Ok thanks, but what of the questions. Do you have any hypothesis or inking of an answer from a Schopenhauerian perspective? Here they are again: And I...
Yes, but the way you made it seem here: You make it seem that the (fairly large) amount of people who acknowledge the hard problem deny the easy probl...
Yes, that is Schop's interpretation more-or-less. Every subject is a manifestation of Will. Even if your subjectivity is gone, subjectivity en toto is...
It is very frustrating to the point of willed ignorance that you keep misinterpreting/misrepresenting the hard problem of consciousness. In your own w...
Did you stop responding? Just to go over where I left off: To provide some alternative, there is the notion of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) tha...
But I am refuting the metaphysical premise that there will always be representation. Representation without animal minds is not possible. So your move...
You need a consciousness. No animals, no consciousness. Whence consciousness? This is that paradox of the first mind and ancestral statements, etc. Th...
Don’t play stupid. I’m pretty sure you know what I’m asking. It has to do with Thing in itself. If there are no animals…what is the implication for Bu...
No I get the way Buddhist concepts are about the idea that this is an "illusion" etc. It's doublespeak. What if there were no living things in the wor...
No it is not. Antinatalism is an ethical principle so clearly violates your definition of nihilism as . In that sense, many people have "nihilistic id...
It's convenient in that it justifies procreation now doesn't it? Odd. Fuck it (literally), it's inevitable anyways.. If literally everyone stopped pro...
But isn't that convenient... Saying something is "nihilistic" doesn't impute anything other than it's a term you use for X. Also I wrote more in that ...
I see you quoted and mentioned me. Did you want me to add anything or was it just a reference? I think you mischaracterize the move to prevent sufferi...
I see these are words, but they don't mean much. I'm in a conversation with @"frank" about language use, and this is an example of a language game whe...
In other words, it's almost a "nominalism" versus "essentialism" argument. Early Wittgenstein versus later Wittgenstein might be another phrasing. Log...
To me, it seems like the same idea really, but a real life example of how math is radically different. The rule is you can add to three but any more, ...
I mean, who is to say the tribes that have a word for "one", "two" "three" "anything more than three" is wrong? If used in a way that everyone gets by...
Is this something about word-games and their context? In another thread I was saying thus, and I think it might have some relevance about context and ...
The poster asked if I was aware of something from nothing in physics and I gave him the main example I knew from the popular science book. Yes, I am a...
I don't think much of it. There have been ideas from people like Lawrence Krauss'A Universe from Nothing that posits just that. I think it's plausible...
No I wasn't talking directly about Kant, I was using that as analogy of what I was doing with Schopenhauer.. I was saying that my discussion was fair ...
I just find this to be pretty uninteresting. "There is no why". The end. It just doesn't have the philosophical heft to explain the systems it relies ...
Good point, but I get stuck on "truly is" because either Will is magically asserted or Maya is magically asserted. However, we "know" Maya (e.g. the c...
If we discussed Kant's notion of Transcendental Idealism and then I ventured into his ideas that surround that, I believe I would be justified. If we ...
More precisely, it was questioning if the Thing Itself can be referred to as a referent, as if it was a phenomenal thing. That being said, you can't j...
It's very much on topic. Here were the steps of this conversation. Schopenhauer's Thing Itself > Escape from it possible? (Quixodian yes/ schopenhaer1...
Oddly enough, isn't that the kind of thing the ascetics question? Bundle theory and all that. Communal catharsis. It's right understanding. Yep. My qu...
Lame-duck sauce response, but at least it's not snide. That is to say, it really didn't address much of what I wrote. Eek. You think I am simply "judg...
Indeed, ironically, I think Schopenhauer too optimistic. There is no blissful escape. But more interestingly, the fact that there are schools of thoug...
Nice characterization there.. Using your abstracting skills. I would simply add that there is no reason to create the stuff between the two nothingnes...
Yes, I would say that Zapffe captures this paradox of self-awareness the best: And directly here: That is to say, we done fuckd it up. It's too late f...
So I am at a loss of how you want to go ahead communicating, as you seem to start from the end of the conversation. So let's start over. Let's start f...
I wouldn't be so quick to condemn this thinking. Humans do have obvious differences that make a difference. We seem to be a largely cultural animal wh...
By 'theistic' I mean some sort of logos/reason/desire for it. What I was getting at is Schop seems to have painted himself in a corner. It is "blind W...
Will wills, yes. However, why is it that entailed in willing is this superstructure of the PSR, objects, space/time/causality as this aspect of Repres...
Hey sorry if I was harsh earlier.. but could you quote some specific things I said so I can reference that? Otherwise, I may think you are addressing ...
I don’t think he says that, but rather the absence of being. The whole project from BigBang onwards is moving towards non-being I think is the idea. K...
At least he has an explanation! It's pessimistically theological https://static1.anpoimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Untitl3ed.png. Wh...
I see it as fatal to Schop's own endeavor, as interesting as it is. This would be contra, Schop though. This would externalize time/space in a way tha...
I'm starting to see why @"Banno" was frustrated at your answers. Are you reading my posts in full where I cover this? There is nothing more frustratin...
Have you read my full posts? I go over how Schop is not theological. So sure, change it to how. Whatever. It's still asking the same question. And I g...
You keep just reiterating what it is that needs to be explained. Why is there a mind that understand the Forms and reasons, if all is Will? Why multip...
Ok, I read a little and it looks like I pretty much got it right as to his "mechanism" earlier in this thread. The book said: https://books.google.com...
Yes, that I know very well. It's his conclusions that are most interesting to me, not his metaphysics so that part you have to explain the least to me...
Comments