SCHOPENHAUER – BOOK REVIEW
” The arguments Philosphers ” series should help. It is thinner than the study of Patrick Gardiner in 1967 , but also more efficient, philosophically deep and not subject to the positivists and Wittgenstein blinders limit Gardiner . Hamlyn is impressed by the success of Schopenhauer’s philosophy and approach of sympathy , even the most extravagant and quirky metaphysical doctrines of Schopenhauer . It corrects some errors common to the philosophy of Schopenhauer’s concept , showing its systematic character , the ingenuity of many of his arguments and other important philosophers , critics , and the empirical sympathies presented in a large part of his epistemology . Hamlyn is not a criticism , however, and some of his harshest criticisms relate to the difficulties of Schopenhauer reconcile the seemingly contradictory opinions or explain various issues within its own system . On many occasions (particularly in the treatment of our awareness of the will ) Hamlyn read Schopenhauer in terms of contemporary issues and possible responses , but generally is more than willing to let Gardiner Schopenhauer speaks to his own concerns and answer their own questions . After a brief introduction , Hamlyn lakes for the first work of Schopenhauer , The Fourfold Root of the principle of sufficient reason ( 1813 , revised 1847 ) . Hamlyn does not consider this work justly neglected for the treatment of sensory perception , causality and other topics . He praises how the distinction between sensation and perception ( or ” intuition ” Anschauung ) ( an issue that Schopenhauer was consciously follows the example of Thomas Reid ) to draw , but criticizes Schopenhauer Schopenhauer tried to incorporate this distinction in his most Kantian transcendental idealism . Hamlyn is also the theory of universal concepts of Schopenhauer , but his objections would equally apply to any other empirical theory – abstractionist of the origin of these concepts . Because the philosophy of Schopenhauer was created by absorption and struggle with the critical philosophy of Kant , Hamlyn devotes his third chapter , a comparison of the two philosophers , and treatment reviews and revisions of the doctrine of Kant Schopenhauer in the field of metaphysics , epistemology and the theory of the mental faculties of man. Chapters 4-7 are devoted to each of the four books of the main work of Schopenhauer , The World as Will and Representation ( YV’R ) respectively. After a chapter on Briel famous ( or infamous ) Schopenhauer views on life, death , suicide and sex , Hamlyn book concludes with a chapter that are sympathetic appreciation of philosophical realization of Schopenhauer barrel. As I said , there are many in the Hamlyn book that illuminates the philosophy of Schopenhauer . The attention of researchers , however, tend to be attracted to the shortcomings of a book ( real or imaginary ) . In particular, I think there are a few problems that Hamlyn is even more surprised by Schopenhauer than it should be . First, more than once Hamlyn says Schopenhauer has no argument for transcendental idealism to Volume 2 of VVR is that ” just says ” ( p. 66 , see page 8 … ) it is a curious account of the intentions of Schopenhauer , for his claim in the first paragraph of Part I of WR , the truth of idealism , of course , because ” there is no principle is least in the evidence needed” ( 01:03 WR ) , this statement is repeated in Part 2 , which Schopenhauer said that ” the world is my representation ” is ” a proposal that everyone , when it should recognize as true agents ” ( WR 2.3 ) in two volumes , and again. quad root , Schopenhauer presents some arguments the effect that idealism can be denied consistently. ( of course, these arguments embarrassed confused and unconvincing . But there is an argument in favor of idealism ever designed . ) in Part 2 , Schopenhauer introduced its foreign physicalist version of the idealism , which my expert identifies with my brains ( ” It is true that [ transcendental ] space is only in my head , but my head is empirical in space ” ( WR 2 . 19 ) ) but I’m not that Schopenhauer considers the introduction of a new argument in favor of idealism in Part 2 , or recognize any need out there for such an argument . Secondly , Hamlyn repeatedly expresses the idea that something confusing or missing in the idea of ??Schopenhauer ( world of lies is the representation and it will , in its philosophy of “there is no real explanation why awareness and knowledge ” (p 142. . see page 6 , 115 ) Schopenhauer is very clear, however , that consciousness arises in the context of animal nature , because it is necessary for higher forms of objectification of the will ( . 2 WR 203f ) as we wonder why diese forms must exist , the answer is clear enough : Schopenhauer will, as the content of Spinoza , Schelling absolute or spirit of Hegel , is the necessity of his nature reflected in a hierarchy of forms , culminating in human consciousness This can to be . an extravagant metaphysics explanation , but there is an explanation. maybe what bothers Hamlyn , c ‘is the idea that ” the forms of objectification ‘ of Schopenhauer himself to be objects of consciousness , and therefore assume that they are called here to explain. associated with this account Hamlyn Platonic ideas in Schopenhauer who ( he claims ) is a distinctive type of representation (pp. 106-107 ) . But it seems pretty clear ( to me at least ) that Schopenhauer thought ideas , all ‘ qualities the objectification of the will ” even of all material representations of any kind , not only as objects of awareness , but also as an act of the will, as having in itself something that does not mind to know relative . (it is this aspect ” absolute ” all that our experience is expected to make a significant step for us . ) maybe there are insurmountable difficulties in trying an assumed function to use this will be a matter itself ( ie , the need to express themselves in a hierarchy of f elms , including animals and finally human consciousness ) to the existence of consciousness or knowledge to explain . generally from Yet it seems clear that ( these are what Schopenhauer means do . Perhaps the most striking feature of the philosophy of Schopenhauer was his idea that the Kantian thing in itself , it is the will , and we can know it is a desire for a unique way , quite unique in the experience of our own will . Critical Hamlyn (rightly in my opinion) the arguments of Schopenhauer that our experience gives us the right to these metaphysical conclusions . It has a high opinion , but the treatment of Schopenhauer our awareness of the will , he believes shows a distinctive insight into the nature of the organization and our consciousness of it . Maybe Hamlyn is on to something here . But in my opinion , goes beyond what is in the text . Too much of his analysis of Schopenhauer on the desk For Schopenhauer our experience gives us unique access to states and actions of our body . but if I see Schopenhauer paid too little attention to the difference between the conscious agency and physical events or movements that we “involuntary ” would call . ( But not Schopenhauer ) The treatment of Schopenhauer many aspects of our awareness of the agency (eg, deliberation and choice ) are very intuitive and contrary to what most of us consider our awareness of the agency as we say . On the other hand , it seems to me that what is most distinctive and insightful on the teachings of Schopenhauer in this area is the design that works in us , regardless of our awareness of it , and even the determination and manipulation of consciousness by which we must fight in order to be aware of. In other words , what distinguishes the philosophy of Schopenhauer is the radical design of the will , the purpose of which is to our common sense design of our organization and our ordinary experience it undermine and discredit . This side of Schopenhauer , who both Nietzsche and Freud offers in many ways remarkable, received much publicity , but it never worked out thoroughly by a competent commentator philosophical way .
The ethics and aesthetics of Schopenhauer seem philosophical interest Hamlyn than to generate . His metaphysics , epislemology and the theory of will and action This is perhaps why I find less controversial in it. It’s a bit in chapters six and seven of the book useful and enlightening for students of the philosophy of Schopenhauer to be . However, most philosophical arguments that matter most to Schopenhauer ( which all existence is suffering, that compassion rather than reason is the foundation of morality , the denial of the will to live is the highest wisdom and the only path to salvation ) are among the problems relatively quickly and well covered in the book of Hamlyn . What this means is that although this book is , there are many important issues in the philosophy of Schopenhauer who would benefit from more studies of the same quality . Can encourage an effect. Hamlyn book of Anglo-Saxon philosophers such studies to Unscholarly in moods , I sometimes wonder if this is a good thing . Maybe it is desirable that a truly great philosopher whose writings are not overwhelmed by the response , at least , and that the secondary literature is still small enough that all good books and tests that can be mastered in a short time a serious student . Schopenhauer is certainly such a philosopher at present lime, and enough to the fact that the book Hamlyn will not change , that is overlooked.