Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:07 pm
Papanca wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:48 pm
I'm not saying that Schopenhauer thought that " because a given subjectified 'personal' consciousness is transitory means that such a conscious entity is not meaningfully participating in a relational process of the evolution of transpersonal ideation", but that he didn't believe in any positive evolution of transpersonal ideation to begin with.
And yet from that same mind we get insights about the ideation of music, such as this
, which is surely addressing the transformative, creative power of transpersonal Mind, and the alter-mode participation of subjectified 'personal' minds, i.e. us, in an evolutionary exploration of ever more novelty ...
"Music … stands quite apart from all the [other arts]. In it we do not recognize the copy, the repetition, of any Idea of the inner nature of the world. Yet it is such a great and exceedingly fine art, its effect on man’s innermost nature is so powerful, and it is so completely and profoundly understood by him in his innermost being as an entirely universal language, whose distinctness surpasses even that of the world of perception itself, that in it we certainly have to look for more than that exercitium arithmeticae occultum nescientis se numerare animi [“an unconscious exercise in arithmetic in which the mind does not know it is counting”] which Leibniz took it to be… We must attribute to music a far more serious and profound significance that refers to the innermost being of the world and of our own self."
I'm not saying that Schopenhauer hadn't written a single line whatsoever that can be portrayed as optimistic, he did often write positively about renouncing/distancing from the will either through art or mysticism, even in some of the quotes i've posted, this is clear when he makes an exception about art.
My point was that if saying directly, repeatedly that human life has no value and that it whould've been better hadlife never existed isn't sufficient to qualify someone as a pessimist, then nothing is, those type of views with the burden of time are the hallmark of philosophical pessimism.
Here is the definition of philosophical pessimism from Wikipedia
"Philosophical pessimism is the related idea that views the world in a strictly anti-optimistic fashion. This form of pessimism is not an emotional disposition as the term commonly connotes. Instead, it is a philosophy or worldview that directly challenges the notion of progress and what may be considered the faith-based claims of optimism. Philosophical pessimists are often existential nihilists believing that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. Their responses to this condition, however, are widely varied and often life-affirming. "
Schopenhauer satisfies the conditions.
Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:33 pm
What can I add, except to say that Schope, like most of us, can come across as a fallible bundle of contradictions, on any given day alternating between one mood and another, who surely was not exempt from shadow projection, and being in need of further introspection, elaboration, and fine-tuning of the expression. In any case, I'm now inclined to be rather more interested in living philosophers than dead ones ... even the aspiring ones here
This is perfectly valid, altough i don't see why living philosophers should be prefered, but let's be careful to not use it only selectively, reading philosophers ceremoniously when their views happen to please and comfort us, and focusing on their faillible nature when their views seem distateful. Everybody is faillible and judge the world through the prism of his own experience, even if you fine-tune and introspect to the outmost dephts of the mind.