Schopenhauer vs Kant - in verse! What does Schopenhauer mean by 'Will'?

A quick, light-hearted, informative dip into Schopenhauer's concept of 'Will'. Kant set limits on what we can know. But Schopenhauer pushed those limits further, to construct his own theory of a world raging with a mindless, pitiless force.... as explained in his most famous work, 'The World as Will and Representation"

#philosophy #immanuelkant #schopenhauer #will

[klevish]

Excellent! Glad this was recommended to me. Underrated how well you explained that while keeping the poetry elegant and not forced. Very good job!

[ArthursAtman]

My friend, this was refreshing and brilliant. I've read everything A. S. ever wrote, down to the manuscript remains, so I needed this light-hearted and rhyming pass or glimpse. What fun. Also, freakin well-done with the poetry and playfulness

[SheldonRokeach-grpg]

plato aristotle schopenhauer that is all unless moses and jacob were right

[edwardlawrence]

There is no think in itself, just what we don’t know at the current moment. Will is complex, dualistic with attractive and repulsive features. As the ancient Greek philosophers said, love and strife. Life is complex, not simple. Jesus said, “Love one another.” But, this is just impossible: living is love and strife, being and becoming. There is no absolute overcoming by one or the other.

Remember the scout’s motto, “Do your best.”

[grantbartley]

In fact Schopenhauer was too narrow. We know the nature of not only will but all our experiences as they really are (in themselves). There is nothing to any experience per se but what we experience it as.

[Alphardus]

Very Good. I agree with Schopenhauer in these base views of reality but think that Nietzsche's attitude to the Will is better, understood not as a 'Will-to-life' but as a 'Will-to-power'. The problem is that Schopenhauer seems to moralise reality straight away by calling it pitiful and the same in this video when you state 'a force not for good' this is imposing morals upon a thing. As if somehow Reality/The Will/Nature isn't living up to a certain standard but there is no standard because there is nothing outside of the Will/Nature, its immanent and anti-transcendental in this respect. It is a text without an author or rulebook. Everything is the Will, not just what you subjectively think/judge to be bad or good. That was the error, you've judged it with morals as if it possess these intrinsically but it doesn't and as if it is outside of you. Everything is the Will, all the ''good'' all the ''bad''. Spinoza and Nietzsche are correct when they note/hint that Nature/The Will is ultimately in-itself Amoral. Morals are things we construct as the things/manifestations we are, in power relations with other things and how they subjectively affect us. Whether they lessen our power or improve it.

[bluesky]

How would you prove robot has consciousness using empirical data. How do you prove to blind man what color red is using empirical data. In theory, robot can be programmed to move its hand when it touches hot surface. How do I know its having the experience of hot using test tube(Deduction/induction). The only thing i am certain of is that i have experience of hot. This experience can only come from entity that can already experience existence infinite perfection). If you cannot prove your own consciousness using “scientific method”, then how can you reject the existence of Perfect/infinite metaphysical being(Allah)? “Cogito ergo sum”( I think therefore I am) should be read as “cogito ergo est”(I think therefore Allah is).