Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Schopenhauer was a philosopher, who's essential position is that reason does not exist.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
When did the 'its constituents lack reason' enter into the discussion? Oh, now I remember: just now in your post.
LOL! You asserted that AS believed the reason did not exist. Consequently, it would be impossible
for the universe's constituents to possess it.
Bbarr pointed out that you misunderstood AS in your cribbing of his writings by taking 'the universe
is not a rationale place' to mean 'there is no reason.'
How much longer are you going to continue to embarrass yourself with your patent lack of
understanding of Schopenhauer?
Nemesio
Here is a quote from the source that you just read. This quote has already been provided, but--- just for giggles--- let's review it again.
"It is also frightening and pandemonic: he maintains that the world as it is in itself (sometimes he crucially adds, “for us&rdquo😉 is an endless striving and blind impulse with no end in view, devoid of knowledge, lawless, absolutely free, entirely self-determining and almighty."
[all emphasis added]
Please explain the words emboldened within this partial summary of AS' position. When you're done with that, explain how that is any different than what I have maintained since the first appearance of his name herein.
Originally posted by NemesioHopefully, he will continue to embarrass himself indefinitely.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Schopenhauer was a philosopher, who's essential position is that reason does not exist.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
When did the 'its constituents lack reason' enter into the discussion? Oh, now I remember: just now in your post.
LOL! You asserted that AS believed the reason did not exis ...[text shortened]... embarrass yourself with your patent lack of
understanding of Schopenhauer?
Nemesio[/b]
Freaky is certainly not his own best argument for the existence of reason.
Originally posted by NemesioIf you truly do not know the difference, no amount of explanation will assist you. Reason exists in an irrational universe? Pray tell, explain that one.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Schopenhauer was a philosopher, who's essential position is that reason does not exist.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
When did the 'its constituents lack reason' enter into the discussion? Oh, now I remember: just now in your post.
LOL! You asserted that AS believed the reason did not exis ...[text shortened]... embarrass yourself with your patent lack of
understanding of Schopenhauer?
Nemesio[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreaky, this is something that Schopie only claims of the noumenon, the thing in itself, and not of phenomena, things as they appear to us.
Here is a quote from the source that you just read. This quote has already been provided, but--- just for giggles--- let's review it again.
"It is also frightening and pandemonic: he maintains that the world as it is in itself (sometimes he crucially adds, “for us&rdquo😉 is an endless striving and blind impulse with no end in view, [devoid of knowledge is any different than what I have maintained since the first appearance of his name herein.
Reason is clearly a phenomenal reality for Schopie. That's why he talks so much about it in the works we have mentioned.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeClose, but no Cuban. Not only have the quotes provided, the sites provided and the summaries provided agree with my general assessment, AS' conclusions themselves concur with that assessment. Remember, this is the guy who said we do better to suppress the will to live.
Freaky, this is something that Schopie only claims of the noumenon, the thing in itself, and not of phenomena, things as they appear to us.
Reason is clearly a phenomenal reality for Schopie. That's why he talks so much about it in the works we have mentioned.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am not close; I am correct.
Close, but no Cuban. Not only have the quotes provided, the sites provided and the summaries provided agree with my general assessment, AS' conclusions themselves concur with that assessment. Remember, this is the guy who said we do better to suppress the will to live.
There is no one who agrees with you except yourself.
I think you're thinking about the terms 'knowledge', 'truth' and 'justification' in the wrong way.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH?
truth cannot be described as such without knowledge.
I'm not sure what this means, I can describe truth without knowledge of it's truth value. Do you mean the concept of truth? Do you mistakenly mean knowledge is a neccessary condition of truth?
Unjustified beliefs based upon falsehoods are on equal footing with unjustified beliefs based upon truth, simply for the reason that neither are justified (connected to truth).
There's no such thing as an unjustified belief which is based on falsehood or truth. The nature of unjustified belief is such that it is not based on anything, hence the unjustified part. If the belief is justified it can be based on falsehood and as such cannot be truth, but unjustified belief can still be true or false, just as justified belief can be true or false. Justified does not mean true.
The only beliefs which can trump either of the unjustified beliefs are those which can be justified.
Unjustified belief can be true or false, justified belief can be true or false. What are you ranking these against?
Originally posted by StarrmanThe pit Freaky digs just keeps getting deeper and deeper.
I think you're thinking about the terms 'knowledge', 'truth' and 'justification' in the wrong way.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH?
[b]truth cannot be described as such without knowledge.
I'm not sure what this means, I can describe truth without knowledge of it's truth value. Do you mean the concept of truth? Do you mistakenly mean know ...[text shortened]... or false, justified belief can be true or false. What are you ranking these against?[/b]
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI missed this!
Reason exists in an irrational universe? Pray tell, explain that one.
Very, very clever. The WHOLE point of this thread is to debunk the idea that rationality can
come from nothing. Now you want to shift the burden?
LOL!
Everyone else here seems to agree about Schopenhauer. You are totally alone on this. Each
person: Me, bbarr, pawny, and starrman has tried to point out where you have misunderstood
Schopenhauer. You keep dodging and denying (without providing a coherent defense).
How about this: World's wrong, you're right and we move on (FINALLY) to the 'substance' of
your argument. Hmm? I'm sure that bbarr, starrman, pawny and I are all tired of your foolishness
on Schopenhauer and you are too self-righteous to realize that you've totally misread the websites
you skimmed when you tried to sound knowledgeable a few pages ago.
So let's drop AS and get on to your claim from page one, okay?
Nemesio
Originally posted by StarrmanDo you mistakenly mean knowledge is a neccessary condition of truth?
I think you're thinking about the terms 'knowledge', 'truth' and 'justification' in the wrong way.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH?
truth cannot be described as such without knowledge.
I'm not sure what this means, I can describe truth without knowledge of it's truth value. Do you mean the concept of truth? Do you mistakenly mean knowled ...[text shortened]... or false, justified belief can be true or false. What are you ranking these against?[/b]
No; I have already said that truth exists whether or not we know it. Knowledge is what is required to determine whether what we hold is truth. This ties into the next question.
There's no such thing as an unjustified belief which is based on falsehood or truth.
How would one describe misapprehensions, or intuitiveness?
Originally posted by NemesioSimply repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. You continue to claim that my summary of AS is incorrect; you continue to claim it's been cited, quoted and pointed out; one thing you lack, however: actually providing proof of your assertion.
I missed this!
Very, very clever. The WHOLE point of this thread is to debunk the idea that rationality can
come from nothing. Now you want to shift the burden?
LOL!
Everyone else here seems to agree about Schopenhauer. You are totally alone on this. Each
person: Me, bbarr, pawny, and starrman has tried to point out where you have misundersto ...[text shortened]... w pages ago.
So let's drop AS and get on to your claim from page one, okay?
Nemesio
Prior to your post, I provided a quote which directly contradicted your claim... even added emphasis within the quote so you couldn't miss the part which contradicted your assertion. I didn't want you to miss it, and I am quite certain that you read it. What gives me such confidence? You completely ignored it.
Tell you what. I will gladly take up the original argument from which you and others have continually swayed. But before I do so, I would like you to respond to the post which challenged your assertion that AS did not hold the world to be devoid of knowledge. You aided in the unnecessary distraction adding fuel to the fire of irrelevance, and baselessly claimed that my stance was unsupported. Therefore, you respond to the post and then we'll get back to the regularly scheduled mayhem.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDeal. Since I did so already, I will try again.
I will gladly take up the original argument from which you and others have continually swayed. But before I do so, I would like you to respond to the post which challenged your assertion that AS did not hold the world to be devoid of knowledge. You aided in the unnecessary distraction adding fuel to the fire of irrelevance, and baselessly claimed that my ...[text shortened]... Therefore, you respond to the post and then we'll get back to the regularly scheduled mayhem.
Originally posted by Nemesio
Note from the very site you cited:
Schopenhauer's claim that the subject-object distinction is the most general condition for human knowledge has its theoretical source in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, for Kant similarly grounded his own theory of knowledge upon a highly-abstracted, formalized, and universalized subject-object distinction.
If there was no knowledge, then why would Schopenhauer have conditions for a human's having of
it?
Consider the final paragraph of discussion on his work:
As noted above, this does not imply that with respect to the question of whether higher-dimensional knowledge of the thing-in-itself is possible, Schopenhauer became more Kantian as he grew older. For unlike Kant, it appears that Schopenhauer always believed that such knowledge of the thing-in-itself is possible. Throughout his philosophical writings, Schopenhauer acknowledges that mystical experience might provide this sort of knowledge, and this view was probably only reinforced by his increasing interest in Upanishadic and Buddhistic thought as the years went by. Over time, however, Schopenhauer did achieve a more perspicuous expression of the view that the conflict-ridden daily world is only a horrible vision compelled by human nature, as it exercises its efforts to achieve knowledge at both the general (subject-object) and specific (space, time, causality) levels of the principle of sufficient reason.
I'd also add the post you missed earlier in the thread
Originally posted by bbarr
Another passage, this from Schopenhauer's On Education:
"To acquire a knowledge of the world might be defined as the aim of all education; and it follows from what I have said that special stress should be laid upon beginning to acquire this knowledge at the right end. As I have shown, this means, in the main, that the particular observation of a thing shall precede the general idea of it; further, that narrow and circumscribed ideas shall come before ideas of a wide range. It means, therefore, that the whole system of education shall follow in the steps that must have been taken by the ideas themselves in the course of their formation. But whenever any of these steps are skipped or left out, the instruction is defective, and the ideas obtained are false; and finally, a distorted view of the world arises, peculiar to the individual himself—a view such as almost everyone entertains for some time, and most men for as long as they live. No one can look into his own mind without seeing that it was only after reaching a very mature age, and in some cases when he least expected it, that he came to a right understanding or a clear view of many matters in his life, that, after all, were not very difficult or complicated. Up till then, they were points in his knowledge of the world which were still obscure, due to his having skipped some particular lesson in those early days of his education, whatever it may have been like—whether artificial and conventional, or of that natural kind which is based upon individual experience."
Bbarr: Pretty strange that somebody skeptical about both reason and knowledge would write a whole article on how best to go about teaching people about the world!
Now...please please give up with your unbelievably obtuse and misinformed position and get on
with your primary claim.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHJacked up.
Here is a quote from the source that you just read. This quote has already been provided, but--- just for giggles--- let's review it again.
"It is also frightening and pandemonic: he maintains that the world as it is in itself (sometimes he crucially adds, “for us&rdquo😉 is an endless striving and blind impulse with no end in view, [i]devoid of knowledge is any different than what I have maintained since the first appearance of his name herein.