Schopenhauer on Mind & Matter

Arthur Schopenhauer developed a fascinating version of dual-aspect monism, according to which from outside, the world appears as representation, but from inside, it appears as will: ontological monism and epistemological dualism. To Schopenhauer, desire-driven will is what we are from inside, and he goes on to argue that we should think of the underlying reality of all appearance in the same way. You represent my will as a body, but there’s an underlying reality to your representation that’s experiential in character. Schopenhauer thinks the basis of this dual-aspect character of reality pervades the natural world, organic and inorganic. Why? Because this is our only form of insight into—or acquaintance with—anything as a thing in itself.

We also discuss the connection between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, whether Schopenhauer is an idealist or a panpsychist, and explore a couple arguments for panpsychism.

“[O]n the path of objective knowledge, thus starting from the representation, we shall never get beyond the representation...We shall therefore remain at the outside of things; we shall never be able to penetrate into their inner nature, and investigate what they are in themselves…So far, I agree with Kant. But … we ourselves are the thing-in-itself. Consequently, a way from within stands open to us to that real inner nature of things to which we cannot penetrate from without. It is, so to speak, a subterranean passage, a secret alliance, which, as if by treachery, places us all at once in the fortress that could not be taken by attack from without.”

Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism

/ timestamps /

00:00 Schopenhauer's personality

02:23 Will and Representation

10:15 Panpsychism and the key to movement

16:46 A subterranean passage

20:27 Different sides of the same mountain

[chaosmagician]

Ichika nito and Schopenhauer. A random crossover but a welcome one.

[andrewmarkmusic]

He was a modern Samkhya theorist. Although understandable, I think it’s safe to say he never experienced Purusha....Or, to put if in other terms: he solved the ‘hard problem of consciousness’...But did not solve the ‘hard problem of god’...which can’t be solved but only experienced . .

[Bolaniullen]

i always find his biography, and almost all his grumpy old dommer writings to be very funny. He's a very snarky old fart and i love it, it only becomes more funny when you go trough his life and imagine him as a Mr Bean type character who keeps getting served shit sandwiches by life and the universe.

And even his philosophy is ofcourse gloomy and not even suicide is a solution since there is only the one subjectivity, the one being that looks out through the eyes of every creature, so when you die you likely return to this point of view, and will then have all the misery of the combined creatures of the world constantly incorporated into what is now your subjectivity, 'the mind of god' or universal consciousness and this will be gloomy and depressing too LOL

Kafka eat your heart out, you got nothing on this man. it can be summarized as: nothing is good... and it never will be

[jimmyfaulkner]

Does this double aspect theory/dual-aspect monism lead to panpsychism? If it does, how do you overcome the combination problem? Also, what exactly is this monistic substance that unites both mind and body (epistemic dualism)? It sounds like it could easily lapse into neutral monism and therefore inherit all the problems with that position. Also, can dual-aspect monism be seen as a form of property dualism? Is it also possible to combine double-aspect theory with a form of idealism (dual-aspect idealism)? Sorry for all the questions but I’m just curious about this position being a solution to the mind-body problem and mystery of consciousness.