Schopenhauer has always been my touchstone for understanding reality. His ontology takes into account chaos and seeming contradictions with a unifying simplicity I have only felt from Zen buddhism, Stoicism, and the Vedas. He was one of the first to speak of the significance of eastern thought in western idealism, and understood it intuitively as the Will to Life. Great exposition. Thank you!!!
This is so well said. I didn't know these things. To me, Schopenhauer is a tonic, a purgative Rx for the exhausting drive toward physical positivism of our time. But silence & the vast night sky are even more useful.
It's worth bearing in mind, I think, that this metaphysics is still quite different to, say, Advaita Vedanta, or Mahayana Buddhism (or any of the other historical variants of the philosophia perennis); that Dr Kastrup's position, though it does bear a relationship to these, does not really belong to the same group. Perhaps the most accurate moniker for Kastrup's philosophy is simply "Schopenhauerianism" (or "Schopenhaurian idealism"). A key difference between Schopenahuer and Advaita Vedanta, say, is that for Schopenhauer (and so for Kastrup) the universal or cosmic consciousness, the Self or Atma, is not sat-chit-ananda, Being-Consciousness-Bliss (an infinite plenitude of love, beauty, and joy), but rather a blind, instictual Will, which is at an even lower level of awareness than human egoic consciousness. This is a very big difference indeed! [Edit: That said, I can't stress how utterly delighted I am to have discovered Kastrup's much-needed work, and how awed and impressed - and inspired and grateful. Bravo, Bernardo!]
What Schopenhauer did, was to connect his philosophical thought to the religious views in the east. Of course, I don't think he ever intended to say that his philosophy was literally Hinduism. He also admires christianity for its idea about the ascetic monk, original sin and salvation of sins through grace. That is why I think what you say here is so important, because many think "Schopenhauer is just western buddhism or hinduism", when the truth is, as you. say here, that they are different.
@@EwingAmaterasu very little eastern thought was available to Schopenhauer, who did not know Sanskrit or Pali etc. He relied on translations such as the first translations of texts such as the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita, which were themselves of doubtful quality and in the case of the BG their significance overstated by orientalists in Germany and Britain. What his sources were for Buddhism, I do not know, but imo it does a disservice to Buddhist thought to call Schopenhauer 'western Buddhism' - (or indeed to imagine Buddhism is some kind of 'version of the perennial philosophy'). I've enjoyed reading what I've read of Schopenhauer but if there's much Buddhist thought there it's as if viewed through a very muddy cracked window of a rather cramped and airless cell.
@@angusgus123 I would say they are just different philosophies. Schopenhauer came up with his ideas by following Kant and Plato, and later found that Buddhism had commonalities with him. Personally, I think Schopenhauers philosophy is superior to that of the Buddha.
I don't know if this is the first time I have listened to this fantastic interview or not. I've listened to many Mishlove Kastrup interviews. But this one was so clear, so enlightening, so self-consistent, so revealing of a useful way to view the world. Maybe some how I am a different person listening. I know it's been 3 years, but thanks to both of you for this beautiful conversation.
Ive known about Bernardo Kastrup since 2016 I think, and I have always considered him one of the greatest thinkers of our time, but now that he has taken the work of Schopenhauer, we finally have a philosopher that will continue the great legacy of the German philosopher. Kastrup will go into history as one of the greatest philosophers of the 21sth. century.
I agree, I am not a philosopher (rather an artist) but from my experience and interest in philosophy/religion/spirituality my whole life I would say Bernardo is the most important philosopher of our time, you cannot find ideas deeper than his, and he is not saying anything new by the way, he is just a modern version of Schopenhauer + Jung + Plato.
Loved the interview! Just a quick correction: when Bernardo says Schopenhauer is one of the "monsters" of philosophy he means giant. Monster used as a slang in our native tongue (Brazilian Portuguese) has a very positive connotation, which is not the case in English. We say for instance that someone is a monster in business/philosophy/bodybuilding/meditation, etc. with admiration, meaning someone who distinguishes himself.
His short book requires multiple readings. I had to read it with a pencil in hand each time to discover the meanings of meta consciousness, self reflection snd conscious meta cognition, but worth it. His Primative is Universal Consciousness and built from there. Good Book.
In the introduction to The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer prescribes three pre-requisites to comprehensive understanding of his philosophy: Plato, Kant and the Upanishads. So, I am puzzled by Bernardo's repeated assertion that Schopenhauer independently arrived at the same conclusions as the Advaita Vedanta of some 2000 years before with a purely Western Ethos. I have a huge amount of respect for Bernardo and I am trying to figure out where I am wrong. Would welcome someone showing me my error.
Bernardo Kastrup, you are a master at your philosophy and the one connected perceptual perspective. I understand your desire to favor the one point, the view beyond metacognition which continues to define definition and separates by particular constructs. The idea that one whole connects and sees all is enticing and I'm looking forward to learning more :)
What wasn't mentioned in this interview was that through his metaphysical idealism of nature, he was interpreted as a determinist because he said that thought or action was not a choice of the individual but an instinctual action of a larger predetermined whole. And to think our thoughts were ours was the illusion of the one universal eye, which in Buddhism is the awakening to the determinism of all of nature through Karma of desire of matter or Mara as it was called in Pali. and to the Buddha to realize this as being all phenomena,'s nature was to free us of the suffering of individualism. All appearances of sensations and form as being one flowing blissful existence of emptiness and void singularly giving all existence its being as samsara or constant change to the true ultimate reality as non time or space with no desire or will as Nirvana only. The infinite void of being and non being.
You cant think your way into good living but you can live your way into good thinking. I learned that 26yrs ago when I started my journey of recovery from drugs and booze. My will was no will at all instead it was willfulness and defiance. Recovering one's will starts out with making new habits to replace bad ones such as working the 12steps and going to AA meetings every day if possible, then you share your experience strength and hope with another suffering person so that they become inspired to use their will for the very first time just like you did. Will and Spirit is Life which is metaphysical consubstantiation.
There are certainly mind traps as well. I have found that if I start thinking along certain lines, I can stop those lines of thought and try and avoid going down them or stop them. Meditation is good training for this.
Jung, in a way, was hugely about integrating the abstract. He understood that the negative aspects of the self (anima/animus, shadow self) required understanding correctly. As well this was the key to the unconscious and thus the key to positive thought and command over will and perception.
I had very similar feeling by studying Schopenhauer. in early 90. It shocked me and all I found in university and book was an incredible amount of preconceptions and deliberate misconsideration of his genius. Terrible true. Thx Bernardo for this work.
Great guest. Bernardo Kastrup is a very thoughtful person. I would add that we have indeed had many people in the West (though perhaps a bit later than Schopenhauer) who have extolled or embodied the so-called nondual, Vedantic philosophy, even though they didn't relate it to Vedanta. Examples are Joseph Campbell, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Joseph Goldstein, Maurice Frydman, Douglas Harding, and others. And there have always been people, though perhaps not of notoriety. I am not including more recent figures, some of whom seem to just be parroting what they have read. Still, there is a big difference between intellectually understanding the totality of consciousness versus having a realization of it. Kastrup speaks of the problem of, if we are one singular consciousness, why don't we see what someone else is seeing or why don't we know what they are thinking. However, if you realize what is going on, this is rather simple to answer. We DO know what everyone is thinking and what they are experiencing, seeing, feeling, and so on. We do as consciousness. But to ask this question is to ask a question from the point of view of the individualistic self, which is self-limiting. Consciousness knows itself through the body, but the paradox is that if it perceives the body to be its essence then it fails to know itself as the wholeness.
Wonderful interview and insights that really helps me stay grounded, thank you Jeffrey. It sort of harks back to you interview with U.G. Krishnamurti more than 35 years back! UG seemed to echo much of what Schopenhauer talked and wrote about, and was also seen as pessimistic or nihilistic. Jeffrey, could you share what you felt about the UG interview? What thoughts or feelings were you left with after speaking to him? Would love to hear your recollection of that interview, since UG was a figure I look up to. Thank you for all the work you do!
Except there is a big difference. UG actually had a realization of the totality of consciousness, wherein Kastrup's is intellectual. The difference has to do with the dissolution of the sense of "I," or the egoic self, as the center from which all is experienced.
I discovered Schopenhauer yesterday and many of his realizations resonate a lot with the realizations I had in a period of my life where I had countless experiences with several different psychedelics. In one of them with I had a complete dissolution of my ego and became infinite both in all spacial dimensions but also in the temporal directions: past, present and future. I felt with Schopenhauer means by the "will" that permeates everything and I remember trying to explain to people how I thought that rocks had consciousness (but not thinking) only to have them think I was crazy or stupid, so I shut up. I've been watching some videos about him and he's described as a pessimist but his philosophy doesn't strike me as such, I think I know exactly what he's talking about and it doesn't seem a negative at all, it looks like he's someone who's misunderstood because what he's trying to explain is complicated, and hence the repetition. This video just confirmed that and I'm eager to read his work.
Brilliant. Thanks for bringing up to date Schopenhauer's ideas! The part about mineral-plant-animal-human resonates perfectly with Arthur M. Young's work (reaching back to Leibniz, Bruno Plotinus etc) only that for Arthur Young's grand system Light plays a key and fundamental role. What is the role of Light for Schopenhauer? I would be even more grateful if you could share some information on this issue too...
Dukkha is the Pali word that gets loosely translated as suffering is perhaps more literally described as a wagon wheel that doesn't fit well on the hub; it functions but it's not quite right. As such scholars prefer something like unsatisfactory. The reason we suffer is because we cling to impermanent experience from the perspective of a permanent self-existent entity.
I feel like a big problem with old thinkers about the subject of reason is that they had blind spots when it came to recognizing post hoc rationalization and other issues. Perhaps even someone like Schopenhauer is not pessimistic enough about how hard it is to be rational in thinking.
your guests are so committed to the search for truth and to openmindedness.. And coming at truth from each of the 360 degrees, in your programs..But sometime you should discuss how much of such intellectual fervour is still being fostered in the present times, ..considering that most of your guests are quite mature in age...
@@SC-tl3px yes. i noticed. But most of his other guests seem to have started their enquiries into truth in the 60s and 70s...hence the question. so much has changed between then and now. ...not that I believe it is no longer happenin but still the question matters...
I believe if we all had An all seeing eye , We could visually fill in the gaps between cause and effect; Then the illusion or misinterpretation of time would end
“Alles ist nur in der Erscheinung verschieden - dem Wesen nach ist alles eins. “ (Everything is only different in appearance - in essence, everything is one. )
Schopenhauer is one of those philosopphers who is most misunderstood or to say it more correctly is understood not thoroughly. He is known as the pessimist one but in reality his metaphysical system is very coherent to explain the nature of things. Also his idealist aesthetic is a very influential one too.
As I see it Plato, Shankara and Schopenhauer all share a similar realization though differently expressed due to different cultures and the different times.
Dennett's first point would be that he isn't conscious in any meaningful sense. The debate would then be between one conscious and one unconscious philosopher. Which is about as meta as intellectual discourse can get.
My experience and understanding of separation is that when perception is contracted or focussed to a point, we and all objects are sensed as isolated entities. When perception "lets go" separation drops, there is only one, " everything is me". We don't experience this because force of habit, conditioning, locks us into contracted perception - our world, our science, our rationality. We have to retrain to let go.
Great talk thank you so much Bonardo please do an audible read of your book...🦋🕊 Thank you Jeffree looking forward to the next talk hope to see you in Albuquerque soon
I'm german, and i can confirm: "Bewusstsein" means raw consciousness and meta-concious. It depends on what you lay the emphasis on. Sometimes refering to raw awakeness, sometimes to describe meta-cognition."Bewusstsein" more or less means raw consciousness and "BEWUSSTsein" more or less means meta-concious. Self-awareness is "Selbstbewusstsein" - self=selbst. "sein" means "beeing" or "to be". If you are doing something on autopilot, you are "Unbewusst". "Un" is the negation. If you are unconscious you are "Bewusstlos". "los" meaning "without". You can see how "bewusst" means one thing one time, and another thing the other time in that example. So you can see, how we use the word with different meaning. If you are "bewusst" of something it means you know about it. "Sich seiner selbst bewusst sein" means "to be aware of oneself" meaning you know how you are seen from others and you know what you want to have or do. If you are very "Selbstbewusst" then it often means you know what you want and you don't fear the opinions of others"
yeeees he is back! i was beginning to wonder! i love the bernardo! i am currently reading his book "why materialism is baloney" and i thought about him the other day when i watched elon musk on joe rogan because elon was talking materialist view on consciousness and i thought to myself "elon needs to read kastrup!" i might actually head on over there right now and put it in the comment section.
Flow is your birthright Will pays the toll Drink deeply of insights From the well of your soul And remember- In the Now, all is well; All you thirst for is “known” Redemption awaits you wherever Flow roams For no route’s absolute; no path fixed in stone From “Flow’s Manifesto”
My favorite philosopher. As for his behavior I remember him distinguishing between that and theory; he invited soldiers to shoot people from his balcony too. For me, the supreme importance of Schopenhauer is that he correctly identified the transcendental goal of the major religions as a pessimistic, static, negative nothingness; whereas, the major religions often disguise that fact semantically, poetically and the western new age movement even turns eastern religions into optimistic nonsense. Religion is nihilism plain and simple, Nietzsche understood this too after reading Schopenhauer.
Jeffrey, do you have a view on Bernardo's sympathy and affinity (or the disagreements and rejection) for the work of Tom Campbells' work on the nature of consciousness? He does seem to subscribe to the work of Don Hoffman, whom he mentions in his discussions, but I never heard him referring to Tom's work.
Sanatanisam is coming into existence . "From every sentence deep original and sublime thoughts arise, and a high and holy and earnest spirit pervades the whole. In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads... They are destined sooner or later to become the faith w the people". Schopenhauer found the Upanishads compelling because of their intellectual contribution in distinguishing appearance from the absolute reality and in distinguishing the higher knowledge that reveals the absolute truth from the lower knowledge that seems to be revealing truth about the material world.
Are there other adjectives other than “Will” to describe the phenomenon? I can’t get a feel for the word “will”. Could it be substituted for say, Consiousness, The Ground of Being, The Tao? Are these terms analogous to “The Will”?
It's a noun, not an adjective. The adjectival forms would be wilful, willing, willed etc. It is a translation of "Wille" in German which means much the same as "will" in English.
Beautiful Interview! Schopenhauer has influenced Carl Jung. The archetype is an image of instinct and there are as many archetypes as the stars in the night sky, Jung said.
Bernardo, if the will (which is consciousness) is primitive how did it come up with all the necessary cosmological constants????? BTW. JUST DARN GOOD INTERVIEW.... Danke
I believe Kastrup is a scientific anti-realist, so "cosmological constants" are purely descriptive. The universe "behaves as if" but they are not written like a computer program.
I think that incorporating the work on semiotics as put forward by Charles Sanders Peirce could be instructive in laying out the field of representation Icon, Index and Symbol as examples.
"Newspapers are the second hand of history. This hand, however, is usually not only of inferior metal to the other hands, it also seldom works properly." - Arthur Schopenhauer Arthur Schopenhauer would be protesting the lockdowns were he alive today. He thought the news media was a joke. He also thought that people lacked critical thinking skills, so they rarely understand what they read. The news media today wants us to think that questioning their narrative is a partisan issue when it's not. Full quote: “Newspapers are the second hand [of the clock] of history. This hand, however, is usually not only of inferior metal to the other two hands, it also seldom works properly. The so-called “leading articles" in them are the chorus to the drama of current events. Exaggeration in every sense Is as essential to newspaper writing as it is to the writing of plays; for the point is to make as much as possible of every occurrence. So that all newspaper writers are, for the sake of their trade, alarmists: this is their way of making themselves interesting. What they really do, however, is resemble little dogs who, as soon as anything whatever moves, start up a loud barking. It is necessary, therefore, not to pay too much attention to their alarms, and to realize in general that the newspaper is a magnifying glass, and this only at best: for very often it is no more than a shadow-play on a wall.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
In the Notes section of the book, Bernardo clearly shows that Sc's Will is the same as "Consciousness"; but then Sc. should not have used the word Will. Somebody might mistake that as implying some type of Personal Creator behind the Will. Sc. could have benefited from having a knowledge of Buddhism and the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara. The Upanishads became more widely known in Europe in the late 19-th century.
Ken Wilber's Integral work first opened me up to look into the German idealists. Wilber chose Schelling as representative of being the closest to his own ideas, but to me the differences between them aren't as important as the similarities, and they all seem to be grasping at a more complete understanding of a larger purposeful universe compared with that provided by reductionist materialism.
the giant as emotion and the tiny lighthouse on top as the intellect is like the Vedantic analogy of the elephant and the mahoot. The mahoot can only control the elephant by using habit and training. Otherwise, it runs amok and the mahoot can't stop it.
IMO the telos of Nature at its core is anything that increases order. It's the antithesis of entropy and provides the necessary balance to entropy. Order emerges out of disorder by chance but once sufficient order is created it develops its own momentum perhaps even a kind of Will.
@19:18... Jeff... you say the intellect can not pull us out of depression... my positive thinking has not allowed me to know what depression is... my older sister said to me, when visiting with our mum, few years back, don't you ever get depressed... I remember my reply was I don't know what it is to be depressed... can you tell me what it is... mum steps into the conversation and says... you don't want to know... lol when as a team we are stuck half way up that mountain, fighting for that next step, when we are so so cold, so ready to give in, it is at this point, one steps forward with a positive attitude, this gives those who have given in, given into the mite of the beast, new "energy" immediately, sorrow becomes joy and from this joy comes true "passion". Thx... great chat... he says... depression, envy, existential despair... can not be cured by positive thinking or we would not have the epidemic... he needs to look a little deeper... because... "depression, envy, existential despair..." is taught to all children in the form of exams... from the age of 5... it is put onto people long before they become adults.
ja you could but consider time is an illusion ( the biggest of all: no one can escape and if i remember correctly he did say that in some form somewhere...
I wonder at what point Schopenhauer came across Vedanta ??? Having been exposed to eastern philosophy - particularly Advaita Vedanta - I only understand Schopenhauer by substituting the word Will for Self ( apologies to our English writer Will Self ). What does Schopenhauer mean by the word Will ? Is there some nuance in the German language . For me Will =Self .
@17:43... one of the noble truths is that life "is" suffering... let me look at those truths... what do I see... 1.life "has" inevitable suffering............................................(but not the wise) 2.there is a cause to our suffering.......................................(ignorance) 3.there is an end to suffering...............................................(become aware) 4.the end to suffering is contained in the eight fold path...(life) 1.here it says "has" not "is"..... sometimes some get hurt 2.its caused............................. schooling, exams 3.we can end suffering........... learning the lessons of life 4.the end of suffering is..........life
Cognitive overlay (meta ignition?) of states of depression and anxiety translate as becoming depressed about being depressed or anxious about being anxious. That’s not cognitive science addresses (it should but it doesn’t go near that rabbit hole unfortunately) Instead it tells people to change the way they think in terms of correcting so-called cognitive distortions which if one looks closely at them are a rich source of access to creative responses to suffering and not distortions. Suffering compels one to look for the jewel in the shit (this is not positivism) so one can work it creatively. Jung said depression compels inward looking.
I always loved Schopenhauer, but lately I can't take his 'pessimism' seriously. Its good to be reminded how much he said that was influential; on Freud's concept of the unconscious, for example.
But surely Schopenhauer causes unnecessary confusion by using the term 'Wille', when the 'blind, unconscious energetic striving' is not our individual, decisive, volition, aka 'will-power', but a sub-strata of the world that, like the rest of Nature, is directed to survival and reproduction above all, an A-moral force that, as Dylan Thomas put it, "that through the green fuse drives the flower... that drives the water through the rocks, drives my red blood" .
Can any one find this quote, “The Universe is a dream dreamed by a single dreamer where all the dream characters dream too." Joseph Campbell says it Schopenhauer's. I can't find it anywhere, Just read Transcenent Speculations on the Fate of the Individual. Translated by David Irvine 1913. I was told I'd find it there, it's not.
Schopenhauer has always been my touchstone for understanding reality. His ontology takes into account chaos and seeming contradictions with a unifying simplicity I have only felt from Zen buddhism, Stoicism, and the Vedas. He was one of the first to speak of the significance of eastern thought in western idealism, and understood it intuitively as the Will to Life. Great exposition. Thank you!!!
This is so well said. I didn't know these things. To me, Schopenhauer is a tonic, a purgative Rx for the exhausting drive toward physical positivism of our time. But silence & the vast night sky are even more useful.
Yes!!! Me too. The only book I did not read is his dissertation (on the fourfould roots of causation or something like that).
Love to you
It's worth bearing in mind, I think, that this metaphysics is still quite different to, say, Advaita Vedanta, or Mahayana Buddhism (or any of the other historical variants of the philosophia perennis); that Dr Kastrup's position, though it does bear a relationship to these, does not really belong to the same group. Perhaps the most accurate moniker for Kastrup's philosophy is simply "Schopenhauerianism" (or "Schopenhaurian idealism"). A key difference between Schopenahuer and Advaita Vedanta, say, is that for Schopenhauer (and so for Kastrup) the universal or cosmic consciousness, the Self or Atma, is not sat-chit-ananda, Being-Consciousness-Bliss (an infinite plenitude of love, beauty, and joy), but rather a blind, instictual Will, which is at an even lower level of awareness than human egoic consciousness. This is a very big difference indeed! [Edit: That said, I can't stress how utterly delighted I am to have discovered Kastrup's much-needed work, and how awed and impressed - and inspired and grateful. Bravo, Bernardo!]
What Schopenhauer did, was to connect his philosophical thought to the religious views in the east. Of course, I don't think he ever intended to say that his philosophy was literally Hinduism. He also admires christianity for its idea about the ascetic monk, original sin and salvation of sins through grace. That is why I think what you say here is so important, because many think "Schopenhauer is just western buddhism or hinduism", when the truth is, as you. say here, that they are different.
@@EwingAmaterasu very little eastern thought was available to Schopenhauer, who did not know Sanskrit or Pali etc. He relied on translations such as the first translations of texts such as the Upanishads and Bhagavadgita, which were themselves of doubtful quality and in the case of the BG their significance overstated by orientalists in Germany and Britain. What his sources were for Buddhism, I do not know, but imo it does a disservice to Buddhist thought to call Schopenhauer 'western Buddhism' - (or indeed to imagine Buddhism is some kind of 'version of the perennial philosophy'). I've enjoyed reading what I've read of Schopenhauer but if there's much Buddhist thought there it's as if viewed through a very muddy cracked window of a rather cramped and airless cell.
@@angusgus123 I would say they are just different philosophies. Schopenhauer came up with his ideas by following Kant and Plato, and later found that Buddhism had commonalities with him. Personally, I think Schopenhauers philosophy is superior to that of the Buddha.
@@angusgus123the research of Dr Urs App in this area is irreplaceable.
Mishlove is one of the best interviewers I've seen in a long time.
Succinct, upbeat, and knowledgeable. You're the man
I don't know if this is the first time I have listened to this fantastic interview or not. I've listened to many Mishlove Kastrup interviews. But this one was so clear, so enlightening, so self-consistent, so revealing of a useful way to view the world.
Maybe some how I am a different person listening.
I know it's been 3 years, but thanks to both of you for this beautiful conversation.
Ive known about Bernardo Kastrup since 2016 I think, and I have always considered him one of the greatest thinkers of our time, but now that he has taken the work of Schopenhauer, we finally have a philosopher that will continue the great legacy of the German philosopher. Kastrup will go into history as one of the greatest philosophers of the 21sth. century.
I agree, I am not a philosopher (rather an artist) but from my experience and interest in philosophy/religion/spirituality my whole life I would say Bernardo is the most important philosopher of our time, you cannot find ideas deeper than his, and he is not saying anything new by the way, he is just a modern version of Schopenhauer + Jung + Plato.
Wow. Here I am with a bachelor’s in philosophy and I never knew shat Schopenhauer was talking about. Love this.
Loved the interview! Just a quick correction: when Bernardo says Schopenhauer is one of the "monsters" of philosophy he means giant. Monster used as a slang in our native tongue (Brazilian Portuguese) has a very positive connotation, which is not the case in English. We say for instance that someone is a monster in business/philosophy/bodybuilding/meditation, etc. with admiration, meaning someone who distinguishes himself.
Nicely agree. Bernardo has the loveliest accent. It’s so clear to understand for me as a non English speaker. I could listen hours to him.
@@SchibbiSchibbi
Bernardo’s voice and “accent” is indistinguishable from my Colombian friend.
He does not sound Brazilian.
@@herrweiss2580no claim about a Brazilian accent was made.
@@sciagurrato1831
You are right!
Not by me or SchibbiSchibbi.
What a wonderful, wonderful interview. Thank you so much for all of your work and, especially, for having Dr. Kastrup on your show.
What a combo! Bernardo, Jeffrey & Shopenhauer!
Thank you very much for this wonderful interview. Excellent interviewer, brilliant interviewee
Fabulous conversation, Kastrup really makes Schopenhauer's metaphysics a lot easier to understand, and prompts rereading.
'Why Materialism is Baloney' is the best book ever.
I really enjoyed the world as will and respresentation even more. 😅
Superb interview....crisp and illuminating
wow, this was one of the best interviews on this channel
I spotted Philip K. Dicks Exegesis on the book shelf. A very unique work.
What more do i need to know about him??
You have good eyes.
Always love this guys as a guest
His short book requires multiple readings. I had to read it with a pencil in hand each time to discover the meanings of meta consciousness, self reflection snd conscious meta cognition, but worth it. His Primative is Universal Consciousness and built from there. Good Book.
Thank you Jeff and Bernardo for this enlightening dialogue for bringing our ancestry to light. Namaste
Jeffrey Mishlove the man with the smiling eyes. I bet even when he’s angry (if it ever happens) his eyes are still smiling.
That botox right there.
🙂 eyes.
Wah wah and kant and hegel, his name and the will to represent them, that's old
‘The brain is the image of a thought.’ is an opaque, indecipherable sentence for me.
little late, i think he means as in lighting is the image of electricity
@@Jeff05Hardy Well said. And tears are the image of sadness.
@@AStoicMaster i like yours better
Flame is the image of combustion
In the introduction to The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer prescribes three pre-requisites to comprehensive understanding of his philosophy: Plato, Kant and the Upanishads. So, I am puzzled by Bernardo's repeated assertion that Schopenhauer independently arrived at the same conclusions as the Advaita Vedanta of some 2000 years before with a purely Western Ethos. I have a huge amount of respect for Bernardo and I am trying to figure out where I am wrong. Would welcome someone showing me my error.
Bernardo is the most important philosopher of our time.
Bernardo Kastrup, you are a master at your philosophy and the one connected perceptual perspective. I understand your desire to favor the one point, the view beyond metacognition which continues to define definition and separates by particular constructs. The idea that one whole connects and sees all is enticing and I'm looking forward to learning more :)
Life long Schopenhauer reader I love it! Thank you so much.
What wasn't mentioned in this interview was that through his metaphysical idealism of nature, he was interpreted as a determinist because he said that thought or action was not a choice of the individual but an instinctual action of a larger predetermined whole. And to think our thoughts were ours was the illusion of the one universal eye, which in Buddhism is the awakening to the determinism of all of nature through Karma of desire of matter or Mara as it was called in Pali. and to the Buddha to realize this as being all phenomena,'s nature was to free us of the suffering of individualism. All appearances of sensations and form as being one flowing blissful existence of emptiness and void singularly giving all existence its being as samsara or constant change to the true ultimate reality as non time or space with no desire or will as Nirvana only. The infinite void of being and non being.
You cant think your way into good living but you can live your way into good thinking. I learned that 26yrs ago when I started my journey of recovery from drugs and booze. My will was no will at all instead it was willfulness and defiance. Recovering one's will starts out with making new habits to replace bad ones such as working the 12steps and going to AA meetings every day if possible, then you share your experience strength and hope with another suffering person so that they become inspired to use their will for the very first time just like you did. Will and Spirit is Life which is metaphysical consubstantiation.
You have walked the path, my friend. Cherish the pain that awakened you... We all have to go through pain to truly understand, sadly.
There are certainly mind traps as well. I have found that if I start thinking along certain lines, I can stop those lines of thought and try and avoid going down them or stop them. Meditation is good training for this.
Jung, in a way, was hugely about integrating the abstract. He understood that the negative aspects of the self (anima/animus, shadow self) required understanding correctly. As well this was the key to the unconscious and thus the key to positive thought and command over will and perception.
I had very similar feeling by studying Schopenhauer. in early 90. It shocked me and all I found in university and book was an incredible amount of preconceptions and deliberate misconsideration of his genius. Terrible true. Thx Bernardo for this work.
Most people encounter philosophers via popular books, because philosophers tend to be hard to read.
Great conversation, thanks Jeff for all your good work.
Great guest. Bernardo Kastrup is a very thoughtful person. I would add that we have indeed had many people in the West (though perhaps a bit later than Schopenhauer) who have extolled or embodied the so-called nondual, Vedantic philosophy, even though they didn't relate it to Vedanta. Examples are Joseph Campbell, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Joseph Goldstein, Maurice Frydman, Douglas Harding, and others. And there have always been people, though perhaps not of notoriety. I am not including more recent figures, some of whom seem to just be parroting what they have read. Still, there is a big difference between intellectually understanding the totality of consciousness versus having a realization of it.
Kastrup speaks of the problem of, if we are one singular consciousness, why don't we see what someone else is seeing or why don't we know what they are thinking. However, if you realize what is going on, this is rather simple to answer. We DO know what everyone is thinking and what they are experiencing, seeing, feeling, and so on. We do as consciousness. But to ask this question is to ask a question from the point of view of the individualistic self, which is self-limiting. Consciousness knows itself through the body, but the paradox is that if it perceives the body to be its essence then it fails to know itself as the wholeness.
Wonderful interview and insights that really helps me stay grounded, thank you Jeffrey. It sort of harks back to you interview with U.G. Krishnamurti more than 35 years back! UG seemed to echo much of what Schopenhauer talked and wrote about, and was also seen as pessimistic or nihilistic.
Jeffrey, could you share what you felt about the UG interview? What thoughts or feelings were you left with after speaking to him? Would love to hear your recollection of that interview, since UG was a figure I look up to. Thank you for all the work you do!
Except there is a big difference. UG actually had a realization of the totality of consciousness, wherein Kastrup's is intellectual. The difference has to do with the dissolution of the sense of "I," or the egoic self, as the center from which all is experienced.
I was thinking this exact question...
@@skyerscape8454 haha cool!
In Vedantin terms, Bernardo would be an acharia, writing commentary to elucidate the philosophy - like Shankaracharia did for the Upanishads.
Schopenhauer's philosophy is so much close to Advaita Vedanta! Very interesting conversation! Thanks!ॐ ॐ ❤
Thanks for the excellent interview
This by far! in my opinion,out of the hundreds of videos here...is the clearest and Best !
Superb interview!
Great interview!
Stayed up late to watch this one. Well worth it.
I discovered Schopenhauer yesterday and many of his realizations resonate a lot with the realizations I had in a period of my life where I had countless experiences with several different psychedelics. In one of them with I had a complete dissolution of my ego and became infinite both in all spacial dimensions but also in the temporal directions: past, present and future. I felt with Schopenhauer means by the "will" that permeates everything and I remember trying to explain to people how I thought that rocks had consciousness (but not thinking) only to have them think I was crazy or stupid, so I shut up.
I've been watching some videos about him and he's described as a pessimist but his philosophy doesn't strike me as such, I think I know exactly what he's talking about and it doesn't seem a negative at all, it looks like he's someone who's misunderstood because what he's trying to explain is complicated, and hence the repetition. This video just confirmed that and I'm eager to read his work.
Wow that was great! Love his personality and a very intelligent person. Thank you Jeffrey.
A part two to this would be great, please make it happen Jeff.
Edit : Typed too soon :)
Brilliant. Thanks for bringing up to date Schopenhauer's ideas! The part about mineral-plant-animal-human resonates perfectly with Arthur M. Young's work (reaching back to Leibniz, Bruno Plotinus etc) only that for Arthur Young's grand system Light plays a key and fundamental role. What is the role of Light for Schopenhauer? I would be even more grateful if you could share some information on this issue too...
I love when Jeffrey and Bernardo chat!
Excellent! At least someone who knows well the depth of the man himself.Thanks very much.
Dukkha is the Pali word that gets loosely translated as suffering is perhaps more literally described as a wagon wheel that doesn't fit well on the hub; it functions but it's not quite right. As such scholars prefer something like unsatisfactory. The reason we suffer is because we cling to impermanent experience from the perspective of a permanent self-existent entity.
Excellent, Thank you for all your interviews
I feel like a big problem with old thinkers about the subject of reason is that they had blind spots when it came to recognizing post hoc rationalization and other issues. Perhaps even someone like Schopenhauer is not pessimistic enough about how hard it is to be rational in thinking.
your guests are so committed to the search for truth and to openmindedness.. And coming at truth from each of the 360 degrees, in your programs..But sometime you should discuss how much of such intellectual fervour is still being fostered in the present times, ..considering that most of your guests are quite mature in age...
Bernado Kastrup is quite young.
@@SC-tl3px yes. i noticed. But most of his other guests seem to have started their enquiries into truth in the 60s and 70s...hence the question. so much has changed between then and now. ...not that I believe it is no longer happenin but still the question matters...
I very much enjoyed this. Please do more videos on more philosophers!
What a rich conversation ❤
I believe if we all had An all seeing eye , We could visually fill in the gaps between cause and effect; Then the illusion or misinterpretation of time would end
Interesting thought.
Very good interview. Thank you.
“Alles ist nur in der Erscheinung verschieden - dem Wesen nach ist alles eins. “ (Everything is only different in appearance - in essence, everything is one. )
Schopenhauer is one of those philosopphers who is most misunderstood or to say it more correctly is understood not thoroughly. He is known as the pessimist one but in reality his metaphysical system is very coherent to explain the nature of things. Also his idealist aesthetic is a very influential one too.
As I see it Plato, Shankara and Schopenhauer all share a similar realization though differently expressed due to different cultures and the different times.
LOL, I read that as 'Plato, Shakira and Schopenhauer' first time through.
You are correct
Great talk, looking forward to the quantum physics one
I would like to see a debate between B. Kastrup and D. Dennett :)
Dennett's first point would be that he isn't conscious in any meaningful sense. The debate would then be between one conscious and one unconscious philosopher. Which is about as meta as intellectual discourse can get.
My experience and understanding of separation is that when perception is contracted or focussed to a point, we and all objects are sensed as isolated entities. When perception "lets go" separation drops, there is only one, " everything is me".
We don't experience this because force of habit, conditioning, locks us into contracted perception - our world, our science, our rationality. We have to retrain to let go.
Great talk thank you so much Bonardo please do an audible read of your book...🦋🕊
Thank you Jeffree looking forward to the next talk hope to see you in Albuquerque soon
I'm german, and i can confirm: "Bewusstsein" means raw consciousness and meta-concious. It depends on what you lay the emphasis on. Sometimes refering to raw awakeness, sometimes to describe meta-cognition."Bewusstsein" more or less means raw consciousness and "BEWUSSTsein" more or less means meta-concious. Self-awareness is "Selbstbewusstsein" - self=selbst. "sein" means "beeing" or "to be". If you are doing something on autopilot, you are "Unbewusst". "Un" is the negation. If you are unconscious you are "Bewusstlos". "los" meaning "without". You can see how "bewusst" means one thing one time, and another thing the other time in that example. So you can see, how we use the word with different meaning. If you are "bewusst" of something it means you know about it. "Sich seiner selbst bewusst sein" means "to be aware of oneself" meaning you know how you are seen from others and you know what you want to have or do. If you are very "Selbstbewusst" then it often means you know what you want and you don't fear the opinions of others"
Desire(Greed) and Fear are the spawns of all emotions. Choose any emotion and it's derived from the either Fear or Greed(Desire).
Schopenhauer, Krishamruti and now Bernardo Kastrup. There is hope for us yet.
Superb content, BK is awesome.
yeeees he is back! i was beginning to wonder! i love the bernardo! i am currently reading his book "why materialism is baloney" and i thought about him the other day when i watched elon musk on joe rogan because elon was talking materialist view on consciousness and i thought to myself "elon needs to read kastrup!" i might actually head on over there right now and put it in the comment section.
Flow is your birthright
Will pays the toll
Drink deeply of insights
From the well of your soul
And remember-
In the Now, all is well; All you thirst for is “known”
Redemption awaits you wherever Flow roams
For no route’s absolute; no path fixed in stone
From “Flow’s Manifesto”
My favorite philosopher. As for his behavior I remember him distinguishing between that and theory; he invited soldiers to shoot people from his balcony too. For me, the supreme importance of Schopenhauer is that he correctly identified the transcendental goal of the major religions as a pessimistic, static, negative nothingness; whereas, the major religions often disguise that fact semantically, poetically and the western new age movement even turns eastern religions into optimistic nonsense. Religion is nihilism plain and simple, Nietzsche understood this too after reading Schopenhauer.
20:00 🎯 intellect/instinct/depression
Jeffrey, do you have a view on Bernardo's sympathy and affinity (or the disagreements and rejection) for the work of Tom Campbells' work on the nature of consciousness? He does seem to subscribe to the work of Don Hoffman, whom he mentions in his discussions, but I never heard him referring to Tom's work.
Bravo!!! To all 3 of you
Sanatanisam is coming into existence .
"From every sentence
deep original and
sublime thoughts arise,
and a high and holy and
earnest spirit pervades
the whole. In the whole
world there is no study
so beneficial and so
elevating as that of the
Upanishads... They are
destined sooner or later
to become the faith w
the people".
Schopenhauer found the Upanishads
compelling because of their
intellectual contribution in
distinguishing appearance from the
absolute reality and in distinguishing
the higher knowledge that reveals the
absolute truth from the lower
knowledge that seems to be revealing
truth about the material world.
Great! I can resonate with this!
Are there other adjectives other than “Will” to describe the phenomenon? I can’t get a feel for the word “will”. Could it be substituted for say, Consiousness, The Ground of Being, The Tao? Are these terms analogous to “The Will”?
Hmmm. It seems to me that will implies purpose, which is a concept formed by the egoic sense of self. I agree that consciousness is a better word.
It's a noun, not an adjective. The adjectival forms would be wilful, willing, willed etc. It is a translation of "Wille" in German which means much the same as "will" in English.
partaking in the same will....this convergence is brilliant
Beautiful Interview! Schopenhauer has influenced Carl Jung. The archetype is an image of instinct and there are as many archetypes as the stars in the night sky, Jung said.
thanks alot, sure appreciate this!
29:05 stones have passions...well does he really said that? Where exactly doc?
Thank you.
Bernardo, if the will (which is consciousness) is primitive how did it come up with all the necessary cosmological constants????? BTW. JUST DARN GOOD INTERVIEW.... Danke
I believe Kastrup is a scientific anti-realist, so "cosmological constants" are purely descriptive. The universe "behaves as if" but they are not written like a computer program.
I think that incorporating the work on semiotics as put forward by Charles Sanders Peirce could be instructive in laying out the field of representation Icon, Index and Symbol as examples.
Dr. DONALD HOFFMAN, Dr Rupert Sheldrake and Dr. Bernardo Kastrup have incredible insight, just genius.
Definitely my favorite western philosopher.
Schopenhauer is one of the great philosophers of _any_ century-not merely the 19th.
"Newspapers are the second hand of history. This hand, however, is usually not only of inferior metal to the other hands, it also seldom works properly." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Arthur Schopenhauer would be protesting the lockdowns were he alive today. He thought the news media was a joke. He also thought that people lacked critical thinking skills, so they rarely understand what they read. The news media today wants us to think that questioning their narrative is a partisan issue when it's not.
Full quote:
“Newspapers are the second hand [of the clock] of history. This hand, however, is usually not only of inferior metal to the other two hands, it also seldom works properly. The so-called “leading articles" in them are the chorus to the drama of current events. Exaggeration in every sense Is as essential to newspaper writing as it is to the writing of plays; for the point is to make as much as possible of every occurrence. So that all newspaper writers are, for the sake of their trade, alarmists: this is their way of making themselves interesting. What they really do, however, is resemble little dogs who, as soon as anything whatever moves, start up a loud barking. It is necessary, therefore, not to pay too much attention to their alarms, and to realize in general that the newspaper is a magnifying glass, and this only at best: for very often it is no more than a shadow-play on a wall.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
the one eye of the world that looks out of every living creature...
DMT WILL CONFIRM THAT. The one consciousness expressing itself in the many.
Absolutely great! I see that Schopenhauer's philosophy is very similar to J Krishnamurti's.
In the Notes section of the book, Bernardo clearly shows that Sc's Will is the same as "Consciousness"; but then Sc. should not have used the word Will. Somebody might mistake that as implying some type of Personal Creator behind the Will. Sc. could have benefited from having a knowledge of Buddhism and the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara. The Upanishads became more widely known in Europe in the late 19-th century.
Ken Wilber's Integral work first opened me up to look into the German idealists. Wilber chose Schelling as representative of being the closest to his own ideas, but to me the differences between them aren't as important as the similarities, and they all seem to be grasping at a more complete understanding of a larger purposeful universe compared with that provided by reductionist materialism.
the giant as emotion and the tiny lighthouse on top as the intellect is like the Vedantic analogy of the elephant and the mahoot. The mahoot can only control the elephant by using habit and training. Otherwise, it runs amok and the mahoot can't stop it.
If feelings are not representation then they most assuredly do not transcend space. I feel anxiety in my chest. I feel anger in my throat. Etc.
IMO the telos of Nature at its core is anything that increases order. It's the antithesis of entropy and provides the necessary balance to entropy. Order emerges out of disorder by chance but once sufficient order is created it develops its own momentum perhaps even a kind of Will.
@19:18... Jeff... you say the intellect can not pull us out of depression...
my positive thinking has not allowed me to know what depression is... my older sister said to me, when visiting with our mum, few years back, don't you ever get depressed... I remember my reply was I don't know what it is to be depressed... can you tell me what it is... mum steps into the conversation and says... you don't want to know... lol
when as a team we are stuck half way up that mountain, fighting for that next step, when we are so so cold, so ready to give in, it is at this point, one steps forward with a positive attitude, this gives those who have given in, given into the mite of the beast, new "energy" immediately, sorrow becomes joy and from this joy comes true "passion".
Thx... great chat...
he says... depression, envy, existential despair... can not be cured by positive thinking or we would not have the epidemic... he needs to look a little deeper...
because... "depression, envy, existential despair..." is taught to all children in the form of exams... from the age of 5... it is put onto people long before they become adults.
That blind will was personified as Yaldabaoth. Sophia picked up on this immediately.
ja you could but consider time is an illusion ( the biggest of all: no one can escape and if i remember correctly he did say that in some form somewhere...
Doesn't the disolvment of personal identity reduce pain AND pleasure in equal amounts?
I wonder at what point Schopenhauer came across Vedanta ??? Having been exposed to eastern philosophy - particularly Advaita Vedanta - I only understand Schopenhauer by substituting the word Will for Self ( apologies to our English writer Will Self ). What does Schopenhauer mean by the word Will ? Is there some nuance in the German language . For me Will =Self .
So glad that Schopenhauer is making a come back after a century of Hegelian nonsense.
@17:43... one of the noble truths is that life "is" suffering...
let me look at those truths... what do I see...
1.life "has" inevitable suffering............................................(but not the wise)
2.there is a cause to our suffering.......................................(ignorance)
3.there is an end to suffering...............................................(become aware)
4.the end to suffering is contained in the eight fold path...(life)
1.here it says "has" not "is"..... sometimes some get hurt
2.its caused............................. schooling, exams
3.we can end suffering........... learning the lessons of life
4.the end of suffering is..........life
Cognitive overlay (meta ignition?) of states of depression and anxiety translate as becoming depressed about being depressed or anxious about being anxious. That’s not cognitive science addresses (it should but it doesn’t go near that rabbit hole unfortunately) Instead it tells people to change the way they think in terms of correcting so-called cognitive distortions which if one looks closely at them are a rich source of access to creative responses to suffering and not distortions. Suffering compels one to look for the jewel in the shit (this is not positivism) so one can work it creatively. Jung said depression compels inward looking.
I always loved Schopenhauer, but lately I can't take his 'pessimism' seriously. Its good to be reminded
how much he said that was influential; on Freud's concept of the unconscious, for example.
But surely Schopenhauer causes unnecessary confusion by using the term 'Wille', when the 'blind, unconscious energetic striving' is not our individual, decisive, volition, aka 'will-power', but a sub-strata of the world that, like the rest of Nature,
is directed to survival and reproduction above all, an A-moral force that, as Dylan Thomas put it,
"that through the green fuse drives the flower... that drives the water through the rocks, drives my red blood" .
Can any one find this quote, “The Universe is a dream dreamed by a single dreamer where all the dream characters dream too." Joseph Campbell says it Schopenhauer's. I can't find it anywhere, Just read Transcenent Speculations on the Fate of the Individual. Translated by David Irvine 1913. I was told I'd find it there, it's not.