Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer

Justification for the edits in the philosophy section

I deleted one paragraph in the section on his metaphysical voluntarism, and since it is the work of someone else which I dare to throw away, I believe a good justification is needed on my part. The introduction on Hegel and Kant is without sources. It says that Schopenhauer criticizes Hegel and Kant for their logical optimism, but Schopenhauer does this nowhere (his criticisms of Kant deal with epistemology and ethics, and regarding Hegel, that he is not a philosopher). Even if "Hegel had popularized the concept of Zeitgeist, the idea that society consisted of a collective consciousness that moved in a distinct direction, dictating the actions of its members." it is unclear what this should tell us about Schopenhauer's theory on will.

This part should set out Schopenhauer's fundamental doctrine. Historical context can be useful if it clarifies the starting point.

The two sentences: "Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated by only their own basic desires, or Wille zum Leben ("Will to Live"), which directed all of mankind. Will, for Schopenhauer, is what Kant called the "thing-in-itself", are better. On the current page they would add no new information.

Yuyuhunter UTC 13:55, 5 october 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuyuhunter (talk • contribs)

Schopenhauer and religion

This article could benefit from a section on Schopenhauer and religion, stating that, although Schopenhauer's philosophy is atheistic, he was influenced by the world religions, especially Hinduism. It could also mention that he admired Jesus, whom he saw as an ascetic. Vorbee (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about this as well. His philosophy has led people back to religion (such as Tolstoy, J.K. Huysman) because all his examples of the most important phenomenon in ethics, the denial of the will to live, are religious figures. Right now the ethics section does not clear how important these religious accounts are for his philosophy. I therefore plan to improve the ethics section with this important matter, which has caused the attraction towards religion among his readers. Yuyuhunter (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Why does the infobox say that his religion is Western philosophy? That is quite dubious.

Update: I changed it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Schopenhauer&type=revision&diff=833693524&oldid=833692224 --Bringback2ndpersonverbs (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC) My mistake, it said "region", not "religion". --Bringback2ndpersonverbs (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Photo

Regarding this photo of Schopenhauer https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur_Schopenhauer_by_J_Sch%C3%A4fer,_1859b.jpg, I will copy and paste what I just wrote on its discussion page:

'The date of this photo is given as being March 1859. However, two things lead me to doubt this.

First of all, the Encyclopedia Britannica - a reliable source if anything is - identifies the photo as being from 1855. See https://www.britannica.com/biography/Arthur-Schopenhauer

Secondly, this painting of Schopenhauer https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schopenhauer.jpg is from 1855, according to that page itself and also according to the article on Schopenhauer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer), and is almost identical to the photo.

I therefore suggest that the photo's date is either changed to 1855 or else we remove reference to the date altogether, so as to get rid of the false information that the photo is from March 1859.'

Actually, the very title of the photo might be a problem because it has 1859 in its title.

Matthew Fennell (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

And there is another version of the photo here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur_Schopenhauer_by_J_Sch%C3%A4fer,_1859b.jpg

Matthew Fennell (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

How to start the introduction of the section "Philosophy"

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)

"Thoughts on other philosophers" doesn't mention Hegel?

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)

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)

Minor emendation

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)