Arthur Schopenhauer's Philosophy - Bryan Magee & Frederick Copleston (1987)

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!

This is the voice of Adam Curtis dad I’m convinced

Why Schopenhauer chose the word Will rather than Energy is because that's precisely what he believed it was. He is an idealist, not in aspiring for ideas sense, but in the sense that what underlies matter and energy is Mind stuff. We can call it energy but we have a much better description for what it is, from 1st point perspective.

It's funny how for those professors it suggests something like desires and aspirations aka new age stuff, when his main idea was that primal fundamental will is instinctive and spontaneous, it has drives but it doesn't have meta cognition. And "stars have a will" is misleading, because for Schopenhauer all matter was one will, not a much of separate wills for each colloquial object.

And the ultimate goal was more than aspiring for aesthetics, it's that aesthetics and music in particular is the closest we can get to experiencing this Will.

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.

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.

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).

Chaugnar faughn

🔥🔥🔥

idealism is cope : i don't like reality so it doesn't exist !

Schopenhauer is the greatest

Excruciating interview technique. I'm surprised Copleston didn't walk out.

The effort to understand all of what we call life or existence, from the perspective of observation, is limited by the aperture of one's awareness as such. What gets in the way of reasoning out an ultimate understanding of all form or objective reality is the filters created by conditioning. Our identities are almost entirely enmeshed with programming and create a false sense of self which is based on illusion. Only through introspection can it be "seen" or "known" that who it is one actually sees from is nobody seeing from nowhere seeing and knowing everything it experiences as phenomenal. There is only one, as it has been stated. But paradoxically, it is unknowable. Since all issues forth and resolves from this all-ess of one, ultimately there is nothing to be know apart from it. So, how is this useful, one might ask? Since the many comprise the all, yet are not as they appear, what cause for worry should exist in the infinite realms of experiencing, unless by being ignorant, thus suffering endlessly until such time comes for remembering. The conduit of introspection whereby one seeks to know one's self as the witness of everything, not just physical reality but thoughts, feelings or anything observable, exists only from the point of view within that self. As this one who claims existence, this I who can observe all objectivity looks to find itself as a subject, only ever will such discovery reveal the subject as an object in the awareness of a self that is not knowable yet knows all as itself. And you are that. So relax and enjoy your otherwise miserable little lives and quit fighting over everything. There's plenty of nothing for everyone.

that looks like the most uncomfortable and unnatural couch for elderly sots to sit on.

Those who wants to know that buddhism is not a branch of hinduism should study Pāli and Buddhism by Bryan Levman.
And donot read upanisads they are full of non s n s. For example Brihadaranyaka upanisad tells u how to commit marital r. Ape…, that eating si; mply milk with rice give you white children etc. these types of nonsns are not found in buddhism. That is why you will never find complete translation of upanisads in English. They are only in Hindi by Gita press.

​there are some
illit.... erate who thinks buddhism is branch of hinduism 😊 vedas and upanishads believe in eternal soul which buddhism rejects. Every scholar knows this fact. And what brahman is a simple Britannica search will give you the answer.

"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.

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

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??

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.

These dudes need to read Sapolsky's 'Behave' cuz their stuck in the 20th century

Love how these old school Oxford Gs call Kant, Karrnt. 'oi, you, you Karrrrnt!'

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.

Wicked!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for this upload...great stuff. Bryan Magee was brilliant at making philosophy available for many. Sadly missed....

Old video.

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.

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.

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.

magee invited this guy on to stunt on him and dominate him intellectually

My name was Bryan Magee
I stayed up listening to Queen

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

😂😂😂been a great experience ,one comes away with even less knowledge one had before seeing this. 😂😂😂

Schopenhauer 👑👌

Power to will.

Arthur Schopenhauer was my first.

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

Thanks!!

“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

THAT'S GOD. REALITY. ONE.

One of my favourites

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.

Perfection is not attainable but If we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

Mah Boy❤