Arthur Schopenhauer's Philosophy - Bryan Magee & Frederick Copleston (1987)
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2023
- Frederick Copleston and Bryan Magee discuss the work of the 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in this 1987 program on the Great Philosophers. Schopenhauer is perhaps most famous for his extreme pessimism. Seeing the world as something horrific and bleak, he urged that we turn against it. As a follower of Immanuel Kant, he took space, time, and causality to be, not things-in-themselves, but categories of the mind through which we interpret and make sense of things. However, in contrast to Kant, Schopenhauer argued that reality must ultimately be one, a single unified whole which essentially involves "Will". There are several remarkable things about him, including the fact that he was the only major Western philosopher to draw serious and interesting parallels between Western and Eastern thought, as well as being the first major philosopher to openly identify as an atheist. He had a significant influence on many great thinkers and artists, including Nietzsche, Freud, Wittgenstein, and Wagner. The arts were particularly important for Schopenhauer as well, not only because he thought they give us a glimpse into the underlying reality, but because they help us to escape our individuality and thus the inherent suffering and meaningless absurdity of existence. (My Description)
The full series: • The Great Philosophers...
#philosophy #schopenhauer #bryanmagee #kant
Yes, this is a reupload. I wanted a version with higher audio quality. I’ll still leave the previous video up, but as unlisted, so as to not break any external links with it. Sorry about any inconvenience!
Thank you for uploading
Thanks for this upload...great stuff. Bryan Magee was brilliant at making philosophy available for many. Sadly missed....
Great picture quality too. Thank you !
Thanks for thinking of us!
Excellent discussion. I was reminded of previous Schopenhauer writings on the animal world. As humans we are mainly concerned with human suffering. Schopenhauer was also very concerned with the suffering of animals. Animals are subject to the same metaphysical "will" as are we. Endless predator/prey encounters every minute of the day. They experience suffering and craving as do we. Schopenhauer was an early defender of animal rights.
Thanks for this upload...great stuff. Bryan Magee was brilliant at making philosophy available for many. Sadly missed....
I've read Schopenhauer with thoughts consistent with this discussion -- I was long-ago shocked when S turned against the Will. However these Magee interviews and insights are invaluable overview of key issues and linkages to other philosophical lines of thought, forming a rich contextual fabric from which I can stitch together an Understanding of my own.
Many many thanks for posting and giving your overview in the description. Altogether, these interviews provide a keystone education creating a basis for further inquiry.
"If I were to take the result of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I would be obliged to concede to Buddhism the preeminence over the rest." --- Arthur Schopenhauer, The World As Will and Idea / Representation, Volume 2, chapter 17 - On men's need of metaphysics.
Didn't Nietzsche answer the question of turning against "the will" by equating it to self-control, not self-denial? That is, the ascetic is a will to power turned inward, rather than a will to power denied.
Thanks for the upload. New to philosophy and love deep thinking. I got a little bit of what they were saying. Really appreciate Mr Magee arresting the conversation just at the right times to reitterate the points. Listening again after i've submitted this commwnt. Absolutely loved it - i see there are many others. I'm so happy. Thanks again.
Ok i guess it's at least 43 minutes later and i've watched this video again. I understand a lot more and can see at least 5, maybe 7 big ideas including that final one Mr Copleston touched on, the proposal that we should turn against the ultimate reality, the will, when after all we are the will. And to do that suggests we are to turn against ourselves. I'm not sure if Schopenauer's conclusions about the will were completely negative but the truth is, although yes energy, the will does tear living flesh apart and those things we label as detestable and cruel, the will, nature, the will is also non detestable and beautiful in places probably equal to the ugly. So yes, i agree with Schopenhauer that we should turn away from the wretched in nature which of course includes our own self, but not in a total way. As within us there is beauty as well as the grotesque. I hope Schopenhauer found this beauty and equalised things mentally and found it marvellous and wonderful.
This video is acting as an introductionto philosophy for me and i won't be moving on to another video until i've watched it at least one more time. What a beautiful experience i'm having. Wonder what i'll think of these comments in a years time.
Thanks again.
Thanks for this wonderful discussion. I came to Schopenhauer via Wagner (as many interested non-philosophers probably have). And McGee and Copleston have taken me to a deeper understanding of him. I also appreciated the separation between the metaphysics and the value judgment of it.
@@HappyManSometimeAs have been many of the greatest geniuses of history (me, of course, being one of the rare exceptions...).
@@HappyManSometime I hope you didn't take my reply too literally or seriously...
I understand and appreciate Schopenhauer's view that the only true genius is the artist and I also always related to his view that the only true escape from the will was aesthetic contemplation, and also that music was the highest form of art. I am a musician (a singer), but I also dabble in photography. I find recited or read poetry not as affecting to me as poetry set to music. Must be the way my brain works...
“In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads. It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death.”
- Arthur Schopenhauer
Nice, thanks.
In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of Schopenhauer. It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death.
"If I were to take the result of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I would be obliged to concede to Buddhism the preeminence over the rest." --- Arthur Schopenhauer, The World As Will and Idea / Representation, Volume 2, chapter 17 - On men's need of metaphysics.
@@OSY_PB Buddhism is branch of Hinduism. All Indian philosophies including Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, are all part of Sanatana Dharma aka Hinduism.
@@AdvaiticOneness1
Buddhism rejects hinduism. It does not believe in eternal soul and brahman. Clearly you know nothing about philosophy as expected.
My name was Bryan Magee
I stayed up listening to Queen
When I was seventeen.
Thanks!!
One of my favourites
It is not the world's fault that it does fulfill our expectations: it is not answerable to our personal will. Schopenhauer misunderstood Buddhism, which teaches (in the Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path) a practical way to train ourselves to let go of clinging to expectations and swollen-headed opinionation, and thereby experience the world in a much deeper way. At the heart of existence is "Love beyond our wildest dreams" (to quote a great modern Buddhist master).
Thank you very much for this!
From what I understand, in Buddhism, Ramanuja indicated that Shunya or Emptiness is not nothingness. In Advaita Vedanta, the nondual interpretation of the Upanishads, Nirguna Brahman is not a positive objective thing.
Both Shunyavada Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta would agree ultimate reality is not Nothing, not Something but beyond both ie catuskoti. As that ultimate nondual reality is beyond perception, the only way to talk about It is either through Negation and/or Silence. Maybe that's why LudwigW was silent.
Thanks again.
Outside language isn’t silence … there’s music and more ways of relating to reality. Trying to find true reality with words is a strange game. Coding at least is tied to physical reality itself in a precise way so is a tool. Language for literary people is more like music and can resonate to reveal things, but not lock down truth like it’s a butterfly to be pinned and analyzed
🤘
Language in english can be translated to "langue" and "language" in french and this distinction applies to many others languages. What you are reffering to as language is what in french one would call langue, the set linguistic symbols and the rules to combine them.
What they are reffering to is that second acception, that is, the faculty of perception, organization, interpretation and production of any kind of differential entities to express meaning.
So yes, outside of language, in that sense, there is only silence, because music is not a "langue" but it is part of, and possible due to "language"
@@igoryt563 if using such a general definition including all ways of finding meaning, then can there be any outside or “silence” that isn’t still part of the meaning system ? I’ve tended to view philosophy more about reason and language , or about wisdom or other topics. Plato did write on music I think more as a branch of math and order .. so that would include what you’re saying.
I have huge respect for Father Copleston, but I think his religious beliefs are a big hindrance in this discussion, he does not believe in what Schopenhauer believed, so the discussion is not as juicy - as a discussion between these two greats could have been, say on Aristotle or or Plato or Kant. Both Bryan and Father Copleston were giants.
I totally agree- I think Copelston seems to focus hard on the contradictions in Schopenhaeur's philosophy and what he got wrong, which don't get me wrong is extremely important when closely examining his philosophy, but for such a general overview I think he is unnecessarily pedantic.
Well said. Totally agree.
I didn't even clock he was a priest until reading your comment after the video, yet halfway through, I knew he was a Jesus man! Being Irish, I have a sixth sense for it 😂 I've never once heard (including undergraduate Phil at Maynooth) any consession to Buddhism regarding the nature of reality, the indistinguishable nature of things etc., but Schopenhauer arrived at the shore all by himself! Really!!
It is irrelevant if Copleston personally believes in Schopenhauer's position; or not. What is important is that Copleston understands Schopenhauer's position and articulates it such that the listener may learn about this great philosopher.
Can any one find this quote, “The Universe is a dream dreamed by a single dreamer where all the dream characters dream too." Joseph Campbell says it Schopenhauer's. I can't find it anywhere, Just read Transcenent Speculations on the Fate of the Individual. Translated by David Irvine 1913. I was told I'd find it there, it's not.
Mah Boy❤
Schopenhauer 👑👌
I really appreciate the effort Bryan goes to in existence lain img these concepts to dullard like myself
Most philosophers make no attempt to be understandable to any but others in academia as if they don’t think their ideas are important enough to be grasped by the general public
I pity those who try to read Heidegger
particularly when you realise all he is saying is things are as they appear to be
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 43:10
Arthur Schopenhauer was my first.
🔥🔥🔥
Love how these old school Oxford Gs call Kant, Karrnt. 'oi, you, you Karrrrnt!'
that looks like the most uncomfortable and unnatural couch for elderly sots to sit on.
These dudes need to read Sapolsky's 'Behave' cuz their stuck in the 20th century
Wicked!
When criticizing Kant's theory of the State, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said that:
“… the State cannot in any way be directed against selfishness, in the general and absolute sense of the word; on the contrary, it is precisely from selfishness that the State is born, but from a well-understood selfishness, from a selfishness that rises above the individual point of view until it encompasses the group of individuals, and that, in a word, takes away the resultant of selfishness common to all of us. Serving this selfishness is the State's only reason for being, assuming, however - a legitimate hypothesis - that it cannot count, on the part of men, on pure morality, on a respect for the law inspired by completely moral reasons. Otherwise, in fact, the State would be a superfluous thing. However, it is not selfishness that the State aims at, but only the disastrous consequences of selfishness, since thanks to the multiplicity of individuals, all selfish, each one is exposed to suffering in their well-being; It is this well-being that the State has in mind.” (The world as will and representation, Arthur Schopenhauer, Contraponto, Rio de Janeiro, 2001, p. 362).
In a passage from his Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime, Kant states that many men “…have their much-loved self fixed before their eyes as the only point of reference for their efforts and…seek to make everything revolve around their interest itself, as if around a great axis. Nothing can be more advantageous than this, for these are the most diligent and prudent; they provide support and solidity to the whole, because as long as they don’t want to do so, they serve the common good.” (quoted by Hannah Arendt in Lessons on Kant's political philosophy, Relume Dumará, Rio de Janeiro, 1994, p. 22).
Commenting on this passage, Arendt states that in Kant can be seen a “…conviction that no moral conversion of man, no revolution in his mentality is necessary, required or expected in order to produce a change in politics for the better.” (Lessons on Kant's political philosophy, Hannah Arendt, Relume Dumará, Rio de Janeiro, 1994, p. 22).
Kant also said that:
“…in a total transformation, recently undertaken, of a great people into a State, the word organization has been used with great consequence, often to designate the replacement of magistracies, etc., and even of the entire body of the State. For each member, of course, must be, in such a whole, not only a means, but also, at the same time, an end, since it contributes to realizing the possibility of the whole, and must, in turn, be determined by means of the idea. at all, according to its position and its function.” (Critique of Judgment, Emmanuel Kant, El Ateneo Editorial Bookstore, Unforgettable Classics Collection, Kant II, Buenos Aires, 1951, p. 372)
Commenting on this last observation, Hannah Arendt states that it was “… precisely this problem of how to organize a people into a State, how to build the State, how to found a political community, and all the legal problems related to these questions, that occupied Kant constantly during his last years of life. Not that his old interests in the cunning of nature or the mere sociability of men had entirely disappeared. But they undergo a certain change, or rather, they appear under new and unexpected formulations.” (Lessons on Kant's political philosophy, Hannah Arendt, Relume Dumará, Rio de Janeiro, 1994, p. 19)
Despite this considerations made by Hannah Arendt, the similarity between Kant's political philosophy and Schopenhauer's is only apparent. While one presumes that the public sphere subordinates the economic sphere and makes a clear distinction between the consequences of self-love and those of morality, the other subjects the political arena to selfishness, transforming it into the reason for the State as long as it has in mind the everyone's well-being.
Neoliberalism not only advocates the reduction of the public sphere to the benefit of the private economic sphere, it also reverses the subordination between the two defended by Immanuel Kant. The supreme neoliberal ideal is the total predominance of private selfishness over any type of public interest. In this sense, the simplest explanation for the renewal of interest in Schopenhauer since the 1970s is that his conception of the State can be accepted without many reservations by the ideologues of neoliberalism.
Old video.
So?
Its kinda annoying how Copleston keeps inserting contrarian bits here and there as they are trying to discuss Schopenhauer. Its like Copleston is trying to make an ass of Schopenhauer while Magee is the one carrying the conversation.
Schopenhauer is the greatest
Chaugnar faughn
Power to will.
Perfection is not attainable but If we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
Both; which of course, are relative concepts....
@@gplunk love you
magee invited this guy on to stunt on him and dominate him intellectually
This often happened with others!! BM was so good at summing up the main points for many watchers.
Some hold back much more than others because they don't need to pat themselves on their own shoulder. Both men are very intelligent and as an outside listener their was much to be learned. Their are many perspectives to have in any situation but I suggest the one without ego or pride,for those two things often blind you from learning any further.
When saying the *thing in itself* is measured only by time and not space. Cant that be disputed by the *space* our neuro transmitter take up. And the space inside the brain/mind. No matter how small the space is???
Additionally the *rejection of the will* unlike western religions, which aim is to flourish and prosper, aligned with Gods value system, only intensifies the desire to effect *more, impact more* which deepens heartache. While *denying the will* focuses the mind on super simplistic ideals. i.e. Settling on small bowls of rice. Depleting lust, greed and so on??
Excruciating interview technique. I'm surprised Copleston didn't walk out.
😂😂😂been a great experience ,one comes away with even less knowledge one had before seeing this. 😂😂😂
I think Socrates would be proud of that comment :)
A very gratifying experience
Schopenhauer failed to appreciate divine design involving pleasure and pain as dual aspect of reality. From this premise it is easy to grasp the fact that disease and pain is also provided by the designer who magically gave solution of all kinds of medicine to overcome sufferings. On the level of human children afflicted by disease and cut short, the divine design prevents such suffering by providing remedy of future suffering.
So, his pessimism is unfounded and is the result of his own ignorance that made him an atheist, forcing him to view reality as unwelcome and should be rejected, without specifying how does that help him. How such a person can have a moral standing is difficult to grasp and must qualify as useless.
How it great it must be to be a “believer”, to have an explanation for everything.
Non-believers just need to focus on who are here without a designer. When there is no answer they will be able to see the reality. There is no proof of either stand.@@MD-lf3gt
You're ignorant of suffering
@@JoshSmith-ff8dw There are many shades of suffering. One common suffering suffered by philosophers since Feud, is childhood sexual abuse that killed many philosophers or forced them to commit suicide. They were hiding behind the child molesting culture of Talmudic Jews and never admitted the sin, disease or the demonic culture that is still rampant among the priests, politicians etc. I am amazed not one philosopher ever wanted to remedy the situation.
As much as I appreciate these series, the commentary needs to be shorter to a point, too much him and huh…never heard the word “and” used soo much.
This guy on right side think he understands Schopenhauer but not at all..he just can't
He just want Seat on every Fancy chair
I'd like to seat on fancy chair too that's why I like it
😅😅
The “ guy on the right “ is one of the world ‘ s authorities on Schopenhauer .
@@FranciscoGarcia-ep6eh what a bullshit statement... authorities 🤣🤡🤣
@@bornatona3954do you have an authority problem?
THAT'S GOD. REALITY. ONE.