ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2024
- "Everything in life proclaims that earthly happiness is destined to be frustrated, or recognized as an illusion. The grounds for this lie deep in the nature of things..."
I offer private tutoring in philosophy. For details please email me: kanebaker91@gmail.com
Support me on Patreon: / kanebaker91
Donate to my PayPal: paypal.me/kanebaker91
My Discord: / discord
0:00 - Introduction
0:36 - Phenomena/noumena
4:27 - Knowing the thing-in-itself
11:28 - World as Will
19:34 - Will and suffering
30:21 - Pleasure as privation
36:48 - Objections
This is a great channel. Keep it up
Thanks!
I like that anecdote about Einstein reading Schopenhauer: “He often sat with one of his well-worn Schopenhauer volumes, and as he sat there, he seemed so pleased, as if he were engaged with a serene and cheerful work.”
Perhaps fitting that the great man would view such a work in a life-affirming light, more in the spirit of Nietzsche or Goethe than Schopenhauer.
Where is that from?
I just complated will and representation and you made this video. Great stuff and great coincidence lol
a very clear analysis, thank you.
Great video! Very informative and understandable
You have no idea how much I have been waiting for this. Can you do one on Essentialism.!??
I already have a video on essentialism in the context of natural kinds: th-cam.com/video/BYcfPAvZjPE/w-d-xo.html
YEARS of waiting…finally
FKING LOVE YA KANE. Thank you!!!
My friend Will would like to have a word with you
Very interesting perspective. I think Schopenhauer does hit some important points about the fading nature of satisfaction and the compulsive drive of humans to constantly set new goals, however I ultimately disagree. It's a cliche, but I think the phrase "it's about the journey, not the destination" sums up my objection neatly.
I wonder what Schopenhauer thought of gettier cases could you imagine
Text pop outs, like in Breaking Bad shorts, gives a sense of lived expression ism of content qua this platform. According to social identity theory 'why I will in general' hinges on an individual's predisposition to define themselves in terms of group membership which if low explains a persons intrinsic pessimism. The cheerful contrasted with the doleful clerk.
But then you could ask why do individuals have a predisposition to define themselves in terms of group membership
Looking forward to watching this. Any desire to make videos on Spinoza?
I'm afraid not... I've never found Spinoza that interesting.
Read Arnold Zuboff's work on personal identity.
Great video. Why do you have nothing on illusionism? Would love your take. I think it’s probably the “best” physicalist framework against the hard problem.
I find Shopenhauer the most interesting along with the Existentialists, all these analytic logical philosophical chopping ends in boredom, we kind of forget our existence and what that truly means
You could say I crave more history of philosophy videos 🤓
Or rather you will
Here's my thoughts on pleasure is absence of suffering:
1) Pain can be directly invoked. It is a raw sensation. Pleasure on the other hand doesn't seem to be.
2) Anything that brings pleasure can bring equal pain based on the prior state. e.g. Music when I WANT to play it vs music at an equal volume in the middle of the night. Warm water when you WANT a bath vs. water torture.
3) Wanting something seems to be inherently less than ideal ie to want is to suffer I WANT to receive sexual gratification. I am now actively suffering. I receive gratification. For some time my want is satisfied ie that cause of suffering is absent for a period.
have you ever taken heroin?
My brother in Shoppinhower, if you truly believe your first claim have never had a good nut in your life, and I suffer deeply for you.
Are you familiar with Camus? He deals with similar pessimistic questions, and I think his approach is quite interesting.
Not really. I'm not generally into continental philosophy.
Kane B goes continental challenge (impossible)
Hi Kane. I know you mentioned it somewhere else, but do you have any good recommendations for biology textbooks?
For general biology, I used Sadava et al's "Life: The Science of Biology"
objection 1. paralells the diffrence between buddhism and advaita vedanta 2. paralells Nietzsches overturning of the will
It's been a while since you talked about continental philosophy. it's certainly more pleasant (and easier) to listen to than the analytic stuff
this might be your first video on continental philosophy, right?
I did a bunch of videos on Max Stirner; I'm pretty sure he's considered a continental.
@@KaneB
How about a video on Edmund Husserl ?
Maybe I'm wrong but I've seen you're anti"realistic" in some ways (at least in the moral sense), on the basis of analytical philosophical arguments (?). Yet, Husserl isn't either a "realist" in a "naive" sense, but, of course, he's generally ranked among the continental philosophers, altough he's somewhat been rehabilitated by the analytical "school" more recently.
So, maybe, you'll have some thoughts about his ideas ?
This is interesting because with the hindsight of Darwinian natural selection, we can answer the question : why do I will to free myself from unpleasant sensations. It’s simply because after billions of years of evolution, every organism is programmed to maximize its own chance of survival and reproduction. Unpleasant senses are biological mechanisms that enable us to better seek resources we need for survival&reproduction. I can imagine some poorly designed, low fitness organism who acquires pleasure in chopping up its own body parts. Obviously, they wouldn't be preserved by natural selection at all and that is why we don't see them after billions of years.
also his aesthetic theory is quite beautiful. I dont buy into his metaphysics nor his ethics or look at the world but i really liked his aesthetic theory.
shu up and push your rock
@@real_pattern rude.
Kane finally going full continental? Hegel when?
I like what Schopenhauer had to say about Hegel:
"Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation."
no Hegel for the love of all that you think is holy
@@KaneB yeah its a Great quote, their friendships is the stuff of legends. I still would love to see someone like you tackle Hegel, i can only imagine the suffering, and since you did the best stirner videos on youtube, i would assume it would add another leyer of appriciation and understanding of the ego and its own, as a sort of parody/subversion of Hegel
@@KaneB Based
“In every page of David Hume, there is more to be learned than from Hegel’s, Herbart’s and Schleiermacher’s complete philosophical works.”
- Arthur Schopenhauer
found it a sorta odd you only spoke about anti-natalism for 5 seconds here and said "in schopenhauers view, it does nothing" when he has so many quotes and writings explicitly calling against procreation , but maybe im missing something
okay, i correct myself. why is schopenhauer so commonly mistaken to be anti-natalist then? mind boggling!
I just found this writing by him:
" It would be an error wholly analogous to this to suppose that one can reach the same end as is attained by voluntary chastity by frustrating the aims of nature in fecundation, or even by men, in consideration of the inevitable suffering of life, countenancing the death of the new-born child, instead of rather doing everything to ensure life to every being that is pressing into it. For if the will-to-live exists, it cannot, as that which alone is metaphysical or the thing-in-itself, be broken by any force, but that force can destroy only its phenomenon in such a place and at such a time. The will itself cannot be abolished by anything except knowledge. Therefore the only path to salvation is that the will should appear freely and without hindrance, in order that it can recognize or know its own inner nature in this phenomenon. Only in consequence of this knowledge can the will abolish itself, and thus end the suffering that is inseparable from its phenomenon. This, however, is not possible through physical force, such as the destruction of the seed or germ, the killing of the new-born child, or suicide. Nature leads the will to the light, just because only in the light can it find its salvation. Therefore the purposes of nature are to be promoted in every way, as soon as the will-to-live, that is her inner being, has determined itself."
I do not understand Kant or Schopenhauer. If they define a world as it is itself, independent from us (noumena), then it becomes logically impossible to even think-of or refer-to this construct. Because as soon as we‘d think or refer to that so-called noumena we‘d violate its definition (since WE would thinking it, i.e. it would always depend on us), so we‘d end up just thinking of or refering to another version of our representations, never being able to reach the noumena. To mention something like the noumena would be like talking about something we are supposed to not being able to talk about. IMO that alone kills their precious metaphysics once and for all, even more all their conclusions from there.
Or is there something I oversee? I mean they are superstar philosophers while I am just a no name philosopher, so there must be more to it, right?
I mean, that's a criticism that plenty of other philosophers have made, so I don't think you're necessarily overlooking anything. Of course, the phenomena/noumena distinction is developed with much more sophistication than what I presented in this video, but the general problem that you're suggesting tends to haunt all the formulations of it. The SEP page "Kant's Transcendental Idealism" provides a detailed discussion of different ways of interpretation the distinction.
kant talks about this in critque of pure reason, and yes you're right for him. For kant concept of noumena is a purely a boundary concept. Or what he might call a purely Intellectual concept of the understanding
@@mustyHead6 But why didn‘t he see the (logical) impossibility of noumena? It looked so trivial to me when I first encountered it. More trivial was only Descartes cogito ergo sum as an answer to the threat of an deceiving genius malignus (because it is obvious that it only works as long as our logic works properly but why shouldn‘t the genius malignus not have been able to deceive us there too?).
It just looks to me as if those older thinkers never really got conscious about their a priori tools (today: axioms) and its limitations.
For Schopenhauer the noumena is not complete abstraction but will, IE consciousness itself. (at least that’s what I think he means, and others like Kastrup have interpreted him this way)
In what sense independent?
-Ontologically independent, it could exist without us.
-Mereologically independent, it is not a part of us.
-Causally independent, it has no effect on us.
ясно, дём дальше
While I disagree with his conclusions, at least Schopenhauer isn't just dumb nonsense. I particularly like the parts about being the noumena.
No wonder he was pessimistic with a haircut like that.
That hair speaks of untrammelled striving.
@@JosephFlatt That hair indicates a crap barber
I enjoy continental philosophy like this, but I'm almost entirely sure that it's meaningless.
@Boulanger Continental philosophers tend to make sweeping statements about human psychology, culture and the 'fundamental nature of the universe'. As far as I am concerned these are first and foremost empirical matters: stuff for the natural and social sciences to figure out. Whilst I have my issues with analytic philosophers also often overstepping their reach as philosophers, the kind of 'arm chair' speculation that I'm talking about, seems to be far more essential to the continental side of things.
I say that it is meaningless because the terms continental philosopher use are often so vague, imprecise, poorly defined etc. that they seem to just be constructing flowery sentences rather than anything substantive.
I've become more sympathetic to some of it, especially some of the stuff from the 1800s. With Schopenhauer in particular, it helps that he's able to write in a clear and stylish way.
@@onion4062 I think continental philosophers have just as much chance of getting at "the fundamental nature of the universe" as natural and social scientists do...
@@KaneB where are the continental philosophers' microscopes
@@yyzzyysszznn Introspectoscopes and intuitoscopes are just as effective at revealing the fundamental nature of reality.
In Schopenhauer's realm, enigmatic, we
Dance to the Will's enshrouded serenade,
Bound by desire's cryptic tapestry,
In labyrinthine strife, we rise and fade.
As wanderers adrift, obscured by night,
Enticed by cryptic forces toward the deep,
We find our souls entrapped within the fight,
Yet in despair, a veiled oasis keep.
For in the chaos of life's puzzle vast,
A spark ignites, enigma cloaked in art;
In symphony and verse, our hearts unmask,
Liberating cryptograms of the heart.
Embrace the tangled web, and so, we'll see
The key to mystic peace and harmony.
Schopenhauer's pessimissm is so.... Pessimistic.
All hills have a sunny side and a shady side. All desires a pain and a satisfaction. We escape this dilemma by accepting the pain, savoring the joy, and relaxing a bit.
We can learn to spend most of our time in the sun, and to rest in the shade.
Striving is not suffering.
I can’t disagree.
I lean toward the pessimistic side, but I do think that what you described is possible if we can give up our desires, or at least understand them for what they are, in sort of a zen or Buddhist fashion.
🙏
I love Schopenhauer but he really doesn't consider the fact that enjoyment is often derived from working on/towards something over long periods of time (i feel that the process is often more enjoyable than the result) or from being in a continuous, pleasurable state of something (e.g. a flow state). In fact, people can be happy simply because of their state of mind. Schopenhauer only looks at a narrow part of our experience and then acts like it's the only thing there is. Unfortunate cherry picking.
Are you saying that Schopenhauer, who got a PhD at 24 and published his magnum opus at 28, spoke many languages fluently, had a great knowledge of investing/finance, who excelled at music theory and playing the flute, didn't consider "the enjoyment derived from working toward something over long periods of time" ?
I'm with Schopenhauer on this one, actually. My primary long-term project is, of course, philosophy -- but I find working on philosophy to be mostly arduous and frustrating, with a few brief moments of pleasure when I feel like I've achieved something. I don't really know why I'm drawn to philosophy; I just feel a drive to do it, and I feel miserable when I'm unable to spend as much time on it as I want to. The same is true for literally every other long-term project I've engaged in. With that said, I grant that there seem to be plenty of people who are lucky enough to be disposed to enjoy the struggle, and that does undermine Schopenhauer's argument, I think. But I can see where he was coming from.
some people literally get off to lifting heavy weights. the myopic and sweeping self-centeredness of continental philosophers will never cease to amaze me
@@selimgure you'd be surprised how self-centered and/or narrow-minded very smart people can be. But be that as it may I'm not here to speculate on why Schopenhauer cherry picked a particular type of experience when there is plenty of evidence that other, contrary experiences exist. I'm saying that it is a problem for those experiences not to be dealt with anywhere in his work. maybe he does have a way of disproving their force as counter evidence to his sweeping generalization, but to the best of my knowledge he does not.
@@KaneB I find that interesting. I wouldn't say I enjoy struggle, quite the opposite. I enjoy flow states where everything comes easy and I am fully experiencing and enjoying the process of the thought or action I'm engaged in (and I actively seek those processes out). There's actually research to show that I'm not alone in this. Bandura explains it in the context of self-efficacy and Annas in her book Intelligent Virtue also goes into it. I should say though that for me philosophy isn't the thing that makes me the happiest, despite my intellectual enjoyment of it. I find other things more experientially stimulating, like imagination/simulation. Processes without an end-goal attached to them, that I engage in purely because they make me feel good, are the most fulfilling to me.