SCHOPENHAUER ON KANT

seddon's picture
Submitted by seddon on Tue, 2013-11-26 21:57

I write the post in order to recommend Schopenhauer to Soloists. Specifically, the Appendix to his magnum opus, The World as Will and Representation. Now why should this be of interest to Soloists? The whole Appendix is devoted to Kant, and some of it will warm the heart of most Soloists. Not that Schopenhauer is just a Kant basher. He loves much that Kant was able to accomplish. If you want pure venom, you should read him on the German Idealists, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, esp. Hegel. “But the greatest effrontery in serving up sheer nonsense, in scrabbling together senseless and maddening webs of words, such as had previously been heard only in madhouses, finally appeared in Hegel.” (WWR, I, 429)

His attitude toward Kant is more like Rand’s toward Aristotle, to whom she admitted being in debt even though she disagreed “with a great many parts of his philosophy.” (AS 1171)

First let’s look at some of the positive quotations from the Appendix. (413-534)
(1) Kant’s greatest merit is the distinction of the phenomenon from the thing-in-itself, based on the proof that between things and us there always stands the intellect. . . “ (417)
(2) “Kant’s style bears throughout the stamp of a superior mind . . .Its characteristic quality can perhaps be appropriately described as a brilliant dryness. . . I find the same brilliant dryness again in the style of Aristotle. (428)
(3) “The Transcendental Aesthetic is a work of such merit that it alone would be sufficient to immortalize the name the Kant.”
Now let’s look at some negative quotations.

Now a look at some negative quotations.
(4). “In the polemic I am about to institute against Kant, I have only his mistakes and weaknesses in view. I face them with hostility, and wage a relentless war of extermination upon them, always mindful not to conceal them with indulgence, but rather to place them in the brightest light, the more to reduce them to nought. (417)
(5) He has nowhere clearly distinguished knowledge of perception from abstract knowledge, and in this way, . . .he becomes implicated in inextricable contradictions with himself.” (431)
(6) “He describes these schemata. . . in the strange ‘Chapter on the Schematism of the Pure Concepts of the Understanding,’ which is well known for its great obscurity, since no one has ever been able to make anything out of it.” (450)
(7) “I reject the whole doctrine of the categories, and number it among the groundless assumptions with which Kant burdened the theory of knowledge. “ (452)

Fred


( categories: )

Lindsay

seddon's picture

Given your love of music, you might enjoy reading Book III of his World as Will and Representation; its all about aesthetics with an emphasis on the arts. And music is in a class all by itself. "How special?" you ask. It gives us access to the noumenal world, contra Kant. And you are so right, this guy wrote as well as Nietzsche, but yet so different. And Book I is very pro-science and pro-experience. He is worth the time, if you have the time. And I got to him in a rather sad way. Dr. Stephen Nielly would often give talks on Schopenhauer to the Wst Vriginia Philosophical Society. When his school hosted a meeting, I would even sleep at his home. Then he died. March of 2010. He told me after the March meeting, where I resigned the presidency after 22 years, that he thought he could not live without me as president. Alas he did not and died within a week of my resignation.
Stay strong my friend, I don't want to outlive you.

Fred

Fred

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I enjoyed the negatives immensely. Beautiful eloquence. Wish I'd said them!

Lindsay

seddon's picture

I merely presented Schopenhauer's view, but I never claimed he was correct. Although I think it is possible to read the "positive" as close to my view of Kant.
How did you enjoy the "negatives."

Fred

Fred

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Welcome back!

Re your point in the "positives"—


(1) Kant’s greatest merit is the distinction of the phenomenon from the thing-in-itself, based on the proof that between things and us there always stands the intellect. . . “

... forgive me if I'm mis-remembering, but didn't you spend some time on a previous thread arguing this is a misinterpretation of Kant, that for him the phenomenon is, rather, an aspect of the noumenon?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.