Ejwinner you are listening ๐
In world as will and idea, Schopenhauer writes
[…]as will, and therefore as individual, he is only one, and this one exclusively, which gives him enough to do and suffer. As the purely objective perceiver, he is the pure subject of knowledge in whose consciousness alone the objective world has its existence; as such he is all things so far as he perceives them, and in him is their existence without burden or inconvenience.
It is his existence, so far as it exists in his idea, but it is there without will. So far, on the other hand, as it is will, it is not him
What do you make of the above paragraph?
Random thoughts 
And those who fart in elevators shall be called the sons of man. Sometimes, words become a blur of …well… words. Thus is the case here. Just get to the fuckin’ point already! Too many words, and too much mumbo jumbo. This, then, is proof of an everlasting God. Why? Because to dazzle is to impress. And these words dazzle. To be cryptic is to be right. And to be nebulous is to be wise. To be slightly confusing is to be smart. So sayeth the Lord. And thus, it is true. $Amen$ Nebulousness is the key here. This proves….God.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I was going to say: I don’t make much of the above paragraph.
But, I like your comment better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha Bob.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In his defence, I would confirm he never believed in god. His philosophy though having some metaphysics is far removed even from the god of Spinoza.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Er, . . . different subject Inspired One. Then again, Arthur would’ve been strongly pro-farting, good man that he was.
LikeLike
But he hated cruelty to animals. Could not understand those who whipped horses and donkeys
LikeLiked by 1 person
But it is there without will. I think that’s pertinent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He says will is what is at the bottom of everything. We can’t go further in our explanation beyond the will
LikeLiked by 1 person
No room for pleasant accidents? Wouldn’t this contradict the processes that drive evolution: genetic drift, gene flow, and mutation?
LikeLike
It doesn’t contradict evolution at all. In his philosophy, he argued in all things is present a will to live, the body is the outward expression of the will
LikeLike
The will to live I can understand, but is it not possible to argue that mutation would be, by its nature, beyond that will?
LikeLike
How would it be beyond the will? Isn’t it the will expressing itself differently?
LikeLike
Mutation is an accident, entirely unpredictable. Will implies deliberate action, whereas mutation seems to sit outside that.
LikeLike
Intelligence implies deliberate action with an end. Will is without intelligence
LikeLike
What then wills mutation?
LikeLike
Interesting question.
Is evolution guided by intelligence? I think not. On the contrary it is guided by blind force concerned only with survival of the organism.
In Schopenhauer’s philosophy, what he had at bottom of all that exists is will. It is this will that expresses itself here as a tree, there as a dog and elsewhere as drumpf
LikeLike
How can a “blind force” be concerned about anything? If anything, the provision for mutation occurring naturally and randomly in nature seems to be outside everything.
LikeLike
Outside everything would in religious speak would mean transcendent. And I agree they seem so to as, who are expressions of the said will or blind force.
LikeLike
I’m not sure. It just seems to me that mutation arises spontaneously and unpredictably. It is feasible then to suggest that it is the only thing (if we can even call it a “thing”) that exists without influence of will. Granted, without will no mutation could ever happen because there would be no form to change.
LikeLike
Mutation is acting on what already exists.
So it cannot be the undetermined thing, if anything as such exists.
LikeLike
Yes, but not by any force of will. It is an accident in the purest sense of the word.
LikeLike
Accident from our pov because we can’t explain it. It is why we call it a chance occurrence.
LikeLike
But isn’t it? The only thing that doesn’t seem to be chance is the chance is that mutation is going to happen. Watch nothing for long enough and something unusual will eventually happen. Is that, perhaps, a law of nature?
LikeLike
Chance/ accident in my view are interchangeable. And a mutation is an expression of the will to live. It maybe end up disastrous to the organism but I think we should see it as an expression of that will.
LikeLike
I can’t see how it could possibly be an expression of the will to live. As a phenomena, its completely indifferent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John: I think I agree with your position in this thread. Part of the problem may be we have difficulty separating consciousness and intent from the concept of “will”. Maku attempts to sidestep this issue, but his argument confuses me. He seems to want to have “will” be without consciousness yet still having the ability to choose??? to act. I may be misreading him, but I like your emphasis on randomness.
Perhaps another way to look at it is that “Mutation” is inherent in the evolved structure of our genetic code. But mutation, being accidental yet inherent in the structure of our code, does not represent a will to survive. Many, if not most mutations don’t result in positive changes and they die out or cause the organism to die. Survival is not the result of “will” but an emergent interaction between the new genetic trait and the (changing) environment. I guess “will” could be a way of naming this process/phenomenon, but I think using the term in this way confuses things,
I am confusing myself now. Time to slink away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Inherent, but accidental. Nicely worded, and much clearer than my clumsy attempt. Although he died just a year after the publishing of On the Origin of Species, I suspect Schopenhauer understood evolution, but Iโm wondering how his thoughts would have been altered (enhanced?) if heโd lived long enough to understand the mechanisms by which evolution proceeds.
LikeLike
This is an interesting question. In his Fourfold root of the Principle of sufficient reason, he writes
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, interesting! So, he didn’t understand the mechanisms by which evolution proceeded. He seems to allude to a directed movement, which is inherently wrong, although we should not criticise him for this. Far from it. Darwin himself didn’t even fully understand the mechanisms.
I think we can argue then that mutation is outside the will, albeit dependent on it.
How does that sound?
LikeLike
No he didn’t. I think had he read Darwin he would have made very meaningful suggestions for the next edition.
Outside the will but dependent on it is confusing. Sounds like out of time and space but acting in time
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not at all. Bound within both, but arising without apparent cause, inevitable, yet unpredictable.
I don’t think this diminishes his work, just adds another layer to it which, I suspect, makes it more interesting. I mean, how does mutation fit in here?
LikeLike
That’s an interesting question. Maybe someday I could write a paper on it
LikeLike
That’s precisely what I was hoping for ๐
LikeLike
Hi BJB,
Yes, I think there is will without consciousness, and this is what is abundant. This is Schopenhauer’s view too. That all things have will, but in some, the will is not conscious.
Now I agree this is somewhat confusing, it confuses me too. The main reason being Schopenhauer rejected metaphysics which had for a long time been used to prop up religion. But in my reading of his book World as Will and Idea he represents the will as the thing in itself. So that all phenomenon is an expression of the will.
Back to our conversation then, seen in light of the above, mutations are visible expression of the will. To say it differently- the human form as a phenomenon is a visible expression of the will
LikeLike
I did read it twice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
XD
LikeLike
I have read it more than twice
LikeLike
It sounds like Nietzsche’s observation that he did not have thoughts, but on the contrary, thoughts came to him unbidden. I think he meant by that statement: Motivation is not amenable to reflection in the same way that the contents of our thoughts are.
But then again, I don’t know shit about Schopenhauer and am a recreational reader of philosophy only. Maybe these words will move a more knowledgeable source to pause and explain how I got it wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nietzsche I think regarded him very highly and only disagreed with his pessimism towards life. He also developed his idea of will to life in his philosophy.
Schopenhauer was a pessimist but I think developing from Kant and the vedas, he did quite a good job in advancing philosophy especially in his critique of the church philosophers and those in academia who he felt advanced only the desires of their paymasters
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perfect sense – he is arguing against Naรฏve Realism is he not, OM?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought it made a lot of sense.
He admits first and foremost the world is our idea. That to talk of it without admitting what we bring with us as knowing subjects is, for lack of a better word, careless or irrational
LikeLiked by 1 person
OM said: “I thought it made a lot of sense.” – Ironic, as the world known to us is only known to us due to our sensorial representations of it i.e. to our ‘making sense(s)’ of it.
Arthur said: “. . . on the other hand, as it is will, it is not him.” – here he is also saying that the (wo)man does not know themselves as themselves, and that the self they take themselves to be is erroneous, or if you prefer, unknowable as a sensorial representation within the endogram of consciousness. Wittgenstein would say we had therefore better not talk about it. ๐
LikeLike
Arthur had an issue with women. On the chapter on genius, he says women have no capacity for genius.
On the world, he argues that the world is both subjective ie idea and objective ie as will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He certainly wasn’t keen on his landlady: “Obit anus, abit onus”. XD
LikeLike
And I think he was rejected not once? Could have clouded his otherwise good judgement
LikeLiked by 1 person
I sent you an email earlier, but it came back to me for some reason. Just to let you know, I’m fine. I was visiting my mother.
LikeLike
Saw it. Glad to hear
LikeLike
Reblogged this on no sign of it and commented:
makagutu,
Sorry for coming so late to the discussion. I’ve been busy digging through my old study on Hitler to get some essays out of it. WordPress permitting, I am reblogging this on my own blog, and will there then post my response (which got a bit too wordy to post respectfully here).
LikeLike
No worries mate. I read your response. Not too wordy as you claim
LikeLike
[…] This was written as reply to a post by Makagutu at: https://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2016/03/06/my-philosopher-friends/ […]
LikeLike
It seems relevant that AS was a reader of the Upanishadic literature. It gives him a subtler view than is common. It seems that it gives him an Ultimate that is beyond Will.
LikeLike
Hi Peter.
I don’t think he has an ultimate beyond the will.
LikeLike
I’m no expert on AS, but the extract from his writings given above seems to suggest he sees ontology as outrunning Will. But maybe this is wrong.
LikeLike
Unless I have totally misunderstood his writing, I think he writes that beyond the Will, there is nothing
LikeLike