Some excerpts from Eduard von Hartmann's "Philosophy of the Unconscious" where he rebukes Schopenhauer's antinatalism

[7b48hl]

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

I almost asked for dressing while reading this one. If I understand things correctly; he believed the universe is based on some "will", and if humans (or another species) realize that the will/desire leads to suffering, then the universe will literally immaterialize or something. Not sure how he's relevant now, anyway.

 

[chocolatebar]

When philosophers become pedantic and borderline poetic, I think they don't care at all about the ideas and arguments they discuss, much less about logic, but are more preoccupied about their self-image and intellectual authority than anything else.


So, here it seems to me that the author argues that, if the will is universal, its rejection must be universal as well.

I almost asked for dressing while reading this one. If I understand things correctly; he believed the universe is based on some "will", and if humans (or another species) realize that the will/desire leads to suffering, then the universe will literally immaterialize or something. Not sure how he's relevant now, anyway.

I interpreted it as something more like "when only individuals realize their condition, they can't do anything about the universal will, but, if the species itself turns against it, they will eventually end everything (because everything is a manifestation of our will)

 

[obafgkm]

Having some universal will controlling everything simplifies the world view a lot. If not, people need to explain why all objects, atoms and particles obey some (same?) physical laws. Even if we take this for granted, atoms still need to interact with each other all the time. For example, when planets rotating around the sun, do they (down to the tiniest particles) need to keep track of every other particle's position in order to calculate which direction to head next. Every particle must be conscious to sense, do the calculation and take action every moment. Each particle must already know the whole universal to calculate what to do next, without upsetting physical laws. Do they work in hierarchies, like all particles of the Earth group together as one and communicate with the sun as a unit? This might reduce some communication. Worst condition is: if there are n particles in the universe, and they are free, there will be n*n communications all the time. Are the communications themselves particles? If there is a universal will, it only needs n communications to control everything. It will even be simpler if all particles are just parts of the same universal dream.

 

[whatevs]

I almost asked for dressing while reading this one. If I understand things correctly; he believed the universe is based on some "will", and if humans (or another species) realize that the will/desire leads to suffering, then the universe will literally immaterialize or something. Not sure how he's relevant now, anyway.

Schopenhauer (of which Hartmann is just an echo here) is relevant as one of the deepest thinkers from the broad category of Pessimism. With his intellect and modern scientific knowledge at his disposal, we would see wondrous philosophical teatrises born.

Without diving into his work you won't grasp what the Will to Exist is. Of course, his work was incomplete and erroneous in some regards, but his characterization of the essence of life and the moral origin of sexual abstinence in some religions were intellectual feats of merit.

As per what Hartmann says, why wouldn't the force behind life eventually grow tired of struggling and regress into a dormant state, by his own volition?

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

Schopenhauer (of which Hartmann is just an echo here) is relevant as one of the deepest thinkers from the broad category of Pessimism. With his intellect and modern scientific knowledge at his disposal, we would see wondrous philosophical teatrises born.

Without diving into his work you won't grasp what the Will to Exist is. Of course, his work was incomplete and erroneous in some regards, but his characterization of the essence of life and the moral origin of some religious behaviors were intellectual feats of merit.

I'm interested in things that actually exist, not capitalized nouns.

 

[whatevs]

I'm interested in things that actually exist, not capitalized nouns.

Haha, how could the Universal Will, that's behind everything, not exist? It is existence itself. This shows how you can't dismiss this kind of thing without reading the author.

And it's plain to see that living organisms are defined by this impulse, that he called the Will to Exist.

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

Haha, how could the Universal Will, that's behind everything, not exist? It is existence itself. This shows how you can't dismiss this kind of thing without reading the author.

And it's plain to see that living organisms are defined by this impulse.

Existence exists, got it. Guess I have to buy a 200-year-old book now.

 

[whatevs]

Existence exists, got it. Guess I have to buy a 200-year-old book now.

You can get it for free online but the real price to be paid is hundreds of hours sunk into reading and trying to understand. Philosophy demands a lot of brainpower. This is why I gave up on it, I don't have the good sleep necessary to make a contribution.

Though I still feel I got a grasp of the basics of life, it's some sort of prison/error/farm/addiction of which we're all responsible, regardless of possible alien/interdimensional overlords.