<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Willie
Review: (IÕm waxwork in my WillieÕs hands ... .) Which begs the question: First: is it one Willie, or many, or everyoneÕs? Second: is it a real Willie, unreal or a counterfactual superposition? Thirdly: is a superposition something implied or subÐsequential? Consequential or dependent? And: Is it actually possible at all? Does Willie exist? Must he be or can he be? And if he can, why should he? Says at my ear a sleepy voice Ð Òbut we are free to choose?Ó
Rating: 
Summary: More unreadable 19th century German philosophy...
Review: ...As if there wasn't enough already. If you have a huge surplus of time and mental energy, you will probably find Schopenhaur to be somewhat stimulating and thought-provoking. However, the average American will find this to be useless psychobabble. In reading this book, I often found myself pondering for an extensive period of time over each one of Schopenhaur's long-winded and complicated sentences. Eventually I would paraphrase and reconstruct the sentence in my head to try to figure out what the author was trying to say, only to find out that the sentence was nothing more than a platitude - an obvious truism. Schopenhaur forces the reader to go to an extrordinary amount of trouble digesting his opaque writing style, only to find the underlying concepts to be downright simplistic. This book is difficult only because of poor execution and obfiscation of basic concepts. If I am going to suffer this much to get through a book, I would prefer that I learn about some truly profound and life-changing theoretical concepts. _The World as Will and Representation_ provides some valuble insights, but not enough to justify the effort to get through. Like I said, if the difficulty arises from intrinsically complicated content, I am willing to put up with it. But in this case the difficulty arises from a combination of poor writing and mediocre translation, and these are precisely the types of books you should avoid.
Rating: 
Summary: The vision of a giant mind.
Review: Although the scientific premises of his philosophy are now considered outdated, Arthur Schopenhauer's contribution to modern philosophy continues to be an enduring and endearing one. Despite the fact that he wrote in the framework of Kantian idealism -- (with its dual-world metaphysics of "phenomenon" and "thing-in-itself") -- his thought has branched out into several directions, proving to be influential on some of the literary and philosophical luminaries of the nineetenth as well as the twentieth centuries. In his metaphysics, he was a voluntarist, propounding the nonrational, universal will as the ultimate reality (the "thing-in-itself") and the driving force behind all the manifestations of organic life as well as inorganic nature. The voluntarist doctrine of the will to power of Nietzsche was evolved from Schopenhauer, as well as the metaphysical vitalism of Bergson and, most patently, Freud's theory of the unconscious. In his epistemology, he was a phenomenologist and idealist, following the footsteps of Berkeley and the critical idealist Kant. In his aesthetics, he was a Platonist, holding the ontologically originary Form, or what he terms the "Platonic Idea" to be anterior to the aesthetic representation. In his ethics, he argued that to live means to desire and desire entails nothing but suffering. His reasoning was that desire induces suffering when it is frustrated from acquiring its object; upon overcoming its hindrances and realising its object, desire results in boredom since it has a new object in view and the cycle continues indefinitely. As such, desire leads inevitably to suffering. Schopenhauer's answer is asceticism ("the denial of the will-to-live"). The wise man does not commit suicide, but abstains from this life of useless striving and hopes for an annihilating death. In the meantime, he will look with compassion and pity upon his suffering fellow creatures. This element of Schopenhauer's philosophy reflects his unremittingly melancholy and pessimistic temperament, culminating, according to his biographer, in intense paranoia and the habit of sleeping at night with a loaded pistol tucked under his pillow. His ascetic morality is unique in modern Western philosophy. Being an atheist, Schopenhauer was arguably the first philosopher to effect a thorough break with the Judaeo-Christian tradition and to introduce strong elements of Eastern religion in his thought. (His voluntarism and asceticism have Hinduist and Jain Buddhist roots in the doctrine of reincarnation "metempsychosis" and the application of austerities upon oneself to liberate the soul from the karmic matter which magnetises it and causes it to be painfully reborn into the world of pain.) In terms of his style, he was an undisputed master of German prose style, writing in a lucid, witty and jargon-free Romantic "essay-style". He has exerted an influence on a number of key modern literary figures, such as Mann, Conrad and Hardy. His stress on style anticipates contemporary philosophising and its emphasis on literary form, as can be seen in the works of figures such as Derrida, Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze et al. In addition, the unaffected purity of his philosophy is an indication of the great extent to which it approximates his own difficult and powerful personality. Only someone like Schopenhauer, whose character combined such a vehemence of desire along with such a brooding sensitivity to suffering, could have produced such a philosophy which argues for the most extreme restraining of desire. Altogether, "The World as Will and Idea" is a fascinating encounter with one of the most impressive thinkers of all time. Imagine it as an intellectual dialogue, an after-dinner debate in which you are challenged and entertained with the insights of a truly giant mind. Even if one does not share his assumptions, or agree with his conclusions, he still provokes those who read him with admiration and respect for his insight and genius.
Rating:
Summary: A Life-Changing Book
Review: I have spent this past year becoming quite acquainted with Arthur Schopenhauer. I can say, without hyperbole, that it has been an experience unlike any other. Unlike Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer's prose is consistently beautiful, and his literary style is essential in conveying truths about the world and ourselves that can be quite unpalatable. Schopenhauer's view of the world is bleak, and I agree with his assessment. He speaks of the blind drives and cruelties that motivate our species, and indeed the world itself, years before Nietzsche; and unlike Nietzsche he certainly did not embrace that cruelty.
As a metaphysician, Schopenhauer reveals many insights and a few weaknesses. S. appropriated several facets of Kant's transcendental idealism, but whereas Kant believed that all things possessed the attribute of "things-in-themselves", S. asserts that all things are comprised in essence as "Will". It is essential to grasp that S. defines "Will" as blind desire, NOT as a conscious universal mind (i.e., God). Schopenhauer's philosophy is thoroughly atheistic, although many of his philosophical insights slot neatly with Buddhism and parts of Hinduism.
Personally, I feel that of all the philosophers of transcendental idealism that came after Kant, Schopenhauer's system of blind will as the noumenal thing-in-itself to be the only one that is remotely plausible.
Schopenhauer's metaphysical insights on the arts are a mixed bag, but still intriguing. As a music lover, Schopenhauer unsurprisingly rates music as the greatest art and the sole art form that completely circumvents the will. In other words, music appreciation is completely contemplative, and does not involve egoism. I would rate music as the greatest of the arts too, but music can easily involve egoism: sensual music can make me desire sex, harsh music can make me feel abrasive, etc. In my opinion, his ranking of the arts, as a part of his metaphysical system, easily collapses when viewed as literal fact, but as poetic metaphor it works quite well.
Schopenhauer's greatest flaws are in the areas of natural science. His views on the development of consciousness are brilliantly insightful and slot easily with Darwinian theory, but he falls far short in denying the existence of atoms and preferring Goethe's theory of color over Newton's.
On ethics, S. is consistently insightful, but few would find his ethical thought attractive. Schopenhauer's beautiful prose on the essential irrelevance of death (especially in Volume II) is some of the most sublime there is. I mostly concur with Schopenhauer's views on animals, although I disagree with his belief that there is occasional justification for the exploitation of animals for human survival. As a vegan, I find Descartes', Spinoza's, and Kant's views on animals to be repulsive, so Schopenhauer's views are definitely an advance. Schopenhauer's view on sex is of the St. Augustine school, and as such I find it to be the least attractive facet of his ethical thought. S. was quite right in stating that our existence is permeated by sexual desire, but I disagree in trying to eradicate something that is the essence of all of us. It's much better, in my opinion, to indulge those desires responsibly, than repress what will always be there anyway.
Schopenhauer's endorsement of compassion is a wonderful antidote to Kant's flawed view of ethics. Whereas Kant tried to shepherd theology through the ethical backdoor, Schopenhauer rightly tells us that compassion, not rationality, is the basis of morality. Incidentally, it is well worth searching out Schopenhauer's hard-to-find book, "The Basis of Morality", which is a masterpiece of ethical thought.
Finally, there are Schopenhauer's pessimistic conclusions about life itself. He argues that there is no God, no soul, and no hope of a hereafter. I most heartily concur with his conclusions, and his eloquent description of the suffering of the world is necessary reading for both the shallow humanist and the pompous religious fundamentalist. It may disturb us to realize that we are at the mercy of blind forces largely beyond our control, but that same realization can make us more humane to each other, and to other species. It was Arthur Schopenhauer who so eloquently described our predicament, and for that I'll always be grateful.
Rating:
Summary: denial of the will-to-live = starvation
Review: I prefer to eat -I am actually a bit overweight. Nevertheless, Schopenhauer's work is helpful for understanding Kant and is beautifully written, which is why I give it five stars, even if it will make you want to die. Who knows, we may be better off without you.
In addition to Plato and Kant, Jacob Boehme is good to read along with Schopenhauer to see just what kind of decadence you are dealing with.
You must experience the depth before you experience the height - so read Schopenhauer.
Rating:
Summary: A readable German philosophy that's worth reading!!!
Review: Schopenhauer proves that a German philosopher does not have to be nearly unintelligible to appear profound. Unlike Hegel and Heidegger, Schopenhauer does not hide behind ambiguous words or phrases. To the reader, Schopenhauer's views are as profound as they are clear. Starting where Kant left off, he gives new meaning to the word will; he makes will the thing in itself. Both volumes are essential reading. The first offers his entire system. From epistemology to metaphysics, to a great essay on where his philosophy differs from Kant's, the first volume is the foundation for the second. The second volume is classic Schopenhauer; this is the acid-tongued curmudgeon most people think of when they bother to think of him at all. The sections on death and the metaphysics of sexual love are mind-blowing. As it is expressed in his masterpiece, The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer's genius and originality of thinking tower over the views of most thinkers being pushed in universities today.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Brilliant
Review: The amazing thing about this work is that it is very difficult to summarize. Schopenhauer covers a very wide array of topics such as genius in general, music, and other forms of art. He describes what makes them beautiful. He is often times neglected as he is somewhat similar to Kant, who came first. The best thing I can say is stick with the first chapter/book. Read it a few times and then 2 through 4 are relatively easy. Extremely enlightening, and no joking here, an interesting primer into quantum physics.It can also be noted that you can see he is not an atheist, even though many philsophers are. Schopenhauer personally was quite a character as well. Everyday he'd go to local cafe, and a waiter noticed take a 10 mark piece (which was a sizable sum), and everyday right before he left he'd put the money right back in his coat pocket. Well, one day the waiter asked why he did this, and Schopenhauer said if he ever heard a conversation not consisting of dating or sports or other conversational he would give the waiter the tip. Schopenhauer was a fierce misogynist. I believe it is humorous how ridiculous he can sound, but some many find it offensive. I strongly suggest reading this as it will improve your view of the world. It is also far easier to read than Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason".
Rating:
Summary: Fertile philosopher
Review: Unlike many other philosophers from the 19 century German school, the first thing a person will notice reading Schopenhauer is that here is a man with literary skill.This alone makes him an excellent read from one of the great epochs of world thought. Preceding Wittgenstein's maxim that "anything that can be said at all can be said clearly", it makes one wonder if Hegel et al are opaque due to lack of content rather than giganticity of subject.
Schopenhauer is a very perceptive writer and it is some wonder that the acadamies ignore him considering that it was from these works that Nietzche and Wittgenstein (and from them most subsequent Western philosophy that is studied) take nourishment. Schopenhauer is also an excellent critic and brings new light on the Kantian system.
I would recommend these volumes to anyone as they attempt to confront those big philosophical issues, life, death, art, salvation etc and the author is surely one of thought's great polymaths. Surely these are the issues that give philosophy some granduer, not arguments to decide one way or another if the "King of France is bald" refers to anything or not. To easily influential readers I would recommmend to read this book with some detachment because knowledgable as he is, Schopenhauer did not produce some sought of gospel truth here. IT is very insightful to see from Schopenhauers point of view but "the world of the happy man is different from the world of the unhappy man", and I sincerely recommend that one should look for alternate mind-sets to the pessimism that manifests itself in the man's words.
Rating:
Summary: Emperor's New Clothes
Review: Volume II of The World as Will and Representation is the most substantial portion of Schopenhauer's work for me. There is a nice selection of ESSAYS AND APHORISMS from his 1851 work Parerga and Paralipomena, translated by R.J. Hollingdale into English in a Penguin Classics that provides a good summary of his views, and earlier works which established his ability to think in purely philosophical abstraction about things which largely escape me, and weren't quite grasped by Kant, if those who followed Kant were correct in how much philosophy they were willing to engage in. The difficult comparison for me to make would be between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the only two German philosophers that I might wish to be equally familiar with, but the differences between those two are like life, for me, of which Schopenhauer said, "Therefore many a great mind has had to drag itself breathlessly through life unrecognized, unhonored, unrewarded, till finally after his death the world became undeceived as to him and as to them." (p. 163). This, from Chapter XVII, "On Man's Need for Metaphysics" from Volume II of The World as Will and Representation, strikes me most forcefully as applying to anyone who would attempt to be the conscience for a nation. The attempt to apply morals in such a nebulous manner is sure to arouse the kind of defense mechanisms noted by Schopenhauer in his view of those who "Among the Greeks they were called sophists; among the moderns they are called professors of philosophy." (p. 163) Any great thought "will cast too great a shadow over theirs, and moreover will not adapt itself to the aims and limitations of the guild. For this reason they always endeavour to prevent such an achievement from finding favour. The customary means for this purpose, according to the times and circumstances in each case, are concealing, covering up, suppressing, hushing up, ignoring, keeping secret, or denying, disparaging, censuring, slandering, distorting, or finally denouncing and persecuting." (p. 163) Readers of this book get to learn how even Kant wasn't secure in his position, after the king who appreciated his philosophy was dead, and playing a game like philosophy of the chair "cannot pass for serious philosophy, but only for philosophy that is a joke." (p. 164). Perhaps Nietzsche succeeded in making philosophy that is a joke so obviously superior to what universities normally teach that our thoroughly comic society is the natural outcome of such logic. This book forms a solid basis for that conclusion.
Rating:
Summary: You might like this, if you want to know anything.
Review: Volume II of The World as Will and Representation is the most substantial portion of Schopenhauer's work for me. There is a nice selection of ESSAYS AND APHORISMS from his 1851 work Parerga and Paralipomena, translated by R.J. Hollingdale into English in a Penguin Classics that provides a good summary of his views, and earlier works which established his ability to think in purely philosophical abstraction about things which largely escape me, and weren't quite grasped by Kant, if those who followed Kant were correct in how much philosophy they were willing to engage in. The difficult comparison for me to make would be between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the only two German philosophers that I might wish to be equally familiar with, but the differences between those two are like life, for me, of which Schopenhauer said, "Therefore many a great mind has had to drag itself breathlessly through life unrecognized, unhonored, unrewarded, till finally after his death the world became undeceived as to him and as to them." (p. 163). This, from Chapter XVII, "On Man's Need for Metaphysics" from Volume II of The World as Will and Representation, strikes me most forcefully as applying to anyone who would attempt to be the conscience for a nation. The attempt to apply morals in such a nebulous manner is sure to arouse the kind of defense mechanisms noted by Schopenhauer in his view of those who "Among the Greeks they were called sophists; among the moderns they are called professors of philosophy." (p. 163) Any great thought "will cast too great a shadow over theirs, and moreover will not adapt itself to the aims and limitations of the guild. For this reason they always endeavour to prevent such an achievement from finding favour. The customary means for this purpose, according to the times and circumstances in each case, are concealing, covering up, suppressing, hushing up, ignoring, keeping secret, or denying, disparaging, censuring, slandering, distorting, or finally denouncing and persecuting." (p. 163) Readers of this book get to learn how even Kant wasn't secure in his position, after the king who appreciated his philosophy was dead, and playing a game like philosophy of the chair "cannot pass for serious philosophy, but only for philosophy that is a joke." (p. 164). Perhaps Nietzsche succeeded in making philosophy that is a joke so obviously superior to what universities normally teach that our thoroughly comic society is the natural outcome of such logic. This book forms a solid basis for that conclusion.
<< 1 >>
|
