>Consider the Koran, for example; this wretched book was sufficient to start a world-religion, to satisfy the metaphysical need for countless millions for twelve hundred years, to become the basis of their morality and of a remarkable contempt for death, and also to inspire them to bloody wars and the most extensive conquests. In this book we find the saddest and poorest form of theism.
That he should feel the complete opposite about Islam that Nietzsche (and later Evola) does should be no surprise. Schopenhauer coined the term "life-denying" (which he uses in a positive sense to describe what is morally good), the religions he approves of are Budhhism (which Nietzsche respected despite calling it nihilist and decadent) and, to a lessor extent, Catholicism (he loathed Protestantism), although he opposed its dogma. Schopenhauer's theory of the Will, based on extensive lucid argument, was mostly accepted by Nietzsche with one crucial difference: Nietzsche embraced the Will, whereas Schopenhauer extolled denying it. In fact the Will is theologically possible to equate to Allah's Will except that Islam holds the Will as occasionalist, whereas Schopenhauer argues its existence based on efficient causation. Therefore Islam, a cult of the Will--not "will" in the liberal, middle-class sense--which is completely about Submission to the Will rather than denial of the Will, is radically at odds with Schopenhauer's values, as well as slave morality.
Did you actually read The World as Will and Idea? He doesn't approve of any religion, just the consequences of some religious practices. He likes some Catholics because they were genuinely wise, but the fact that they're Catholic is irrelevant. It's just that the most prominent mystics in Christianity have been Catholic. He has a problem with all positive theologies because they make claims beyond the possibility of experience to prove, about objects that require proof.
What's your point here, exactly?
Camden Collins
In fact I have also read The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which places atheism as the very foundation of Schopenhauer's metaphysics. And in World, he seemed to stress the reading of Kant first as necessary mainly because Kant overturned proofs for God and established a new metaphysics based on individual judgement, a completion of Descartes's project. However Schopenhauer accepts efficient causation as a given, his response to Hume being that is how we MUST percieve and since reality is purely phenomenal we must take it as reality. However Schopenhauer, by positing and seeking to prove a noumenal Will, undermines his project and posits the world is nounlmenon and phenomenon. By trying to posit the Will as something beyond pere perception, while at the same time taking the rules pf perception as a given mechanism for it, he is putting the cart before the horse. Al-Ghazali's occassionalism is a far less circular theory, furthermore it shows the Will to be Allah. The only issue here is Schopenhauer positing the eternity of the universe, but he does that by phenomenal law, which is ridiculous since phenomena did not exist until long after the universe began
Grayson Murphy
We must have read different editions. The eternity of the universe has nothing to do with phenomena-- in fact, the phenomena/noumena dichotomy you're trying to draw here doesn't make sense. The Will isn't thought, it's not an object of mind, it's not even an object. It's outside the principle of sufficient reason, and therefore outside space, time, and causality. He doesn't bother to prove it, any more than he tries to "prove" the principle of sufficient reason. It would be a contradiction in terms. All he can actually do is state his belief in it and then explain how he got there. I wasn't entirely convinced by it, but I think you missed a lot of the point.
The reason to read Kant has almost nothing to do with God. The God stuff is a happy accident. The reason to read Kant is to understand the difference between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself, and to understand that the thing-in-itself is not necessarily bound by sufficient reason. Not to mention that he explicitly calls out Descartes as a Scholastic who never wanted to actually give up the theological project.
If this is bait, it's really clever and I'm enjoying myself, but otherwise it must have been a few years since you read this stuff.
Liam Flores
this is basic metaphysics too...
Jack Adams
What do you mean?
Justin Reyes
catchy song, OP
Isaac James
im agreeing with you in the sense that the Will isn't able to be labeled in any which way but not of this world, outside of space and time in general.
>t.not op
Ryder Lopez
The law Schopenhauer uses to prove the universe always existed is the law tgat everything must be caused (which he uses to "disprove" God), by his own admission this is a phenomenal law.
James Phillips
No, the Will just exists. It's outside of cause and effect. Things only have to be caused if they exist as idea, and the Will doesn't. He also never actually disproves God, he just rejects any attempt at positive theology, or in other words denies that statements about such a being can be made with any expectation that they are true.
Alexander Clark
He explicit tries to disprove God in The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
>There is not an animal in the earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings, but they are peoples like unto you. We have neglected nothing in the Book (of Our decrees). Then unto their Lord they will be gathered.
Ahaditha
>Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) as saying: An ant had bitten a Prophet (one amongst the earlier Prophets) and he ordered that the colony of the ants should be burnt. And Allah revealed to him: "Because of an ant's bite you have burnt a community from amongst the communities which sings My glory."
-Sahih Muslim: 5567
>Allah had once forgiven a prostitute. She passed by a dog panting near a well. Seeing that thirst had nearly killed him, she took off her shoe, tied it to her scarf, and drew up some water. Allah forgave her for that.
-Sahih al-Bukhari: 3141
>There is no Muslim who plants a tree or sows seeds and then a bird, or a person, or an animal eats from it except that it is regarded as a charity for him.
-Sahih al-Bukhari: 2195
>Verily, Allah has prescribed excellence in everything. If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
-Sahih Muslim: 1955
>Whoever kills so much as a sparrow unjustly will have it pleading to Allah on the Day of Resurrection, saying: O Lord, he killed me for no reason, and he did not kill be for any beneficial purpose.
Hence occasionalism explains the universe better than Schopenhauer's effort to category everything as efficient causation
Elijah Martin
He was a young man then. I forgive him.
Caleb Cruz
First of all his arguments in that work are presumed in World, that is why he says read it first in the preface to World. Second, he didn't change that when he heavily revised the work in later years, he just inserted a lot insults against Hegel
Josiah Howard
>Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
in chap xlviii of wwr vol ii, schopenhauer makes it clear that he only rejects the possibility of positive knowledge of god, refraining from asserting that what lies beyond immanent perception and the will is absolute nothing. he does not make any absolute claims about the transcendent domain--therefore, he does not reject god so much as the idea of an argument that could prove the existence of god. he does not see it as the place of a philosopher to deal with such things which are beyond the reach both of perception and reason, according to his view.
Samuel Mitchell
Thanks for the support. I'm getting lazy in my dotage. I tried to say that earlier, but oh well.
Jackson Roberts
His very conception of reality, as causation extending infinately back in time, excludes the possibility of a creator. Even if it not directly proved for use as a linchpin, as a premise, the absense of a creator God is a deductive by-product of Schopenhauer's theory.
Chase Butler
Ok, but that's not the same as an attempt at disproof.
Jaxon Fisher
He does attempt to disprove God though. Only he later doesn't consider that a philosophical concern, however his philosophy deductively excludes a creator. That is, his theory requires there to be no God in order to be correct.
Asher Robinson
How so?
Jayden Allen
Because it requires creation always existed. If it did not, then efficient causation would be finite
