LHP
1. Kant said we can know the ____ but not the ____ world. Can we?
2. What was Kant's great insight? Is this a credible form of "armchair philosophy"? Or does it also depend on experience?
3. What, according to Kant, is irrelevant to morality? Is it really?
4. Kant said you should never ___, because ___. Kant called the principle that supports this view the ____ _____. Have you ever violated this principle? If so, do you regret it?
5. Who formulated the Greatest Happiness principle? What did he call his method? Where can you find him today? If everyone followed this principle would it be a better world?
6. Who created a thought experiment that seems to refute Bentham's view of how pleasure relates to human motivation? Would you opt for the machine? Why or why not?
7. What did Hegel mean when he spoke of the "owl of Minerva"? What did he think had been reached in his lifetime? What would Socrates say about that?
8. What Kantian view did Hegel reject? What would Kant say?
9. What is Geist? When did Hegel say it achieved self-knowledge? Does this seem supernatural and mystical to you, or could it be naturalistic?
10. What "blind driving force" did Schopenhauer allege to pervade absolutely everything (including us)? Could anyone really know that?
11. What did Schopenhauer say could help us escape the cycle of striving and desire? Is that the only way? Is that cycle really universal?
Weiner ch5
- What was teenage Arthur Schopenhauer's worldview? What sort of world (by contrast with Leibniz/Pangloss) did he think it is? Do you, or have you ever, felt the same way?
- What kind of listening mattered most to Schopenhauer? Do you share his attitude about that?
- In what sense was Schopenhauer an Idealist? What analogy (similar to one I've suggested applies to Leibniz's monads) does Nigel Warburton suggest characterizes it? Does it seem reasonable to you?
- What are some different names philosophers have applied to the allegedly more real (than sensations) world of Ideas? What "dark twist" did Schopenhauer add?
- How did Schopenhauer say we can escape Will and "shake off the world"? Do you want to shake it off?
- What did Schopenhauer have in common with Rousseau? Do you think his affection-starved childhood may have contributed to his eventual philosophy?
- How does art differ from pornography, on S's view? What's your view?
- Weiner thinks Schopenhauer's Will made manifest in our time is what? Do you agree?
HWT
1. What one word most characterizes the ideal Chinese way of life?
2. Western suspicion of hierarchy is built on what?
3. What did the late Archbishop Tutu say was "the greatest good"?
4. What omission in western ethics would seem bizarre to the classical Chinese thinkers?
5. What is the most famous Confucian maxim?
6. Virtue is never solitary, said Confucius, it always has ____.
FL
1. How, according to Scientific American in 1915, are motion pictures like drugs?
2. What came into existence simultaneously with America and created the concept of celebrity?
3. What place did film critic Pauline Kael call a "fantasy-brothel"?
3. What, according to Kant, is irrelevant to morality? Is it really?
ReplyDeleteKant believed emotion, personal feelings, and consequences were irrelevant to the morality of any actions. I would have to strongly disagree with Kant on this one because it implies that even acts that are widely considered good or just, are actually wrong and are immoral.
Section #1
DeleteWhile I do agree with you that some of his ideas negated the morality of certain scenarios, I actually really like Kant's idea about the irrelevance of emotions. My line of thought for this would be going back to the words, themselves. The morals that I have dictate the way I live my life-- the actions I take and the words that I say. If my emotions factored into my morality, say, if I felt a certain way towards someone in need, then my actions would reflect those emotions. That's why I liked his comparison between the person who acted out of sympathy towards the needy person and the person who acted out of their morality, even when they were disgusted by who they were helping. I understand that this isn't the case all the time, sometimes emotions can rightfully play a role in the decisions we make. But I do think our morality should be something that we rationalize for ourselves-- something that remains constant no matter what we feel.
Matthew Lowe, section #2
DeleteI agree with Kant because perceive and react to circumstances differently, however, there are actions that are factually right and factually wrong regardless of how people feel or perceive a situation. Could you elaborate on the actions that are widely considered good or just?
1. Kant said we can know the ____ but not the ____ world. Can we?
ReplyDeleteKant said we can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world. Whether or not we can see the "real world" vs. the world as it is in itself I feel goes back to Platos Cave allegory in which we may think we see the "real thing" however we would only think that based on our definition of the real world. I imagine it difficult for the world to tell us what it is in itself so even our most nuanced ideas of what that might be would , in my opinion, still be a phenomenal interpretation.
Antonella Comaschi section 3
DeleteI agree with your statement because we are stuck in our physical forms, we have limits (our senses and physical limitations) that prevent us from seeing the noumenal world Kant was describing.
Section 3
DeletePiggybacking off of what you said, I think it's important to note just how limited our knowledge of this world is. Not just our theories of space, but also Earth. Various animals on our planet have way more complex visual systems than humans do, such as the mantis shrimp. They are capable of perceiving colors that we can't imagine. This is just one example, of I'm sure many, that show our lack of senses and comprehension. I also think that most of our imagination stems from experience, so it would be hard to even conceive what are world could be if we can't entirely perceive was it is right now.
10. What "blind driving force" did Schopenhauer allege to pervade absolutely everything (including us)? Could anyone really know that?
ReplyDeleteSchopenhauer alleged that "The Will" is the driving factor of all things in the universe and would never reach fulfillment. I highly doubt anyone could ever really know that, and this almost sounds like a form of predestination, but I can imagine how this idea can almost feel true at times. A quote that reminds me of this idea is from author Paulo Coelho and his book "The Alchemist" and it goes
“So, I love you because the entire universe conspired to help me find you,”
which sounds like "The Will" that Schopenhauer speaks about.
I agree that I don't think anyone could really know that. I can see the reasoning on this being applied to people, but how could you argue that a rock is hungering itself out of existence. Yeah rocks do generally get smaller over time, but what is it desiring/ needing. He was very immersed in eastern teachings about letting go of desires. So I don't entirely see how he thinks this concept can even entirely apply to people.
DeleteKaitlyn Young Section #2:
ReplyDelete1. Kant said we can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world.
I don't think we can actually know the noumenal world simply because it is completely up to interpretation, so you know your own interpretation but there isn't one single interpretation, therefore you cant be sure of it.
What did Schopenhauer have in common with Rousseau? Do you think his affection-starved childhood may have contributed to his eventual philosophy?
Both of them believed that society and striving to fit in with it led to unhappiness, I think his childhood definitely led him to this philosophy, his mother was a socialite who often ignored him, so he probably had the view starting from childhood that this is what caused her distance and in turn his unhappiness.
I like the point you make about Schopenhauer's upbringing. I feel it closely connects to one of John Locke's ideas that we are blank slates as birth and our initial upbringing and experiences as young children have a dramatic effect on who we turn out to be as people. When we apply this concept to other philosophers (as you have done) it can often become very easy to see why they hold some of the ideas they do and why they think the way they do.
DeleteLHP-4-6
ReplyDelete4. Kant said that you should never lie because it is always morally wrong. He called this principle the Categorical Imperative. I suppose I would be violating this principle if I said that I have not done so myself. However, in recent years, I have made it a point to always be 100% truthful, even when it may come out as unkind. There are nice ways to say true things that may not be so pleasant.
5. Jeremy Bentham formulated the Greatest Happiness Principle. His method to calculating happiness was called Felicific Calculus. Today he can be found in a glass case at the University College London. I believe this principle to be a good one, provided it is implemented in a realistic manner. It never ceases to shock me how some see the idea of equality for all as being "radical." In my view, that is a basic human right. Unfortunately, I do not believe the Greatest Happiness Principle is achievable in our current world. Perhaps that is where change is necessary.
6. Robert Nozick created a thought experiment to refute Bentham as it relates to pleasure. I would absolutely not opt for this machine and would likely strongly encourage others not to do so either. The Lumineers have a lyric that goes "it's better to feel pain than nothing at all/the opposite of love's indifference." Some of the most beautiful and meaningful moments in my life have been in the midst of pain. Pain teaches and shapes who you are. To deprive yourself of this is doing yourself a great disservice. By all means, attempt to create a false utopia, but do not be shocked when the results leave you emptier than when you started. What scares me is essentially, humanity is already creating its own machine. I wonder when we will wake up and break free and stop chasing ultimate comfort and surface level happiness that will never sustain us. Evidently, I feel strongly about this one.
I didn't see your answers because I begun drafting before you posted. I agree with you on 6, disagree on 5, only now realizing I forgot to mention his ideas of everyone being equal in my post I agree on that part, the whole idea of math being applied to happiness just doesn't sit well with me. I can see the rationale behind making moral decisions based on the benefit of most. In realistic scenarios I think it is a concept that is applied well, but a thought experiment that came to mind relating to this was the idea of a designated sufferer( a person suffers so the rest of a society can be only happy). I personally would never endure a life of only suffering so everyone can be happy. You aren't exactly saying you would either or that you think anyone should. Your answer in question 6 goes against that whole idea. That is just what came to mind for me on that specific idea of his. His ideas about happiness being black and white I strongly disagree with.
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDelete5. Who formulated the Greatest Happiness principle? What did he call his method? Where can you find him today? If everyone followed this principle would it be a better world?
Bentham, The Felicific Calculus, University College London. I don't believe so. This is further explored in the next question but I don't view that as a better world. If you ignored that thought experiment it might make a better world, or you could argue that the thought experiment is a better world, but I think there are more than two factors to life that explain the quality of life. There are other thought experiments that I also believe show the horrors of utilitarianism.
6. Who created a thought experiment that seems to refute Bentham's view of how pleasure relates to human motivation? Would you opt for the machine? Why or why not?
Nozick. I would not opt for that machine, that takes away from what I think the human experience is. It has ups and downs not everything will go well and you have to learn to live with that. Some argue you need downs to have ups. Also, we will gradually need more and more of whatever it is that is maintaining our pleasure. Human brains are just made that way. This machine brings up other ethical concerns. Such as, how are we supposed to know the institutions running these things won't just start viewing the people they have in these machines as lost causes and killing them when they achieve the highest amount of pleasure possible. How much life would one have to experience before being able to make the decision of being in one.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLHP
5. It is interesting to see how epicurean Bentham's philosophy was. The only differences I can draw is that he didn't really place an emphasis on simple pleasures-- like the Greek philosopher did-- and the chapter didn't disclose his opinion on whether or not all types of pleasure were acceptable. For example, what if you choose to indulge in something that harms someone else? Maybe that could be answered through his "truth vs. lie" argument, where you must maximize the amount of happiness that someone else feels through something you do. However, I do not think that this way of living or thinking about the world is sustainable. If we just focused on the things that brought us pleasure, would anyone work? Would anyone grieve or feel frustrated? Those things are displeasing, correct? I feel like I didn't get a good understanding of Bentham from this chapter of the book.
I think your line of questioning perfectly sums up why Bentham's philosophy is not one that stuck around. There are too many what if's for his black and white way of thinking. I think a big difference in philosophers then and regular people now is that regular people now know how nuanced life is. This might be the result of having more history to draw from and access to many points of view but the philosophers we talk about all have this tendency to see the world as very binary.
DeleteI agree with both of your points of Bentham's philosophy. His pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people kind of left out the minorities that might have a different idea of their happiness. I think he just generalized this too much because I do think he genuinely wanted the best for the whole society. He dedicated his life to law reform. He believed that we were all so closely connected, and that's why it was better to help others pursue happiness, because it would, in turn, affect you. But I suppose this still seems to have selfish undertones.
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteThis isn't really a response to any of the questions or comments on here, but I just finished reading the Schopenhauer chapters, and I really don't understand what is so gripping about his philosophy. I don't think his emphasis on music and art is that profound because other philosophers in the past have stressed the importance of it. I think he spoke way too certainly about the state of the world as it is. Like Weiner said, how could he be sure that the world we live in is the worst one possible? How could he be sure of anything? I believe he developed a sour taste for life (especially other people) because he was dealt a rough childhood. I suppose that explains his philosophy, but it does not excuse the things that Warburton said he did later in life-- like cause the death of an elderly woman and showing little remorse, and generally just ignoring the people around him. I think he was definitely a grumpy person.
Gracyn Schmidt
DeleteSection 1
I agree. I think he definitely was just kind of a pessimistic person and I also am not entirely sure what the big deal with him is. I prefer to subscribe to ideologies that make me feel better about life, not worse.
11. Schopenhauer said that in order to help us escape the cycle of striving and desire, we should turn away from the world completely and become an ascetic.
ReplyDeleteMerriam-Webster defines asceticism as "the practice of strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline." I feel that this is not the only way to escape the cycle of striving and desire. I actually think this way of life can only cause you to grow somewhat dull and bitter, especially looking back on your life in old age. However, it may work for some people, as it is the solution that Eastern religions choose to put into practice. I’d say that this method definitely differs from person to person.
Also, somewhat unrelated to the question:
Delete1. Imagine being so vain that you would schedule your philosophy lectures to be at the same as someone who also does philosophy lectures at the same university, only for very little people to show up to your lectures because the other lecturer is so much more popular than you.
I mean, I understand that Schopenhauer was a vain and difficult man, but how did he expect things to turn out when he started lecturing two years after Hegel in the same university, especially since Hegel carried a more optimistic view of philosophy? That plan wasn't thought through very well on his part.
2. Schopenhauer pushing an old woman down the stairs outside his door because she made him angry? That's really overkill for some chatter.
And after the fact, to not show compassion to the woman that you injured after she died, even going so far as to write a somewhat dark joke-rhyme on her death certificate (which, by the way, how did he get his hands on her death certificate to write that on it in the first place?). Schopenhauer was quite the hater during his life.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do want to add that his Will Theory reminded me of Chaos Theory a lot. I do think it's neat that he had an idea about how the world (and universe) worked.
3. According to Kant, morality has nothing to do with sentiments and emotions like compassion or sympathy. For him, it doesn't matter how you feel; it matters if you act out of duty and according to reason.
ReplyDeleteEmotions aren't completely irrelevant, in my opinion. In fact, they have the power to motivate us to act morally in ways that might not be possible with just logic. For instance, compassion may prompt someone to lend a hand right away without giving it much thought. Therefore, even though I agree with Kant that morality requires a strong basis in reason, I still believe that emotions are very important.
This is a great point. I would argue that emotions like compassion and hope are sort of like conduits of morality. They motivate us to do good things. I think in many instances, our emotions cause us to act more morally than our logical thinking does.
Delete4. Kant said you should never lie, because if everyone lied, then trust and communication would fall apart completely. He called this principle the Categorical Imperative.
ReplyDeleteHave I lied before? Of course, yes. Usually, small ones to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. Do I regret it? Sometimes, especially when the lie created more problems later. Other times, like when it kept the peace or spared someone unnecessary pain, I don’t really regret it. So while I understand Kant’s strict rule, I think in real life it’s not always practical to follow .
Antonella Comaschi section 3
DeleteI enjoyed your post because I understand both sides of the argument. Trust and communication is extremely important, but when you can't determine if a person is being truthful its difficult to trust a person. Therefore, being truthful is extremely important especially when you have power over a person. However, on the other hand their are reasons you need to lie to someone, even if you don't know if its the most moral option. You must weigh out the pros and cons for both the person or people it is affecting and your self, and also think about the effect if they find out the truth. It can be detrimental to a relationship if someone finds out you were lying, but sometimes the best option is to lie.
8. Hegel disagreed with Kant that we can never know what is going on in the real world. He believed that eventually, people would be able to comprehend reality in its entirety.
ReplyDeleteHegel was likely overconfident, according to Kant. He would contend that we can never see the world as it truly is because our minds constantly alter what we perceive.
Jay Triplett, Section 2:
ReplyDelete1. Phenomenal, noumenal; I believe that we can learn about the noumenal, through careful examination of our biases or the “tint” that our perception puts on the world around us. I agree with rationalists like Kant that our senses are imperfect, but not that we can never know the true, or “noumenal” world.
2.Kant’s great insight was that we can create a synthetic statement, or one that produces new information, from analytical thinking, or thinking without seeking experience or observation. I believe that this is a credible form of “armchair philosophy”, because it overcomes the imperfections of our senses using pure logic. This scientific reasoning is easier to follow (at least for me) than other philosophies we’ve covered.
3. According to Kant, emotion is irrelevant to morality. Although I agree that emotions are fleeting and not everyone experiences and acts on them the same, I don’t believe that we can completely divorce emotions from morality, since the foundation of morality is to care about the well-being of others.
4. Lie, we have an absolute duty to tell the truth; categorical imperative. Yes, and I don’t entirely regret it. I believe that there are some situations where lying can help people not experience unnecessary mental anguish, where telling the truth can only do harm. I don’t believe that the morality of lying should be held only in absolutes, as Kant does.
5. Bentham created his theory called the Greatest Happiness Principle, which said that we should do whatever will produce the most happiness. You can find his body today in a mausoleum at University College London. I’m not sure this philosophy would lead to a better world, because it would result in people who are selfish and pleasure-seeking.
6. Robert Nozick created a thought experiment that refuted Bentham’s views, which said that people value certain aspects of life over maximizing pleasure. I wouldn’t opt for the machine, because the balance of both pain and pleasure is what makes life interesting.
7. When Hegel spoke of the “owl of Minerva”, he was talking about wisdom, since Minerva is the Roman goddess of wisdom.
8. Hegel rejected the view that there is a noumenal world beyond the physical one, and that the reality we perceive is reality. Kant would reject this view with the reasoning that our senses our imperfect, and therefore we can never know true reality.
9. Geist, as Hegel defines it, is the collective mind of humanity, which builds on the ideas put forth by people over time. I believe that this idea could be naturalistic, since we do build on the ideas of those who came before us.
10. Schopenhauer alleged that Will is the “blind driving force” that pervades everything, which makes plants and animals grow and the Earth to spin. I don’t think anyone could prove this, but there is some concept that some aspects of the world “just are”, which is similar to Schopenhauer’s philosophy.
11. Schopenhauer said that once we realize that we share one energy force, then we can change the way we act and start to care for each other. I don’t think that this cycle is inherently universal, though, since not everyone experiences the same emotions or acts on selfish desires as much as others may.
I completely agree with your point on question 1. As long as we can recognize the impact of our biases and learn to see from other perspectives, we can get much closer to knowing the noumenal. One of the English classes I took in high school was almost entirely centered around this idea of the "rose tinted glasses" and how readers apply various lenses and biases to what they read. The meaning and final takeaways of any given text could change very drastically depending on what perspective was applied, giving us a very good window into how deep we are in the phenomenal world as opposed to the noumenal.
DeleteI agree with your statement on question 2. His analytic style was very easy to follow. Instead of basing it on emotions or feelings, it's based on logic. While some things do require the emotional side, I still like his logical appeal.
DeleteLHP
ReplyDelete5: Kant said you should never lie, because it's always morally wrong. Kant called the principle that supports this view the categorical imperative. I have many times violated this, some I regret, some I don't. It is my personal belief that you can tell a white lie to keep the peace. I do not think that lying in Kant's example of the friend and the murderer is wrong. I could never bring myself to believe that telling the truth knowing that it would end someone's life would be right.
Weiner
3: Schopenhauer was an idealist because he believed that reality is a perception of the mind. Warburton uses the analogy of a giant movie hall with everyone in their own separate screening room, but all watching the same movie. It seems reasonable. There is no way of us knowing what is real and what is not, therefore I believe in the notion that we are seeing things differently than they are.
7. According to Schopenhauer, pornography is not art because its sole purpose is to stir desire, and art is meant to reach something higher. I think I disagree with Schopenhauer, not because I think pornography is art, but because I disagree with his definition of art. He says that when we behold a work of art, we are not craving anything. I disagree. Many times I have seen a work of art and craved something. When I first saw Le Verrou by Fragonard, I desired to know more about it. I wanted to know the full truth of the story. I wanted justice for the girl. Many other times I have seen or heard works of art and craved something from the experience. I have seen pieces that have made me want to go outside, made me want justice or peace, or given me the feeling of missing someone. Schopenhauer also says that art is not an expression of emotion. I could not disagree more. While it's true that artists can make art for the fun of it, most make it because they need a way to say how they feel, and they chose a medium other than words. There are many such blatant instances of this, my favorite being music. Breakup songs, songs of love, of longing, even rave music are all ways that people have put the feelings of their soul into their work.
I agree with your take on Kant's idea of lying always being wrong. As much as it is generally wrong to lie and generally good to tell the truth, there are exceptions to every rule and I think Kant makes the issue a little too black and white. In the same way that we humans perceive everything in our world through our own biases and interpretations, what we deem right and wrong is largely situational and unique to the circumstances at hand. To claim that committing a small moral wrong in order to prevent a much larger one is a negative thing feels quite ignorant.
DeleteGracyn Schmidt
ReplyDeleteSection 1
3. According to Kant, consequences and emotions are irrelevent to morality. In my opinion, emotions are a major aspect of morality because in order to feel empathy which is a part of morality, you need to feel emotions for others. I think so many people struggle with empathy due to their inability to fully tune into their emotions.
5. Bentham formulated the Greatest Happiness Principle. He also called this method felicific calculus, essentially believing that you could determine moral rightness by calculated how much of a negative impact it would have. You can find Bentham's body preserved and on display at the University College London. I think it would certainly be beneficial if people thought about the consequences of their actions prior to doing them, however, I am not sure how realistic that would be.
I agree. I think that without emotions, we lose part of our morality. It would be hard to discern right from wrong if you didn't have some form of emotions. Like you said, you have to have emotions to feel empathy for someone else, which can be a part of morality. I think having emotions can help us decide what is right and wrong.
DeleteSection 2
ReplyDelete6. Who created a thought experiment that seems to refute Bentham's view of how pleasure relates to human motivation? Would you opt for the machine? Why or why not?
Robert Nozick attempted to refute Bentham’s philosophy of pleasure by describing a machine which could provide one with constant pleasure and zero pain, but which entirely disconnects one from reality. Would I opt for the machine? I find it extremely hard to believe I would, but it is a fascinating concept. In fact, funnily enough, I had, several years ago now, unintentionally thought up this exact same hypothetical in response to a similar question: if someone which you cared deeply for was in such a machine or was otherwise mentally altered in a way that made them alien from who they once were, would removing them from said machine or reestablishing their former mental state be saving THEM or YOUR CONCEPT of them? Essentially, would it make more sense to accept their condition and let them be? Personally, if someone I cared for was in such a position, I would be compelled to remove them from the device, namely because of my desire to continue interacting with said person and the distrust I would hold for the device itself. This distrust would be rooted in several things: one, I would not trust the device’s capacity to manage one’s emotions and mind (what if it has a bug that instead fuels suffering? What if it causes irreparable damage to their brain? Etc.) and two, I do not trust the health of a brain without suffering. To elaborate on that second point, I believe human (and likely most other creatures) evolved in a world that was dangerous and chaotic, and that we may have grown to need some suffering to maintain healthy minds. My thoughts aren’t completely formulated on this yet, but it seems to me that a mind without suffering would face complications as a result of not coming across struggle.
Also, just to relate it back to the initial question, I would not likely opt for the device for the same reasons I would try to take someone else out of it. Also, I do think there is an interesting discussion about the nature of reality in here somewhere, of if our experience is the result of a similar device or hallucination or experiential reality which is in any way distinct from true reality (Kant’s phenomenal world), and even if such a thing as true reality or realities exist in any capacity, and especially if it would even make sense for us to be able to intuit aspects of this potential nominal reality(s) since we would be relying on our senses (which as previously discussed, could be distorting our view), and EVEN FURTHER, if trying to make sense of it at all is futile or missing the point because sense and logic as we know it may well be another distortion!
ReplyDeleteKant's view of morality doesn't make much sense to me. I think the presence or absence of moral action is more important than the causation or reasoning behind morality. I would say that doing a good thing is good no matter the reasoning behind it. The concept of condemning someone for doing an act of kindness, simply because their reasoning for doing that act didn't align with a certain "morality rulebook" is kind of ridiculous to me. Perhaps I don't fully understand what Kant was saying.
ReplyDelete1. Kant said we can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world. Our minds structure experience through categories like space, time, and causality, which limit us to appearances. Whether we can truly know the noumenal is still debated, since some argue all knowledge is necessarily filtered through human perception.
ReplyDelete2. Kant’s great insight was that the mind actively shapes experience rather than passively receiving it. This is sometimes called his “Copernican Revolution” in philosophy, since it shifted focus from the world shaping us to us shaping the world. While it has an “armchair” element, it also depends on experience because Kant claimed we only know things as they appear through human faculties.
3. According to Kant, consequences and personal inclinations are irrelevant to morality. Instead, what matters is whether an action is done from duty according to the moral law, expressed in the categorical imperative. Some argue consequences really do matter, suggesting Kant’s view might be too rigid in real-life situations.
Teenage Arthur Schopenhauer had a very gloomy and pessimistic view of the world. In contrast to Leibniz, Schopenhauer believed the world was created by an evil creature who relished in the agony of man. I think it's very easy to adopt an outlook like this one when we take a look beyond ourselves and witness the unimaginable suffering taking place all over the world. Still, I do not believe the world is inherently evil, but rather that evil is present in every individual to varying degrees. When very powerful people are very morally corrupt, we see war and genocide as commonplace. From this view, it can easily seem as though the entire world is naturally evil.
ReplyDeleteListening to those who suffer, or showing compassion, was the most important kind of listening to Schopenhauer. I agree that we all could stand to be a little more compassionate. I believe our current society is so individualistic that many are able to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others merely because they believe it doesn't concern them (albeit consciously or not). If we are all suffering from the human condition of living in our shared world, we should all take greater care to look out for one another.
Schopenhauer said we can escape Will and "shake off the world" by either living an ascetic life (fasting, meditating, remaining celibate) or through art, which offered pleasure, liberty, and reprieve from the suffering of Will. I believe part of being human is wanting to "shake off" despair. I think almost all philosophers can agree humans seek pleasure (or lack of suffering), they simply differ in belief as to how we should go about it.