Talk:The World as Will and Representation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] when was this written?
This is probably a question many will have on their minds when looking for information on this book. Should be in first sentence.
-
- This book was published in 1819. It was written in the years immediately prior to that date.Lestrade 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
I have made substantial edits to the page for style and NPOV. I have tried to limit my addition of new content, because it has been a while since I read this book and I don't have it with me. Plus I've never read vol. 2 or the appendix. However, there were some points that really needed to be explained better and I've tried to improve these. This page still needs a lot of help. I don't think I removed to much, but there may be a few things that I've deleted. kpearce 05:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you please provide an example for us beginners of why "Kant saw inner-sense as subject to time. Schopenhauer was thus violating Kant's laws when he said that the thing-in-itself could be known through inner-experience." From whence cometh your "thus?" Can we know the thing-in-itself Now (and now, and now, ...) in the Buddhist sense of raw awareness without conceptualization?
To be honest, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Schopenhauer thought that the will - the noumena or thing-in-itself - could be known through our inner-experiene [e.g. our feelings, emotions, conscious actions and indeed subconscious]. He thought that this was a path into the thing-in-itself and we were experiencing the noumena, which is outside of time and space. This concept of the thing-in-itself is borrowed from Kant and he claimed that he was only modifying it in saying that we could know things about it; he maintained that we could not know it absolutely. However, as Kant saw these feelings inside us as subject to inner-time [which is too complicated to go into here], Schopenhauer was not employing the concept properly and was not completing Kant's philosophy in quite the way that he thought he was.
I really don't understand the second part of your question at all.
On a different note, I wrote an earlier page for this subject and it was taken down, after being up for two whole months, on the grounds of copyright violation. Could someone explain this to me, please? I did not copy anybody!
[edit] Notes on style, etc
I just edited this article to make it conform more to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If you've never looked at that you should give a once-over. No need to memorize it all – the points that one regularly violates are likely to draw attention.
Specifically, besides putting the title as the subject of the first paragraph, in bold, I removed a lot of duplicate internal links. You generally only need to link the first occurrence of a term. It may be justifiable to link the same term twice in disparate sections if you expect that the article won't necessarily be generally read from top to bottom by everyone, but it is not necessary to link every occurrence of will.
Concerning the copyright takedown, I don't know if I flagged that or not, though I do so to articles that I find that appear to be violations. The takedown notice would have linked to or included other information on the infringed source. If you find that that happens in the future to any articles to which you've contributed, please read the notice carefully and follow the instructions for resolution. (I did some quick searching on the current text just now and didn't see any potential infringment.)
As for this page, please consider adopting the habit of signing your posts on discussion pages with "~~~~". That will automatically be replaced by your user name, linked to your user page, and a timestamp. It's very handy for people who come after you – I'll have used it at the bottom of this note.
Consider indenting your responses to others on these discussion pages. You use a colon (:) as the first character in the paragraph to do that, but make sure it's not preceded by any spaces – let the program indent it for you. What with the lack of signatures and lack of indenting in the preceding section, I can hardly tell where one comment ends and the next starts!
Finally, consider using section headers, as I have done, when starting a new topic of conversation.
Thanks all for your (non-infringing) contributions to Wikipedia! Not the management, just an interested user — Kbh3rd 19:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The "Criticisms" are absurd
Evidently, someone has made it their life's mission to denouce Bertrand Russel's opinion on Schopenhauer, but the inclusion of this and, frankly, *all* of the other "criticisms" at the end of the article is absurd. I have read Bertrand Russel's writing on Schopenhauer, and I agree with the judgement expressed; however, that judgement has no place in this Encyclopedia entry! Put it in Bertrand Russel's entry if you insist!
If Encyclopedia articles contained bullet-point critiques at the end of each entry, how long would Hegel's entry be? How long would Hitler's be? etc. etc.
I do not, e.g., find the assertion that Schopenhauer's view of asceticism is "contradictory" to be tenable. Schopenhauer's view is no more contradictory than the views common to about 80% of Hindus and Jains (and of this comparison Schopenhauer was well aware); obviously, most Westerners find it "contradictory" that starving yourself to death will "set you free", but this is indeed consistent with the peculiar doctrine of _Moksha_ that Schopenhauer preached --and his arguments in favour of it were not self-contradictory (although, for the record, I do not agree with them).
The fact that some Wiki contributor disagrees with Schopenhauer is not grounds to note that disagreement at the end of an Encyclopedia article. Will one of the editors kindly clip off the trail of "criticisms" from this article?
The rest of it is not much good --being, above all, poorly organized, but "it will serve", I suppose.
- See the "On Objectivity" section for a response to this.
If he was having affairs and eating at fancy restaurants, how would he have been able to conserve his money "strigently"? If indeed he was parsimonious, that would be an example of asceticism, not the reverse.
He doesn't contradict himself over asceticism. "At times, he says that it involves the most terrible pain, yet he also says that it leads to a cheerfulness that contrasts with the restless suffering of those that still will." That's a paradox, not a contradiction.
[edit] POV vs. Objectivity?
In a recent edit, I'm sorry to say I had to remove the following statement:
"The tone of the second volume is much more pompous than in the first and..."
Pardon me? Is this an encyclopedia?
The statement is untrue --but this is immaterial. Even if it were true it is inappropriate. It is clear to me that the "Wiki" format is not compatible with philosophy.
[edit] On Objectivity
I understand that Wikipedia is an institution that does not accept situated viewpoints, but I think that some of the things criticised on this page are objective fact. For the above point, whilst the term "pompous" may not seem to be objective on its own, "more pompous than X" can be more objective. I fail to see how anyone can judge the second volume of "The World as Will and Representation" as anything other than more pompously written than the first. Also, I think that the word "contradiction" is an objective term, seeing as it comes from logic. The criticism shows that the contradiction is over what an ascetic suicide is: in some parts, S claims that the only possible ascetic suicide is through starvation; at another point, he gives instances of people feeding themselves to crocodiles, being buried alive and throwing themselves in front of carts as ascetic suicides. I think that it is perfectly objective to call that a contradiction.
As for the person who objects to there being criticisms listed, there also are on the pages for utilitarianism, Categorical Imperative, Ayn Rand, Sartre, Peter Singer and many other philosophers. If you want to do one for Hegel, why not? Wikipedia is supposed to be educational and I can't see how you can educate yourself about a philosopher without learning opposing views as well.
- I can tell this article needs a lot of work on NPOV, and I barely glanced at it. There is such a thing as neutral presentation of controversial viewpoints, and this lacks that quality in its representation both of Hume and Russell. KSchutte 02:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- I removed the "irrational" from Hume's "irrational sentimentalism". What I meant was that Hume didn't see morality as the product of reason, but it was a blunder to thus call his theory "irrational"; perhaps "arational", but I think it best just to delete the word. The only other time he is mentioned is as being an "agnostic"; he never confessed to being an atheist and, if he did, he would have been imprisoned or even executed. With Russell, the article is NPOV. Russell's article on Schopenhauer was inaccurate and saying anything less is violated the NPOV; it's like saying that Mein Kampf isn't anti-Semitic.
[edit] Never-ending?
To say that Schopenhauer's point is "neverending" is to say that, for one reader, Schopenhauer continually makes the same point. This may be true, since Schopenhauer believed that he had a valuable point to make. However, to characterize it as such seems to be an attempt at humor and only reflects the viewpoint of one person. 64.12.116.138 12:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade
-
- To speak of Schopenhauer's "neverending point" is to blatantly express a point of view. Coupled with the subjective, uncited criticisms, this article is crying out to be seriously altered. Lestrade 13:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade
[edit] Spinoza's & Hinduism
In the "Criticism" section, why does it mention Spinoza's understanding of Hinduism?
-
- I notice that this was corrected to "Schopenhauer's understanding of Hinduism."Lestrade 13:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade
[edit] Criticism listed
- If one understands that Life is eternal, as he says, life need not be evil (even if life is all suffering, we still continue to live, as he himself said individual die but species do not.
- The principle of Buddha that "desire is the root cause of all sorrow" means controlling the five senses and by desire Buddha did not mean "Will" and Will to Live is not want but instinct.
I move these criticism to the discussion opage because they are neither clearly stated nor fully addressing what Schopenhauer said on these points. Please elaborate. '-129.247.247.238 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)'
[edit] Further criticism
- His notion that we can know things about the will but never actually directly know the will is thought to be clumsy and vague.
This employs weasel words. By who is it thought? And how do they address that Schopenhauer defines as Will something that can only be found by trancendental argument? It is a criticism from within - i.e. Schopenhauer overlooking something --, a criticism of the choice of word Will, or a criticism of the trancendental argument from without? '-129.247.247.238 16:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)'
[edit] on Hinduism
"Schopenhauer's understanding of Hinduism is a popular misconception." Does this mean Schopenhauer shared a popular misconception in his views on Hinduism, or that most people have Schopenhauer's understanding of Hinduism all wrong? Boris B 10:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
