ფილოსოფია

by Arthur Schopenhauer, თამარ კოტრიკაძე (Translator)

წინამდებარე ტექსტში წარმოდგენილია ფილოსოფიური მსჯელობა საკუთრივ ფილოსოფიური დისციპლინების შესახებ, განხილულია კონკრეტული და აბსტრაქტული ინტელექტუალური აზროვნების წესები, ხოლო ძირითადი ნაწილი ეთმობა ლოგიკური და დიალექტიკური მსჯელობისა თუ არგუმენტაციის ხელოვნებას (ჩამოთვლილი და აღწერილია დებატებში გამარჯვების კონკრეტული ხერხები); დაბოლოს, ავტორი მიმოიხილავს მშვენიერისა და საინტერესოს შორის ურთიერთმიმართებით ასპექტებს.

„ჩვენი კურსი შემდეგნაირად წარიმართება: ზოგადად ფილოსოფიის დისციპლინისადმი მიძღვნილი შესავლის შემდგომ ყურადღებას გავამახვილებთ სამყაროზე, ვითარცა ჩვენს წარმოდგენაზე... უპირველესად განვიხილავთ ორგვარ რწმენა-წარმოდგენას – კონკრეტულსა და აბსტრაქტულს... ჩავუღრმავდებით იმას, რაც ‘აპრიორი’ ჩვენს ცნობიერებაში ძევს... ვნახავთ, როგორ ყალიბდება და მუშაობს გონება; შემდგომ კი განვიხილავთ აბსტრაქტულ წარმოდგენებს... ვნახავთ, როგორ მუშაობს ინტელექტი... აქედან გამომდინარე, ხაზს გავუსვამთ აზროვნების ფორმებსა და კანონებს, რის შედეგადაც მივალთ ლოგიკის (აგრეთვე დიალექტიკის) საფუძვლებთან“ – არტურ შოპენჰაუერი.

Genres: Philosophy

172 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1928

About the author

Arthur Schopenhauer was born in the city of Danzig (then part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth; present day Gdańsk, Poland) and was a German philosopher best known for his work The World as Will and Representation. Schopenhauer attempted to make his career as an academic by correcting and expanding Immanuel Kant's philosophy concerning the way in which we experience the world.

He was the son of author Johanna Schopenhauer and the older brother of Adele Schopenhauer.

Reviews

[James Violand · Rating 1 out of 5]

He asserts his fundamental truth that the world is my will because all that exists exists only for the subject: the individual preceptor if you will. This is so myopic that it approaches solipsism, (although Schopenhauer ridiculed the later concept). If the object is unperceived by the subject, then does the object exist? The subject’s perspective determines reality? The inherent inconsistencies within his system, he simply denies by asserting the questions are not proper. Life is pure struggle, interrupted infrequently with moments of happiness (the absence of pain). It is only when the will attains superior knowledge that man realizes the best thing to do is to avoid life. In other words, avoid self-awareness (life) by practicing awareness of the nothing. What a pathetic view.

[Ivva Tadiashvili · Rating 4 out of 5]

ტრაქტატები ძაან საკაიფო იყო.

[Justin]

I like the philosophy but it is still very hard to read

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

It took me 2 years to get through, but he isn't all wrong. Life is suffering. Romantic love is indeed part biological and men do seem to be on to the next one while women prefer monogamy.

[oswald · Rating 4 out of 5]

Turns out the popular conception of Schopenhauer as some kind of embittered misanthrope is false (this is revealed mostly in the last book of the World as Will and Idea, perhaps suggesting something about the people who have outlined said popular conception). He looks upon the world sadly, but because of what he sees as the irredeemable fundamental tragedy of existence, ultimately wishing the best for mankind. For Schopenhauer, the best for mankind is nothing (renunciation). I can't help but turn to historicism here as it seems his tragic personal life made his view of reality so tragic in turn, while brilliant nonetheless. He is similar to Carlyle as a man of genius and singular vision, as well as in his theory of poetry to an extent (both connecting it to connecting with a sort of divine truth), but of course differing in that vision, a disparity which may well be attributed to national character or personal experience.

Schopenhauer might be best described as a godless Christian, valuing renunciation not for any carnal eternal reward or to please God, but essentially for itself, quelling the tumultuous will.

The ideas in the essay at the end of the volume can more or less be derived from the principal work, but the essay is still well-written and engaging, worth reading.

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

An older volume (first published by Modern in 1928) edited by Irwin Edman; there are good, representative selections from Schopenhauer's major work, 'The World as Will and Idea'... as Edman states Schopenhauer was one of the great German prose stylists and even in translation he reads smoothly and without the sometimes clumsiness of other German philosophers of this period ...

This, on music and the 'will', is well-known, influencing Nietzsche, Wagner and Mann among many others:

'Music is as *direct* an objectification and copy of the whole *will* as the world itself, nay, even as the Ideas, whose multiplied manifestation constitutes the world of individual things. Music is thus by no means like the other arts, the copy of the Ideas, but the *copy of the will itself* whose objectivity the Ideas are. This is why the effect of music is so much more powerful and penetrating than that of the other arts, for they speak only of shadows, but it speaks of the thing itself.'

[Nancy · Rating 1 out of 5]

It is rare for me not to finish a book. I can be quite stubborn that way. I just could not bring myself to finish this one. It is a tough read. Schopenhauer seems to like to attempt to get his ideas across with one analogy after another. The bad part of this is that they are almost stream of consciousness writing and tend to blend into the other . Sometimes they seem to contradict each other. It was so bad that you were just begging for him to clearly state his idea somewhere. Anywhere! I worked through one entire treatise of the book which was the first 134 pages and then just could not stand the thought of reading the next two treatise in the book. At age 50, I have too many books on my shelves to waste time reading one this incomprehensible.

[Philip Tidman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I find the philosophy of Schopenhauer closest to my own views on life of the mind, superseding even Bertrand Russell. In many ways it is not dissimilar to the teachings of Buddhism, though he considered himself strongly Christian. He claims that the idea of human will is an illusion and that for most, happiness comes from external sources, either other people or things they own, rather than from within, thus is not true happiness, as this happiness is affected by lack or otherwise of things which in themselves cannot make a person happy. In his Ethics he even compares Christianity quite unfavourably with Buddhism.