11-28-2017, 12:00 AM
Le_Regard wrote:
Julio Juliopolis wrote:
Le_Regard wrote:
This is very substantial.
What you're describing as the combined intent of apple, tree, earth, etc., etc., Schopenhauer called "will". He wrote a book about it, in German, called "The World as Will and Idea" or "The World as Will and Representation". Or whatever the German for that is, I don't really know.
Two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule combine in true love and ecstasy because it is their will to be water. I'm assuming the Carlos Castaneda books have been translated into German, but I don't know the word they use for Intent, so I don't know... maybe it's the same thing.
But Schopenhauer's "Will" doesn't just inspire hydrogen and oxygen to be water. Will is "the thing-in-itself", "das ding an sich" if you like. Schopenhauer writes this way because in the philosophy of KANT, we only know our own experiences. We definitely know that a world is out there a real one, at least ONE real thing or maybe real THINGS, because we don't know. We can't know. But we know it as a brute fact because otherwise it would be like seeing a shadow cast by a tree but not believing in trees and not believing in the Sun. That's what Kant says. We know it's there because we infer from its effects, which is the fact we experience ANYTHING AT ALL. And blahblahblah Space is just the absolute form of geometry and Time is just the absolute form of arithmetic and blahblahblah, but what's relevant here is that Schopenhauer was a bit more optimistic and thought that, in a certain sense, we COULD know the the thing-in-itself, quite directly, because it is Will, and we have that. We are that.
Very interesting. I haven't read Schopenhauer or Kant but I find it curious that they were still into imagined shapes being more "real" than the approximations of them we actually find in the world. I'd have guessed that idea, (although once a popular notion), would have died not long after Plato. That aside, the idea of will as a thing-in-itself needs a bit more explanation for me to get it though as I can imagine several different ways that could be interpreted. I've never thought of will that way myself before.
However, Schopenhauer's project is generally considered pessimistic. The only way to realize the Will of the universe is to basically suspend the individual Will that animates our own lives only.
If that means what I think it does than I don't see why it would be pessimistic. Perhaps people should try taking it in chunks. Instead of dropping one's will entirely, just take a short vacation from it. Take a few days and let your decisions be governed by authentic desires only. That's how the universe communicates it's will to us, (maybe xD). If you feel a genuine desire to eat, then eat. If you feel a specific craving eat that, if not find something. If you want to watch TV, watch TV. If you find you no longer have a desire to keep watching TV, (even if it's right in the middle of a show!), then stop. Don't continue doing stuff from habit, that just leads to dullness and boredom. When you find someone is going to interact with you don't approach it with your assumptions about how they'll behave, trying to manipulate the situation to encourage or avoid certain actions by them, instead just see what your authentic desire says when you see them and go with that. It may be scary to think about trying to live your life like that, but it should be okay for a weekend. In fact, it would make that weekend both interesting and entertaining.
We know the world by "willing it" to appearance or representation. So if we just DON'T... if we just suspend all appearance and representation, "stop the world" if you like, stop THINKING the world into appearance, WILL shines out as self-illuminated. But that doesn't leave us anywhere.
I'll have to take your word for it, as I haven't stopped the world enough times to know and my memories of the events tend to go up to the point where I stopped the world and pick up immediately after I "started" a world.
Related... I heard this on the radio this morning.
It's not correct to say that Kant thought imagined shapes are more real than the approximations we find of them in the world. I'm not even sure Plato thought that.
This is important actually.
?
All of Plato that we have is in dialogue form. It's basically theater. We know what he made his characters say, and we can't ever know what he really thought himself. He may have had reasons for writing Socrates the way he did other than history accuracy.
He presented arguments through the voices of others. We can surmise what he likely thought, even though we can never know for certain even if he had written it directly. The "Platonic solids" which he spent so much time with he associated with the 4 elements, (Air, Earth, Fire, and Water), which he and his contemporaries believed made up everything in the universe. At the molecular level Plato suggested the elements held the shapes of the Platonic solids, which though named after him were well-known prior to his mention of them. Plato might mot have presented the exact idea that those shapes were more real than what is in the world, but IIRC he did write about how they are more perfected forms of the shapes we can see around us. Heraclitus and Pythagorus however, (both of whom are considered to have been highly influential on Plato), did directly argue that mathematically perfect shapes are more real than our interpretation of reality. They were both in the camp that considered knowledge gained through reason to be superior to that gained by the senses because the senses can be fooled. This seems like an easy thing to believe when you look at things, figure them out mathematically and then test them and the stuff you reason out always works out while the things you merely observe don't offer up explanations as to their workings.
Pythagorus was able to use his reasoned out mathematical knowledge, (which was considerably advanced over the average people at the time), to advise engineers on how to design their structures, create basic music theory, and make predictions that today would seem like no big deal but at the time were looked at as bordering on magic. Again, this gave him reason to believe in reason and not mere empiricism, (or mythological thinking which was the other competing idea at the time).
He played up to his exaggerated status too, founding what today would be looked at like a religious cult, (complete with instructions as to how to live your life and dietary restrictions), in his Pythagorean school. To be fair though, this was a big step down from the runaway ego of his teacher, (Anaximander), who professed to be a god and makes Plato's advocacy for the rulership of philosopher kings seem downright humble.
Stop the world and melt with whom? It's not enough... it will never be enough until we melt the whole thing. But that's not practical, usually, and in any case, probably the gods choose the shapes they do for a reason.
I don't know about the whole melting thing, but the stop the world part seems like a good thing to be skilled at.
Julio Juliopolis wrote:
Le_Regard wrote:
This is very substantial.
What you're describing as the combined intent of apple, tree, earth, etc., etc., Schopenhauer called "will". He wrote a book about it, in German, called "The World as Will and Idea" or "The World as Will and Representation". Or whatever the German for that is, I don't really know.
Two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule combine in true love and ecstasy because it is their will to be water. I'm assuming the Carlos Castaneda books have been translated into German, but I don't know the word they use for Intent, so I don't know... maybe it's the same thing.
But Schopenhauer's "Will" doesn't just inspire hydrogen and oxygen to be water. Will is "the thing-in-itself", "das ding an sich" if you like. Schopenhauer writes this way because in the philosophy of KANT, we only know our own experiences. We definitely know that a world is out there a real one, at least ONE real thing or maybe real THINGS, because we don't know. We can't know. But we know it as a brute fact because otherwise it would be like seeing a shadow cast by a tree but not believing in trees and not believing in the Sun. That's what Kant says. We know it's there because we infer from its effects, which is the fact we experience ANYTHING AT ALL. And blahblahblah Space is just the absolute form of geometry and Time is just the absolute form of arithmetic and blahblahblah, but what's relevant here is that Schopenhauer was a bit more optimistic and thought that, in a certain sense, we COULD know the the thing-in-itself, quite directly, because it is Will, and we have that. We are that.
Very interesting. I haven't read Schopenhauer or Kant but I find it curious that they were still into imagined shapes being more "real" than the approximations of them we actually find in the world. I'd have guessed that idea, (although once a popular notion), would have died not long after Plato. That aside, the idea of will as a thing-in-itself needs a bit more explanation for me to get it though as I can imagine several different ways that could be interpreted. I've never thought of will that way myself before.
However, Schopenhauer's project is generally considered pessimistic. The only way to realize the Will of the universe is to basically suspend the individual Will that animates our own lives only.
If that means what I think it does than I don't see why it would be pessimistic. Perhaps people should try taking it in chunks. Instead of dropping one's will entirely, just take a short vacation from it. Take a few days and let your decisions be governed by authentic desires only. That's how the universe communicates it's will to us, (maybe xD). If you feel a genuine desire to eat, then eat. If you feel a specific craving eat that, if not find something. If you want to watch TV, watch TV. If you find you no longer have a desire to keep watching TV, (even if it's right in the middle of a show!), then stop. Don't continue doing stuff from habit, that just leads to dullness and boredom. When you find someone is going to interact with you don't approach it with your assumptions about how they'll behave, trying to manipulate the situation to encourage or avoid certain actions by them, instead just see what your authentic desire says when you see them and go with that. It may be scary to think about trying to live your life like that, but it should be okay for a weekend. In fact, it would make that weekend both interesting and entertaining.
We know the world by "willing it" to appearance or representation. So if we just DON'T... if we just suspend all appearance and representation, "stop the world" if you like, stop THINKING the world into appearance, WILL shines out as self-illuminated. But that doesn't leave us anywhere.
I'll have to take your word for it, as I haven't stopped the world enough times to know and my memories of the events tend to go up to the point where I stopped the world and pick up immediately after I "started" a world.
Related... I heard this on the radio this morning.
It's not correct to say that Kant thought imagined shapes are more real than the approximations we find of them in the world. I'm not even sure Plato thought that.
This is important actually.
?
All of Plato that we have is in dialogue form. It's basically theater. We know what he made his characters say, and we can't ever know what he really thought himself. He may have had reasons for writing Socrates the way he did other than history accuracy.
He presented arguments through the voices of others. We can surmise what he likely thought, even though we can never know for certain even if he had written it directly. The "Platonic solids" which he spent so much time with he associated with the 4 elements, (Air, Earth, Fire, and Water), which he and his contemporaries believed made up everything in the universe. At the molecular level Plato suggested the elements held the shapes of the Platonic solids, which though named after him were well-known prior to his mention of them. Plato might mot have presented the exact idea that those shapes were more real than what is in the world, but IIRC he did write about how they are more perfected forms of the shapes we can see around us. Heraclitus and Pythagorus however, (both of whom are considered to have been highly influential on Plato), did directly argue that mathematically perfect shapes are more real than our interpretation of reality. They were both in the camp that considered knowledge gained through reason to be superior to that gained by the senses because the senses can be fooled. This seems like an easy thing to believe when you look at things, figure them out mathematically and then test them and the stuff you reason out always works out while the things you merely observe don't offer up explanations as to their workings.
Pythagorus was able to use his reasoned out mathematical knowledge, (which was considerably advanced over the average people at the time), to advise engineers on how to design their structures, create basic music theory, and make predictions that today would seem like no big deal but at the time were looked at as bordering on magic. Again, this gave him reason to believe in reason and not mere empiricism, (or mythological thinking which was the other competing idea at the time).
He played up to his exaggerated status too, founding what today would be looked at like a religious cult, (complete with instructions as to how to live your life and dietary restrictions), in his Pythagorean school. To be fair though, this was a big step down from the runaway ego of his teacher, (Anaximander), who professed to be a god and makes Plato's advocacy for the rulership of philosopher kings seem downright humble.
Stop the world and melt with whom? It's not enough... it will never be enough until we melt the whole thing. But that's not practical, usually, and in any case, probably the gods choose the shapes they do for a reason.
I don't know about the whole melting thing, but the stop the world part seems like a good thing to be skilled at.