First things first, I've posted many many posts in which I praise Bernardo. I'm sorry you haven't seen those and that has caused you take my more cirtical remarks as a fixation of some kind.
But even if you have only seen my critical remarks, I am surprised you interpret it as 'hatred'. If you are being serious, I'm not sure there is much point in trying to have a productive conversation as I imagine you'll take disagreement as hatred. I don't share that stance. I thought you put together a very fun thought experiment.
Anyways....
Steiner says:
"As far as the will is concerned, it can be regarded only as the expression of the activity of our finite personality”
Steiner is making an assumption that he does not explain and that carries presuppositions. Sure, we can just flately say he's right or wrong, but I notice he doesn't motivate the claim. Or, worse (and I am NOT claiming he is doing this) it could be begging the question. If his first use of 'will' in that sentence complies to his conclusion than he begging the question. But it is hard to know because he doesn't explain the claim.
Schopenhauer, in my opinion (and, as you say, in many other people's opinion) doesn't just 'say' that the same will is looking through your eyes as mine, he motivates and explains it. Doesn't mean we have to agree with him, but I take his arguments (to the extent I grasp them) and Bernardo's (and others who argue for this kind of spiritual monism) to strong and at the very least plausible. And I think Steiner's later work actually is more in line which the idea that in actually there is only one true will and it is that will which we grasp cognitively if we truly are grasping our actual nature.
And, then, Steiner says:
"As far as the will is concerned, it can be regarded only as the expression of the activity of our finite personality. Schopenhauer wants to avoid making “abstract” thinking the bearer of unity in the world, and seeks instead something which presents itself to him immediately as real."
As Steiner says later, what he means by thinking is one and the same with a new understanding of 'will,' that thinking/feeling/will are united in the insight he is pointing towards.
I do not believe that Schopenhauer is referring to his desire to eat pizza as what he has cognized as the will that works through all of reality. Thanks, and to the extent that I haven't adequately praised Bernardo in each of my posts, I'm more than happy to repeat here that I consider his work to be some of the most significant stuff taking place in the world of thought these days. And where I disagree with him, I do not make it personal and I know he appreciates the debates.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 10:27 pm
findingblanks wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 9:01 pm
I love BK!
I just think Steiner clearly misrepresented Schopenhauer.
Oh I am sure you do, but I have also never seen you start a thread which was not "hating" on him
I do not think Steiner misrepresents Schopenhauer at all and I know at least Cleric and Scott agree, so there is good debate to be explored there. I am curious, though, do you have a stance on what you believe Schopenhauer actually claimed, i.e. agree or disagree with him on this topic?