Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

[AshvinP]

I can't say, because I have never experienced the inner phenomenal perspective of a bird or a tiger. I think Steiner makes very clear in PoF that he is philosophizing about Thinking from the human perspective and also why everyone who attempts to do otherwise is not doing philosophy at all. A bird or a tiger's mode of perception-thinking and their approach to integration of the two will depend on their specific non-human organizations. The most essentially common element between a human and another human, however, is best and most obviously expressed in our shared ideal content which allows us to meaningfully interact, communicate, empathize, etc. as social beings. The mere will or feelings of an individual do no such thing.

I will strike that last sentence because it may be taken to imply the will and feelings have no role in crafting ideal content, and surely they do. But that role is primarily infusing the content with personalized soul-qualities. Those soul-qualities are no doubt shared by humans, but they are never what allow us to rightly know and claim anything is shared between us.

[findingblanks]

"what is your interpretation of Schopenhauer's philosophy of "will"? What does "will" mean to you in that philosophy?"

From my reading of Schopenhauer -- I am not an expert in his work by any stretch -- his use of Will presupposes the activity of thinking that Steiner explicates, in much the same way that Steiner's use of 'thinking' presupposes a kind of Will that he did not explicate in his original text. Just as Steiner decided he needed to come back decades later and use very different language to make his "same" point regarding thinking, Schopenhauer may also have needed to restate many things about his "same" point regarding will. But from my reading of Schopenhauer, what he ultimately is pointing to as The Will presupposes the kind of essential cognitive activity that Steiner said must be made conscious in our times to take the next steps forward in science and culture.

Because they had very different goals ('karma', 'desnity,' missions), they did not take their core insights in the same direction. Steiner was essentially trying to get people to re-cognize the actual nature of thinking so that we could avoid social=spiritual disasters. Schopenhauer was trying to correct for all kinds of mistakes that led to an ontological detachment from what is fundamental in the Cosmos to what is fundamental in humans. Their overlap was great, but they culture, language-context, and goals were very different.

There are many ways to misread them and only one of those is to think that they both mean the same thing when they use words like 'will' and 'thinking'. Steiner made this clear in the various ways he would update and modify his language, often leaving 'thinking' out altogether when he thought it would help make his point.

[AshvinP]

"what is your interpretation of Schopenhauer's philosophy of "will"? What does "will" mean to you in that philosophy?"

From my reading of Schopenhauer -- I am not an expert in his work by any stretch -- his use of Will presupposes the activity of thinking that Steiner explicates, in much the same way that Steiner's use of 'thinking' presupposes a kind of Will that he did not explicate in his original text. Just as Steiner decided he needed to come back decades later and use very different language to make his "same" point regarding thinking, Schopenhauer may also have needed to restate many things about his "same" point regarding will. But from my reading of Schopenhauer, what he ultimately is pointing to as The Will presupposes the kind of essential cognitive activity that Steiner said must be made conscious in our times to take the next steps forward in science and culture.

Because they had very different goals ('karma', 'desnity,' missions), they did not take their core insights in the same direction. Steiner was essentially trying to get people to re-cognize the actual nature of thinking so that we could avoid social=spiritual disasters. Schopenhauer was trying to correct for all kinds of mistakes that led to an ontological detachment from what is fundamental in the Cosmos to what is fundamental in humans. Their overlap was great, but they culture, language-context, and goals were very different.

There are many ways to misread them and only one of those is to think that they both mean the same thing when they use words like 'will' and 'thinking'. Steiner made this clear in the various ways he would update and modify his language, often leaving 'thinking' out altogether when he thought it would help make his point.

Can you point to specific passages from The World as Will and Representation which support that reading? I am sure you know how it looks without any support... you are attributing to Schopenhauer's fundamental "Will" what no one else since he wrote has ever attributed to it as far as I can tell, namely self-reflective cognitive activity. As for Steiner, there isn't even a question - he has spoken of the distinction between Willing and Thinking at such length and in so many different places that your reading cannot possibly be correct (if you are claiming that "Willing" for Steiner encompasses higher cognition, which is what it sounds like to me). In fact, your own quotes from him about the polarity of Willing-Thinking make that perfectly clear. Not just the quote but the very phrase you bolded - "The first pole is complete surrender to contemplation, to thought, in which the will has no part". You are really trying to stretch that update to PoF way farther than it can reasonably be stretched.

Of course the other thing to mention here is, even if somehow you are correct about Schopenhauer and Steiner, that does not change the fact that so many Western philosophers of Will now hold to what I am claiming Schopenhauer held to, and that misconception (under your view) is precisely what has influenced the course of Western philosophy for centuries now. And that misconceived view of Schopenhauer, which is now ingrained in the fabric of our culture (along with Kantianism), is also what Steiner was addressing in his philosophy of Thinking, covered in many different books and lectures, and what he saw as a major threat to the development of spiritual freedom and "ethical individualism". So, what is your position on that aspect of Steiner's argument, even assuming it does not represent what Schopenhauer actually argued?

[findingblanks]

"Can you point to specific passages from The World as Will and Representation which support that reading?"

That's not really how it works, but I truly understand what you want. Unfortunately, as you must know, when people simply pull out passages and say, I think this is when he means that. It can be helpful. And if i had or have the time, I'll try to pick up that conversation. But I think we still have much to gain simply in the fact that you find it hard to believe it could be read in that way. At this point, I see how smart and careful readers have very different understandings of Steiner. And I find that same thing whenever I take up any serious thinker.

For instance, without referring to the 1918 edition of POF, show me the passages in the text that would support the claim that in PoF Steiner is arguing that within all percepts (before they have received their corresponding concepts from thinking) we can find 'thinking.' I clearly am not referring to any of the statements that talk about a percept that is in need of its concept or that needs thinking to 'find' or 'locate' the concept and 'attach' it to the percept.

Go through the non-1918 addition and show specific passages that support that interpretation. . By the way, I am NOT claiming this is impossible to do.

[AshvinP]

"Can you point to specific passages from The World as Will and Representation which support that reading?"

That's not really how it works, but I truly understand what you want. Unfortunately, as you must know, when people simply pull out passages and say, I think this is when he means that. It can be helpful. And if i had or have the time, I'll try to pick up that conversation. But I think we still have much to gain simply in the fact that you find it hard to believe it could be read in that way. At this point, I see how smart and careful readers have very different understandings of Steiner. And I find that same thing whenever I take up any serious thinker.

For instance, without referring to the 1918 edition of POF, show me the passages in the text that would support the claim that in PoF Steiner is arguing that within all percepts (before they have received their corresponding concepts from thinking) we can find 'thinking.' I clearly am not referring to any of the statements that talk about a percept that is in need of its concept or that needs thinking to 'find' or 'locate' the concept and 'attach' it to the percept.

Go through the non-1918 addition and show specific passages that support that interpretation. . By the way, I am NOT claiming this is impossible to do.

Who is the "smart and careful" reader who shares your understanding of Steiner? I am just trying to point to the fact that your readings of Schopenhauer and Steiner are not shared by anyone else, unless you can refer to some support for that. That doesn't mean your reading is automatically wrong, but it also presents obvious problems. Again, your own quote of Steiner and bolded phrase contradict what you are now claiming Steiner meant by "will" or "willing". You also sidestepped the 2nd paragraph of my last response, which is really the crux of the matter - BK's take on Schopenhauer, as everyone else's, including whoever wrote Stanford encyclopedia entry (which I assume is vetted pretty carefully), is that "Will" does not possess any sort of higher cognitive functioning. So what is your position on that claim?

re: bolded sentence -Steiner does not claim there is Thinking "within all percepts", rather that Thinking is the opposite pole of perceiving and it is only by the former that the latter can be weaved into coherent whole of experience. If you are asking for where he says that Thinking is fundamental to experience, then that's all over his writings. But I don't want to go searching for passages if that is not what you are asking?

[AshvinP]

"Can you point to specific passages from The World as Will and Representation which support that reading?"

That's not really how it works, but I truly understand what you want. Unfortunately, as you must know, when people simply pull out passages and say, I think this is when he means that. It can be helpful. And if i had or have the time, I'll try to pick up that conversation. But I think we still have much to gain simply in the fact that you find it hard to believe it could be read in that way. At this point, I see how smart and careful readers have very different understandings of Steiner. And I find that same thing whenever I take up any serious thinker.

For instance, without referring to the 1918 edition of POF, show me the passages in the text that would support the claim that in PoF Steiner is arguing that within all percepts (before they have received their corresponding concepts from thinking) we can find 'thinking.' I clearly am not referring to any of the statements that talk about a percept that is in need of its concept or that needs thinking to 'find' or 'locate' the concept and 'attach' it to the percept.

Go through the non-1918 addition and show specific passages that support that interpretation. . By the way, I am NOT claiming this is impossible to do.

Who is the "smart and careful" reader who shares your understanding of Steiner? I am just trying to point to the fact that your readings of Schopenhauer and Steiner are not shared by anyone else, unless you can refer to some support for that. That doesn't mean your reading is automatically wrong, but it also presents obvious problems. Again, your own quote of Steiner and bolded phrase contradict what you are now claiming Steiner meant by "will" or "willing". You also sidestepped the 2nd paragraph of my last response, which is really the crux of the matter - BK's take on Schopenhauer, as everyone else's, including whoever wrote Stanford encyclopedia entry (which I assume is vetted pretty carefully), is that "Will" does not possess any sort of higher cognitive functioning. So what is your position on that claim?

re: bolded sentence -Steiner does not claim there is Thinking "within all percepts", rather that Thinking is the opposite pole of perceiving and it is only by the former that the latter can be weaved into coherent whole of experience. If you are asking for where he says that Thinking is fundamental to experience, then that's all over his writings. But I don't want to go searching for passages if that is not what you are asking?

I have been thinking some more about your comments. I think you have some legitimate points with regards to modern metaphysics and spirituality - most worldviews of this sort are always missing at least 50% of the picture - they diminish or altogether extinguish one pole or another. Some skew way towards spiritualization and some way towards materialization. Likewise some skew way towards the eternality of God-Nature and some towards their constant flux. Some skew towards the Unity of experience and some towards the diversity of experience. That can also be applied to Willing and Thinking (or Feeling and Thinking, Perceiving and Thinking, etc.). These skews are all interrelated in various ways. So I can see why the Schopenhauer vs. Steiner setup may seem like just another expression of that modern bias towards one pole or another.

Some people, like Eugene, say we must add them together to see the full picture. You are sort of saying these poles are actually one and the same, or at least much more unified than followers of Schopenhauer and Steiner are imagining them to be, or that Schopenhauer and Steiner themselves imagined the relationships incorrectly. The former is definitely true - the flawed assumptions of modernity divide the poles rather than seeing they are two forces of the same power. But then I think your position here ends up skewing too far in the other direction - since the poles are fundamentally unified, you say there is little reason for us to emphasize Willing over Thinking or vice versa. I think that is essentially where we disagree - when it comes to certain specified ways in which Reality unfolds, I think Steiner correctly saw the limitations of Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, etc. due to keeping Thinking in their "blind spot".

Does that sound like accurate summary of the positions to you?

[findingblanks]

"re: bolded sentence -Steiner does not claim there is Thinking 'within all percepts'"

You are wrong. Many of Steiner's student's would agree with you. But Steiner himself believed that the original edition made clear by implication that htis was case and then he stated it explicitly in the 1918 edition.

This is exactly why I asked you to show me the passages that make this clear in the original edition. You asked me to point to passages in Schopenhauer that make it clear his ultimate "will" may essentially be Steiner's ultimate 'thinking.' I wanted to show you directly why this will almost certainly fail - also, it would be a big time commitment to begin diving into Schopy just to continue speaking at cross purposes with you.

But to be clear; anybody who says that PoF (even in first edition) doesn't imply that 'thinking' is within all percepts is clearly in disagreement with Steiner.

My more subtle (and taboo) point is that Steiner wasn't at all very clear about this in the original. He defensively (taboo!) claims he was clear in the original and just decided to make it more clear later. But my point stands: it is possible to point to sentences in the original PoF and say, "If read in a certain way, we can see that they could mean that even within a so-called 'pure percept' there is thinking."

So, no, I won't be pulling out sentences from Schopenhauer that I think 'prove' his Will is being deeply misunderstood by Steiner and those who agree with Steiner's characterization.

[findingblanks]

"You are sort of saying these poles are actually one and the same, or at least much more unified than followers of Schopenhauer and Steiner are imagining them to be."

I'm saying that Steiner and most of his followers don't even show signs of being aware that they could be locked into a very narrow way of responding to the various key words. That's why the conversations usually become about "proving or showing where so and so says that...". That isn't exactly the wrong approach, but I've never seen it work between groups that honestly think they have a tight lock on a given meaning.

"You say there is little reason for us to emphasize Willing over Thinking or vice versa."

This is another symptom of why I don't think we can make too much headway in this kind of conversation. Show me where I say what you said I say...Show me?

I have no doubt you are being honest that you believe I've clearly indicated that we don't have much reason to emphasize Willing over Thinking or vice versa. I know you are being genuine and I appreciate that. But I don't know how to make you see

1) That I never said that.
2) How everything I have said explains why I would never make that claim.

Once we have a very clear personal understanding of a given phenomenon and then we define as clearly as possible that understand, THEN, yes, we can show people how we are using our terms and, THEN, compare and contrast them with other terms. This is when we can clearly speak about how our philosophies use of, say, "willing" can be contrasted with our philosophies use of, say, 'thinking.' And if we have done our job well, people can see how we are being internally consistent.

But this is very very different from then looking over at hother thinkers who are setting up their own terms, spotting a word that is the same or similar to ours - or different - and assuming their system shares all of the nuances as ours. This is what leads to the kinds of debate that say, "Hey, Schopenhauer LITERALY says it is all about the Will so OBVIOUSLY, he can't be grasping anything about what Steiner is saying about the fundamental nature of 'thinking.'

It goes nowhere. But, there is still wonderful personal value for the individual thinkers trying to become clear about what they really think. Much more useful than thinking they know what some other thinker thought they knew about some other thinker's highly intricate thoughts. That kind of thing isn't impossible. But people who did it well START with a strong awareness of all the possible and ambiguous meanings in their core terms.

People on spiritual paths sometimes are very uncomfortable holding many possible meanings of, say, 'thinking.' when they try to get at what Steiner thought. It certainly doesn't help that Steiner didn't do a great job of showing how, specifically, his thoughts changed over the years.

[findingblanks]

But my hunch is that my core point (in this context) is best made by coming back to the above request.

Show passages in the original edition of PoF that make it clear that even in the supposed 'pure percept' we find thinking. It's even better to do this before refreshing our memories with how Steiner 'clarified' his point in the 1918 edition.

You said that Steiner never made that claim. And I fully can understand why a very careful student of Steiner's would say that. Just as I can understand why they might say that Steiner was clearly grasping Schopenhauer's core ideas. Just as I can understand that they'd be surprised somebody could think that Schopenhauer and Steiner were describing essentially the same phenomena from different perspectives and with different purposes and audiences.

I don't think you'll find it easy to show clearly that PoF claims thinking is found in the percept.

And I certainly don't think I can make you see that Schopenhauer's "will" is extremely cognitive in nature.

[AshvinP]

"You are sort of saying these poles are actually one and the same, or at least much more unified than followers of Schopenhauer and Steiner are imagining them to be."

I'm saying that Steiner and most of his followers don't even show signs of being aware that they could be locked into a very narrow way of responding to the various key words. That's why the conversations usually become about "proving or showing where so and so says that...". That isn't exactly the wrong approach, but I've never seen it work between groups that honestly think they have a tight lock on a given meaning.

"You say there is little reason for us to emphasize Willing over Thinking or vice versa."

This is another symptom of why I don't think we can make too much headway in this kind of conversation. Show me where I say what you said I say...Show me?

I have no doubt you are being honest that you believe I've clearly indicated that we don't have much reason to emphasize Willing over Thinking or vice versa. I know you are being genuine and I appreciate that. But I don't know how to make you see

1) That I never said that.
2) How everything I have said explains why I would never make that claim.

Once we have a very clear personal understanding of a given phenomenon and then we define as clearly as possible that understand, THEN, yes, we can show people how we are using our terms and, THEN, compare and contrast them with other terms. This is when we can clearly speak about how our philosophies use of, say, "willing" can be contrasted with our philosophies use of, say, 'thinking.' And if we have done our job well, people can see how we are being internally consistent.

But this is very very different from then looking over at hother thinkers who are setting up their own terms, spotting a word that is the same or similar to ours - or different - and assuming their system shares all of the nuances as ours. This is what leads to the kinds of debate that say, "Hey, Schopenhauer LITERALY says it is all about the Will so OBVIOUSLY, he can't be grasping anything about what Steiner is saying about the fundamental nature of 'thinking.'

It goes nowhere. But, there is still wonderful personal value for the individual thinkers trying to become clear about what they really think. Much more useful than thinking they know what some other thinker thought they knew about some other thinker's highly intricate thoughts. That kind of thing isn't impossible. But people who did it well START with a strong awareness of all the possible and ambiguous meanings in their core terms.

People on spiritual paths sometimes are very uncomfortable holding many possible meanings of, say, 'thinking.' when they try to get at what Steiner thought. It certainly doesn't help that Steiner didn't do a great job of showing how, specifically, his thoughts changed over the years.

FB,

I wish you would spend as much time trying to understand what I am saying and responding to the specific points I am making, as you do trying to psychoanalyze the place from which I am saying it. We can play those psychoanalytical games all day - I have plenty of reasons for why I think people take the "linguistic relativistic" approach you are taking (that may not be the best term for it but I haven't thought of a better one yet), but my listing them here will do us little good. When I asked you if what I wrote is a "fair summary", I was genuinely asking and genuinely looking for a straightforward answer of "yes" or "no and here's why". It is very odd for every point or question to be met with an accusation of being "locked into a very narrow way..." That sounds like, "sorry, you will never understand the level at which I am thinking about these things because you are indoctrinated by Steiner". But I have also been making attempts to separate the underlying philosophical issues from any particular person who held to them. We can totally get rid of Schopenhauer and Steiner in this discussion if that helps you focus on those underlying issues.

You ask, "Show me where I say what you said I say...Show me?" Below you say:

From my reading of Schopenhauer -- I am not an expert in his work by any stretch -- his use of Will presupposes the activity of thinking that Steiner explicates, in much the same way that Steiner's use of 'thinking' presupposes a kind of Will that he did not explicate in his original text

I am just trying to understand what exactly those bolded parts mean to you. Why do you suppose they are presupposing thinking in will and will in thinking and what is the relevance of that? Like I said, we can get rid of Schopenhauer and Steiner if necessary, and just go with our own experience of the distinctions between will and thinking and the roles they perform. Getting to the bottom of that question is what is most important. If we can make headway on such a question, then people can figure out later if Schopenhauer or Steiner are more accurately representing the reality of experience, or both are, or neither are. So, what is your take on the relationship of Will to Thinking?