add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
[edit] User 209.129.16.122's Change of Section HeadingChanged "Politics" to "Racism" because his racism wansn't political nor was he a politition.
[edit] Hans Rosenthal's QuestionBut was this discussion not cleared and settled in 2004 ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (12012006) [edit] The ethnicity of Schopenhauer's birthplaceDanzig, in Schopenhauer's time, was not a "Polish enclave," although it was politically allied with and tied to the Polish crown. In English, to say that someplace is a "Polish enclave" means first and foremost an ethnnically Polish area, which Danzig was not at the time. This would mislead English readers (this IS the English Wiki) who don't know the city's complex ethnographic and political history – which is most of them – to think that Schopenhauer either was Polish or grew up in an ethnically Polish community. As a contrasting example: Kaliningrad today is a Russian enclave, or exclave, in that it is inhabited predominantly by Russians (and some other ex-Soviet people), Russian is its lingua franca, and it is de jure part of the Russian Republic. The point of this article is to tell the story of Schopenhauer the person and philospher. I understand that Schopenhauer was free from the disease of nationalism, but that doesn't change the fact that ethnically he was German. If readers wish to know more about Danzig/Gdansk, they can consult entries about the city and its history. One can safely assume that readers who look for an article on Schopenhauer are interested mainly in him, not his hometown. I plead with our Polish friends to kindly desist from this irrational and pointless ethnocentric vandalism. Sca 19:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Ridiculous. What do you mean, "inhabited primarily by Poles"? Get real. The history of New York is not remotely parallel with the history of the former province of Danzig-West Prussia. Admit it, Halibutt, you would like the history of this area to simply be devoid of Germans. Dream on. You are a nice guy, but your head is in the ethnocentric sand. Sca 02:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Once again, Halibutt, you are missing the point. The discussion is not about the history of Poland or the history of Danzig/Gdansk. The discussion is about what the words "a Polish enclave" will mean to English readers today, in the 21st century. And as has been pointed out repeatedly, "a Polish enclave" to them will mean an ethnically Polish area, which Danzig in the time of Schopenhauer was not. For the umpteenth time: Schopenhauer was, ethnically, German. He spoke German as his native language and wrote in German ("Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung"). I understand the basis for your claim that Danzigers were of Polish nationality, but find it irrelevant to the basic issue outlined above. We are not talking about political history, we are talking about ethnicity. I understand that there were several ethnic elements present historically in Pomerelia/West Pressia, i.e. Germans, Poles and Kushubes, and that there were some Dutch and Low German settlers in Danzig and the Vistula delta to the east of Danzig, where dikes were built to control flooding. But Danzig itself was overwhelmingly German in speech and ethnic character until the idiocy of WWII changed the region's ethnic composition forever. Sca 12:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
No, Halibutt, I am not arguing that he was not born in Poland as it existed politically at the time. What I am arguing - and the point you still are not understanding - is that to English-speaking readers, "a Polish enclave" means ethnically Polish. If we say, "a Polish enclave surrounded by Prussia," English-speaking readers will think that Danzig was ethnically Polish, surrounded by an ethnically, so to speak, Prussian (i.e. German) area. This is incorrect. In this article, we don't care about the political status of Danzig; what's relevant is its ethnicity at the time, and Schopenhauer, as the structure of his name makes obvious, was not Polish ethnically but German. To put it more simply in the context of our long discussions: Schopenhauer was not born in Gdansk, he was born in Danzig. Gdansk as we know it today came into existence only after 1945. Sca 14:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC) This is quite ridiculous discussion, since Schopenhauer himself had no problem with admitting that Danzig was (formally at least)a Polish city: "Exempel 2. A sagt: »Der Friede von 1814 gab sogar allen Deutschen Hansestädten ihre Unabhängigkeit wieder.« – B gibt die instantia in contrarium, daß Danzig die ihm von Bonaparte verliehene Unabhängigkeit durch jenen Frieden verloren. – A rettet sich so: »Ich sagte allen Deutschen Hansestädten: Danzig war eine Polnische Hansestadt.«" Arthur Schopenhauer, Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten - The Art Of Controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.143.156 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Translation of "Vorstellung"Pardon me for intruding on the world of thought, but isn't "Vorstellung" often translated as "Imagination" rather than "Representation," which to me seems awkward? I've also seen it translated as "Idea," i.e. "The World as Will and Idea," but this strikes me as simplistic. Sca 19:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Lestrade 13:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade
The post above by Hans Rosenthal is certainly an ad hominem argument. The question of an adequate philosophical translation into English of Vorstellung deserves much attention, especially when considered in relation to Schopenhauer's use of Idee, even if the writer of the post has "never ever [sic] read a single line of the Schopenhauer works." Riteofapollo 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Schopenhauer attempted to translate Kant into English in, I believe, the 1830s and the preliminary tranlation still exist in his archive, though he gave up early on. However, he translated Kant's, "vorstellungen" as "representations". I cannot recall where I read about this. Is it in Magee? BTW, "vorstellungen" got into the German language as a word for Locke's use of the word, "idea", but Kant and Schopenhauer used it in critically different ways. The likeness of the object is reproduced in the mind - the physical object exists on its own, independently from us and it is highly likely, though unprovable, that it is not actually as we perceive it to be; it may be a different colour, or indeed, colourless, for example and may be larger or smaller than we think. Our minds successfully initiate the data that objects give our senses for our understanding, and most importantly, our survival. Look to other animals and insects for comparative states of affairs. Proof Reader 16:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC) ___________________ Schopenhauer wrote a letter to Francis Haywood on December 21, 1829. He only knew him as the author of "Damiron's Essay." Schopenhauer, in his letter, proposed that a translation of Kant's works could be made into English if they could cooperate on the project. Schopenhauer would write the translation and Haywood would check the English for correctness. This failed because Haywood wanted to write the translation. In the course of his proposal, Schopenhauer included a sample of his translation. He chose Remark II from § 13 of Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysic that may Come Forward as a Science. (In his reply, Haywood never provided a sample of his ability to translate.) An example of Kant's German is as follows:
I have emboldened the words "Vorstellungen." An example of Schopenhauer's English is as follows, with words emboldened by me:
As can be seen, Schopenhauer translated "Vorstellungen" as "ideas," with a lower case "i." Lestrade 17:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade [edit] New Essay on Schopenhauer posted to the WebSeveral of the quotations in this Wiki-article seem to be mysteriously "lifted" from the following essay: ...not that there's anything wrong with that! There really isn't very much (in English) about Schopenhauer on the web --so I hope this essay detailing what his relationship to earlier thinkers was (and wasn't) will lend a bit of clarity to any ensuing discussions. The question about the translation of "Vorstellung" is fair enough; the choice of "Representation" was made by E.F.J. Payne, and has become conventional in discussing Schopenhauer's work. It is an improvement on "Idea"/"Ideal", used in earlier translations. In normal German usage (e.g., in a newspaper), one would not translate the term with such a "technical" equivalent; but then, this is philosophy, isn't it? Philosophy consists in accuracy, and a highly technical vocabulary seems to arise wherever we discuss it. Yes, I agree. But why do you contribute your above lines in the way of "Unkwown" ? If you trust your own writings, then nothing should be withholding you from sending them with your name and address. So what is your problem with this ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (12012006) [edit] magnetic iron bars etcThere is an anonymous editor who is insisting on adding the following unnecessary, long-winded, ungrammatical and foreign language text to the article:
Is it really necessary to include this discussion of an odd, tiny, questionable fragment of Hegel's writings? I feel that it detracts from the article. I tried to shorten the discussion here, but ROHA was inpressed. He reverted my change and used my text to expand the discussion. Does this really help the article? — goethean ॐ 20:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LeibnizSchopenhauer claimed that Leibniz was the first to make a formal statement of the principle of sufficient reason. However, he didn't invent it.Lestrade 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Lestrade 13:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade [edit] PanpsychismSchopenhauer did not claim that the universe was full of a soul or spirit.Lestrade 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
[edit] Non-InfluencesLeibniz and Leopardi did not influence Schopenhauer. Since the person who makes a positive statement is responsible for showing proof, please show some evidence to convince everyone of their alleged influence. Although, such evidence could only come from quotations that are exhibited by a person who has actually read Schopenhauer.Lestrade 16:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
[edit] Influences, as given by SchopenhauerIn his manuscripts there is the line that Ich gestehe ..., daß ich nicht glaube, daß meine Lehre je hätte entstehn können, ehe die Upanischaden, Plato und Kant ihre Strahlen zugleich in eines Menschen Geist werfen konnten. (I admit that I do not believe my doctrine could have been conceived, before the Upanishads, Kant, and Plato have shed light into man's mind). Apparently, there is an order in the listing, with the Upanishads being most important. The influences listed in the template in the article, on the other hand, are informatory overload. I will adapt the template and move the influences listed to the article itself '129.247.247.238 01:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)'
[edit] FichteI have called Fichte's idealism "extreme" for good reason: my basic understanding of Fichte is that he says that the phenomena that we experience is actually created by our minds and the human body in nature. This was certainly a radical position compared with Kant, Schelling, Berkeley and Hegel. --Knucmo2 08:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Buddhaist (sic)Google for Schopenhauer and Buddhaist. You will find entries in the German wikipedia as well as a page from the Schopenhauer Gesellschaft (in German, unfortunately). Also, English links appear. Is that enough? '-129.247.247.238 23:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)' [edit] The Buddha againI set a link to Theravada when citing the connection to the Buddha, because Schopenhauer was familiar with writings from the Theravada tradition. Maybe that should be mentioned explicitly. '-129.247.247.238 13:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)'
Schopenhauer was responding to the objection that "...after our observations have finally brought us to the point where we have before our eyes, in perfect saintliness, the denial and surrender of all willing, and thus a deliverance from a world whose whole existence presented itself to us as suffering, this now appears to us as a transition into empty nothingness." He then explained that "...the concept of nothing is essentially relative, and always refers to a definite something that it negates." Most of his final paragraph is as follows:
Schopenhauer added this footnote:
Lestrade 19:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade Lestrade: your own comment simply makes it abundantly clear that you have absolutely no level of primary-source familiarity with the Prajnaparamita and Madhyamaka traditions. Fortunately for you, neither did Schopenhauer. Either you read Sanskrit, or you don't. Not only are you and Schopenhauer alike in your reliance on third-hand reports of badly translated rumours about ancient Indian philosophies, you're also alike in your absurd self-confidence in your own (supposed) ability to make wild comparative judgements about them. Comparing something known to something unknown will always yield degrees of likeness. Good luck with that Sanskrit primer --and please, try to exercise a degree of restraint in drawing wild conclusions about alien fields of philosophic study that you have not dedicated the years of philological discipline required to judge.
[edit] Nietzsche's misunderstandingThe "Common misconceptions" section underscores the quintessence of Nietzsche's repudiation of Schopenhauer's thought and philosophy, namely, he formulated a wholesale rejection of his pessimistic ideas, and as such this material— Nietzsche seems to have made this misinterpretation, leading some people to a distorted view of Schopenhauer. The following sentence from The Twilight of the Idols is often quoted:
Schopenhauer did see all these things as means to a more peaceful and enlightened way of life, but none of them were "denial of the will-to-live". Only asceticism is referred to in that way. Nietzsche also claimed that Schopenhauer did not recognise that suffering had a redemptive quality, yet his recognition of this seems blatantly clear in part 4 of The World as Will and Representation. —is in turn a misconception about Nietzsche's position; therefore, if no objections, from an academic source, are put forward, then I will go about deleting this from the section entirely. — ignis scripta 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC) [edit] Wrong ApproachUser:213.249.135.36 tried to insert information on Schopenhauer's writings regarding dialectics. However, the information was placed in the "Philosophy" section of the Schopenhauer article. User:Aey deleted the information as being unrelated to Schopenhauer's philosophy. It would have been better if User:213.249.135.36 had created a separate Wikipedia article on the topic and then merely referenced it in the main Schopenhauer article.Lestrade 14:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade [edit] Politics sectionI've noticed some anonymous users have the propensity to declare what is "reality" regarding Schopenhauer. I'll put it simply: follow the guidelines of Wikipedia and nothing will be dismissed. If there are any further points regarding said material, then try to discuss it here before inserting it; gratuitous quoting isn't "sourced material" -- but scholar's interpretations are acceptable. And don't make false accusations about other users -- it won't get you far (see WP:AGF). Aey 09:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [edit] Pronunciation guideA pronunciation guide has been added recommending that people say the name as [ˈaɐtuːɐ ˈʃoːpənˌhaʊɐ]. Is this an attempt to represent a German pronunciation of the name? Curious, since it contains the non-English vowel [ɐ]. If instead it is an attempt to represent a non-rhotic English pronunciation, it should be changed to represent the pronunciation of the majority of native English speakers. FWIW, the name "Arthur" was somewhat unusual in a German speaking area in the late eighteenth century; it is of English origin, and as such the English native pronunciation ['aɽθəɽ] is perfectly acceptable in English. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC) [edit] Denial of Will - Nirvana equivalence is incorrect as stated.I am new to this, so rather than edit the article, I am posting my suggestion here. I do hope the change will be made, though. Here is the sentence that jumps out at me: "Buddhist Nirvana is equivalent to the condition that Schopenhauer described as denial of the will." I see the parallel, and I understand that Schopenhauer's philosophy has traditionally been described as sharing ground with Buddhism, so I agree that some comparisson is appropriate, but having just read that "denial of the will" could come about as a result of profound suffering and the loss of the will to live, I must assert that this is not the same thing as Buddhist Nirvana. That sounds more like major depression with sever suicide risk, something not at all conducive to reaching Nirvana. Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism both describe Nirvana as liberation, specifically from Samsara, the cycle of death and re-birth. I don't think Schopenhauer was talking about liberation from Samsara. He was talking about Liberation from something, clearly, but not Samsara. In Mahayana Buddhism, one who is liberated from Samsara continues to exist, but does not suffer and generates no karma. One in such a rare state can choose to help all sentient beings, and can eventually become a Buddha. In the Tibetan tradition which I studied, this is what happened in the case of the Śākyamuni, (the historical Buddha) and will happen 995 more times before the end of this universe, with the next Buddha, Maitreya, due to appear in about 180,000 years, or maybe it was generations. So, I obviously haven't kept up my studies, but my point is that we are a long way from Schopenhaur's "denail of the will" now, yet all these concepts are essential to "Buddhist Nirvana." Perhaps the solution is as simple as adding "Schopenhauer believed that Buddhist Nirvana is..." or "(such and such Schopenhauer writer) believed that Buddhist Nirvana is..." Thank you. Sevenwarlocks 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Lestrade 13:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
My discussion of the sameness of Buddhist Nirvana and Schopenhauerian Denial of the Will is merely based on an attempt at the elucidation of the concept of Nirvana, as well as of Schopenhauer's ethics. This concept of Nirvana has been widely contaminated by its association with the concepts of enlightenment and reincarnation. In its original purity, Nirvana is simply a negative concept which is the opposite of the positive concept suffering. In other words, it means no craving, and therefore no suffering. Buddhism, which was founded by Prince Gautama Siddhartha Sakyamuni in India around 600 B.C., resulted from his hyper-sensitive awareness of the human condition. This condition entailed old age, sickness, and death, being therefore a condition of suffering. He realized, in his Four Noble Truths, that suffering was extinguished when attachment and desire were extinguished. This extinction or non-existence was poetically called Nirvana, as the blown-out flame of a candle. In the nineteenth century, Schopenhauer independently came to the same realization. A comparison of the thoughts of these two men leads to a clearer understanding of each. Why is that objectionable? If you look at the Talk section of the Wikipedia article on Nirvana, you will see that I am struggling there also to separate Nirvana from enlightenment (bodhi) and reincarnation (karma), which are distinctly different concepts. Lestrade 20:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
On this site (http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Dhammapada.htm), tanha is described as :“the will to live, the fear of death, and love for life, that force or energy which causes rebirth.”(Note on the title of Chapter 24—Tanha). Using this definition, the term tanha would be in accord with Schopenhauer`s will (to live). It should be noted however, that the 4 noble truths are not regarded as the core teachings of Buddhism by some scholars, many Mahayanaists do not even come in contact with them. There is a lot of confusion about the term Nirvana and it is described in various ways, so one should best stick to the 4 Noble Truths and nirodha to avoid confusion and be precice, when trying to compare both ideas. The current view in the article, by the way states that Nirvana and denial of the will are different and no support for that view is given. Schopenhauerian (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC) [edit] Why truck?Writing about a classical philosopher's ideas, we should try using examples by them directly or at least with objects, which existed in their era. Therefore, I don't like the word "truck" in this sentence in the article: "We understand that a watermelon cannot successfully occupy the same space as an oncoming truck." We know that, but the great philosopher did not. Smallchanges 17:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The example about the watermelon and the truck is not Schopenhauer's example. It is an example created by a Wikipedia editor for the article. Schopenhauer's writing was the clearest and most easily understood of all philosophers. If any examples are used, it would be best to use Schopenhauer's own examples instead of a Wikipedia editor's.Lestrade 23:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade [edit] Buddhism and SchopenhauerUser:Fratley deleted the word "coincidence" in relation to the similarity between Schopenhauer's philosophy and Buddhism. However, it should be noted that Schopenhauer was not influenced by Buddhism when he wrote his major work and published it in 1819. His philosophy had been created before he was exposed to that religion. After he had become aware of the basic thoughts that constitute his philosophy, he learned that Buddhism shared his outlook and he was able to refer to it in order to exhibit examples of his teaching.Lestrade 13:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
[edit] Will Subject to the Principle of Sufficient Reason or Will as Thing-In-Itself?"Schopenhauer's starting point was Kant's division of the universe into phenomenon and noumenon, claiming that the noumenon was the same as that in us which we call Will." The latter part of this sentence is simply false. There is that in us about which we have immediate knowledge, which we call "will" (lowercase); and this will, as the sole object of self-consciousness, is wholly phenomenal and representational (Cf. The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, Ch. VII, § 41). This will we can and do know. The thing-in-itself, the noumenon, however, can never be known. Therefore, if the noumenon can never be known, and the noumenon is the same as what we call will, about which we do have knowledge, then we both have and do not have knowledge about the will, which is abusrd. The sentence corrected might read as follows: "[...] claiming that the noumenon be named Will, after the phenomenon known most immediately and distinctly, after the sole object for self-consciousness, which is the human will." The following propositions seem to need further clarification, explanation, and textual justification: “Will is said to be prior to being.” “When Schopenhauer identifies the noumenon with the desires, needs, and impulses in us that we name "Will," what he is saying is that we participate in the reality of an otherwise unachievable world outside the mind through will.” “Schopenhauer posited that humans living in the realm of objects are living in the realm of desire, and thus are eternally tormented by that desire.” (How does it follow logically—as in “thus”—that living in the world of phenomena leads to eternal torment? Schopenhauer clearly states that the individual shall at some point cease to be, and this will be the end of his desire and of his suffering.)Riteofapollo 05:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC) [edit] Proposed addition to Works of SchopenhauerI have a book here called The Art of Literature: A Series of Essays, by Arthur Schopenhauer. I don't have all the information required to add the book to the list of works (I don't know the original-language title, it doesn't have an ISBN, and the only publication-date information I can find is in the Translator's Preface, dated February 1891) so I was wondering if someone else who knows of the book could add the relevant information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.61.165.20 (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC). The Art of Literature comes from his Parerga und Paralipomena, as do Counsels and Maxims and The Wisdom of Life. [edit] BirthplaceThe article says he was born in Danzig, while Sztutowo says he was born in that nearby village; which is correct? Olessi 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Schopenhauer on HegelThis passage from The World as Will and Representation ([E.F.J. Payne trans., Volume I, Dover, 1966, p.429], see [1]) might be considered even more trenchant:
rudra 22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC) [edit] The World as Will and Presentation?Hello fellow Schopenhauer fans. This is Mr.P I was wondering what some of you thought of the title of the latest translation of Schopenhauer's masterwork. They have translated it as The World as Will and Presentation. Will this lead to a misunderstanding of Schopenhauer's idealism? Mr.P (the Zapffe enthusiast) 23:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
But if Vorstellung is translated to "presentation", won't this make out that Schopenhauer denied the existence of the external world (the thing-in-itself), which he didn't?
According to Schopenhauer, the world, as it is in-itself, is presented to a subject who then conditions, or re-presents, this world as it is in-itself, in his/her mental apparatus (time, space, causality etc.) (W as W & R, Vol. 2, p.9) .
Ultimately, this means that the world as it is in-itself (the boundless, purposeless and impersonal will to life) and the world of representation (the conditioned appearance of the thing-in-itself that a subject knows) are one and the same thing, seen from two perspectives.
As Arthur Danto wrote, in Connections to the World, there are three components to cognition. These are (1.) the observing subject, (2.) the image in the subject's mind, and (3.) the world that is exterior to the subject. If we think of cognition as being a relation between only the subject and its mental image, then the mental image is a presentation. The image presents itself to the mind. If we think of cognition as being a relation between the subject, the mental image, and the world, then the subject's mental image is a representation.
That is, the objects in the world can be said to present themselves, as it were, to the presentation that is in the subject's mind. This is a re-presentation.Lestrade 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
[edit] Inheriting IntelligenceSchopenhauer made a very bold assertion when he said that intelligence is inherited from the mother, will from the father. I just read a biography of the logician Alfred Tarski on the Web at [2]. It claimed "Ignacy Teitelbaum (Tarski's father) had married Rosa Prussak and, although Rosa never had a career, and therefore never had the opportunity to show her intellect, it was through his mother rather than his father that Tarski inherited his brilliance." I have seen other biographies which support S.'s claim. Could it be true? It should be easy to verify.Lestrade 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade [edit] Influences and InfluencedI have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC Talk 14:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC) [edit] On Hegel"Schopenhauer thought that Hegel used deliberately impressive but ultimately vacuous jargon and neologisms." Did he (Schopenhauer) really think that? I doubt it and think this needs a cite. It is not a good characterization of any criticism of Hegel by Schopenhauer in the article, or that I have ever seen. It singles out some of the very few crimes against language that Hegel did not commit, and in fact criticized and ridiculed. Hegel didn't use extraordinary language, he used ordinary language in strange ways.John Z 03:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Schopenhauer an Atheist...It seems that Schopenhauer is no longer considered an atheist in his article, although if you type "Schopenhauer an atheist" in google, many references pop up. Not to mention two of my philosophy books mentioning Schopenhauer an atheist: The Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee and Essential Philosophy by James Mannion. http://www.friesian.com/arthur.htm http://www.textetc.com/theory/nineteenth-century.html http://books.google.com/books?id=IcF7YU2w7oYC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=schopenhauer+an+atheist&source=web&ots=Z5GpeE9o0o&sig=6AF2Iy14J2FZlyPIGY_xi7L8ZFQ And so on.
He was not free of religious thought. He was free of theistic thought. His ethics were the same as Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and Sufi ethics. But he did not assume the actuality of God or gods.Lestrade 22:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade [edit] Section Organization and PrioritizationWhy is there no section on Schopenhauer's affirmation and denial of the will to live? All of the fourth book of his principal work is devoted to this. From what I can tell, what is said about the denial of the will to live can only be found in the section on Buddhism. Why is it that "Schopenhauer and Buddhism" is categorized under "Schopenhauer's Philosophy" in the first place? Why is there a lengthier section on Schopenhauer's opinion about women than there is on his moral theory? Schopenhauer wrote one essay on women, but two books and several essays on morality. Why no section on Schopenhauer and Nietzsche? The section "Schopenhauer's metaphysics" is nothing more than his aesthetic theory. Aesthetics falls under representation, under phenomena, that is, there is a subject knowing an object, and this all occurs in the physical realm, not the metaphysical. So even though aesthetic contemplation is closer to metaphysics than is the everyday experience of the world, it is not fully metaphysical. Schopenhauer's metaphysics only concerns the Will. --Riteofapollo 14:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AcademiaIt might be valuable to have a section regarding Schopenhauer's relation to academia. Beside the fact that he criticized his professorial contemporaries in many of his writings, he is ignored by academia because of his clarity. With a clear writer, there is no need for a professor to explain what the writer means. Hegel, who is the darling of academia even to this day, requires a priesthood that can interpret his cryptic writings into words that lay individuals can understand. There is no need for a translation from the hieratic to the demotic with Schopenhauer, thus the translators are put out of business.Lestrade 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade [edit] "Obit anus, abit onus" (The old woman dies, the burden is lifted)."Obit anus, abit onus" (The old woman dies, the burden is lifted). This quote is attributed to Schopenhauer but does not seem to be a correct translation from the Latin. I am no Latin expert but I do speak a couple Romance languages. I assumed that "anus" (in Latin) could only be translated as either "anus" or "ring" in English. How could it be translated as "old woman"? I appreciate any help from you Latin scholars out there! 85.144.162.254 09:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
. Thanks for your quick and informative response Lestrade. Vilcakid [edit] My PuzzleArthur Schopenhauer had some of the most brilliant ideas in the history of humanity. However, it seems that many Wikipedians think that the most important part of the article is the issue of where he was born. Was it Danzig or Gdansk? Was it is Prussia or Poland? I am trying to understand this. Maybe it is because these same people have never read Schopenhauer's books.Lestrade 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
[edit] The article IMPLIES that Schopenhauer was Anti-Semitic (i.e. Anti-Jewish)...However, being anti-JUDAISM or opposed to the Wentaschauung which ancient Judaism developed and has been taught to the word over the centuries is NOT the same thing as being Anti-Semitic (or Anti-Jewish [Jews aren't the only Semities]). I know not enough of Schopenhauer to say he was or was not Anti-Semitic (or Anti-Jewish), or whatever. But I'd hope that if this article is going to continue to IMPLY such that someone will add some evidence and support for such. Until then (and/or otherwise) it is purely conjecture. --Carlon 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Antisemitism scholar Paul Lawrence Rose states: "Nietzsche observed that 'Wagner's hatred of the Jews is Schopenhauerian', and indeed one of the Schopenhauerian elements that Wagner drew on was the concept of an 'Aryan Christianity' (adumbrated by Fichte)... On Schopenhauer's anti-Semitism (which invokes the mythology of Ahasverus), see H.W. Brann, Schopenhauer und das Judentum (Bonn, 1975); A. Low, Jews in the Eyes of the Germans: From the Enlightenment to Imperial Germany (Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 321-327; N. Rotensreich, Jews and German Philosophy (New York, 1974), pp. 179-200. R. Hollinrake, Nietzsche, Wagner and the Philosophy of Pessimism (London, 1982), pp. 59, 129ff., appreciates the significance of Schopenhauer's anti-Semitism both for his general philosophy and for its influence on Wagner..." (from Paul Lawrence Rose, Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany from Kant to Wagner, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 372-373). Rose later on argues that Schopenhauer influenced Hitler's anti-Semitism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.46.69 (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Lestrade, Schopenhauer's non-politically-correct views on feminism, Jews, etc. are not neatly divorceable from the rest of his philosophy; his philosophy is an integrated whole deriving from one main source. Pretending that Schopenhauer's understanding of the Jewish philosophy is irrelevant is self-deceiving. Even certain Jews understand, see below: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/cardozo_2003_10_03.php3?printer_friendly Isn't it inconsistent to say, "Schopenhauer's views were profound", and then in another breath say, "But Schopenhauer's views on Jews and the place of women in society were Stone Age" as if Schopenhauer himself were some sort of schizophrenic headcase instead of we ourselves being schizophrenic due to our politically-correct cognitive dissonance. The same situation applies to Nietzsche: the mainstream Western academic intelligentsia pretends to love Nietzsche and appreciate his genius, but on certain topics (anti-democracy, anti-socialism, anti-feminism, pro-eugenics, etc.) Nietzsche's views are deemed by the hypocritical left-wing taboo-enforcers as the "unfortunate product of his times" or either they are soft-peddled by the likes of Kaufmann, or even "interpreted out of existence" by deconstructionists. It is time for modern Western academics caught in cognitive dissonance to finally grow some balls for once and face the reality that the great minds and heroes of Western culture do not conform to their trendy left-wing prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.73.70 (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As noted scholar Bernard Lazare commented in his work Antisemitism: Its History and Causes: "Schopenhauer had professed...the antisemitism consisting in combating the optimism of the Jewish religion, an optimism which Schopenhauer found low and degrading, and with which he contrasted Greek and Hindu religious conceptions." (cf. Maria Groener, "Schopenhauer und die Juden" (Munich: Deutscher Volksverlag, n.d., about 1920); Micha Brumlik (1991), "Das Judentum in der Philosophie Schopenhauers", in Marcel Marcus, et al. (eds), "Israel und Kirche heute"). "Given that the whole ethical basis of Schopenhauer's philosophy is that all existent entities are merely physical expressions of an indifferent "Will to Exist", the implication being that the only diffence between a human being and a grain of wheat is that the wheat is not conscious of its own existence (and therefore freed from the suffering that entails)) I do think that those who are trying to make a superficial issue out of unprovable assertions regarding his alleged racist attitudes are barking up the wrong tree. Hegel's philosophy is far more racially dubious in his assertions regarding cultural evolution than Schopenhauer (See, for example, where Africa sits in his "Philosophy of History"). It was a big influence, after all, on Arthur Gobineau. Schopenhauer's valid criticism of this hierarchy of values would imply that he had no time for any form of racial inequality. I do think that those who are trying to smear him have clearly missed the essence of his position. It outweighs all the tantrums he throws about women etc." Alan Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.159.212 (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] patriotic insanitySince the Front page links here regarding the theory of "patriotic insanity", it would be nice to know what this is.81.174.226.229 08:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Schopenhauer was not Polish!The biography section tries to pretend schopenhauer was an ethnic pole with possible turko-mongolian asiatic blood; why are pan-polish racists trying to ruin the article? In no sense was Schopenhauer's ancestral stock Polish in any way. Isn't time the Pan-Polish master race fanatics who worship Polish blood take a back seat to reality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC) This is insane. Schopenhauer was above things like this, yet the Wikipedia crowd wants controversy over little details and cant even penetrate schopenhauers actual philosophy. How can Wikipedians fight over such petty inter-tribal ego-boosting as if it mattered to Schopenhauer's philosophy? Does it really matter whether Schopenhauer was German Polish or even black for that matter? What is wrong with the Wikipedians that they cannot transcend their racial prejudices? Can't the German nationalists and the Polish nationalists just leave Schopenhauer unmolested with their tribal rivalries? Perhaps the part about Danzig should be removed just for the sake of lessening the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.58.71 (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Yet Danzig was a free city at the time under the patronage of the Kingdom of Poland, and Schopenhauer was German-speaking. He's more German than Polish and at any event his parents chose to move to Hamburg when Danzig's independence was threatened. The case for him being Polish is weak at best when he wrote entirely in German and spent all of his professional life in the German cultural milieu. Silly tribalistic arguments are really exceeedingly petty. 220.255.25.120 11:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right." Proof Reader (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Ridiculous. Schopenhauer was definately German. Everything porves it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.129.39 (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC) [edit] Schopenhauer Valued ReligionEarlier "Reinis" had the insolent nerve to snippily say, "Don't lump ethics into religion, please", as if he knew what he was talking about. ACTUALLY, it's quite small-minded of bigots like "Reinis" to dogmatically drive apart ethics and religion. Schopenhauer thought that good religions like Christianity, Brahmanism and Buddhism (as distinguished from mediocre religions like Islam and negative religions like Judaism) teach the common people how to live morally through their profound allegories: "...the wise ancestors of the Indian people have directly expressed the vivid knowledge of eternal justice [and the delusion of separative egoism] in the VEDAS, permitted only to the three twice-born castes, or in the esoteric teaching, namely insofar as concept and language comprehend it; but in the religion of the people, or in exoteric teaching, they have communicated it only mythically [as in the myth of the transmigration of souls], for this myth makes intelligible the ethical significance of conduct... Religious teachings are all the mythical garments of the truth which is inaccessible to the crude human intellect. Myth might be called in Kant's language a postulate of practical reason..." (World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1, Section 52) "All that can be thought only generally and in the abstract is quite inaccessible to the great majority of people. Thus, in order to bring that great truth [of self-transcendence] into the sphere of practical application, a mythical vehicle for it was needed everywhere for this great majority, a receptacle, so to speak, without which it would be lost and dissipated. The truth everywhere had to borrow the garb of fable, and in addition, had to try always to connect itself in each with what is historically given, and is already known and revered. That which SENSU PROPRIO was and remained inaccessible to the great masses of all times and countries with their low mentality, their intellectual stupidity, and their general brutality, had to be brought home to them SENSU ALLEGORICO for practical purposes, in order to be their guiding star. Thus the above-mentioned religions [Christianity, Brahmanism, and Buddhism] are to be regarded as sacred vessels in which the great truth, recognized and expressed for thousands of years, possibly indeed since the beginning of the human race, and yet remaining in itself an esoteric doctrine as regards the great mass of mankind, is made accessible to them according to their powers, and preserved and passed on through the centuries. Yet because everything that does not consist throughout of the indestructible material of pure truth is subject to destruction, whenever this fate befalls such a vessel through contact with a heterogeneous age, the sacred contents must be saved in one way by another vessel, and preserved for mankind. Philosophy has the task of presenting those contents, since they are identical with pure truth, pure and unalloyed, hence merely in abstract concepts, and consequently without that vehicle, for those who are capable of thinking, the number of whom is at all times extremely small. Philosophy is related to religions as a straight line is to several curves running near it; for it expresses SENSU PROPRIO and consequently reaches directly that which religions show under disguises, and reach in roundabout ways." (World as Will and Representation, Vol. 2, On the Doctrine of the Denial of the Will-to-Live). Someone should probably make a section explaining Schopenhauer's distinction between the exoteric and esoteric (similar to Rene Guenon) in religion and the value of religious allegories as "folk-metaphysics" in morally uplifting the masses to make sure the rabidly antireligious neo-Marxist nihilist sect knows they can't appropriate Schopenhauer as part of their conspiracy against civilization. [edit] Original Research Claim on Heredity/EugenicsIf this is original research, then the whole article is original research. And how are those labels weasel words? It is clear as day schopenhauer believed in the inalterable power of heredity and in eugenics, what is so controversial? How could Schopenhauer be misunderstood by what he means when he speaks so clearly; his words are cited so everyone can see them for themselves without interpretive distortion... Is it just that Schopenhauer's views are heretical in an age that believes in linear equality as its religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.134.115.32 (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC) I guess we should all sacrifice Schopenhauer on the altar of Neo-Marxist egalitarianism for his heretical views on race, eugenics, heredity, women, etc. just like the resentful filthy modern mob is crucifying James D. Watson now for actually having the high courage to state what every honest educated person knows is the harsh truth about race and intelligence. This is exactly what Nietzsche described as the disaster of human history: the masses of resentful, aristocidal under-men always trying to defame and destroy the rare geniuses and fearless achievers of the species... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively"That is the policy. Do not tolerate nationalistic POV pushing. -- Matthead discuß! O 01:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question: does the following apply here?"For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises." Anthony Krupp 11:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Been to the Library. This is funny. And sad. 2007 Britannica says that Schopenhauer was born in Danzig, Prussia. It also says that Aleksander Fredro died in 1876 in Lwów, Poland, when we all know, that in 1876 there was no Poland and the city was officially known as Lemberg. Now as far as Gdańsk, it says: "In 1772 Gdańsk was seized by Prussia, resulting in a rapid dissolution of port trade; and in 1793 it was incorporated as part of Prussia. Napoleon I granted it the privileges of a free city in 1807 (...)" and further: "From 1919 to 1939, it again had the status of a free city, under the Treaty of Versailles(...)". Don't know what you guys propose, but I think it's safe to remove "free Hanseatic city" from the article. Please investigate on your own. It would be interesting to know what the German and Polish encyclopedias say about the subject. Space Cadet 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Here's a secondary one:"... Arthur Schopenhauer was born on February 22, 1788 in Danzig [Gdansk, Poland] -- a city which had a long history in international trade as a member of the Hanseatic League. The Schopenhauer family was of Dutch heritage, and the philosopher's father, Heinrich Floris Schopenhauer (1747-1805), was a successful merchant who groomed his son to assume control of the family's business. A future in the international business trade was envisioned from the day Arthur was born, as reflected in how Schopenhauer's father carefully chose his son's first name on account of its identical spelling in German, French and English. When Schopenhauer was five years old, his family moved to Hamburg in March 1793, after the formerly free city of Danzig was annexed by Prussia." This from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Best, Anthony Krupp 11:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] InfluencedRegarding the question re: Suzanne Langer see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [3] entry: "Among philosophers, one can cite Henri Bergson, Eduard von Hartmann, Suzanne Langer, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Hans Vaihinger, who tended to focus on selected aspects of Schopenhauer's philosophy, such as his views on the meaning of life, his theory of the non-rational will, his theory of music, or his Kantianism." Alcmaeonid 13:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
In the Influenced section, someone has edited in a bit about John N. Gray's book Straw Dogs, in what looks like an attempt at marketing in what is otherwise a pretty good bio page. The links point to the wrong John Gray and the wrong Straw Dogs. Even if John N. Gray were notable enough to belong in that section, surely he hasn't earned a breakout paragraph. Jack Fool —Preceding comment was added at 08:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Schopenhauer gave ontological primacy to desire (or Will) over intellect. David Hume, it is to be remembered, asserted as much before Schopenhauer. Also, Schopenhauer most probably was familiar with Hume's works, as Hume gained considerable celebrity on the Continent after his death. I would very much like to discuss the possibility of placing Hume as being an "influence" in Schopenhauer's thought. We must remember, too, that via Kant Schopenhauer would have been influenced by Hume as well. The noble soul has reverence for itself 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC) "I think you should consult his "History of Philosophy" essay in the "Parerga" and draw your conclusions from that. In his "Autobiography" Brian Magee argues that Hume was a big influence on Schopenhauer in terms of clarity of expression. See the chapter "The Philosophy of Schopenhauer" Alan Page unsigned comment added by 92.0.159.212 (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] Pipes, Pistols, and NoiseWill Durants Story of Philosophy claims (about Schoenphauer): "He became gloomy, cynical, and suspicious; he was obsessed with fears and evil fantasies; he kept his pipes under lock and key; and never trusted his neck to a barber's razor; and he slept with loaded pistols at his bedside - presumably for the conviennce of the burglar. He could not bear noise: 'I have long held the opinion', he writes, ' that the amount of noise which anyone car bear undisturbed stands in inverse proportion to his mental capacity and may therefore be regarded as a pretty fair measure of it. Noise is a torture to all intelluctual people ... The superabundant display of vitality which takes the form of knocking, hammering, and tumbling things about has proved a daily torment to me all my life long." Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] Notes
[edit] Changes to IntroductionWikipedia Editors: I have made significant changes to the introduction of Schopenhauer, which I believe add to the quality of this article, particularly its readability. If you have any complaints or suggestions, please contact me or leave your message here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Chrisknop (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC) 8/21/08: Lestrade, I think the evolutionary implication of Schopenhauer is important to today's reader, since like Goethe, Schopenhauer was a philosopher very interested in science. I will work on something that communicates this point less prominently and more smoothly. I would prefer that should you also decide to change that, you should sufficiently explain your reasoning below for the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.186.72 (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Chris
[edit] FascismI have deleted the Schopenhauer and Fascism section. It is a totally false section and proclaims the very opposite of the truth about Schopenhauer. This section stated the following: Schopenhauer's 'denial of will' concept was picked up and heralded by Nietzsche, whose writings were later used by the Nazi's to justify the Führerprinzip. Nietzsche did not "herald" Schopenhauer's concept of denial of the will. As a matter of fact, all of Nietzche's writings absolutely opposed this concept and strenuously urged everyone to "say yes to life." Saying "yes" to life is the opposite of denying the will. The Nazis did not use Schopenhauer's concept of denial of the will to justify the Führerprinzip. That principle was based on the opposite of denial. It was based on a strenuous and brutal affirmation of will.Lestrade (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
It occurs to me that User:72.20.143.93 might be thinking that the Führer Principle requires that the Leader demands absolute obedience from everyone. Therefore, it may seem that everyone has to deny their own will and submit to the will of the Führer. That, however, is not Schopenhauer's concept of denial of the will. Schopenhauer described a situation in which a person realizes that the world is an arena of constant conflict between egoistic wills and is, therefore, a scene of endless pain and suffering. Such a person may become disgusted with the world or feel hatred for it. As a result, the person ceases to will. This is denial of the will or loss of the will–to–live. There are many cases in which it is said that a person "loses his will," "is sick of the world," or "is world–weary." It is obvious that User:72.20.143.93 has not read Schopenhauer and was simply projecting his/her own meaning onto the concept of denial of the will.Lestrade (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade [edit] SchoenbergIn the "Influences" section, I added Arnold Schoenberg. According to John Covach's article "Sources of Schoenberg's 'Aesthetic Theology',"[4] Schopenhauer's influence on Schoenberg is well–documented.Lestrade (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade [edit] Should Schopenhauer Be Grouped with German Idealism?The following passage seems, to me, to be false:
This is referenced by a citation to Higgins, Kathleen. "Schopenhauer--The World as Will and Idea." Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition, Part V [DVD]. The Teaching Company, 2000. The German Idealists, (Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel), however, were not influenced at all by Schopenhauer. Nietzsche, Wagner, Wittgenstein, and Freud had no relation to German Idealists. The German Idealists claimed that there is no difference between subject and object, that there is an Absolute Spirit (like the Old Testament God), that world history is an account of this Spirit's growing self–consciousness, that Reason is the essence of the world, that obscurity is a sign of profundity, that self–contradiction is logically acceptable, and that we have knowledge through a Reason that gives us direct Intuition. These are all the opposite of Schopenhauer's philosophy. Kathleen Higgins must have never read a page of Schopenhauer's works.Lestrade (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade Les, I disagree. The statement does not say the Schop influenced other German Idealists (although he undoubtedly did), but that his thought formed "a cornerstone" in G.I. "The last great representative of German Idealism in systematic philosophy was Schopenhauer." http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/germidea.htm. Read the relevant section. While Schopenhauer's piece to the puzzle is different from the others, his is a refinement of it. You make some good points. I argue that "absolute spirit"="will". There may be some difference between absolute spirit and will; Schop does say there is no reason or purpose to will, which is at odds with Kant, etc., but that is a refinement of german idealism towards realism, not a breaking with it. Bottom line here is that German Idealism is the belief that everything is connected by fundamental metaphysical ideas, and this metaphysical discovery is central to Schopenhauer's philosophy and discovery of the "will". --Chrisknop (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC) How do you mean "moot"? Of no value? Modern thought was turning away from metaphysics at that time, with English empiricism (and the scientific revolution) teaching that knowledge comes only from what we see, smell, touch, and hear. Schopenhauer's path to knowledge was not this pragmatic or empirical one, and I believe that puts him directly with the idealists. --Chrisknop (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
To repeat, empiricism in philosophy is a focus on physical senses, and S. tried to transcend the five senses. He was educated in schools that taught idealism, by German Idealists, and his doctoral thesis was on idealism. His most popular theory of "will" is not rooted in scientific discovery, but based on metaphysical concepts. Read the first paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation. S.'s major work (Will and Rep.) has chapters entitled "The Indestructibility of Our Inner Nature", "On Man's Need for Metaphysics"; and its first chapter was: "On the Fundamental View of Idealism." S. was an idealist, though he was critical of certain aspects of German Idealism. His idealism is most pronounced in his concept of aesthetics. --Chrisknop (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1. How is "the will", which is a central tenet to Schopenhauer's philosophy, based on direct experience? Or his view on aesthetics? Because he used examples of historical characters to show that certain qualities came from certain genders? That type of speculating comes from intuition and an innate belief in his own genius, not from an emphasis on scientific experiment or sense-perception. 2. "Will" is some type of variation of the spirit principle (big picture). 3. German Idealism as a concept is not set in stone; it is more than philosophical dogma, it describes a philosophical, cultural, and aesthetic era, and as I set out above, S. fits into it with more than just his writings. His mood, like Goethe's, wanting to take on every aspect of science, his teachers and colleagues, his subject matter, but most importantly, his method - objectivism and logic striving to answer non-physical questions. --Chrisknop (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction DisputeRe: Schopenhauer's Reasons for Leaving Hamburg, and His Relationship With his Mother User 72.73.211.86 Schopenhauer's mental state prior to leaving Hamburg to be with his mother is not a documentable fact which belongs in an introduction. S.'s relationship with his mother, if discussed, should be with undisputed general facts in the introduction, and then discussed in as a separate topic below. At that point, opinion words should still be avoided. In any case, the intro to S.'s life should be kept as short as possible, without deviating into sub-topics. Please list your arguments below ( 72.73.211.86). --Chrisknop (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Alch, I respect your opinion, but the above statements on S.'s Hamburg work experience are opinion. Just because it is in several biographies does not make it fact. The words "hated", "rebelled", "monotonous", and "soulless" are all interesting and paint a colorful picture, but they are all speculative. Perhaps S. liked his Hamburg job, but acted as though he despised it. If these are "well-known" facts, prove it. Unless we can get a direct quote or written statement by Schopenhauer about his Hamburg experience, no statement on his mental state (from hearsay or deduction) belongs. A biographer's opinion is not fact, it is expert opinion, which does not belong in the undisputed statement of facts (the introduction). --Chrisknop (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I reiterate my stance. Biographical commentary and speculation do not belong in the introduction. Only facts. I am removing it. You believe the passage belongs because it was written and published. If the opinions/speculation belong at all, it is in the "Views on Women" section. --Chrisknop (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe they have a better opinion, maybe not. Schopenhauer has been interpreted in many different ways. But opinions and characterizations do not belong. By "introduction", I did mean "Lead". Thank you for the correction. By the way alch, help me clean up the thought section. --Chrisknop (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Third OpinionI saw this discussion posted at the Third Opinion Noticeboard. I am currently reading the arguments above and the article itself. I will post back here in a few moments. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Third opinion (ec)
Essentially (from WP:RS), Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. As long as the source is reliable, there is little distinction between opinion and fact.--Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 1) Opinions (and opinion words) about one's mental state do not belong in an enclopedia article, no matter who wrote them. 2) This 3rd opinion does not adequately address the issues of using opinion, and relevancy. --Chrisknop (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The revision sounds terrible and has made the article worse in terms of flow. Apparently Alch you are determined to include a speculative passage written by a biographer which is neither appropriate nor relevant. Someone else, please put in your two cents here. The passage does not belong. I am removing the entire section until you can properly cite it. --Chrisknop (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
And battle to the final breath, I did. Thank you, Lestrade. --Chrisknop (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Moving on to the "Thought" SectionThis section is horribly written. It starts with the phrase "hurling invective" and goes downhill from there. Is there any way we can clean it up? Lestrade, would you like to take a shot at making the section more clear, straightforward, and readable? Alch, what do you think? Would you like to give it a shot? --Chrisknop (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I have made substantial changes to the Thought section, mostly by clarifying and simplifying its structure and modying sentences. This will mean there is quite a bit of clean-up, after all I am not perfect. Please write your suggestions here, and if you disagree, please propose something better than what was there (which was terrible). All-in-all, much of the information in this article needs to be streamlined or removed, and better organized. --Chrisknop (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I don't think the "Will" section (the first in thought) is well written, or conveys its idea very well. --Chrisknop (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WillThe article makes it seem as though will is merely the basic motivation of humans. In Schopenhauer's writings, however, will is everything and everything is will. All things in the world are essentially and basically what we know in ourselves as will. This is a radical thought. It should be given prime importance in an article on Schopenhauer. It is his connection to the Hindu Vedas, in which everything is Brahman.Lestrade (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade Good point Les. I will revise to reflect will emphasis. --Chrisknop (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC) [edit] Weighty issueIn the "Philosophy of the 'Will'" section, it is stated that Schopenhauer was a "heavy reader" of Hegel. It is known from his correspondence that he borrowed a copy of Hegel's Logic and returned it after having read only part of it. His revulsion with Hegel's disregard for the principle of contradiction prevented him from reading the whole book. What are the requirements for being a "heavy" reader?Lestrade (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade [edit] Will & ArtThe section titled "Expressions of the Will: Art and Aesthetics" is incorrect. Art, for Schop, is not expression. We have been taught in the last 100 years, especially by Benedetto Croce, that art is a way to display our thoughts and emotions. But Schop saw art, not as part of the world as will, but, as part of the world as representation. For him, art is a concern with pure representations (mental images), without regard for any connection to the will (urge, impulse, want, desire, or emotion). If a person's attention is focussed on pure representation, then that person is temporarily released from the suffering that is part of willing. Will and representation are mutually exclusive. Music is the only art that is not related to representations. It is the will, itself, presented directly to a listening subject, without mental image. The will, as such, in itself, has no representations to guide it or give it direction. It uses representations as an outside tool to get more and more in order to feed its appetite. Representation, as such, has no will. It is pure "idea," picture, or mental image with no desire or need. Therefore, art is not expression of the will. The world of art is the world of pure representation. Of course, other thinkers have tried to make art an expression of the will. As a result, we have the repulsive productions that we call "art" today, but they are not really art, as everyone certainly knows.Lestrade (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade [edit] EthicsI would like to know where, in his works, Schopenhauer asserts that the three primary moral incentives are compassion, malice, and egoism. I am sure that he did not write that statement. Also, I am sure that he did not write that compassion is the major motivator to moral expression and that malice and egoism are corrupt alternatives. Therefore, I believe that the entire "Ethics" section of the article is not a statement of Schopenhauer's ethics. Rather, it is probably the creation of someone who has never read Schopenhauer's books.Lestrade (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
I don't know what you mean when you say that it reads like an essay and not like an encyclopedia article. I, also, don't know what you mean by saying that it is unverifiable because it employs minimal secondary sources. Primary sources would be the best sources for verification. There seem to be some statements that sound like they are subjective. It would be best if Schopenhauer's works were cited profusely. In that way, a reader could look up the cited passage and verify its accuracy.Lestrade (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade T
[edit] Russell & MarquetBertrand Russell was pleased to tell the story of the Marquet lawsuit. His logical mind, however, never considered the possibility that Marquet saw an easy way to make money. Schopenhauer was obviously a man of independent means because he was never seen to leave his apartment in order to go to a place of employment. He also was known to be easily annoyed by loud noise. It might have been the equivalent of today's "slipping in the food market in order to sue and collect damages." Very conveniently, she had a witness who would swear that Schopenhauer assaulted and battered her. The Wikipedia article cannot take Russell's version as being the truth, even though he considered himself to be an expert on truth.Lestrade (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
[edit] Schopenhauer existentialismThe chapter "On will as a thing-of-itself" in The World and Will as its Representation talks about freedom of the will and its relation with determinism. Some of the passages alarmlingly sounds similar to existentilist thought of Sartre and Camus, about man's strive to create meaning in a hostile meaningless world (though Schopenhauer did not use those exact word). This book also talks a little about Schopenhauer's influence on existentialism. It's also said commonly that Nietzche took some ideas from Schopenhauer, and Nietzhe indirectly had impact on the ideas of Sartre, so shouldn't "existentialism" be mentioned in the article? 67.189.242.105 (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Albert Einstein and SchopenhauerWhy Einstein is among the influenced people by Schopenhauer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.125.146 (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
After all of the above, User 93.39.55.125 deleted Einstein's name in the list of people who were influenced by Schopenhauer. Wikipedia is frustrating. It is a lifetime job to protect the articles from people who are unread or ignorant. Is it worth the trouble? There are legions of high school juveniles who are prepared to destroy the value of the articles. I undid the deletion but will not do anything further. I am convinced that the Wikipedia project is doomed to failure because of the quality of the majority of readers and contributors.Lestrade (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Mitsube-san, every statement that I made about Schopenhauer's influence on Einstein (in Einstein's own words) is fully sourced.Lestrade (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade [edit] Schopenhauer and fuzzy logic should be removedToo much space in the article is devoted to what simply amounts to the lone and obscure opinion of a single person that has been expressed in just a single paper. An encyclopedia should be focussed on major mainstream views.Ekwos (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] This is a good articleI've been looking at biographic articles on many different people on Wikipedia lately, and I really like this one - just thought some praise was in order (there's so little of that on Wikipedia!) So, to those responsible for this article: congratulations. I can see there's still more work to be done, but the sections are balanced, it flows, it's not controversial (it's way, way better than the article on Tolstoy that I'm trying to help edit, it's a good example for us).Levalley (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley
[edit] Views on homosexuality & pederastyIt is typical of many Wikipedia readers of our time to be interested in these topics. This is especially true of younger readers who have been strongly influenced from an early age by our contemporary "culture." By reading his books, they might find that Schopenhauer's thoughts on many other topics are very interesting.Lestrade (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
[edit] More influencesMore names should be listed as having exerted influence upon Schopenhauer's philosophy; for example, Berkeley (whom Schopenhauer defended against Kant's criticisms), Locke (whom Schopenhauer usually references when debating the origins of abstract ideas or the ontological nature of subject), and perhaps Hume and Spinoza too.189.81.44.186 (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC) [edit] Views On WomenFlora Weiss' rejection of Schopenhauer says something about how she viewed him, but it does not say anything about how he viewed women. Thus, I propose its removal from the section 'Views On Women'. Wwmargera (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Categories: B-Class Philosophy articles | High-importance Philosophy articles | B-Class Aesthetics articles | High-importance Aesthetics articles | Aesthetics task force articles | B-Class social and political philosophy articles | High-importance social and political philosophy articles | Social and political philosophy task force articles | B-Class philosopher articles | High-importance philosopher articles | Philosophers task force articles | B-Class Modern philosophy articles | High-importance Modern philosophy articles | Modern philosophy task force articles | C-Class Germany articles | High-importance Germany articles | B-Class biography articles | WikiProject Biography articles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
