be doing it for reasons other than selfishness.
wow
At 10:21, your comment on the preceding quote, "a kind of bold statement" made me laugh out loud! Ah such an understatement!
I think one would be wise to approach Shopenhauer with caution. He certainly cuts close to the bone.
It's worth noting perhaps that Arthur certainly had illigitimate children. Two infant girls that are known of died young, but given his permiscuity there would very likely have been others. It's entirely possible he has living descendants today.
While perhaps I agree with many of his conclusions, ie in this case the First Noble Truth of Buddhism is True, I do think Schopenhauer's remarks on two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other, is unconvincing. Immediately my mind goes to herbivores, who as a rule eat much more than carnivores, and I think that the amount of pleasure they as a whole get from their eating may eventually add up in the hedonic calculus to be equal to the suffering of being eaten. And since it's hard to convince me that plants suffer in at all the same way, it may be the case there is some equality there. Either way, I think this is a poor way to argue.
We in the modern day, being on the other side of the Industrial and Information revolutions from Schopenhauer, I think have a unique position. Back in his day I think it would have been easier for people to come to the conclusion that pleasure and pain are just bodily feelings with a cognitive component because that's most of all that was available. But today people have an entire circus of pleasures like video games, television, and the like. I think this is also at the heart of Schopenhauer's mistaken notions that art was somehow a relief akin to the relief asceticism brings, albeit more temporary. In his time art in its various forms was just not available on demand. Today being entertained has become an addiction and is available through a button. Schopenhauer had the advantage of most pleasures being just bodily pleasures, and he didn't realize that the pleasure of art or even the intellect followed exactly the same pattern, it was just subtler. There's nothing "higher" about the pleasure of an intellectual insight or that from a piece of music, unless it specifically has the wholesome utility of being an insight that is a next step toward the end of suffering/complete surrender to God and the Truth, in its totality.
I think today people have the advantage of seeing the emptiness that indulging in art, entertainment, or even the arbitrary form of intellectual insight can be. Hardly anyone does, mind you, but it's easier to see since it's so available to us. And with this insight, along with the more mundane insight of the vacuousness of more ordinary sense pleasures, I think the case for the First Noble Truth is quite strong despite Schopenhauer's poor argumentation.
Did Shopenhauer recognise that, for survival reasons, we are far more alert to danger, pain, disatisfaction than to pleasure, etc?
Schopenhauer, in rejecting the supernatural, didn’t have the capacity to view suffering through a productive lens, such as redemptive suffering in Catholicism. And so his conclusion was that of pessimism... Reminds me of what St paul said in 1 Corinthians 1: For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23
but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles