Schopenhouer Quotes

“For Schopenhauer, the world is an idea. Although in a way distinct from the will, this idea implies will and therefore equates it. If the world itself is an idea and if nothing exists beyond this world and this idea, then there is no place in Schopenhauer’s philosophy either for noumenon or metaphysics. If everything is the world and the world itself is an idea and the will, then the whole world is a phenomenon: subject and object, cause and effect, purpose and meaning. Although there is a distinction between the idea and matter, this distinction is only on the surface, since even if the world is an idea or an appearance of a hidden idea, this ultimate idea is not beyond the world but is the world itself, which annihilates the substantial distinction between mind and body (matter and idea).”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“If we equate Schopenhauer’s idea to noumenon, this idea can become the mind’s essence in our sense. On the other hand, if we equate Schopenhauer’s will to the world, then we can equate it to the secondary quality of the primary essence (Locke’s primary quality). This almost invisible dualism in Schopenhauer’s thought can be easier to understand if we treat his idea as essence and his will (manifestation through the world) as existence. We can further conclude that without the essence, there is no existence but also that without the existence, the essence “disappears” (is on hold as potential).”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“The will must be the fuel of the essence. Without the will, there is no existence; although it contains omnipotence, an idea still dies. In this sense, the will for existence and life is equally important as an idea because, without the will, the essence dies. The only way for an idea to survive and live is through existence. (Without the will, there is no existence; without existence, there is no world; without the world, there is no idea; without an idea, there is no will, which implies that idea and will are essentially the same.)”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“We can “equate” Schopenhauer’s will to Empedocles’ love, except that Schopenhauer’s will is more ominous. Ontologically or epistemologically, as ultimate principles, they do not differ in substance, only in form.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“All suffering is the price of life. All suffering must be in balance with all beauty. The pessimistic view is more an expression of the individual state of mind (outlook) than the external state of affairs (“objective reality”). According to Kant, the will is the universal legislator. Similarly, we can equate pure reason to the Supreme Being (essence) and practical reason to a plurality or multiplicity (the world, existence).”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Kant thought that freedom of the will is only an idea and that, although it can function as a possible categorical imperative, it is still only a hypothesis. For Kant, it is impossible to explain how pure reason can be practical in itself, and, according to him, this is “beyond the power of human reason.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“For Schopenhauer, there is only one underlying reality; for Kant, there are things in themselves as a plurality. The difference is singularity against plurality (diversity). But this difference may be only on the surface, for it is hard to imagine that Kant thought of noumenon (if equated to a thing in itself) as of plurality, but rather that things in themselves are not differentiated in the noumenon as they are in the world of phenomena for these phenomena are only particular, phenomenal manifestations of the One—Noumenon (although this may not be the case with Plato). Let’s think deeper about Plato’s idea of noumenon. We may conclude that, although on a superficial level, noumenon may contain plurality, when we look deeper, we may conclude that Plato’s noumenon is singularity too. Regardless of the description and explanation in the Republic, Plato’s noumenon is or may be the undifferentiated One. The idea that the world we see and the things in it are only the shadows of an underlying reality or noumena does not necessarily mean that all these things have their literal equivalents in the noumenon. In the end, there seems to be less difference between Plato’s forms (ideas) and Kant’s things in themselves than it looks like on the surface. Still, noumenon, although being a singularity, being the One and universal underlying reality, contains plurality as a potential.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE