super music master

What Hegel is good at is exactly what Schopenhauer is not good at. Hegel's social philosophy and political philosophy are important today, and Schopenhauer has never said anything in these fields and is interested in us.

But there is one area where Schopenhauer is definitely more advanced than his nemesis Hegel, that is, science, which is somewhat surprising.

As an idealist influenced by Indian philosophy, he holds the view that the world we live in is fundamentally an illusion. This idea is difficult to blend with the scientific attitude we usually understand. The opening and ending of his famous book

The words are "the world is my appearance" and "to those who have already rejected the will and have denied itself, this world so real, even though there are suns and galaxies - is nothing."

In this regard, are we far away from the scientific worldview today? However, Schopenhauer's philosophy core concept, which is the core concept of Schopenhauer's philosophy, can be said to be very prescient, although there are few contemporary comments

The home (except Christopher Janave) acknowledges this.

Most of Schopenhauer's comments on Hegel can be regarded as "not to the right people" personal attacks, and did not mention Hegel's specific works. So some people began to doubt how much Schopenhauer read Hegel's

Works. However, in his later work "On the Will of Nature (1836)", he mentioned a passage from Hegel, which is already a marginal content for us. This part is the least read by us now, and we study it

Hegel's philosophy has also obtained the least, not only because most of the scientific views in it are outdated, but also belong to a traditional German philosophy that requires special sophistry to understand (the theory of eternal natural law proposed by Schelling and others).

Schopenhauer sarcastically said it was absurd and lacked logic, and sometimes the reasons were sufficient, this Hegelic expression of "in life, light completely influences gravity", and his expression of "magnetic phenomena are natural and thoughtful.

The resonance of this observation is simply not worth mentioning. We (or most of us) no longer believe that there is a purposeful motivation in nature. Since Schopenhauer believes that intention is "blind" (as nature

Choose), then of course he doesn't believe this. Unlike Hegel, we will not believe that nature is the product of some absolute spirit, or that its purpose is to allow absolute spirit to perceive that one is **, uncle

Benhua also did not believe it. Schopenhauer bluntly said, "It is not wisdom that creates nature, but nature that creates wisdom." This may have been regarded as a heretic theory in the era of Hegel and Schelling, and in the post-Darwinian era

, This is common sense that everyone knows.

Furthermore, Schopenhauer believes that nature contains conflicts of contradictions and conflicts. "The objectification of each level of intention (i.e., every phenomenon) is in a struggle against matter, space, time and others." Unlike most philosophers, he

He does not consider humans to be higher-ranking animals, but as Nietzsche said after him, he emphasized how superficial our consciousness is: "It is just our superficial thought."

He also has a similar view to Freud, emphasizing behavioral motivations that are not controlled by consciousness: “We often completely mistakenly believe that we know the true motivation of our choice or choice not to do something until something happens, the real

Motivation is revealed. We are not high-ranking animals, but servants who serve our "universal will" without knowingly, and often deceive ourselves into believing that "the true self is actually survival

Intention - blindly struggling for survival and reproduction". In this regard, he was not only a pioneer of Darwin and Freud, but rather Dawkins. Schopenhauer "blind desire"

"The story tells a similar story to Dawkins' "selfish gene". It's even more the same for morality: it's good for intention or genes, but not necessarily good for individuals. Schopenhauer told

We intend to "can destroy individuals at any time and thus continue the race."

For Schopenhauer (Dawkins also), our best way out is not to reconcile with nature, but to fight with it until we can escape from the biological law. A living with Schopenhauer

In the same era, a man named John Herbart pointed out a central contradiction in Schopenhauer's philosophy in his opinion: if we are intended to decide, how can we deny it as Schopenhauer suggested to us?

We can indeed resist and deny the will, and the will is certainly not as omnipotent as Schopenhauer told us. This is not an academic issue, because it concerns the future of mankind. This issue can be retelled in contemporary terms:

Can the wanderer who appears by chance during the evolution process defeat the instinct which is also an evolutionary product?

Although there were some biography of Schopenhauer before, the latest version written by David Cartwright should be considered the most thorough and irreplaceable (although some sentences are irrelevant, there are some weird idioms such as "contradictory"

The rifle shot”). Cartwright gave a clear and brief summary of "The World as Intention and Representation" in Chapter 7 of the book, which can be used as a good introduction to Schopenhauer.

Those readers who have just taken a glimpse of the path will find it inspiring to understand Schopenhauer's irritable temper, stubbornness and ridiculousness in it.

For what Schopenhauer himself calls "the expression of a single thought", it may sometimes be suspected: as what he calls "the original source of wisdom and knowledge" - a wonderful combination of Plato, Kant and the Upanishads -

How good is Schopenhauer's philosophy to unify it? Some people regret that he despises women. He believes that the female surname is a gifted inferior surname, and he self-righteously defends polygamy, saying that it is based on

The fact that a man is not satisfied with a woman. Given that Schopenhauer's own life and behaviors are rarely mysterious, holiness and abstinence, we can see his lifestyle and his ethical mercy, existence

Somehow inconsistent. This kind of pity praises the act of "to push oneself to others" and the mystic, holiness and abstinence.

Schopenhauer also pondered: "People often sigh at the shortness of life, but this may be the greatest advantage of life." However, he didn't complain about his long life. Because after all, he welcomed it at that time.

The beginning of his fame in his late years and the end of his hegemony with his arch-rival Hegel. Even if his wish to make Hegel forget forever fail to come true, he would at least be happy to see his works begin to be valued by people.

.In this era, we have no reason to continue to maintain historical optimism, and a gentle pessimistic attitude is more like the habit of people today.

If Leibniz, the great German philosopher during the Enlightenment, believes that we live in a world that is too good to be better, then Arthur Schopenhauer's view is: We live in a world that is too bad to be worse to be better, then Arthur Schopenhauer's view is:

Oh no, there is a world of pain and death everywhere. He became an atheist in his youth, and he firmly believed that such a world could not have been created by the most beautiful God. As he said, "Life is

A tragic thing, I decided to spend my whole life thinking about it.”

Schopenhauer disrespects Leibniz and calls him a "poor candlelight". It is not surprising that he believes that optimism is "not only absurd and ridiculous, but also a very unethical way of thinking, and it is also a way of suffering.

A mean mockery of the surname of a man who is indescribable to express his hardship” (The World as Intention and Representation (1819)). We can further say that it is not only for human surnames, but also for animals. If Kant says that ethics

The scope of the Li family is limited to the Li family. Schopenhauer emphasizes the human ability to tolerate pain, because he regards the Li family as a layer of fiction on the surface of the human animal family. He gives it to the ethics of his compassion.

He believes that animals deserve (attention, status, etc.).

I believe you have seen that Schopenhauer, as a leader among pessimistic philosophers, has never been forgotten. But we can also say that his main influence is actually beyond philosophy - to composers such as Richard?

Wagner, and the influence of countless writers and poets. On the one hand, he felt that art could temporarily relieve the "painful pressure" in life and therefore attach great importance to art. On the other hand, he provided a philosophy of life for life, and

It is not just a professional thesis, because one of the tasks of philosophy is to provide comfort in the face of death, which does not include what he calls the "little lies". In addition, he is one of the easiest philosophers to understand, which is

He also added a lot of points. His style was beautiful and refined, clear and smooth - even though he was in an era when his German philosopher colleagues were rich in difficult and obscure prose (such as Hegel).

Schopenhauer was the figure who would rather escape factional struggle. He was in the era of German idealism (idealism believes that everything exists in his heart), but although he is indeed an idealist, his own terms and ideas,

In many ways, and in large part, he was much more "empirical" than his contemporary philosophers. Although he provided a "philosophy of life", he was not regarded as a pioneer of existentialism, even if only

It is because of his cruel deterministic rule: we have no choice for the future. He tells us "innate good and evil", and we can discover "what we are" through "what we do".

Like other creatures, they are actually dominated by many unconscious expressions of desire. The human will is an illusion that emerges from the self-consciousness. Therefore, we cannot make choices in a safe manner, as Sartre asked:

We are already us. In fact, for Schopenhauer, Sartre's psychology is misunderstood like the ones of the surname Kant, the surname Kant. (To be continued.)