Having read the main work of Arthur twice and most Nietzsche to detox after...
The way Arthur comes to that conclusion is very logical although biased.
What is true imo is that the negative precedes the positive. Empty space must precede matter, hunger must precedes satisfaction from eating, sexual pleasure requires sexual tension.
The pain is the condition for the pleasure and may go unfulfilled... And while you cannot be certain that after pain comes pleasure, you know after pleasure there will be another pain.
So Arthur in this case blow a bit of air although he's a bias away from Nietzsche conclusion which is better (pain as a teacher and a glorifier of pleasure or along the lines).
Surely, anyway, both thought in terms of a material world with a psychological dimension, never in terms of a spiritual world with a material dimension.
In the first case the one life cannot be put in relationship with a greater path, but must contain all of the path we want to achieve. In the second, we are the end to which this life is just a mean.
I don't remember who posted it but jewish tradition adhere to reincarnations too, being their mystical school deeply spiritual in nature too.
This belief was lost in europe after the corruption of the doctrine of Christ... Gnostics tryied to recover it but didn't make it (hell and heaven as metaphors for dimensions or states of the spiritual self).
Or perhaps Christ really meant to flatten the belief so that people would behave good enough to step a level further in the path without having to spend half a life meditating on the issue, which could also be. I guess a mixture of the two.
Yes, that bit i was uncareful in writing. Thank you for pointing out.
What i meant though is that even while Arthur (yeah i didn't know him personally, but it's handier than "Schopenhauer"!) understood the will as something beyond material, he himself states that that which is beyond the veil of maya, which he considers to be pure will, is made of primordial forces that are unknowable.
So while indeed he points out the fact that matter is only a representation of something else, he proceeds to think of our world as our usual deterministic aspect. He know there is something else, but beyond knowing the representation is a false ( i mean derived, secondary reality) aspect, he can only explain the representation in the end, the materialist aspect, through his principles of reason.
Effectively, it seems the great pain of his philosophy was that he didn't care at all for what he could explain so easily (his thought is actually the foundation of all psychology, Freud being mainly a parroter of his and secondarily of Nietzsche), but that the only thing he could care to know he determined to be unknowable.
Nietzsche on the other hand is bolder and simply skip the whole metaphysical aspect as he sought to have mankind stop wasting this precious life elaborating and postulating and educating about something they could never know for real.
Yes, in the end both recognized something beyond the materialistic, but Arthur couldn't explain it, and Nietzsche didn't care about it.
This thing we call spirit or spiritual level was never a variable of their philosophies, if not as a psychological one... Imo. Could be wrong of course!
Having read the main work of Arthur twice and most Nietzsche to detox after...
The way Arthur comes to that conclusion is very logical although biased.
What is true imo is that the negative precedes the positive. Empty space must precede matter, hunger must precedes satisfaction from eating, sexual pleasure requires sexual tension.
The pain is the condition for the pleasure and may go unfulfilled... And while you cannot be certain that after pain comes pleasure, you know after pleasure there will be another pain.
So Arthur in this case blow a bit of air although he's a bias away from Nietzsche conclusion which is better (pain as a teacher and a glorifier of pleasure or along the lines).
Surely, anyway, both thought in terms of a material world with a psychological dimension, never in terms of a spiritual world with a material dimension.
In the first case the one life cannot be put in relationship with a greater path, but must contain all of the path we want to achieve. In the second, we are the end to which this life is just a mean.
I don't remember who posted it but jewish tradition adhere to reincarnations too, being their mystical school deeply spiritual in nature too.
This belief was lost in europe after the corruption of the doctrine of Christ... Gnostics tryied to recover it but didn't make it (hell and heaven as metaphors for dimensions or states of the spiritual self).
Or perhaps Christ really meant to flatten the belief so that people would behave good enough to step a level further in the path without having to spend half a life meditating on the issue, which could also be. I guess a mixture of the two.
Yes, that bit i was uncareful in writing. Thank you for pointing out.
What i meant though is that even while Arthur (yeah i didn't know him personally, but it's handier than "Schopenhauer"!) understood the will as something beyond material, he himself states that that which is beyond the veil of maya, which he considers to be pure will, is made of primordial forces that are unknowable.
So while indeed he points out the fact that matter is only a representation of something else, he proceeds to think of our world as our usual deterministic aspect. He know there is something else, but beyond knowing the representation is a false ( i mean derived, secondary reality) aspect, he can only explain the representation in the end, the materialist aspect, through his principles of reason.
Effectively, it seems the great pain of his philosophy was that he didn't care at all for what he could explain so easily (his thought is actually the foundation of all psychology, Freud being mainly a parroter of his and secondarily of Nietzsche), but that the only thing he could care to know he determined to be unknowable.
Nietzsche on the other hand is bolder and simply skip the whole metaphysical aspect as he sought to have mankind stop wasting this precious life elaborating and postulating and educating about something they could never know for real.
Yes, in the end both recognized something beyond the materialistic, but Arthur couldn't explain it, and Nietzsche didn't care about it.
This thing we call spirit or spiritual level was never a variable of their philosophies, if not as a psychological one... Imo. Could be wrong of course!