>>25114491
>because you can move your own hands and body, that therefore you can basically intuit the entire nature of the world because of this?
Not exactly. You also need to recognize the law of motives which makes you move and use it as the key to understand the law of causality of the entire universe.

>>25114491
you're lucky, I wish I could understood Schopenhauer's work

>>25114593
Have you tried increasing your iq?

>>25114603
I can't :'( am forever doubld digit iq

>people have an inherit character to themselves
>this makes them wish things
>in wishing they have 2 options
>ignore and get bored or try to fullfil their wishes and suffer
>even if they do get what they want, they'll get bored eventually and desire more, and this keeps going on and on
>therefore the world is a never ending suffering
Did I get it right?

>>25114491
So you agree with him that we only have access to the world as representation and therefore can never know anything about the thing-in-itself. All he's saying is that we have a way to see 'inside' these things, to see the world as representation from within.

>>25114702
Thats what I gathered from “on suffering”. But I haven’t read Die Welt yet, I really can’t imagine this to be the takeaway from a 700 page book.

>>25114491
Have you read the Critique of Pure Reason? The part about "intuiting the entire nature of the world" draws from Kant's notion of the transcendental conditions of experience, which are a priori. Schopenhauer's only addition to Kant is the Will being the one and only thing in itself (which I don't think he has a valid argument for - but that's beside the point). Kant believes that you can have knowledge of the phenomenal world, which is obviously true, but that claims about the noumenal world are reason overstepping its bounds. Schopenhauer's argument is that the noumenal thing-in-itself must be one (as multiple things-in-themselves cannot be differentiated via the categories) and that this one thing-in-itself must also be whatever the subject in itself is. I don't agree this conclusion either but you don't seem to understand the Kantian basis that Schopenhauer is working off of.

>>25114725
I think Schopenhauer wrote and specify the reader to first read kant's work before reading schopi's

>>25114702
I'll explain it for those in the back:

>in everyday life we exist in a state of naive realism, where objects are out there existing independently and present themselves to us exactly how they exist
>this is wrong
>the world around you is constructed from your sensations - visual field, hearing, etc
>take this away then what remains of the object?
>in fact the objects around you consist of your representation of it - they have no independent existence . Space time causality etc all exist only in representation
>if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?
>the answer is "what forest?" Forests have no independent existence beyond your representation
>anyway kant fucked up and thought the reality beyond/cause of your representation was this unknown thing called noumena which we can't access
>schop thought this is ridiculous and that in fact we exist in two ways - as that which represents the world, but also as a willing subject which can act
>as in within ourselves is present the noumena - the will
>he posits reality consists of representation and will, and we can know this intuitively because we both represent and will
>this will is a singular blind force that objectifies itself in representation at all grades of reality - from magnetic forces to humans making symphonies
>he believes life is bad because this will is just a blind striving force never at rest just a constant force that even objectifies itself into organisms that predate on each other
>you can temporarily escape suffering by listening to music etc and entering a will less flow state

>>25114725
Good response and nah the critique seemed to hard to read for me. Even though schophenaur begs you to read it before him.

I think what's odd is that heaps of people seem to read WWR and think it's pure genius. I did as well. And yet, nobody actually believes it right? I mean there's very few people who actually take seriously his ontology of a blind striving force?

For me my belief is that sensations perceptions representation etc are dependent upon the material conditions of my organism/body functioning. I just can't escape my materialist intuitions. When I see the world around me, it's as if direct/naive realism is true. And onky in philosophy does the idea that the world around me/my body/space/time etc are represented. I think this is just an artifact of bad thinking. Bodies are material, sensations are dependent on material conditions.

Otherwise if the world is represented then other humans are represented. And then what? Solopsism? When I hug my mother I hug my mother directly. And this so called "will'' is bullshit. I think all movements of the body can be explained (at least in theory) by an account of data upon sense organ-> sent and processed by nervous system/brain -> send back out output to body for movement/action. No need for this internal sort of ghost that strives blindly moving all

>>25114725
If two particles are entangled, they behave as a single unit regardless of distance. This implies that underneath the representation of space and time, there is a non-local reality; schopenhauer’s claim that space and time are envelopes and that reality is fundamentally singular is consistent with idea of a non-local universe where separation is an illusion of the observe QM proves schopenhauer

>>25115017
You dumb fag he isn't talking about you hugging your mother he is talking about the nature of reality how retarded can you be you slow thinking low iq faggot stop reading it's not for you

>>25115076
No I understand him and he even has a section in the book where he addresses solipsistic concerns and essentially glosses over it and says it can't be argued against but anyone who believes it belongs in a psych ward.

File: A01823F8-2BA1-43EE-9D96-5A067537398E.jpg (53.7 KB)

53.7 KB JPG

>>25114702
>>25115008
>erm striving is le bad, you need to le detach yourself from your desire to escape duhkha sweaty
>but in german and also I hate women
The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill man’s heart.

Also idealist spergery is total nonsense. Nobody actually lives under the assumption that no external objective world exists because it is a totally untenable. Even the most radical metaphysical solipsist lives like a materialist.

>>25115085
>
Also idealist spergery is total nonsense. Nobody actually lives under the assumption that no external objective world exists because it is a totally untenable.

It's funny I read David Hume recently. He says this that in thinking and reflecting we understand our perceptions are dependent and constructed and cannot be direct access to an external world. And yet in everyday life we instantly revert back to naive realist intuitions.


Personally I agree and I just think idealism is a product of man sitting down, no acting and engaging in a sort of mental puzzle/trickery until he believes his body and the world arpund him basically is a phantasm. Then he writes a book about it. But as soon as he gets hungry boom he's up on his feet the naive realism kicks in the materialst intuitions are back and he goes and finds food.

>>25115017
>Can't stop jerking off
>Thinks it's everyone elses problem too
>>25115081
Thats not what he says, you are still stuck on how's and not why's you actually are smoothbrained and lack a reasonable iq to understand what he say, you beg the question when you talk about a "brain," "nerves," or "matter," you are already assuming a Subject who perceives them.You cannot use the "object" (the brain) to explain the "subject" (the mind) because the object only exists as a representation inside the subject's consciousness. you’ve described the body as an object among objects from the outside, your arm moving is a physical event in space and time, following the law of causality but you are forgetting that you inhabit that body. When you decide to move your arm you experience the movement immediately as an act of Will. The physical movement and the Act of Will are not two different things; they are the same thing experienced in two different ways
Also, you belong in a madhouse

>>25115107
>because the object only exists as a representation inside the subject's consciousness

Bullshit. This is what I mean by my mother's hug. If the object exists only as an internal representation, then my mother is not external to my consciousness. I don't believe it. When I hug my mother it's her body I hug. Because unlike you crazy idealists I don't think I'm a "mind" or a "consciousness" but instead I'm an organism. This body which has sense organs that allow me to perceive an externally existing publicly accessible world that I inhabit. This body my body with my eyes looks at my mother's body. There is no representation. I don't believe in a "mind" or a "subject". A living organism/body is the material condition for sensing the world. When I open my eyes I sense the world, I see objects and others, not representations for a subject. You are your body. Your senses are dependent upon its material function.

>>25115092
What if you have a world where the state provides you with free food or you construct an automated farm which runs on bots that can self maintain what now? You fags can't think beyond capitalism and that is why you all will never be actual idealists of any kind, the strive is for a new world devoid of munching cumming brain rot zoomies. No you rather put down any thought against how this godforsaken world runs because you need to cum, pay for and get paid doing only fans and can't stop yourself

>>25115111
Nice digits but imagine being this much of a brainlet
>I’m an organism
>I have eyes and sense organs
>I see a publicly accessible world
Listen you absolute midwit you’re trying to use the result of perception to explain the source of perception. You can’t use dick or balls to explain how you see the world because dick and balls are just objects you know because you see them in space and time. They are representations. You’re trying to explain the dreamer by analyzing the biology of the people inside his own dream.
>muh mother’s hug
>it's her body I hug
Wrong. In your "materialist" view, a hug is just two meat-machines bumping into each other in a void totally separate and meaningless. Schopenhauer’s view is the only one where the hug is actually real. What you call her body is a mental image filtered through your brain. The reason the hug actually feels like something is because the Will in you and the Will in her are the exact same essence. The separation is the illusion the connection is the fundamental reality of the will
>it's just data processed by the brain
>no need for an internal ghost
There is no "ghost," you illiterate. Schopenhauer explicitly says the Will and the body aren't cause-and-effect. They are the exact same thing seen from two different sides.
Outside View: A scientist sees neurons firing ie the body as representation
Inside View: You move because you Will it ie the immediate feeling you don't wait for data to process to move your arm the act of will is the movement. You’re a midwit looking at a map (the nervous system) and crying that the map is the reason the mountains (the Will) exist.
Go back and actually read the book instead of larping as a "materialist" because the critique was too hard for your TikTok attention span. Or don't and just do some actual mushrooms in a forest.

File: duck-rabbit.png (150.4 KB)

150.4 KB PNG

These pixels are nothing in themselves, they do not coalesce together to agree that they're either a duck or rabbit.
"Which one is it?" Neither material and either in our presentation.
Schopenhauer's basic epistemology is irrefutable, all idealists and platonists say the same thing.

>>25115123
>>25115123
>Listen you absolute midwit you’re trying to use the result of perception to explain the source of perception

Right here is where YOU are the brainlet. Because already you've objectified perception. As if sensing an environment is an object. A perception is something a body DOES. it's an action. Already in your thinking you objectify this action into this thing, this "perception" as if the visual field is this internal private object that belongs to a subject and is not, as is the actual fact -> perception/sensing is something an organism DOES.

>You’re trying to explain the dreamer by analyzing the biology of the people inside his own dream.

I think that when you're alone, you lose the third party perspective and start thinking your access to the world is lost. "Omg no I only have access to my own sensations! The cause of my sensations cannot be THIS body with its perceived sense organs, because mg body is already itself perceptually represented!! AHHH!!! LIFE IS BUT A PHANTASM!!!!11".

Hahaha but you forget the third party perspective. Others can come along and perceive your body from the outside directly. And access the external perspective that is unavailable to you from your 1st person perspective. A doctor can stick shit in your brain and fuck up how you see. You can't see it because of your eyes facing forward, while he sticks it in the back of your head. Our bodies are real just take drugs if you don't believe me. Get knocked out if you don't believe. It's material. Your sensations depend upon a functioning body. And yes from a deficient 1st person perspective you only have access to your action of sensing the world outwards from your body, where the cause of your senses cannot be sensed as its like an arrow shooting itself. But luckily the world is public and shared and others can come along and observe your body from the outside and fill in the gaps. Like hey bto did I miss a spot cutting my hair? Is my back tattoo even? Etc. But more importantly we can dissect bodies and try understand how bodies sense. There is no representations - only sensing bodies.

>>25115141
> The reason the hug actually feels like something is because the Will in you and the Will in her are the exact same essence.

No it's because I'm a body formed in my mother's womb and grown and raised into the world. The world consists of feeling objects and non feeling objects. Organisms/bodies can reproduce other feeling bodies this is how I came to exist.

But fundamentally I just don't believe in this "will". Schophenaur glosses over it he just basically says you feel it right? I feel it we all feel it? Bullshit.

And its you that's wrong because you see moving your arm as represented willing, but that already imbues your idealist ontology onto your sensing/moving, conceiving of your arm as representation, and not, as I see it, which is sensing as an action which a material organism DOES. There is no representation only action. When I move my legs I feel a material organism acting and not a will objectifed as a represented organism, that's dumb.

Just trust your intuitions. The world isn't a phantasm. You're alive because you trust your senses. You don't eat bitter poison why? Because your body knows to spit it out. Your body knows what to eat. And I say your body knows the world around it because it senses it as an action, and sensing is dependent upon the material function of the organism. Idealism is what happens when you sit down and do mind puzzles too long, and forget you're a body sitting, a body who eats feels shits etc. You're an organism in a world which you sense. Take drugs if you don't believe me. Chemicals alter how you sense the world. That's good evidence there's a material basis for your senses, which is dependent upon how your body is functioning.

>>25115092
>Nobody actually lives under the assumption that no external objective world exists
Except all neuroscientists.
How does someone say this when colorblind or tone deaf people exist? They literally experience "the same thing" differently, this is literally what Platonism says: how we experience anything is filtered through our own nature.

>>25115144
>Because your body knows to spit it out. Your body knows what to eat.
Because we subsist in a world of billions of years of collective interplay of interpretation called evolution, no one here says we solipsistically hallucinate the world but that we only experience an infinitesimal fragment of possible distinctions in sensation. You couldn't feel touch without the sense of touch, you can't see blue without blue receptors in eye. Ergo without these blue does not exist in itself, it is only because the blue receptor is BLIND to all other frequencies that 'blue' arises. But there are no lines of separation between any color in objective reality. There are infinite possible colors and no colors.

File: bathers-at-asnieres.jpg (66.8 KB)

66.8 KB JPG

>>25114491
There are no outlines in the world.

>>25115144
By this logic misunderstanding should be impossible.

>>25115141
Why do you larp so much when you're actually a dumb fucking low iq cattle nigger
>Muh 3rd person
Why does it not intuitively come across your head (that should be stabbed in the back of) that those are just representation, the 3rd person is seeing a representation in 3rd person mind. You are trying to prove the reality of matter by stacking one person's mental image on top of another's, the doctor cannot precisely know what he fucks up because it is only a representation of what I feel, you are a lune if you believe a third person perspective is objective truth rather than just a niggers understanding of quantum mechanics which i feel like I'm taking part of right now, the doctor can never prove that you have a brain because you never had one in the first place and no amount of doctors saying you have a brain will prove that to me based on your arguments to what I keep repeating to you and your writhing slithery hands that should be cut off before another larp for this

>>25115185
You're fucking larping dude. As soon as you get off this thread and stand up BOOM you will immediately revert to your direct realist "I am a material body existing in a public world" intuition". Your eyes will feel like windows upon a world out there, showing itself. When you listen to music the sound will be out there, in the world , and not in your brain or your mind or your bla bla.

Idealism is the result of a man doing tongueties in his brain for too long, to the point he thinks his own body isn't real. Others are representations and they represent yourself and bla bla. It's so dumb. You apply your idealist ontology to this example to try and weasle out of your intuitions, but as soon as you're hungry you will go to McDonald's and other people will cook your food and all this idealist nonsense will be forgotten. You're back in the real world among the other humans - not representations.

>Brains don't exist doctors don't exist it's all a phantasm I'm a butterfly dreaming I'm a human I'm 7 layers deep in an inception nightmare bla bla

And then I kick a rock and refute it thus. Scream about idealism all you like - as soon as you stand up your naive rralist intuitions return and you're a body in a public world. Don't make it so complicated.

>>25115168
>>25115168
>no one here says we solipsistically hallucinate the world

First page of WWR basically says exactly this - "the world is my representation".

I agree with you essentially. On the other stuff. I think you sense a blue object when the material conditions in your sense organs have the capability. If you lack this and are eg colour blind you won't sense the blue. Butterflies and shit can sense ultraviolet because of their sense organs.

>>25115192
>I kick a rock and refute it
>naive realist intuitions return as soon as you stand up
Imagine being so intellectually lazy you think this is an own worth reading, you should apologize to everyone who is wasting their time on this thread
I hate being roped in to waste my time on low quality engagement baits but I will explain it to you how me and you are different : when you circumcise your penis what do you actually experience?sensation of resistance and a sensation of pain. Where do those exist? In your consciousness. ie this is not the own you think this is, you are just proving that your representation of your dick being cut is consistently tied to your representation of pain and other representations. You’re still trapped in the world of appearance, you just have a cut dick now
>Burger
What that proves is that the Will-to-Live is now hungry. The other people cooking your food are, from the outside, representations in your visual field. From the inside, they are the same blind, striving Will as you. When you mean you're returning to the real world it means you're following the dictates of the Will through the medium of representation, brains are evolved for survival, not for metaphysical truth especially yours.
>Brains don't exist
This is why you don't understand the book, brains EXIST as a representation
now stop wasting my time and go steal something

>>25114725
>Schopenhauer's argument is that the noumenal thing-in-itself must be one (as multiple things-in-themselves cannot be differentiated via the categories) and that this one thing-in-itself must also be whatever the subject in itself is.

This appears to be something mathematics / mathematical logic can help with. Has it been done before?

Especially the categorical differentiation part.

>>25114491
read kant, then you'll get it

>>25115298
I can't

>>25115301
i hate this board

>And I gotta say, his theory just seems dumb as hell
b8
But anyway, it's not "dumb as hell", he's correctly identifying that the world's structure is essentially causal and translates "within" us like a will.
The reason you got filtered by it is because you're used to materialist conceptions of the world, making the idealist conceptions overly skeptic.
However, even if the idealist conceptions are skeptic, they precisely manage to avoid any errors and can affirm the truth of a given thing by deriving it purely from its abstractions.

As a thought experiment, even if the materialist conception is entirely correct, Schoppy is still going to be right. There still is going to be a condition of existence expressed as a causal mechanic and appearing as a will for individuals by virtue of their consciousness. The genius of Schopenhauer and Kant isn't that they're overly skeptic, but that they're able to derive truth statements without requiring observations grounded on probability.

>>25115193
Solipsistically as in not 'you alone individually', but sure it's solipsistic in that we are all advaitically the Will who omnipotently started this causality ex Nihilo an eternity ago

>>25115111
The Kantian/Schopenhauerian view doesn't negate the existence of objects outside of representation, it simply states that we cannot prove their existence through reason. If you read the four antinomies from Critique of Pure Reason, this will make sense.

>>25115523
Truth itself is a statement of probabilistic observation. It cannot be derived wholly separated from probability or observation. You’re just making semantically empty statements, i.e. tautologies.

File: 0b67716ab721b525c74a920f6623f08698687eb9c7bfa7bd46b3fc10c3fb0ce6.png (25.3 KB)

25.3 KB PNG

>>25115654
>Truth itself is a statement of probabilistic observation
This is only true if you are empirical and materialist. A christian won't tell you that truth is merely probabilistic for instance.

>It cannot be derived wholly separated from probability or observation
Yes but our sensibility to it varies differently. The genius of Kant and other idealists is managing to *sometimes* derive truth statements whilst adopting a purely skeptical point of view. Hence, it shows the possibility to derive knowledge without having to "gamble".

>You’re just making semantically empty statements, i.e. tautologies
That's not what a tautology is. You're also lacking the reading skills required to understand what I've said.
Estimated IQ : Around 95. You're able to cognitively understand normal things, but you show limitations in how you reflect on them.

>>25114491
>I just finished it.
How could you force yourself to finish it while understanding so little of it? Must have been a painful experience.

>>25115729
Peak of mount midwit.

>>25115756
no argument, concession accepted

>>25115141
Yap yap yap. Materialism is wrong, retard. Explicit memory is not stored in the brain.

>>25115778
Observation and probability are not inherently tied to materialism dumbass frognigger

No idealist adopts a purely skeptical view (in that case they would be skeptics), they found their extrapolation on a minimal set of observations (and only a subset of idealists do this).
This is what Descartes meant by “I think therefore I am”. This is not a derivation of any prior truth or logic, but an observation on which the rest of his philosophy hinges.

I only read the Fourfold Principle but I was turned off by his exceedingly ignorant attacks on the idealists. Then the next breath he will plagiarize their ideas - like matter as activity is stolen from Fichte (although ofc misunderstood and perverted by Schopenhauer). I might read his main work sometime but if you want to take down Hegel (a worthy goal) you have to actually understand his thought. Kierkegaard and Marx did understand the idealists so they make for more interesting reading. The very notion of setting up a counter Grand Idealist System to Hegel is itself laughable because you just sink in his skeptical logic, as Schoppie does on every page. But even besides this he comes across as an arrogant retard, like thinking he was the first to realize the difference between reason and cause even though it’s central to Aristotle. Reading Kant as a proto cognitive scientist is another black mark. I get it that people see something in him but ffs he looks dumb if you’ve been reading this stuff for a while. Wittgenstein said “One could call Schopenhauer an altogether crude mind. I.e., he does have refinement, but at a certain level this suddenly comes to an end & he is as crude as the crudest. Where real depth starts, his finishes.” Arendt called him a charlatan. But if you like Schoppie you would probably like Fichte as they share some ideas but Fichte is roughly three times as intelligent. Schelling’s Freedom Essay too.

>>25114718
Neat idea but that’s what Fichte said decades before him. Fichte’s entire system is about how the whole world is nothing but in relation to our will - transcendentally, not empirically or metaphysically.

>>25116069
You're pretty good at taking names of people for ideas, but not thinking.

>>25116100
I do understand the ideas why do you think I read them? I pointed out how Schoppie’s ignorance makes his arguments fall flat. Hegel had attacked the possibility of beginning with a presupposition. Any presupposition is one-sided and leads to an unbalanced philosophy. But Schoppie’s whole system rests on presuppositions, logically speaking he’s still pre-Hegel. I’m not trying to bamboozle you it’s simply shit. How can the brain be the cause of causality? How could anything be the cause of causality? These and many other questions were debated at length by Schoppie’s predecessors but he doesn’t know a thing about it.

File: b219dc58fb3af24c3a883a7b72ba1da4-3105609157.jpg (224 KB)

224 KB JPG

>>25114491
>porn is beamed directly into our minds by god
>rule 34 contradiction present
>god grants divine backing to porn

Alright Berkeley anon, this is the sort of nonsense that always lands Berkeley in the gamed out section. Objects are exactly like our experiences of them. Explain to us how porn works or get back to figuring out where the cosmic hdd is.

Every one of you midwots talking idealist nonsense immediately revert to your naive realist intuitions that you've loved with your entire existence as soon as you write your stupid posts.

Objects are directly sensed. There is no representation. I'm typing this on my phone. The phone is a material object in a shared, publicly accessible external world. It continues to exist when not being sensed. Sensing the object does not change its nature and its nature is CERTAINLY not constituted by my sensing it, "representing" it, or whatever nonsense you larping idealists come up with.

It's just so stupid to me. AS SOON as you stop larping BOOM it's back to your direct/naive realist intuition. The same intuition that kept your body living this far. Trust it. You don't eat rat poison why? Because you trust your intuitions. So then why doubt your direct realist intuition? Let me guess you also eat kale and broccoli because the government says it's healthy even though all your senses say this isn't fucking food? Grow up.

>>25114491
Bruh, this nigga has never heard of Newtowns LAWS OF PHYSICS, so like, the laws of the universe????

>>25115008
>those in the back
jesus you're just a retard aren't you
post your hand I want to see something

>>25116109
holy fuck I think it's worse than I thought
You're a fucking guenontard aren't you?

Schopenhauer is pretty easy to be silly about nowadays, but there are passages in The World as Will and Representation that are probably some of the bleakest stuff that's ever been written.

File: David-Hume-oil-canvas-Allan-Ramsay-Scottish-1766-4277350688.jpg (416.2 KB)

416.2 KB JPG

>>25116520
There he is. Berkeley had a difficult time with the obsolete models of his day. Spent to much time with Malabranche but in his defense he had an easier go on matters of spirit. Unfortunately Berkeley and Berkeley anon only have 3 options, the usual denial, a restart with Descartes and an I know, or his infamous will of god and my will have made a cosmic alignment. Brilliant move making the I just a bundle. This also entails those sorts of things can be swapped in and out. With the last option Berkeley could have avoided most of his ontological issues but it also makes him one of those unity sorts he liked to complain about. As it stands he gets gamed out and still loses matter. Good show Berkeley anon.

>>25116069
Schopenhauer is crude, thay why he is the closest to the truth. Einstein, Pauli and Schrödinger were fans of his, for a good reason. Pauli embraced all of it even.

>>25117070
And Im not mentioning this out of physics envy, but cross discipline convergance is a good sign that someone is onto something and worth your time.

>>25116520
You don’t even know what German idealism is dude. None of them deny that sensible things are real and independent of us except maybe early Schelling. You think Kant, Fichte, Hegel are just jacked up Berkleyans. No, they thought of Berkley as an empiricist and barely engage with him. I don’t understand why people have these strong opinions about authors they never read.

>>25117135
>Berkley
Sorry phoneposting

>>25117135
Not only that but Hegel the “arch idealist” is all about a return to old Greek realism. He attacks even the Kantian variety of idealism as too subjective and unbalanced. Ffs log off and read something; philosophy is about reading just like most intellectual pursuits. YouTube videos and Reddit/4chan shitposts do not suffice.

In general, German idealism isn’t about attacking realism but defending and explaining it. Idealist theories are second-order, transcendental. But you think they’re first order because you don’t know better and your knowledge is filtered through Schoppie.

Bayesian epistemology is the trvke that nvked the idealist-materialist divide

>>25114491
Filtered

>>25114725
So he's a more pessimistic Fichte?

>>25116585
Argument? Not found.