Schopenhauer being clumsy or sort of dumb?

In this forum both posters and comments will be restricted to topic-specific discourse. Comments that are deemed to be too digressive or off-topic, may be deleted by a moderator.

Moderator: Soul_of_Shu

findingblanks
Posts: 526
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: Schopenhauer being clumsy or sort of dumb?

Post by findingblanks »

I've already addressed each of your points, but you don't see any sense in what I've said. You've made enough sense to me that I can respect you as a sincere interlocuter with a strong and motivated mind. I know how you see, partially because you keep saying exactly what you think of my motives and my mind and also because I can step into your shoes and see, to some degree, how incoherent I seem from you starting point.

But congratulations. You have a deeper understanding of Schopenhauer than Bernardo! I have no doubt he could come here someday, read your analysis and hold up Steiner's paragraph as evidence that Schopenhauer's system is incoherent. I'm not kidding when I say that there is a chance you will be writing the preface to the next edition of Bernardo's most recent book. In fact, once he sees how Schopenhauer never even got his ideas off the ground of basic logic, Bernardo might reduce his book to only your preface. There is an actual chance of that. And if you think I'm merely being sarcastic that would be a perfect continuation of our pattern.
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 735
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Schopenhauer being clumsy or sort of dumb?

Post by Cleric K »

Blanks, there's really no point in this. I was intending to give three examples as you requested from Ashvin but now I don't think its worth the keystrokes, as you'll simply dismiss them.

The conversation here becomes similar to argument between materialist and idealist, although on a different level. The materialist says "What's up with all that idealistic nonsense? We've barely scratched the surface of the brain. There's a whole world of unknowns there, why dismiss so quickly the possibility that the answers to consciousness might be right around the next corner. We're practically capitulating rigorous scientific thought because we're too impatient to wait for the future experimental data, and instead prefer to succumb into floating idealism." I think most people in this forum have led similar conversations and know only too well that the materialist simply doesn't understand the deeper epistemological basis of idealism. He doesn't realize that even if he somehow had the full map of correlations between brain activity and conscious phenomena, he would still miss the point of what the idealist is talking about.

We're in somewhat similar position here. You keep saying "Steiner was in a haste to dismiss Schop's arguments so quickly. We just need more time for learned scholars to help us decipher what Schop might have wanted to say". Well, this is not that different from the materialist who maintains that we simply don't yet have enough experimental data on the brain and it's too early to draw conclusions. As said numerous times already, Steiner doesn't argue with Schop just for the sport of it. We only understand the value of Steiner's critique on critical idealism, when we experience the self-imposed limitations we take upon ourselves when we insist that we only live in mental pictures, while the true reality (will or whatever) we can never know in any directly cognitive way - only by way of mental representations, shadow copies of reality.

You have already made it quite clear that you completely dismiss the core of PoF - that in Thinking intuitions we weave in the fabric of spiritual reality, which is at the base of everything. You think that Steiner was simply wrong or that because of sloppy writing skills, he couldn't express himself well enough and actually meant the exact opposite of what he wrote down literally in PoF.

So can you make a final clarification of your position?
Do you understand (from living experience, not only abstractly) that within the intuitions we experience in Thinking, we are one with the noumenon, the true grounds of reality? Or you prefer that in thinking we live only in representations, while the grounds of being are 'knowable' only through some different (mystical) approach, which gives us that 'knowledge', yet this 'knowledge' is not of the kind that we experience in Thinking?
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Schopenhauer being clumsy or sort of dumb?

Post by AshvinP »

findingblanks wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:53 am I've already addressed each of your points, but you don't see any sense in what I've said. You've made enough sense to me that I can respect you as a sincere interlocuter with a strong and motivated mind. I know how you see, partially because you keep saying exactly what you think of my motives and my mind and also because I can step into your shoes and see, to some degree, how incoherent I seem from you starting point.

But congratulations. You have a deeper understanding of Schopenhauer than Bernardo! I have no doubt he could come here someday, read your analysis and hold up Steiner's paragraph as evidence that Schopenhauer's system is incoherent. I'm not kidding when I say that there is a chance you will be writing the preface to the next edition of Bernardo's most recent book. In fact, once he sees how Schopenhauer never even got his ideas off the ground of basic logic, Bernardo might reduce his book to only your preface. There is an actual chance of that. And if you think I'm merely being sarcastic that would be a perfect continuation of our pattern.
You addressed the quote in Chapter 5 of PoF re: Schopenhauer, posted in this comment - viewtopic.php?p=8558#p8558?

Since you keep bringing up BK and his understanding of Schopenhauer, here is a quote from DSM. I suspect some people reading could probably use clarity on that at this point:

For Schopenhauer, this physical world exists only insofar as it consists of mental images—representations—in the consciousness of the observing individual subject. It has no existence beyond this individual subject.
...
The question that then arises is: What is the essential nature—the categorical basis—of the world-in-itself? Schopenhauer describes it repeatedly as volitional states—such as an “irresistible impulse,” “determination,” or “keen desire” (W1: 118)—which implies that the world-in-itself is mental. And although representations are also mental, the experiential states that constitute the world-in-itself are completely different from the qualities of representation.
...
One can only become acquainted with the intrinsic view—the concealed order—of an aspect of the world by being this aspect. For without being it, one can only know it through how it presents itself in perception. There is, therefore, precisely one aspect of the world whose intrinsic view we can access: ourselves.

What it is like to be ourselves is, for Schopenhauer, our sole hint to what the world-in-itself is like. In his wonderfully aphoristic words, “we must learn to understand nature from ourselves, not ourselves from nature” (W2: 196).

Kastrup, Bernardo. Decoding Schopenhauer’s Metaphysics. John Hunt Publishing. Kindle Edition.

As stated many times before, we don't necessarily disagree with the above conclusions in their lowest resolution (except first bolded conclusion) - what we and Steiner criticize is Schop's inability to perceive that "knowing", "accessing", "introspecting", and all similar such words presuppose the essential reality of cognitive activity. That realization completely shatters the view that the world exists only by way of "mental images in the consciousness of the observing individual subject".
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
findingblanks
Posts: 526
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: Schopenhauer being clumsy or sort of dumb?

Post by findingblanks »

"what we and Steiner criticize is Schop's inability to perceive that "knowing", "accessing", "introspecting", and all similar such words presuppose the essential reality of cognitive activity."

And you don't see any presuppositions in what you said above. Great! That's 54% of my point.

Also, the fact that Steiner often expanded on what he meant by intuition and, in those cases, made clear that it was nothing like what we mean by the word 'thinking' in any sense...that was helpful. The fact that he often expanded and blew open the notion of thinking to mean, at it's hightest point, that we become the other itself, in no way 'thinking' about it because 'thinking' can't cover what it really means to be. That was helpful, too.

I can see why some people think that the word 'cognitive' needs to be applied to The Father Impulse. And, as long as this use of 'cognitive' only means the fundamental nature of reality that has utterly no dependence upon being temporarily cognized by other beings, then it doesn't matter if we say it is will or thinking or father impulse... We grasp that whatever we say about it will be wrong and only helpful to the degree that it stops everything we think thinking is and the only I Am there is 'still' the case.

Or, in other words: I know you don't think your sentences above contained any major presuppositions. That's progress in a very odd way.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Schopenhauer being clumsy or sort of dumb?

Post by AshvinP »

findingblanks wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:05 pm "what we and Steiner criticize is Schop's inability to perceive that "knowing", "accessing", "introspecting", and all similar such words presuppose the essential reality of cognitive activity."

And you don't see any presuppositions in what you said above. Great! That's 54% of my point.

Also, the fact that Steiner often expanded on what he meant by intuition and, in those cases, made clear that it was nothing like what we mean by the word 'thinking' in any sense...that was helpful. The fact that he often expanded and blew open the notion of thinking to mean, at it's hightest point, that we become the other itself, in no way 'thinking' about it because 'thinking' can't cover what it really means to be. That was helpful, too.

I can see why some people think that the word 'cognitive' needs to be applied to The Father Impulse. And, as long as this use of 'cognitive' only means the fundamental nature of reality that has utterly no dependence upon being temporarily cognized by other beings, then it doesn't matter if we say it is will or thinking or father impulse... We grasp that whatever we say about it will be wrong and only helpful to the degree that it stops everything we think thinking is and the only I Am there is 'still' the case.

Or, in other words: I know you don't think your sentences above contained any major presuppositions. That's progress in a very odd way.
Of course it contained a presupposition - that BK and Steiner and Cleric and myself are understanding Schop correctly by the plain meaning of what he wrote in so many different places. Anyway, I didn't expect you to reflect on it much, it was posted for benfit of anyone else who is genuinely interested in understanding Schopenhauer position. I would much rather hear your answer to Cleric's latest question.

You sort of answered above that you see absolutely no continuity between reason and imagination, which are quite obviously modes of thinking, and intuitive thinking. So you are adopting Schop mystical position of fundamental discontinuity as we have said many times. It's amazing we took this long to get there... utterly amazing. You could have just said "I disagree with Steiner and agree with Schop" rather than trying to mangle Steiner into a position he clearly does not take and play all sorts of random games with Schop position. Amazing...
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
findingblanks
Posts: 526
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: Schopenhauer being clumsy or sort of dumb?

Post by findingblanks »

"what we and Steiner criticize is Schop's inability to perceive that "knowing", "accessing", "introspecting", and all similar such words presuppose the essential reality of cognitive activity."

Some people seem to think that because all words presuppose cognition, that, therefore, cognition is the eternal nature of reality itself.

To say anything about the nature of reality presupposes partial and finished concepts. The same fallacy would then state that reality must be a partial and finished concept. You can't even begin to have the urge to talk about reality unless you are already utilizing finished, partial concepts.

Sure, you can say, "Well, even though I'm forced to use finished, partial concepts, believe me when I say that I'm experiencing directly the eternal nature of reality itself and that's all I'm talking about."

That's great. But, like I said, some people get very excited that you can't utter a word without presupposing cognition. I still find it exciting. I just don't claim that means the will of the Father is best described as cognitive. Steiner did a fairly good job of explaining why the people who were most in touch with the fundamental nature of reality didn't call it cognitive.

He also did a good job of explaining why it was Spiral Science's task to elaborate human cognition in a way that identifies it with fundamental reality. If those two facts seem a bit contradictory, at least Steiner is smiling.

Yes, it's true that every time you think you presuppose there is a topic. And the fact that the nature of reality isn't a topic doesn't contradict that every time you utter a word you presuppose a topic. Reality itself isn't, can't be, and never will be a topic. When we think of it as a topic, we hopefully are experiencing the humor of this error.
findingblanks
Posts: 526
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: Schopenhauer being clumsy or sort of dumb?

Post by findingblanks »

For the the record, and to be blunt: I think it would require a relatively dumb philosopher to not realize that when they write a word they are presupposing the reality of cognition.

So if you, gentle reader, are somebody who thinks that it is fairly obvious that it is impossible to get outside of cognition and, therefore, cognition is the naure of reality, I think you (within your own system) are justified in saying that Schopenhauer was not just being clumsy with language but was in fact being just plain dumb.

Most of us struggle with calling somebody dumb, but we need to see it isn't really a pejorative in this context. Look, if it is true that becasuse all words and thought presuppose thinking that, therefore, thinking is the fundamental nature of reality, THEN (if that is true), we can say that anybody who is unwilling to agree is being at best slow but at worst dumb.

Of course, some people (tiny children or people born with bodily issues) can't even formulate an abstract question. We don't blame them or expect them to realize that obviously reality is cognitive. But for anybody who can do basic logic, it should be obvious that there is nothing outside of cognition. Therefore, to claim that something other than cognition is fundamental is just plain old dumb.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Schopenhauer being clumsy or sort of dumb?

Post by AshvinP »

findingblanks wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:37 pm For the the record, and to be blunt: I think it would require a relatively dumb philosopher to not realize that when they write a word they are presupposing the reality of cognition.
I am not claiming Schopenhauer was unaware that he is a thinking being with cognition... and neither is anyone else. Rather we are claiming that he viewed his thinking-cognition as personal to him, structured by Kant's a priori judgments in some unknown manner, but nevertheless completely disconnected and discontinuous with the noumenal reality. That does not make Schopenhauer "dumb", it just puts him in the same company of nearly every post-Cartesian and post-Kantian philosopher in the Western world (perhaps you are trying to rewrite the entire history of modern philosophy as well... at this point I can't put anything past you). So, do you agree with that position or not? Please, for the love of all that is holy, just respond with a direct answer.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Schopenhauer being clumsy or sort of dumb?

Post by AshvinP »

AshvinP wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 8:23 pm
findingblanks wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:37 pm For the the record, and to be blunt: I think it would require a relatively dumb philosopher to not realize that when they write a word they are presupposing the reality of cognition.
I am not claiming Schopenhauer was unaware that he is a thinking being with cognition... and neither is anyone else. Rather we are claiming that he viewed his thinking-cognition as personal to him, structured by Kant's a priori judgments in some unknown manner, but nevertheless completely disconnected and discontinuous with the noumenal reality. That does not make Schopenhauer "dumb", it just puts him in the same company of nearly every post-Cartesian and post-Kantian philosopher in the Western world (perhaps you are trying to rewrite the entire history of modern philosophy as well... at this point I can't put anything past you). So, do you agree with that position or not? Please, for the love of all that is holy, just respond with a direct answer.

Just to be clear, I see that your comment also puts forth the argument, "if we claim something is very obviously true and someone else does not accept our claim, then we are basically saying they are 'plain dumb'''. Sorry, but only people with the most abstract sense of human psychology, detached from the living world, could express it that way. I outright reject the notion that super intelligent people cannot miss obvious errors in their arguments due to all sorts of unexamined assumptions and prejudices. In fact, I am sure that I do it quite frequently in the normal course of my conversations about various topics. On this forum, though, I have the luxury of carefully considering my own arguments before I post them. This Steiner-Schopenhauer dispute (which applies to many more modern thinkers than just them, as I tried to show in my Kant vs. the World (and Goethe) essay, is a philosophical topic that I have considered more carefully than any others so far. Regardless, you can obviously respond to all of these points if you want, but I want to be clear that I myself am still only interested in your answer to the bolded question above.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
Post Reply