Schopenhauer's thoughts

It is worthwhile to read them even now! I intend to quote them in parts and invite your comments. First One: The controversy which is so perserveringly carried on in our day between supernaturalists and rationalists rests on the failure to recognize the allegorical nature of all religion. Christianity,for example,is a profound philosophy of pessism.

Second Part: The doctrine of original sin(assertion of will) and of salvation(denial of will) is the great truth which constitutes the essence of Christianity. The power of Christianity in overcoming Judaism and then Paganism was because Judaism and Paganism were both optimistic. Judaism and Paganism thought of religion as a bribe to heavenly powers for aid towards earthly success. Christianity thought of religion as a deterrent from the useless quest of earthly happiness.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
First One: . . . Christianity, for example, is a profound philosophy of pessism.

Second One: . . . Christianity thought of religion as a deterrent from the useless quest of earthly happiness.

Isn't it a tenet in Christianity that man cannot get to Heaven by good works. That all the love and kindness in the world will not get you into Heaven.

That's uplifting.

Third Part: Buddhism is profounder than Christianity,because it makes the destruction of the will the entirety of religion and it preaches Nirvana as the goal of all personal developement.

Originally posted by moon1969
Isn't it a tenet in Christianity that man cannot get to Heaven by good works. That all the love and kindness in the world will not get you into Heaven.

That's uplifting.

A good pun! But what is,then the tenet of Christianity which is uplifting? Am keen to know as I do not have knowledge of Christian Theology.

Fourth Part: The Hindus were deeper than the thinkers of Europe,because their interpretation of the world was internal and intuitive,not external and intellectual;the intellect divides everything,intiution unites everything. The Hindus raw that the ' I' is a delusion;that the individual is merely phenomenal and the onlx reality is the Infinite One.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
A good pun! But what is,then the tenet of Christianity which is uplifting? Am keen to know as I do not have knowledge of Christian Theology.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send
the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved
through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not
believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of
the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come
into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their
deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not
come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices
the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having
been wrought in God.”

(John 3:16-21 NASB)

Originally posted by RJHinds
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send
the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved
through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not
believe has been judged already, because he has not b ...[text shortened]... ht, so that his deeds may be manifested as having
been wrought in God.”

(John 3:16-21 NASB)

OK,I will take that as an excellent representation of Chriastian tenets. But do you have any comments on Schopenhauer's thoughts on Christianity?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
OK,I will take that as an excellent representation of Chriastian tenets. But do you have any comments on Schopenhauer's thoughts on Christianity?

The truth that Jesus preached was "good news" to those that believe,
but bad news to all others. The truth frees the believer to enjoy life.

At the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus he read from the prophet
Isaiah in the synagogue the following passage and then said to those
listening, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

“THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME,
BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR.
HE HAS SENT ME TO HEAL THE BROKEN HEARTED.
HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES,
AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND,
TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,
TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.”

(Luke 4:18-21, Isaiah 61:1-2)

Jesus said,
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that
they may have life, and have it abundantly."

(John 10:10)

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
the intellect divides everything

This simply is not so. In mathematics and the sciences the foremost goal is to discover the connections between seemingly disparate concepts and phenomena. To the layman the terminology and taxonomies of the sciences may seem to be "divisive" in some sense, but only by constructing categorizations of objects (or ideas) can one hope to find some meaning in things.

Schopenhauer is doing the cynical "dividing" of everything. He packages "Intellect" here, and over there has "Intuition" -- and never the twain shall meet in the Taxonomy of Schopenhauer.

"Profoundest" understanding does not derive exclusively from wiping the mind clean and being one with the wind, the earth, or the river. One aspect of understanding may be achieved that way, but an understanding of other truths can only be won by employing the mind in critical thinking and logical analyses. We are part of the universe, and so to understand ourselves we must understand the universe; and since a significant part of the universe is physical and subject to physical processes, we cannot fully understand ourselves without at some point applying the tools of science.

Originally posted by Soothfast
This simply is not so. In mathematics and the sciences the foremost goal is to discover the connections between seemingly disparate concepts and phenomena. To the layman the terminology and taxonomies of the sciences may seem to be "divisive" in some sense, but only by constructing categorizations of objects (or ideas) can one hope to find some me ...[text shortened]... cannot fully understand ourselves without at some point applying the tools of science.

I appreciate your points especially the last para of your post. Schopenhauer says that 'will' and not intellect,is the essence of man. Intellect tires and needs sleep but not the will. He does not deny the power or reach of the intellect. But says that will is first and intellect follows. Intellect is firstly a poor servant of the will but may dominate the will eventually as in Geniuses or as seen in men when they take up dangerous enterprises. The power of intellect over will permits deliberate development. All desires can be moderated/quitened by knowledge. Philosophy purifies the will. But Philosophy must come out of experience and thought not out of passive study or reading.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I appreciate your points especially the last para of your post. Schopenhauer says that 'will' and not intellect,is the essence of man. Intellect tires and needs sleep but not the will. He does not deny the power or reach of the intellect. But says that will is first and intellect follows. Intellect is firstly a poor servant of the will but may dominate th ...[text shortened]... . But Philosophy must come out of experience and thought not out of passive study or reading.

That makes some sense, but intellectual curiosity can fire the will, just as the will can drive intellectual curiosity. I don't see a static one-way "master-slave" relationship between the two, nor do I see them as separate things. Clearer definitions of the terms being used are in order, I think. Perhaps Schopenhauer supplies these things in his writings, but they are not in evidence in the brief synopses of his ideas provided here.

The idea that all religion is allegorical is interesting, though most practitioners of the various religions of the world would likely object. I would further suggest that the concept of God, wherever it may arise, can only at best be interpreted as an allegory. God is always an assemblage of ideal qualities, perfect by definition, inconceivable at the moment of its conception. Therefore God is, to me, not a concept I find any more useful for spiritual well-being than possessing an undefined, inchoate sense of mysticism when looking at the stars.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Fourth Part: The Hindus were deeper than the thinkers of Europe,because their interpretation of the world was internal and intuitive,not external and intellectual;the intellect divides everything,intiution unites everything. The Hindus raw that the ' I' is a delusion;that the individual is merely phenomenal and the onlx reality is the Infinite One.

I find the use of the word "because" on this forum very confusing! 🙄

Originally posted by Soothfast
That makes some sense, but intellectual curiosity can fire the will, just as the will can drive intellectual curiosity. I don't see a static one-way "master-slave" relationship between the two, nor do I see them as separate things. Clearer definitions of the terms being used are in order, I think. Perhaps Schopenhauer supplies these things in his writin ...[text shortened]... ll-being than possessing an undefined, inchoate sense of mysticism when looking at the stars.

Schopenhauer was much influenced by Upanishads. But he and other western thinkers do not seem to have considered let alone accepted the Hindu spiritual tenet that God permeates everything and is not ' other '. God is not a concept. God is you and everything else by definition. You cannot consider the usefulness of 'You'as a concept.