Arthur (Schopenhauer is too long and complicated to write over and over) seemed to be quite a disagreeable person. Not only a pessimist, but a self proclaimed genius and a hypocrite. In addition to these things, in my opinion, quite narrow minded as well. He said that it was human nature to want and to keep wanting even when you have. Is such a generalization valid? Had he studied other cultures to see if this held up? I think not. I propose this phenomena is a product of a culture rather than of human kind.
To continue my disagreement with Arthur, his whole theory on the World of Will and the World of Representation seem simply to be a regurgitation of Kant's theory with some idealistic nonsense mixed in. Kant's theory is theoretical as well but at least it's based off of some sort of logical thought and progression. On the contrary it seems as if Arthur just sat down and cane up with ideas that sounded like they made sense in his head. For example he said that music is the direct copy of Will itself, in relation to his World of Will. I can only imagine his thought process when coming to this conclusion was based off of a personal feeling and nothing more.
I found this topic to be very interesting since it did appear that he contradicted himself, not only on one thing but in what seemed to be all of his philosophies. I dont understand how he could consider himself such a follower of Kant if he does such the opposite of what Kant says should be done.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YGiXHNOFzM
ReplyDelete