phaedrus

Ender

Umm., didnt Schopenhauer oppose the school of idealism (especially that of hegel format, while agreeing to some of kant's ideas with qualifications like disagreeing with Kant that the "thing-in-itself" lies hopelessly beyond experience?).

Anyhows i think there is a basic difference between eastern mysticism and the western idealism, as most people put it the former is charcaterised by the inwardness of its subjectivity while the latter by its outwardness and objective nature. The result might be the same but i guess the approach is different

Ender

Yes, only if we took Schopenhauer at face value, then nobody was any more opposed to German idealism than he was. In reality, the differences between these brothers in idealism aren't much more than esoteric- both Hegel and Schopenhauer promoted an idealist image of the world that painted an trivial, inconsequential role of the individual and reality as a pervasive, holistic force that culminates in human self-realization. The sibling squabble differed on mere approach to the “spirit” or the “cosmic will”- Hegel was eager where Schopenhauer was suspicious. Just like Fichte and Hegel, Schopenhauer professed a cosmic view of the “para-self” that expressed itself through us, which reduces the individual to its pitiful pawns.

As for Kant Schopenhauer started with his rational foundations and rendered the ”ding-an-sich” as the Will, which wasn’t unknown or “beyond the reach of experience.” It was instead the most personal, essential aspect of ourselves. By introspection, we become aware of the fact that we are our actions. Where Kant would’ve objected that we’re only in touch with our volitions, or acts of will, Schopenhauer thought that volition and action was one and the same.
could you go in-depth about this “outwardness and objective nature?” where Schopenhauer liberally borrows from eastern philosophy was that the world of appearance was a chimera, though necessary, that reality hid behind the “veil of Maya.” In this metaphysical position Schopenhauer claimed the world was a transcendental illusion; that reality was located within us as the “impersonal, irrational will.”
Only through denial of will; e.g. chastity, poverty, love, fasting, can one achieve wisdom. If this didn’t smack of Buddhist insistence of the futility of desire...

~WiGGiN~

jpbrooks

Sorry for the late reply, phaedrus. I'm in the middle of a very time consuming offline project. I apologize in advance for any further late replies.

To get quickly to the point, I am objecting to the lack of "silence" on the part of Zen adherents. The rejection of the subject/object distinction appears to be incoherent from the standpoint of logic. So the appropriate stance to take, from that standpoint, is complete silence.

Now, having said that, (from what I have heard Zen practitioners talking about when they discuss the issue of subject/object duality), Zen's rejection of the subject/object distinction is more of a psychological stance than a logical (or epistemological) one because the context of the "rejection" of subject/object duality for Zen is "consciousness".

Automaton

There are two aspects of sound. Physical (rapid compression and expansion waves), and its perception. The trouble is, we usually mash the two together and equivocate in our everday usage of the word, and this creates a seeming conflict as physical = yes, perception = no. It comes down to semantics.

Amos

Physical sound? Do we need ears to hear these waves or do we feel them.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

phaedrus

Ender

You will have to elaborate more on why you would consider Schopenhauer to be a strict idealist. the world we experience comes into being by an active participation, a sort of cosmic give-and-take, between external reality and the human intellect.Hegel glorified life while our man took the pessimistic approach. He had been a great admirer of the Upanishads and then Buddhism

Outwardness and objective nature - Western idealism typically looked towards external reality using analystic methods and attempts to explain the world. The eastern mysticism tries to de-learn this analytic/intelectual approach by stripping of the individual ego through various methods including koans and tries to "experience" the oneness.

JP

phaedrus

jpbrooks

Sorry for the late reply, phaedrus. I'm in the middle of a very time consuming offline project. I apologize in advance for any further late replies.

Cool

To get quickly to the point, I am objecting to the lack of "silence" on the part of Zen adherents. The rejection of the subject/object distinction appears to be incoherent from the standpoint of logic. So the appropriate stance to take, from that standpoint, is complete silence.

Silence is something they have already adopted. The rejection is something i have inferrred from my talks and readings regarding the oneness. The "being still" and "silence" are great tools used by them to break down the will/ego of the novices.

Now, having said that, (from what I have heard Zen practitioners talking about when they discuss the issue of subject/object duality), Zen's rejection of the subject/object distinction is more of a psychological stance than a logical (or epistemological) one because the context of the "rejection" of subject/object duality for Zen is "consciousness".

You have asked and answered as well

Ender

Yes, Schopenhauer is a champion of idealism, since he thought of reality in monistic form, that it was a reality of Will.
He begins his book Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung with this statement: “The world is my representation.” Schopenhauer defines idealism as something transcendental, but does not deny the empirical reality of the external world. By leaving the empirical reality of the world intact, transcendental idealism (just like Kant) demonstrates how a transcendental unison of reason and experience constitutes as the condition for knowledge. The empirical world, the objects and ideas are the phenomenal appearances of the Will.
While I know next to nothing about Buddhism, and will leave that to the experts, from what I understand of it would chime nicely with Artie’s metaphysics, that the “self” is one of the major delusions. Buddhism would agree nicely with Artie here. In his book, volume II, chapter 19, Schopenhauer says that self-consciousness is impossible, that one cannot “know” the self because it involves the concepts of a “knower” and a “known.” He argues this raises an infinite regress, since this knower would be in turn the known of another knower. Ergo the knower cannot be known.

Extra: <a href="http://www.weberpl.lib.ut.us/roughdraft/RDspring99/rdart11.htm" target="_blank">A nice link on Schopie and Buddha!</a>
~WiGGiN~

phaedrus

Would you concur with the following??

Ender

Looks like Schopenhauer fits the epistemological idealism like a glove.

~WiGGiN~