Arthur, he does as he pleases

All of his life, his master's choice

Deep in his heart, he's just, he's just a boy

Living his life one day at a time

And showing himself a pretty good time

Laughing about the way they want him to be

found in the song "Arthur's theme" by Christopher Cross. I knew this song even before I discovered Schopenhauer and come to think of it just now, the verse really describes Schop. Just sharing this because the song is played on a radio station a while ago 😅

I know that he mentions this many times throughout his work. Most people suck, most folks are just a notch above brutes, most folks swallow up lies and falsehoods, etc...

I know that he threw his neighbor down a flight of stairs. That was certainly crazy.

But what about on more day to day things.

I would actually love to see how Schopenhauer would communicate with the average Frankfurter going about their day. Say there is some carriage accident on the Hochstraße or something and somebody asks him, "excuse me mein herr, what has occurred here?"

Something tells me that Schopenhauer was probably a witty person. Know what I mean?

Not in a snooty way like Voltaire but just sort of simple about it.

Intellectual conversation, whether grave or humorous, is only fit for intellectual society; it is downright abhorrent to ordinary people, to please whom it is absolutely necessary to be commonplace and dull. This demands an act of severe self-denial; we have to forfeit three-fourths of ourselves in order to become like other people.

- Counsels and Maxims / section 9

Compare Dennett's 3 levels of explanations for behavior of objects with Schopenhauer's 3 forms of Causality.

https://preview.redd.it/oofu9huvn36e1.png?width=1892&format=png&auto=webp&s=5094140560ae9fb3af419a0f48e4728fa15551af

https://preview.redd.it/vuz47wl0o36e1.png?width=1926&format=png&auto=webp&s=de89fa79ae842db377e1d5127d4f653fb4b179b5

OK this question is gonna sound stupid, but I haven't read Schopenhauer and I'm doing some writing atm:

So Schopenhauer's aesthetics, as I understand them, posit that art is a transcendent experience. That is to say, that by consuming art and occupying our minds, we are relieved of the suffering of life. Would it be fair to say - by his standards - that you could achieve the same thing with brain rotting TikTok videos, or would he argue "No, you have to actually contemplate the work, not just consume it mindlessly" ?

In one place Schopenhauer analyzes the meaning of Understanding and says that all animals have it in a degree and that humans have highest degree of Understanding.

It follows from what has been said, that all animals,  even the least developed, have understanding; for they all know objects, and this knowledge determines their movements as motive. Understanding is the same in all animals and in all men; it has everywhere the same simple form; knowledge of causality, transition from effect to cause, and from cause to effect, nothing more; but the degree of its acuteness, and the extension of the sphere of its knowledge varies enormously, with innumerable gradations from the lowest form, which is only conscious of the causal connection between the immediate object and objects affecting it — that is to say, perceives a cause as an object in space by passing to it from the affection which the body feels, to the higher grades of knowledge of the causal connection among objects known indirectly, which extends to the understanding of the most complicated system of cause and effect in nature.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. Delphi Collected Works of Arthur Schopenhauer (Illustrated) (Delphi Series Eight Book 12) (p. 282). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.

So animal is only concerned with cause which produces effect which only it's body as object feels. While humans, in addition are concerned between causal connection between two objects known indirectly.

Think about planet orbits - we are concerned with causal connection between two objects - Sun and Neptun or Jupiter and it's moon Europa.

So why are we concerned? We are able to put ourself in other objects shoes or in another words we have more empathy. One could say we have more curiosity but other animals have curiosity also, even more then us (curiosity killed the cat) but their curiosity is limited for their selfish interests.

This has prompt me to define two consequences of my thought.

1. Humans have more empathy than animals (hard to accept)
2. Advanced alien civilization will not be "Grabby Aliens" that we should fear, but people with more empathy as empathy is directly proportional(causes) more intelligence.

While Representation can have multiple objects

It can only have one Subject

Otherwise you get convoluted objects that contain properties from different perspectives/subjects and they are hard to understand. This is the reason why Semantic Web (Web 3.0) failed.

Representation is equal to context or perspective. Every man can have different representation depending which role is he playing, which knowing subject is he.

Example is famous conflict of interest:

One man can be elected official and corporate lobbyist at the same time. He does not have same representation as elected official and as corporate lobbyist.

So representation is closely related to what is your need, what is the problem you are trying to solve. Based on that, you as knowing subject, create minimum amount of objects in your head to easily handle problem at hand.

I stumbled upon old Artificial inteligence paper about grounding and representation. I thought it may be useful as discusses problem Schopenhauer wrote about. Interestingly they connect grounding with representation as Schopenhauer did. If someone has newer papers from this problem domain please feel free to post it here. But I am aware that this "symbolic AI" movement was displaced with neural nets and LLMs

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220660856_A_grounding_framework

Causality should be under ground of Becoming (and perishing). Ground of Being (in the same state) is for
abstract concept of Math and Logic.

First book. The World as Idea, chapter §5

Schopenhauer, Arthur. Delphi Collected Works of Arthur Schopenhauer (Illustrated) (Delphi Series Eight Book 12) (p. 275). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.

https://preview.redd.it/vkdvovrph84e1.png?width=1774&format=png&auto=webp&s=6c932f6c37be28ecb28d0ee6721b01f192628204

his concept that "music is the purest form of art because it denies the will" always made sense to me, but today i really felt it. I spent about 8-10 hours just listening to music on my noise-concelling earbuds while laying down. I experienced a kind of pure, universal expression of the will without being entangled in the material world. Became detached from my personal will and its cravings. It was just me and the music.

I bet schopenhauer would spend most of his day with his headphones on his ears. No? xD

I did not had a chance to read it except one small book long time ago but from what I am seeing it's just commentary on Schopenhauer's work together with some incomprehensible stories.

Just like a fish throws itself into the water, I would like to devote myself to reading Schopenhauer's magnus opera. I have knowledge of Indian Dharmic doctrines and philosophical pessimism, but not of Kant and Plato(even though I know the latter's theories through Gnosticism), and I have no intention of studying them. Do you have any advice for me?

What was his insight on suicide? Wouldn't it be a way of denying the Will?

Hi. I'm interested in learning more about Schopenhauer's thought, and philosophical pessimism in general, and I would really appreciate some advice. Should I jump right in to The World as Will and Representation, or are there other texts (by Schopenhauer or by others) that I should read first, to give myself some background understanding? I haven't really read any other major philosophical works, except for Plato's Republic.

Also, is it worth brushing up on German (I know a little bit) to read Schopenhauer's original writing, or are the English translations just as good?

Thank you.

Hi everyone 👋.

Recently, I have been exploring contemporary developments in the search for a quantum theory of gravity within theoretical physics. Among the most promising approaches are string theory (particularly M-theory), loop quantum gravity, asymptotically safe gravity, causal set theory (including causal dynamical triangulation), and theories of induced or emergent gravity. A unifying theme across these frameworks is the concept of emergent spacetime. For instance, physicists Sean Carroll and Leonard Susskind have advocated for the idea that spacetime emerges from quantum entanglement; Hyan Seok Yang has observed that “emergent spacetime is the new fundamental paradigm for quantum gravity”; and Nima Arkani-Hamed has gone so far as to declare that “spacetime is doomed.”

These emergent theories propose that the continuous, metrical, and topological structure of spacetime — as described by Einstein’s general theory of relativity — is not fundamental. Rather, it is thought to arise from a more foundational, non-spatiotemporal substrate associated with quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. Frameworks that explore this include theories centered on quantum entanglement, causal sets, computational universe models, and loop quantum gravity. In essence, emergent spacetime theories suggest that space and time are not ontological foundations but instead emerge from deeper, non-spatial, non-temporal quantum structures. Here is an excellent article which discusses this in-greater detail: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-spacetime-really-made-of/

Interestingly, one philosopher who I know that advanced similar ideas in favour of an emergent ontology of space and time was Alfred North Whitehead. He conceived of the laws of nature as evolving habits rather than as eternal, immutable principles. In his view, even spacetime itself arises as an emergent habit, shaped by the network of occasions that constituted the early universe. In Process and Reality, Whitehead describes how spacetime, or the “extensive continuum,” emerges from the collective activity of “actual occasions of experience” — his ontological primitives, inspired by quantum events.

Philosopher Edward Slowik has recently argued that both Leibniz and Kant serve as philosophical predecessors to modern non-spatiotemporal theories, suggesting they may have anticipated aspects of contemporary quantum gravity approaches (https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23221/1/EM%20Spatial%20Emergence%20%26%20Property.pdf).

With this in mind, I am interested in understanding the status of space and time in the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, one of the foremost thinkers of the nineteenth century. Specifically, I seek to understand what was the ontological role that space and time play within his metaphysical system. Did Schopenhauer regard space and time as independent, absolute entities, or did he consider them emergent from a more fundamental substance or entity?

Any guidance on this subject would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

P.S. I would also welcome insights into other philosophers or schools of thought that might be viewed as precursors to a worldview in which the material dimensions of space and time arise from non-spatial sources. Thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

Very similar to Schopenhauer's distinction

In WWR2, standard red cover version, pg. 486. He makes the case that Will as subject precedes phenomena, as object. I am highly tempted to disagree with this, but, because the distinction is so critical, I want to get some push back. My interpretation is matter is Object. Mind and Will are subject. Subjects perceive and exist within the context of Objects. Object MUST precede Subject with respect to the Universe. Matter had to exist first to house a Mind that perceives it. If his argument is that there was first a great Subject Will which gave rise to matter, then I think he is making the case for God, an intelligent, Subjective Creator. And to this end, his Ontology is the same as Aquinas, who argued as much in Summa Contra Gentiles. Thoughts?

i am looking for inspiration through dark times

I do not know if you guys seen the movie but at the very end Schopenhauer is mentioned. Quote: “how intensely you can talk to her about Schopenhauer in some elegant French restaurant”

I do recommend to watch it. It’s one of my favourites. I do believe you can find it on archive.org but today it seems down.

Anyways, have a pain and responsibilities free weekend 😎

Planning to read it soon

I finished the first book of the world as will and representation. It's good, but there's something that looks like a contradiction that I can't wrap my head around. That being, Schopenhauer claiming causality only exists in representation / the phenomenal.

If thats the case, how does the noumenal connect to the phenomenal at all, if not by some form of cause and effect? If no cause and effect relationship between the noumenal and phenomenal, how can we claim to understand anything about it? Furthermore, doesn't that posit the noumenal as a totally irrelevant "other" universe with no relation to our own?

I was wondering if he using the term in a special manner, like when he talks about causality in relation to space and time in representation. However, I still feel a bit confused. Does anyone have anything to add to my understanding of this?

I am looking for an audio book of "The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason".

I have come across many free audio books of "The World as Will and Representation", but never one about "The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason". Have you?

If it doesn't exist, Can this sub make one for the benefit of the public? (libreVox?)

One that is, medium - high Quality Audio.

With about 4-8 contributors. (I think the sub has 4-5k people)

2-4 to recite the passages in even-tones.

2-4 to mix, master and balance the audio.

What do yall think?

Lemme know!

Can someone indicate to me where Schopenhauer talks about matter and how it relates to the Will in the World as Will and Representation ?

Is matter merely a representation as well?

Can you include citations in your post as well. Thank you!