Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


How to start the introduction of the section "Philosophy"[edit]

There is apparently a minor disagreement between Gentlecollapse6 and me on whether we should start the section Philosophy, "The world as representation", with one or another sentence.

Originally, when I had written this text, it started like this:

--

Philosophy

The world as representation

Schopenhauer saw his philosophy as a continuation of that of Kant, and used the results of his epistemological investigations, that is, transcendental idealism, as starting point for his own:

My philosophy is founded on that of Kant, and therefore presupposes a thorough knowledge of it. Kant's teaching produces in the mind of everyone who has comprehended it ... Only in this way can anyone become susceptible to the more positive expositions which I have to give.

Kant had argued the empirical world is merely a complex of appearances whose existence and connection occur only in our representations. Schopenhauer reiterates this in the first sentence of his main work: "The world is my representation." We do not draw empirical laws from nature, but prescribe them to it.

--

The suggestion of Gentlecollapse6 is to move the last paragraph and to let the philosophy section start with the "Kant had argued ..." paragraph.

I don't see why this would be an improvement. Gentlecollapse6 seems to consider it obvious why this is an improvement. "It obviously makes more sense to summarize Schopenhauer’s idea than to explain his debt to Kant, what’s your problem" is what Gentlecollapse6 said after the second edit. I believe that I hear some irritation because of the "what's your problem", but for me it is not obvious why this is an improvement.

In my original text I started with mentioning that Schopenhauer's starting point, as he so often stresses, is Kant's transcendental idealism. I believed that this order of introducing new information was good for the reader. After this remark it is explained what Kant's transcendental idealism entails.

In the proposed edit of Gentlecollapse6 the Philosophy section of Schopenhauer would start out of blue with: "Kant argued the empirical world is merely a complex of appearances whose existence and connection occur only in our representations." Why would an article on Schopenhauer's philosophy start with a statement on Kant's philosophy, without even explaining how this is relevant?

I welcome improvements of the Philosophy section, but this seems like a lazy edit.

Yuyuhunter (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Thoughts on other philosophers" doesn't mention Hegel?[edit]

Hegel deserves a section, for sure. I intend to write it, unless someone else is willing to do it before me. My first language is portuguese, and it'd be better if a native speaker wrote it.

As guidance, I remember that a posthumously published book of aphorisms contain significant material about Hegel. It is a book published by a friend of his. This friend was told to burn the material, for it was worth little, according to Schopenhauer. --Bageense(disc.) 22:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not in favor of that idea. Even Spinoza doesn't have his own section. Hegel is already discussed in the section on the post-Kantian philosophy, if he gets his own section there should be a new one Fichte and for Schelling. (Plato and Aristotle aren't mentioned at all!) If you would argue that Hegel had, unlike Spinoza and Plato, personal contact with Schopenhauer which needs more attention, then I say, the confrontations between them are described in the "Biography" section and that is in my opinion the right place. Yuyuhunter (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor emendation[edit]

Hi, in "Later life", para 6 ("In 1832 Schopenhauer left Frankfurt ..."), there is the following: "The Society was appalled that several distinguished contemporary philosophers were mentioned in a very offensive manner, claimed that the essay missed the point and that the arguments were not adequate.[135] Schopenhauer, who was very self-confident that he would win, was enraged by this rejection. He published both essays as The Two Basic Problems of Ethics and in the preface to the second edition of this book, in 1860, he was still pouring insults on Royal Danish Society.[136]". IMHO one might clarify that Wiki doesn't do mind-reading by adding that the Society published its misgivings in writing in the rejection notice (which, IIRC, S. reproduces in full in the foreword to the "...Ethics") - perhaps even present it as a quote -, and that besides invective, that foreword also contains S.'s detailed refutation of the arguments given for rejection. I'm not entirely certain that "refutation" is the exact word to use; Idk if the rejection was indeed refuted; but he certainly did gainsay it, and supported this with arguments. Also, the Society's reasons are listed in reverse order of writing, and it was the last point, the abuse of Hegel, that gave S. opportunity to lash out first against university philosophy and philosophers in general, the Society in particular, and finally Hegel as its absolute nadir. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Religion: A Dialogue, Etc.[edit]

Does Religion: A Dialogue, Etc., translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders, belong in the bibliography? Or does it merely contain extractions of work found elsewhere? --StephanNaro (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that Saunders claims that these essays are taken from Parerga und Paralipomena, and maybe they are, though I don't quite see them among the contents as shown on Amazon. --StephanNaro (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arthur left his mother, and they never met again before she died 24 years later.[edit]

This statement is clearly negated by mentions in the article further on. Can it simply be deleted as an unsubstantiated comment? Robertwhyteus (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I rewrote most of the biography a few years ago and it seems that I mistakenly left that statement from an earlier version. It surely doesn't make sense in this part of the text. I don't really know when was the last time they met or corresponded. You can delete the statement, or maybe try to find some more info and move it to a later paragraph. AugXV (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]