This video has a part 2, available on Patreon, with a selection of excerpts and extra content. Thank you for supporting the channel! ▶ www.patreon.com/WeltgeistYT
Schopenhauer was a reader of the ancient Indian texts called the Upanishads. I would suggest you to read some of the Vedas and the Upanishads and the Bhagawad Gita. There's timeless wisdom in the Gita, I think you should introduce these texts to your audience. Thank you
I am reading it right now and I'm speechless... Kastrup's techings destroyed my materialist belief system. I was nor awarare Kasturp wrote it before he discovered Schopenhauer 😮
@@anteodedi8937 well, Kstrup starts his book explaining his methaphysics challenges popular thought and the current consensus about reality... this is reminiscent of how Galileo was received by his contemporaries, isn't it?
Schopenhauer's championing of the subjective arguably makes him a proto-existentialist along with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Existentialist philosophy, of course, became (and still is) highly useful to its adherents in coping with the horrors of world war and the impersonal, mechanistic nature of modernity. With the continuing development of modern science, it seems that this is an example of the best use for philosophy: helping us find meaning in life.
Regarding the passage at 3:54, I got curious about the word "physicist". I've read many biographies of 19th-century scientists, and none, bar Tyndall, were atheists nor any kind of strict materialists. Also scientific works from mid-19th-century seldom use the word "physist" to describe the scientists, something confirmed consulting oxford dictionary. Therefore I ask whether you know if Schopenhauer in this passage is actually referring to scientists that we today call physicists or if he is referring to philosophers who at that moment had materialistic conceptions?
If you want to read the passage that quote came from, it is in _Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume 2,_ Chapter 3: “Ideas concerning the Intellect generally and in all Respects”, section 27. The pdf is available free online.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs Thank you for pointing to the specific passage. I've checked the german edition also, and there is the word "Physiker" that appears, although I do not know what the word meant at that time. But reading further the section in English, a couple of lines before Schopenhauer introduces the notion of "absolute physics" as the proper term for naturalism, which I take to be dogmatic materialism. Thereafter he uses the words "rationalist" and "physicist" apparently interchangeably and says that such people reject the doctrine of Original Sin as superstition. Given the entire section, it appears to me that what Schopenhauer calls here "physicists" are indeed materialist philosophers and not scientists. Since you pointed out the passage I would be glad to know whether you, or anyone else knowledgeable about Schopenhauer's work, agree with my interpretation of the passage. I'm very interested in this line of thinking, thus I want to interpret the text correctly.
Schopenhauer hated the material world, and he proved it by throwing a gossiping woman down a flight of stairs. He even wrote a nasty remark in her funeral guest book. My hero.
you may just be trying to get people to click, but these "Why X HATED Y" titles are stupid and oversimplified, these people didn't think about philosophy like the average emotionally thinking person where they disagree with things because they "hate" them, Schopenhauer certainly wouldn't have "hated" Epicurus or Democritus because they are philosophers like him. That's like saying Einstein hated Newton because he thought his theory of gravity was better. He did hate Hegel though. Also, I wouldn't describe idealism as believing "the world is fundamentally mental" because Kant is a dualist, when you say "the world" people think of the noumenal world, and the whole point of Kant and Berkeley and therefore schopenhauer is that your mind can't know the noumenal world and therefore it can't be said to be "mental." It is correct that the only world THAT WE CAN PERCEIVE is mental, but not that the world itself is mental. Anyway, my problem is not really with your videos themselves, I just keep getting them recommended and the titles annoy me.
Not even 100 pages into the WAWAR, Schopenhauer criticizes BOTH materialists and idealists. Schopenhauer does not have a subjective starting point. He argues subjective and external are inextricably linked and should not be used as separate terms. Pure non dualism. This video is wrong.
''He argues subjective and external are inextricably linked...'', yes, but the point is that the external is not the material, but the ding an sich prevalent ''in'' other 'representations'. So it's external from my body, but fundamentally it's not external (since it's both Will) and not in the material sense of the word. All matter is simply a representation of one and the same thing, and nothing truly external. In this sense he is an idealist. He said the object cannot exist without the subject and that life is somewhat like a dream.
Complex systems rely on an extremely robust foundation, which in our case seems to be a binary logic founded on the polar nature of energy (electro-magnetic, north-south, repellent-attractive, etc.) The 'bug' is Entropy which most likely indicates the energy components are not Legoland consistent. Based on contemplating the confluence of 'Infinity' and 'Eternity'. Where 'all there is' is Energy, and Space; and 'Time' proves that Space is dynamic. The basic logic can compound itself into everything we can experience (Mass and Matter). Therefore proving _Intelligence and Imagination are the Cosmos trying to make sense of itself_ is our challenge. A quaint, anthropomorphic quest but it should be enough to sustain ongoing efforts. In turn our survival instinct will demand the effort. Thus: bright-mindedness and the occasional leaps up into the genius level are the only currency we can bargain with and therefore the only reason to continue to raise children. Finding out how and what makes them into future 'cash points' the first hurdle. For such a compromised creature to even contemplate outliving our big bang universe (one of many) is the highest impertinence. It would of course take our minds off the endless and pointless pettiness we have constructed so far. A permanent frontier.
@@maspesasmasperras5554 Using a one-way sphincter incorrectly is one of the dumber thing our species has ever done. An act of hatred, dominance, and unnecessary pain and making it the principal reason why a certain element of the love spectrum historically struggled for acceptance (revulsion). Instead they highlighted and celebrated it. Go figure...
Excellent channel- I’m learning a lot. Interesting that Schopenhauer considers himself an atheist, yet believes in an all-encompassing Will, and rails against materialists. Fascinating!
Materialism is all about appearance (surface over substance). There is no depth, no effort to understand things. It is wanting the rewards of society or position within it but not willing to do the work the job entails. Materialists want attention. They don't pay attention, which is why they are shallow compared to those who study reality in depth. All materialists are interested in is objective reality. They are not interested in subjective reality at all. This is the dividing line between true thinkers and the rest.
It seems difficult to dispute that Schopenhauer’s insights remain unsurpassed even through today. And, no, Wittgenstein didn’t advance metaphysics but academic scholasticism. Today, the extraordinary Bernardo Kastrup expands these ideas against 20th century materialist physics and quantum theory.
Was just about to mention Bernardo Kastrups work. After half a year studying his work, trying to find holes in it and trying to find good academic quality critique’s (which I couldn’t find, help me out if you know) I actually buy his ideas, and now hold a metaphysical idealist view myself. I am left with questions (problems) all the way at the end of his philosophy which he may or may not have a respons. Those questions either show that I don’t fully understand his view yet, and I have to learn more, or show that there are points of reasonable criticism of his work.
@@robertroest7619 so far I’ve only read Kastrup’s work on Schopenhauer and watched some quite brilliant discussions he’s part of (on YT) - several of his earlier books are on order. So too early for an integrated understanding of Kastrup but it seems clear that his background (so different to “professional” philosophers) enables an advance in thought. There’s not likely to be much response from academic philosophers as they write and debate only with each other. If Kastrup can take his place in the Kant/Schopenhauer lineage of idealism, it will be due to his direct, experiential knowledge of quantum science and biology.
@@sciagurrato1831I think he’s such a good philosopher because he realizes very thoroughly that what the mind does is to deceive itself, and that what makes a good philosopher is to always look for subtle hidden presumptions, to never stop looking for them. Also he is usually very clear in when he takes positions and views based on analytic philosophizing and when he’s speculating. He keeps the intellectual game clean so to speak. He knows to which degree his metaphors work and where it’s limitations lie. Also he’s broadly and quite deeply informed in physics and psychology, and very deeply in computer science. One of my criticisms is, (it’s a small one that doesn’t affect his ideas really) is that he shouldn’t talk about (the history of) religions, comparative religion and interpreting biblical texts. These are clearly not his field, and he’s too confident he knows stuff there. He seems to think that the core of the big religions, all point in the same non-dual, idealism view of reality, and that Jesus was an enlightened wise non-dualist, which is not the case. The monotheistic religions all have basically a dualist view of reality, although a small minority in Judaism, Islam and Christianity have or have had a non-dual view of reality. He should educate himself with critical scholars of the specific religions.
7:46 Arguments are not need in that case. Materialism by definition cant explain reality. Because materialism start from assumption, from something that does not exist.
Suffice to say irrationality needs boundaries to make sense out of anything worthwhile. Romance, any appetite,must be reigned in to prevent dangerous results. Irrationality is envy, jealousy, love ,desire hate, fear, courage, life and death. Greater or lesser variants or outright opposites that can easily be led out of control .
What's hysterical is that the opening quote about something coming from nothing also applies to God. Schopenhauer in his writings never proved that metaphysics were ever real or true. He never proved that his own universal model was even accurate. So God just existed and came from nothing? Because he's eternal? God was just always there? It's quite funny how blind some people are to their own hypocrisy. Schopenhauer was also ironically blind to his own biggest criticism of materialism. Where did the afterlife come from? How did it even get formed? I've read almost all of Schopenhauer works. He never explains this either. He talks about the will and his own view of the afterlife but never expands on it. He says (to be reductionist) "materialism is bad and my philosophy is more complete" without providing any real evidence of either. He spends a lot of time being critical of materialism but no time providing actual real evidence to counter it or even justify his own position. According to Schopenhauer his own subjective reason and metaphysics are also not able to be proven. Schopenhauer was mainly convinced that reason and rationality was flawed because it relies on our minds which are also flawed. And we could never use it to view the natural world in its true entirely. But by his own logic his own intellect can't explore the supernatural world and the supernatural world can never be purely explained either. And neither can the will. And his philosophy would also be flawed and incomplete because it came from his own mind aswell. The philosophy of the will would also be a contradiction. Something cannot be objective and subjective both at the same time. Something cannot be true but also not true at the same time. 2+2 cannot equal both 4 and yet also equal 5 at the same time. Gravity does not exist within the mind. If I drop my phone does it float but only in my head in my own imagination? No of course not. So Schopenhauer was flawed in his own logic and by his own logic his own metaphysics abides by the same rules that the entire field of natural physics does. He takes it all on faith just as much as the materialist does if not more. So he essentially shot a bullet in his own foot.
Exactly, his philosophy was incoherent. Watching some quacks today like Kastrup, regurgitating the same incoherent thing and people buying into it is weird.
Do you consider aristotelian philosophy an objective or subjective philosophy? I don't think it can be considered as an subjective philosophy, because he focused on the external / metrial world, but he discussed the sources of natural laws and ethics etc as well .. I find your division is misleading.
I read him as an empiricist, straddling the line. The concepts of "subject" and "object" weren't fully teased out at that time, so Aristotle relied on categories that were available.
Metaphysics is pseudo science. That's why actual scientists look down on it. Because you're not even a real scientist. You're just a bullshitter who tries to call himself on par with actual real educators. Metaphysics can never and has never been proven or even observed or verified to be true. It's all debunked pseudo intellectual hogwash.
Is he not just a reflection of his time and place. Raised in a place where the "mystical and woo woo" were standard fair. Well described as abstract theory with no basis in reality. Any Scientist should with hold any statement of fact until warranted by evidence.
You've got it bass-ackwards. The 18th Century was the high tide of Reason. Maximilien Robespierre was the leader of the cult of Reason; they even erected statues to her. It was LaPlace who boasted that if he knew the mass and velocity of every particle in the universe, he could predict the entire future of the universe. Since the rise of Quantum Mechanics, scientists have become less cocky. Was it Stephen Hawking or another scientist who said, "God not only plays dice with the world; He throws them where they can't be seen." Schopenhauer was an early sceptic of the over-confidence of the uber-Rationalists.
Idealism as it exists today is simply the fear of a universe without a God. Once you realize Christianity or your religion of "choice," (really the one most prevalent in your geographical region) have nothing substantial to offer you it can be pretty unmooring. Schopenhauer was simply an arrogant fellow coping with his lost "literal" interpretation of religion.
Denial of materialism is a product of our fear of death (see Terror Management Theory). It's coping, nothing more. All this talk about non-physical things is plain nonsense. Just one more way of saying "death is not the end" against all evidence to the contrary.
@@lemon-yi6yh A afirmação do materialismo pode ser vista como uma gestão da realidade, uma criação intuitiva que visa a adaptação ao meio. Em seu nível mais fundamental, tudo se reduz a elétrons (vontade) transferindo informações para conservarem energia.
I love it when a TH-camr promotes their pateon paywalls right off the bat. Makes it an easy decision for me to skip and block the channel from showing in my recommendations.
Why do people like schopenhauer? The man is so negative and depressed I swear i once tried to read one of his books but I couldn’t because of the amount of darkness in it
I personaly don't like or agree in any sense with the Schopenhauer conclusion about life, but his thoughts can be some times interesting even to someone that does not agree with the whole argument raised. Is like if he finded some interesting things in his opinion, even if he led them to a conclusion that i consider wrong. His idea of life as will-to-life can be even positive, if you dont consider his budist position and negation of life (that acording to Nietzsche, schopenhauer only got his conclusion, bacause he as a pesonaly sick person, put his sickness into his view of the world) Is like if some of those "negative" philosophers finded some things in nature, and ignoring the interpretation of the writer on this things, those things can be reintrepreted and recreated by the reader
You’re funny… Objective/subjective… Did you feel like you were an only child or did you tell people you were only child, & you actually had siblings? Is it how you felt/feel or is it reality…😐 Start with a void, & then work your way outward… You may see the light then. Have a lovely day.🪁
This is one of the few instances where I *don't* agree with Schopenhauer. He uses the everyday definition of "out of nothing". The solution is simple, once you grasp the concept: universe is the framework for causality and everything that we know exists, but doesn't follow its own laws. Btw, there are particles that literally pop into and out of existence, so at least on a micro scale it isn't even against the laws of nature. Schopenhauer was the greatest pessimist that has ever lived and in most cases also a great psychologist, but he actually sucked at natural science. He also didn't believe that time and space could be relative, although Einstein proved it just a few decades after Schopenhauer's death.
So the inconsistencies in our logical framework of the universe can be explained by making a natural law that says nature doesn’t follow natural laws? That sounds like the quote Schopenhauer mocks in the video “it is because it is; and is as it is because it is so.” I’m not trying to “get” you so much as have you further explain what you mean.
@@bright-noise There is no inconsistency. Universe is the framework for cause and effect but doesn't have a cause for its existence itself. There is no question to answer. Schopenhauer was a brilliant pessimist and misanthrope but a failure as scientist.
@@francisdec1615 there is certainly a question to answer, just not one science can answer. If you are satisfied with just using science to navigate the material world the best you can, more power to you, but the reality of why we are here doesn’t objectively just “end” there.
@@bright-noise There is no reason why anything is here. That's exactly the point. Schopenhauer is 100% right that the world is hell and life is shit, but his metaphysics is ridiculous. It's just a remnant of Plato's nonsense about the world of ideas.
@@francisdec1615 There is only no reason why we are here if you presuppose that science is the only way truth can be determined. Where is the sense data collected that proves sense data is all we can rely on to determine truth?
We mustn’t forget that he was very much a believer in magic, spells, superstitions, and mental powers. He essentially wanted the powers of a wizard but since you can’t have real magic powers in the real world he stayed in the dream land of metaphysics and sort of pretend, like Plato, that this dream land was more real then the actual world. But since science was doing and explaining more and more of the universe revealing it’s inhumanity, it’s counterintuitive weirdness, it’s age and size. It must have hurt him that there was no magic, no mental powers, no fairies. So like a child he hated that which robed him of his fantasies.
This video has a part 2, available on Patreon, with a selection of excerpts and extra content. Thank you for supporting the channel!
▶ www.patreon.com/WeltgeistYT
I personally love it when Schopenhauer trashes Fichte and the rest of the Hegel goons. Always reminds me of a cranky uncle throwing some wisdom down.
Schopenhauer was trash himself.
The highest pursuit of truth is really just 19th century Twitter slams
@@rakim126😅👌🏼
“Modern materialism is the manure to fertilize the soil for philosophy.” (Schopenhauer, “Senilia,” §71)
Wow! Someone thinks he achieved something quoting a trash philosopher!
😂
Love that! 👏
Schopenhauer was a reader of the ancient Indian texts called the Upanishads. I would suggest you to read some of the Vedas and the Upanishads and the Bhagawad Gita. There's timeless wisdom in the Gita, I think you should introduce these texts to your audience. Thank you
I am willing to release the should from my vocabularies
Upnishads are hives of knowledge
This would be amazing; the way I see it, these texts are the culmination of the highest wisdom of mankind
Some of it is garbage, you gotta admit. It’s not like it’s the Tao Te Ching . The traditionalist aspects of the Gita are especially disgusting IMO.
@@tigerlilysoma588 what aspects are you referring to?
Materialism in baloney is the title of a book I am now reading. The author wrote it before he discovered Schopenhauer
Would that happen to be the book by Bernardo Kastrup? How is it? I just read his The Idea of the World and thought it was pretty good
Funny that Kastrup and Schopenhauer are both secondary thinkers, not above the popular level, isn't it?
@@anteodedi8937 what do u mean?
I am reading it right now and I'm speechless... Kastrup's techings destroyed my materialist belief system. I was nor awarare Kasturp wrote it before he discovered Schopenhauer 😮
@@anteodedi8937 well, Kstrup starts his book explaining his methaphysics challenges popular thought and the current consensus about reality... this is reminiscent of how Galileo was received by his contemporaries, isn't it?
Schopenhauer's championing of the subjective arguably makes him a proto-existentialist along with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Existentialist philosophy, of course, became (and still is) highly useful to its adherents in coping with the horrors of world war and the impersonal, mechanistic nature of modernity. With the continuing development of modern science, it seems that this is an example of the best use for philosophy: helping us find meaning in life.
What is it like to follow a philosophy? Is it something normal people do, or is it relegated to only those people who create philosophy?
Brilliantly explained!! Amazing video (:
Regarding the passage at 3:54, I got curious about the word "physicist". I've read many biographies of 19th-century scientists, and none, bar Tyndall, were atheists nor any kind of strict materialists. Also scientific works from mid-19th-century seldom use the word "physist" to describe the scientists, something confirmed consulting oxford dictionary. Therefore I ask whether you know if Schopenhauer in this passage is actually referring to scientists that we today call physicists or if he is referring to philosophers who at that moment had materialistic conceptions?
If you want to read the passage that quote came from, it is in _Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume 2,_ Chapter 3: “Ideas concerning the Intellect generally and in all Respects”, section 27. The pdf is available free online.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs Thank you for pointing to the specific passage. I've checked the german edition also, and there is the word "Physiker" that appears, although I do not know what the word meant at that time. But reading further the section in English, a couple of lines before Schopenhauer introduces the notion of "absolute physics" as the proper term for naturalism, which I take to be dogmatic materialism. Thereafter he uses the words "rationalist" and "physicist" apparently interchangeably and says that such people reject the doctrine of Original Sin as superstition. Given the entire section, it appears to me that what Schopenhauer calls here "physicists" are indeed materialist philosophers and not scientists.
Since you pointed out the passage I would be glad to know whether you, or anyone else knowledgeable about Schopenhauer's work, agree with my interpretation of the passage. I'm very interested in this line of thinking, thus I want to interpret the text correctly.
Schopenhauer hated the material world, and he proved it by throwing a gossiping woman down a flight of stairs. He even wrote a nasty remark in her funeral guest book. My hero.
I hate the material world too, that doesn't make it false though nor does it make other worlds real.
It's hard not to like Schopenhauer....
Yes, but not for this nonsense.
you may just be trying to get people to click, but these "Why X HATED Y" titles are stupid and oversimplified, these people didn't think about philosophy like the average emotionally thinking person where they disagree with things because they "hate" them, Schopenhauer certainly wouldn't have "hated" Epicurus or Democritus because they are philosophers like him. That's like saying Einstein hated Newton because he thought his theory of gravity was better. He did hate Hegel though. Also, I wouldn't describe idealism as believing "the world is fundamentally mental" because Kant is a dualist, when you say "the world" people think of the noumenal world, and the whole point of Kant and Berkeley and therefore schopenhauer is that your mind can't know the noumenal world and therefore it can't be said to be "mental." It is correct that the only world THAT WE CAN PERCEIVE is mental, but not that the world itself is mental. Anyway, my problem is not really with your videos themselves, I just keep getting them recommended and the titles annoy me.
"Stupid and oversimplified" is what the YT algorithm favors. With that in mind, the video titles are quite smart.
Not even 100 pages into the WAWAR, Schopenhauer criticizes BOTH materialists and idealists. Schopenhauer does not have a subjective starting point. He argues subjective and external are inextricably linked and should not be used as separate terms. Pure non dualism. This video is wrong.
Thanks.
''He argues subjective and external are inextricably linked...'', yes, but the point is that the external is not the material, but the ding an sich prevalent ''in'' other 'representations'. So it's external from my body, but fundamentally it's not external (since it's both Will) and not in the material sense of the word. All matter is simply a representation of one and the same thing, and nothing truly external. In this sense he is an idealist.
He said the object cannot exist without the subject and that life is somewhat like a dream.
4:30 My 12 year old daughter said that is quote was: "Bullshit". I could not reprimand her as the words were in context.
Complex systems rely on an extremely robust foundation, which in our case seems to be a binary logic founded on the polar nature of energy (electro-magnetic, north-south, repellent-attractive, etc.) The 'bug' is Entropy which most likely indicates the energy components are not Legoland consistent. Based on contemplating the confluence of 'Infinity' and 'Eternity'. Where 'all there is' is Energy, and Space; and 'Time' proves that Space is dynamic. The basic logic can compound itself into everything we can experience (Mass and Matter). Therefore proving _Intelligence and Imagination are the Cosmos trying to make sense of itself_ is our challenge. A quaint, anthropomorphic quest but it should be enough to sustain ongoing efforts. In turn our survival instinct will demand the effort. Thus: bright-mindedness and the occasional leaps up into the genius level are the only currency we can bargain with and therefore the only reason to continue to raise children. Finding out how and what makes them into future 'cash points' the first hurdle. For such a compromised creature to even contemplate outliving our big bang universe (one of many) is the highest impertinence. It would of course take our minds off the endless and pointless pettiness we have constructed so far. A permanent frontier.
Didn't understand a word mate
@@maxresfault7925 I believe you
@@peterclark6290 your explanation didn't take into account rectal penetration so it's absolutely inadequate
@@maspesasmasperras5554 Using a one-way sphincter incorrectly is one of the dumber thing our species has ever done. An act of hatred, dominance, and unnecessary pain and making it the principal reason why a certain element of the love spectrum historically struggled for acceptance (revulsion). Instead they highlighted and celebrated it. Go figure...
@@peterclark6290 man you're overthinking it. No pain no gain. Enjoy the ride at the brown path
Excellent channel- I’m learning a lot. Interesting that Schopenhauer considers himself an atheist, yet believes in an all-encompassing Will, and rails against materialists. Fascinating!
The Will is not intelligent in Schopenhauer's thought. It is somewhat equivalent to the "Force" in Star Wars.
Your videos are so excellent - thank you
Very good video Cleary explains some of the basic thoughts of Schopenhauer and his predecessors
Materialism is all about appearance (surface over substance). There is no depth, no effort to understand things. It is wanting the rewards of society or position within it but not willing to do the work the job entails. Materialists want attention. They don't pay attention, which is why they are shallow compared to those who study reality in depth. All materialists are interested in is objective reality. They are not interested in subjective reality at all. This is the dividing line between true thinkers and the rest.
It seems difficult to dispute that Schopenhauer’s insights remain unsurpassed even through today. And, no, Wittgenstein didn’t advance metaphysics but academic scholasticism. Today, the extraordinary Bernardo Kastrup expands these ideas against 20th century materialist physics and quantum theory.
We reviewed his book on Schopenhauer on the channel!
Was just about to mention Bernardo Kastrups work. After half a year studying his work, trying to find holes in it and trying to find good academic quality critique’s (which I couldn’t find, help me out if you know) I actually buy his ideas, and now hold a metaphysical idealist view myself. I am left with questions (problems) all the way at the end of his philosophy which he may or may not have a respons. Those questions either show that I don’t fully understand his view yet, and I have to learn more, or show that there are points of reasonable criticism of his work.
@@WeltgeistYT thanks - I’ll saved it
@@robertroest7619 so far I’ve only read Kastrup’s work on Schopenhauer and watched some quite brilliant discussions he’s part of (on YT) - several of his earlier books are on order. So too early for an integrated understanding of Kastrup but it seems clear that his background (so different to “professional” philosophers) enables an advance in thought. There’s not likely to be much response from academic philosophers as they write and debate only with each other.
If Kastrup can take his place in the Kant/Schopenhauer lineage of idealism, it will be due to his direct, experiential knowledge of quantum science and biology.
@@sciagurrato1831I think he’s such a good philosopher because he realizes very thoroughly that what the mind does is to deceive itself, and that what makes a good philosopher is to always look for subtle hidden presumptions, to never stop looking for them. Also he is usually very clear in when he takes positions and views based on analytic philosophizing and when he’s speculating. He keeps the intellectual game clean so to speak. He knows to which degree his metaphors work and where it’s limitations lie.
Also he’s broadly and quite deeply informed in physics and psychology, and very deeply in computer science.
One of my criticisms is, (it’s a small one that doesn’t affect his ideas really) is that he shouldn’t talk about (the history of) religions, comparative religion and interpreting biblical texts. These are clearly not his field, and he’s too confident he knows stuff there. He seems to think that the core of the big religions, all point in the same non-dual, idealism view of reality, and that Jesus was an enlightened wise non-dualist, which is not the case. The monotheistic religions all have basically a dualist view of reality, although a small minority in Judaism, Islam and Christianity have or have had a non-dual view of reality. He should educate himself with critical scholars of the specific religions.
I request another video on Sir Arthur and Siddhartha, thnxs 🙏
Great video I hope you'll surpass the hack from philosophy tube soon!
reasoning for changing the title?
I think it wouldve been wiser to stick with 'rationalists and crude materialists' rather than materialists-as-such
Trying to figure out what the algorithm favors…
7:46 Arguments are not need in that case.
Materialism by definition cant explain reality. Because materialism start from assumption, from something that does not exist.
Suffice to say irrationality needs boundaries to make sense out of anything worthwhile. Romance, any appetite,must be reigned in to prevent dangerous results. Irrationality is envy, jealousy, love ,desire hate, fear, courage, life and death. Greater or lesser variants or outright opposites that can easily be led out of control .
Can you give me a link to your video on schopenhauer's views on death. I will gladly pay on patrion
Www.patreon.com/weltgeistYT. In the $10 tier you get access to all the exclusive vids
From what I gather (he touches on it in Pt II of "World as Will..."), he argues for reincarnation of sorts.
In the past few days ,I have been bringing on your videos. Thank you so much . Is there a way to get discount on patreon ?
What's hysterical is that the opening quote about something coming from nothing also applies to God. Schopenhauer in his writings never proved that metaphysics were ever real or true. He never proved that his own universal model was even accurate. So God just existed and came from nothing? Because he's eternal? God was just always there? It's quite funny how blind some people are to their own hypocrisy. Schopenhauer was also ironically blind to his own biggest criticism of materialism. Where did the afterlife come from? How did it even get formed? I've read almost all of Schopenhauer works. He never explains this either. He talks about the will and his own view of the afterlife but never expands on it. He says (to be reductionist) "materialism is bad and my philosophy is more complete" without providing any real evidence of either. He spends a lot of time being critical of materialism but no time providing actual real evidence to counter it or even justify his own position.
According to Schopenhauer his own subjective reason and metaphysics are also not able to be proven. Schopenhauer was mainly convinced that reason and rationality was flawed because it relies on our minds which are also flawed. And we could never use it to view the natural world in its true entirely. But by his own logic his own intellect can't explore the supernatural world and the supernatural world can never be purely explained either. And neither can the will. And his philosophy would also be flawed and incomplete because it came from his own mind aswell.
The philosophy of the will would also be a contradiction. Something cannot be objective and subjective both at the same time. Something cannot be true but also not true at the same time. 2+2 cannot equal both 4 and yet also equal 5 at the same time. Gravity does not exist within the mind. If I drop my phone does it float but only in my head in my own imagination? No of course not. So Schopenhauer was flawed in his own logic and by his own logic his own metaphysics abides by the same rules that the entire field of natural physics does. He takes it all on faith just as much as the materialist does if not more.
So he essentially shot a bullet in his own foot.
Exactly, his philosophy was incoherent. Watching some quacks today like Kastrup, regurgitating the same incoherent thing and people buying into it is weird.
You do not understand. Go back to Leibnitz.
David Hume has a great counter to this viewpoint. He understood this better than Schopenhauer
Which of his works contains this counter?
@@Tomviel His most well-known one: Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding. Highly recommend.
@@AB-et6nj Okay, that one was already on my list, thank you.
@@Tomviel It's a great read, imo. Not a fan of philosophy in general but Hume's remarks are insightful and still plausible
@@jasoncullen8430 Do you know Hume's position on this?
Do you consider aristotelian philosophy an objective or subjective philosophy?
I don't think it can be considered as an subjective philosophy, because he focused on the external / metrial world, but he discussed the sources of natural laws and ethics etc as well ..
I find your division is misleading.
I read him as an empiricist, straddling the line. The concepts of "subject" and "object" weren't fully teased out at that time, so Aristotle relied on categories that were available.
With our minds, we create our reality because without subject there is no object.
wrong the universe exists whether or not there are any humans around to misinterpret it
@@scambammer6102 how do/would you know
Could there be a subject without an object?
Hahahaha! Try to change reality then!
@@liamnewsom8583Earth existed long before ANY living thing could perceive it.
Physicists look down on metaphysics and rejoice in the incoherent shadow it casts, calling it metaphysics.
Metaphysics is pseudo science. That's why actual scientists look down on it. Because you're not even a real scientist. You're just a bullshitter who tries to call himself on par with actual real educators. Metaphysics can never and has never been proven or even observed or verified to be true. It's all debunked pseudo intellectual hogwash.
"Schopenhauer's philosophy is the match for reality." - Max Horkheimer
Is he not just a reflection of his time and place. Raised in a place where the "mystical and woo woo" were standard fair.
Well described as abstract theory with no basis in reality. Any Scientist should with hold any statement of fact until warranted by evidence.
You've got it bass-ackwards. The 18th Century was the high tide of Reason. Maximilien Robespierre was the leader of the cult of Reason; they even erected statues to her. It was LaPlace who boasted that if he knew the mass and velocity of every particle in the universe, he could predict the entire future of the universe. Since the rise of Quantum Mechanics, scientists have become less cocky. Was it Stephen Hawking or another scientist who said, "God not only plays dice with the world; He throws them where they can't be seen." Schopenhauer was an early sceptic of the over-confidence of the uber-Rationalists.
Short answer: Because he was an Idealist.
He wasn't. At least by his definition of idealism. Read The world as will and representation.
The Dutch is strong in this one
I thought he was Lithuanian or Estonian.
Bro i love you no homo
We are subject to the cruel forces of the world and will finally become an object, that dissolves into infintiy. That's all.
👍🏻
"Reason....? Science....? CRINGE!!!!! YOU UTTER MATERIALISTIC FOOLS!!!!! YOU WILL NEVER KNOW DE WAE!!!!"
~Arthur Schopenhauer, probably
Idealism as it exists today is simply the fear of a universe without a God. Once you realize Christianity or your religion of "choice," (really the one most prevalent in your geographical region) have nothing substantial to offer you it can be pretty unmooring. Schopenhauer was simply an arrogant fellow coping with his lost "literal" interpretation of religion.
You're not wrong.... I'm trying to unlearn materialism so I can stop being afraid
Denial of materialism is a product of our fear of death (see Terror Management Theory). It's coping, nothing more. All this talk about non-physical things is plain nonsense.
Just one more way of saying "death is not the end" against all evidence to the contrary.
@@lemon-yi6yh A afirmação do materialismo pode ser vista como uma gestão da realidade, uma criação intuitiva que visa a adaptação ao meio. Em seu nível mais fundamental, tudo se reduz a elétrons (vontade) transferindo informações para conservarem energia.
I love it when a TH-camr promotes their pateon paywalls right off the bat. Makes it an easy decision for me to skip and block the channel from showing in my recommendations.
Right? If someone thinks I’m going to respond BEFORE I’ve listened or read, they’re sorely mistaken & conditioned…
more like Shitenhauer
Deep
Philosophy doesn't do what Science cannot. It does what humans can't fully do with science.
Lol idealism is cope.
Back to /lit/
Naïve realism on the other hand is based af.
@@Tomviel naive is thinking you are something special
@@scambammer6102 That would be vanity not naivety. Also being petty and trying to get personal is not an argument.
@@Tomviel naivety and vanity are not mutually exclusive, they are complimentary.
Why do people like schopenhauer? The man is so negative and depressed
I swear i once tried to read one of his books but I couldn’t because of the amount of darkness in it
Because some of us find him refreshing and I find his outlook quite positive compared to my own pessimism.
I personaly don't like or agree in any sense with the Schopenhauer conclusion about life, but his thoughts can be some times interesting even to someone that does not agree with the whole argument raised. Is like if he finded some interesting things in his opinion, even if he led them to a conclusion that i consider wrong. His idea of life as will-to-life can be even positive, if you dont consider his budist position and negation of life (that acording to Nietzsche, schopenhauer only got his conclusion, bacause he as a pesonaly sick person, put his sickness into his view of the world) Is like if some of those "negative" philosophers finded some things in nature, and ignoring the interpretation of the writer on this things, those things can be reintrepreted and recreated by the reader
You’re funny… Objective/subjective…
Did you feel like you were an only child or did you tell people you were only child, & you actually had siblings?
Is it how you felt/feel or is it reality…😐
Start with a void, & then work your way outward…
You may see the light then.
Have a lovely day.🪁
@@paulatreides0777 🪁💜🪁That’s right I agree well put.
@@luizaiwass2006 I certainly wish I could write as well as you do… Thank you for your reply on this comment.
You’re wise and I appreciate you.🪁
This is one of the few instances where I *don't* agree with Schopenhauer. He uses the everyday definition of "out of nothing". The solution is simple, once you grasp the concept: universe is the framework for causality and everything that we know exists, but doesn't follow its own laws. Btw, there are particles that literally pop into and out of existence, so at least on a micro scale it isn't even against the laws of nature.
Schopenhauer was the greatest pessimist that has ever lived and in most cases also a great psychologist, but he actually sucked at natural science. He also didn't believe that time and space could be relative, although Einstein proved it just a few decades after Schopenhauer's death.
So the inconsistencies in our logical framework of the universe can be explained by making a natural law that says nature doesn’t follow natural laws? That sounds like the quote Schopenhauer mocks in the video “it is because it is; and is as it is because it is so.” I’m not trying to “get” you so much as have you further explain what you mean.
@@bright-noise There is no inconsistency. Universe is the framework for cause and effect but doesn't have a cause for its existence itself. There is no question to answer. Schopenhauer was a brilliant pessimist and misanthrope but a failure as scientist.
@@francisdec1615 there is certainly a question to answer, just not one science can answer. If you are satisfied with just using science to navigate the material world the best you can, more power to you, but the reality of why we are here doesn’t objectively just “end” there.
@@bright-noise There is no reason why anything is here. That's exactly the point. Schopenhauer is 100% right that the world is hell and life is shit, but his metaphysics is ridiculous. It's just a remnant of Plato's nonsense about the world of ideas.
@@francisdec1615 There is only no reason why we are here if you presuppose that science is the only way truth can be determined. Where is the sense data collected that proves sense data is all we can rely on to determine truth?
We mustn’t forget that he was very much a believer in magic, spells, superstitions, and mental powers. He essentially wanted the powers of a wizard but since you can’t have real magic powers in the real world he stayed in the dream land of metaphysics and sort of pretend, like Plato, that this dream land was more real then the actual world. But since science was doing and explaining more and more of the universe revealing it’s inhumanity, it’s counterintuitive weirdness, it’s age and size. It must have hurt him that there was no magic, no mental powers, no fairies. So like a child he hated that which robed him of his fantasies.
You are so clearly wrong. Sad.
Schopenhauer was trash.