جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « schopenhauer » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

According to Schopenhauer, awareness of death is based on Knowing the desire and abandoning the desire and self-willed death or canceling the desire for immortality. He denies any individuality in immortality. Therefore, his theory does not satisfy the desire for survival in man. According to him, awareness of death is achieved through intuition. Nietzsche looks from death to life. It is death that gives man the power to live. The ideal life of each person is determined by his characteristics. He wants man to live creatively and not passively. Nietzsche is a follower of individual natural ethics, but in explaining his belief, he ignores aspects of natural ethics that are based on things other than the struggle for survival. He also ignores the role of environmental factors and education in creating superhumans. What he introduces as a solution for the meaning of life requires having pure wisdom, while the common people lack it, therefore it does not work for everyone. Awareness of death is produced by all the natural forces. For him, the knowledge of death is of the type of understanding.

In various philosophical perspectives, the concept of the essence and being of the universe is one of the issues that has always led to discussions and reflections among renowned philosophers such as Plato and Arthur Schopenhauer. Plato, focusing on the concept of ideas and the world of thought, and Schopenhauer, emphasizing the will and the concept of the "thing in itself," have created various views on truth and existence, each influenced by different philosophical and historical backgrounds. This article seeks to provide a deeper insight into the concept of the essence or "being" of the universe and the epistemological function of art within it through the study and analysis of the perspectives of Plato and Schopenhauer. By examining these concepts, the role and importance of art as a means of understanding and cognizing the universe are explored. On one hand, a look into Plato's philosophy and the concept of ideas and forms is presented to understand how art relates to truth and being, and on the other hand, Schopenhauer's perspective on will and the "thing in itself" and the role of art in understanding and visualizing these concepts are examined. Given that each of these perspectives is rooted in rich and sometimes complex philosophical thoughts, the writing of this article is dedicated to a detailed analysis of the concepts and a review of various sources related to these topics. It is hoped that these analyses can present the perspectives of Plato and Schopenhauer in the context of art and knowledge to the readers in the best possible way, aiding in a clearer understanding and enlightenment of our perception of the world and art.

Literature Review:

In the articles "Aesthetics and Art in Plato's Philosophy" by Abolhasan Ghaffari (2015) and "The Role of Art in Schopenhauer's Thought" by Mohammad Javad Safaian and Amini (2009), Plato's view on art and its levels, as well as Schopenhauer's view on the role of art in alleviating pain and suffering, have been explained. However, the comparison between these two thoughts, especially the epistemic function of art in understanding the essence of the world or the thing-in-itself, is a new approach addressed in this article.

     This article attempts a descriptive-analytical approach. After explaining the phenomenal world and the essence from Schopenhauer's perspective, the importance and position of art, the levels of art, and its epistemic function in Schopenhauer's thought are discussed by contemplating Plato's philosophy and his view on the relationship between art and understanding the truth of the world.

Schopenhauer, like Plato, regards this world as a manifestation wherein the essence is manifested; because behind the sensible, there is an inner and mysterious truth, the visible world is entirely subsidiary and dependent on it, and there is no intrinsic difference between this visible world and the essence for Schopenhauer, just as for Plato, there is no intrinsic difference between the natural world and the world of forms. Considering the degrees of existence and corresponding degrees and levels of knowledge, this world is a shadow of that world, and knowledge of this world is a degree of levels of cognition, and during the example, it is considered as the highest example. The essence or the being of the world for Schopenhauer is the will, but the will is not the same as the Platonic example because from Schopenhauer's perspective, the Platonic example, which is rational, is an intermediary between will as the essence and the visible. Whereas, Schopenhauer's will be not accessible to reason. This is where the role and position of art in Schopenhauer's philosophy become clear; because Schopenhauer, like Plato, believes in the epistemic function of art; because art for Schopenhauer is not the expression of emotions and feelings; rather, art is a particular understanding of reality. Art is directly and immediately, not with general and abstract concepts, seeks to reach the essence and being of the world, and with art as the power of inner thought, knowledge of the essence and will, namely, the inner and true reality of the world, is attainable. Therefore, Schopenhauer considers true art as the observation of the general and will. Furthermore, art can create a kind of deep thought in humans to free the mind from the captivity of desires and, as a result, transcend suffering and hardships in the superior world. Plato, considering the relationship between epistemology and ontology in art, like Schopenhauer, seeks to give authenticity to art. Plato, by raising the criterion of knowledge for the artist in creating an artistic work, shows that the arts, as it were, in different directions, are reflective of knowledge of truth and untruth. Therefore, for Plato, knowledge is the most important component in imitation; if imitation is based on ignorance and lack of knowledge, it has a reprehensible meaning, and imitation based on knowledge is desirable and preferred. Plato in the Republic considers imitation as a formative authority that can be multi-layered; that is, it can be close to the truth or far from it, and while being imitative, believes that to imitate well, one must know the truth. The closer an art is to the truth, the more valuable it is; therefore, any art indifferent to the truth is considered worthless.

In the present paper, one of the most applied topics of philosophy, that is, wise living, which promises happiness, has been discussed. This issue is traced and investigated comparatively, especially in the thought of Ghazali and Schopenhauer. That humans have always been concerned about living well can be witnessed in ancient texts and advice from ancestors. In this regard, wisdom guides humans in a way that they can have happy and peaceful moments. Here, both Ghazali and Schopenhauer described self-knowledge as prior knowledge and necessary for happiness. They both believed that human wisdom could guide them to the blissful. However, there is a difference between Ghazali and Schopenhauer in that Ghazali emphasizes religious elements and proposes practical methods such as implementing Sharia’, seeking knowledge, and striving for a living. In contrast, Schopenhauer has paid attention to other issues like anthropology and understanding the nature of human life, based on which he described health and planning as useful methods.

Asceticism has been one of the most important concepts in Arthur Schopenhauer’s philosophy, especially in his theory of salvation. He has defined salvation as releasing from pain and suffering and achieving long-term tranquility. According to him, such tranquility may be achieved by the way of asceticism. Life is suffering according to him. Hence, a way of relief must be sought. Thus, he has thought that the source of all suffering is will. He has actually considered suffering as a phenomenon of will and an essential part of human life. Therefore, will has to be denied, surpassed, and dumbed if relief and peace are required. Denying and ignoring the appetites and wishes makes the relief possible. Thus, he paid special attention to the concept of Asceticism and declared it as the only way of true salvation. This essay tried to explain the concepts of Asceticism and salvation and then show how Asceticism may soothe human beings' sufferings and lead to salvation according to Schopenhauer.

Art is one of the most obvious mysterious manifestations of human culture and civilization Which has always overshadowed human life. in Schopenhauer's philosophy, art, as a part of This system, is presented in its interior and is an integral part of his philosophical system. This study is library method and content analysis seeks to examine the place of the art of Music in Schopenhauer's philosophical system. in order to achieve this, the whole category of art has been studied from the perspective of this Philosopher. the results of the studies Showed that in Schopenhauer's philosophy, art is no longer considered "art as art", but art Seeks to solve the problem of existence and as a means and passage for liberation from Domination of will to life, the principle of Sufficient direction and its face is proposed. Schopenhauer believes that music has no place and no illusion makes us familiar with a kind of Deep reality outside the place and, it has more power than other arts to raise us from this Sensual world. he considers music the best arts and architecture as the lowest of them. Because, music is not only ideas, but also will itself, and architecture, like the furthest place to ideas, is the lowest of the arts.

In this study, the differences and similarities between Rumi and Schopenhauer’s views on will have been investigated with a descriptive-interpretive method. Schopenhauer is a philosopher who explicitly accepted fundamentality of will and recognized it as the fundamental human force and the basis of his efforts and activities, including thinking. In his philosophical system, he has used terms such as “the world as representation of will” and “the will to power”, which are considered to be the indicators of his philosophical system. Rumi also defended the human will by stating religious, intellectual, sensory and intuitive evidence and introduced him as a free-willed being. He even deems the endeavor to thank God for His blessings as will. According to him, the lover voluntarily and freely annihilates his will in the will of the beloved. Examining these two accounts of the will can reveal their commonalities and differences, which removes the ambiguities related to this issue and provides the ground for the audience to become more familiar with it

Schopenhauer believes in his metaphsics that everything in the world as determined by the will, under the principle of sufficient reason and the time and the place, and necessarily become objective. Naturally, the human will as the moral foundation should follow the principle of sufficient reason and objectivity will necessarily, In this case, the fundamental moral Schopenhauer is excluded because the ethics need to freedom and stay out of the realm of  the principle of sufficient reason.He goes to side separation nomen and phenomen that resolve this obstacle with establish term Liberum arbitrium indiffentiae and attribute liberty to nomen; while human will as the base of morality located in realm phenomen and under the principle of sufficient reason and the time and the place. Therefore followes of necessity and is not free. Other subject is that Schopenhauer believes that human will is freedom capacity being and substance not capacity act; while liberum arbitrium prove in morality realm through freedom in acts. Therefore Schopenhauer problem doesn't solve with mere accept freedom capacity being and substance.

The reasonability and purposefulness of the world’s system is a perfectly evident issue to many of philosophers. Schopenhauer, the German philosopher of 19th century, has viewed this phenomenal world, with regard to its essence, as Will of which arises the struggle in it. Therefore, suffering would be taken as a natural consequence of volition and the will. Among Muslim philosophers, Avicenna, emphasizing Divine Knowledge and inseparability of evils from material world and regarding the wisdom and purposefulness of Divine acts, has viewed a better system than the current one as impossible. In this paper, in addition to explaining Schopenhauer`s thought on the priority of the Will to reasonability for this world, its consequences including suffering and evil as well as the solutions for them have been described. Also, such consequences as explained in Muslim philosophers` works, like those of Avicenna, have been brought to consideration.

Shopenhauer considers humam life to be meaningless. He denied the existence of God due to the existence of a plenty of pain and suffering in life and believes that people unreasonabley assume It to make their life meaningful. He also contends that creation of such a world is a mistake. The life of human being in this world is a process in which they do not have a clear goal. Thus, it is only an aimless continuation. In his view, since the majority of life is surrounded by pain and suffering, it is worthless. He also emphasized the role of free will in the life of human being, asserting that it make human life an endless process. This is because his demands are unlimitated and this causes pain and suffering and meaninglessness of the life. I think there are some mistakes in his view. He considers pleasure to be the benefit and purpose of life. But this is not the only benefit and purpose of life, and there are other things that are more worthy than mere pleasure. Also, it is not the case that the use of free will is always entails suffering, because moving forward to a goal usually indicates a sense of pleasure, especially if one considers a virtuous goal.

In this paper, we investigate the relation between Will and Knowledge; especially the effect of the will on knowledge in its Western philosophical tradition. A short record of the issue from the ancient to the present time is offered and William James, a twentieth century American philosopher, is introduced as the criterion in this field. Therefore, the history of the issue is divided to three periods: “Before James”, “James”, and “After James”. The role of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are narrated as two key philosophers in the first period and it is explained why they are not widely welcomed in this regard in the world of philosophy. Later, we examine the general lines of James’ theory; especially his “The Will to Believe”. In this part, we show that some of James assumptions are not acceptable, although, his theory in general is defendable. Finally, we look at Quine’s thought as the philosopher who spread James’ teachings recently among the philosophers. We show that Quine’s naturalism, universalism, and even his naturalized epistemology have been influenced by James. At the end of this paper, the influential contemporary philosophers in this field are introduced.

Kant، aware of the difficulty of the epistemological rational of religion which brings about religious experience، followed a new path in philosophy and، instead of beginning from the method of obtaining certain knowledge، started from the possibility of certain knowledge. He was deterred by research in the method of certain knowledge، which was the destination of rational religion، and therefore went beyond the epistemological limits. Instead، he went on a search for a foundation regarding epistemology and achieved this feat via a transcendental method. The transcendental method، which in general considers as its axis investigating the possibility of a priori certain epistemology، though it resolved the lacks of epistemology، had its own weaknesses which brought about the protest of Kant followers who، though loyal، breached their promise and though close، put distance between themselves and Kant. Fichte transformed the transcendental method by dialectic، and Schopenhauer، by returning to Barkley، ruined Kant’s transcendental method. The present paper reviews Schopenhauer’s passage through Kant’s method and shows that Schopenhauer، though he accepts Kant’s transcendental conditions، he opposes Kant’s transcendental reasoning، which Kant claims to have derived from purely transcendental sources. He also challenges the self-proclaimed object and the exemplification object and، eventually، chooses Barkley’s direct method in experimental idealism.

The concept of ‘free will’ is central in both Kant’s and Schopenhauer’s moral philosophy. In the Kantian moral system, ‘free will’ is only regarded as moral when it dutifully follows reason and its a priori, absolute rules. Schopenhauer, on the other hand, holds that since human will is a priori to his reason, reason cannot engage will into any action. Instead of reason, he regards human motivations and stimulations as the main sources which shape any action, including moral actions. The important point is that he identifies three types of stimulations, namely ‘compassion’, ‘egoism’ and ‘pessimism’, among which he finds only ‘compassion’ to be the true stimulation for moral action and the basis of moral acts, and he dismisses the other two as immoral stimulations. He criticises foundations of the Kantian moral philosophy with the help of three following arguments: first, he questions the Kantian moral formalism and his a priori claims; second, he criticises the conceptual flaw in Kant’s moral philosophy (which is the result of an inconsistency between his claim that morality should be based on reason and his inner appreciation of verbal morality); third, he accuses Kant’s moral system of being one based on egoism. The present paper aims to explain the main status and characteristic of Schopenhauer’s moral system by way of explaining his criticism of Kant’s moral system.

Arthur Schopenhauer، in Four Aspects Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason، criticized Kant’s interpretation of causality، which is written in the Second Analogy contained in the section of Principles of Pure Understanding. These criticisms express themselves along three main axes. By considering these criticisms، this article seeks to defend Kant’s account and to show that Schopenhauer didn’t understand properly the arguments that Kant has given. In this article، on the one hand، Kant’s position، in contrast with Schopenhauer’s view، is confirmed، but on the other hand، it is argued that Kant distorted the genuine meaning of causality and meant causality so that it was not consistent with the main aim that philosophers have taken at establishing causality، hence the criticism of this article of Kant’s explanation of causality.