Thread 24675693

I've been seeing you proponents of these two slyly dismiss or put down the other while raising who they support (Mostly Fichte anons)

Battle it out once and for all, and be done with it, and with that, may a winner arise and we all learn something from this clash.

Nigga there isnt more than 1 person smart enough to do this

lol

I don’t know where to start with Schopenhauer. For example, his account of causality completely ignores objective causality, which is what got idealism going in the first place. Huge omission, and a retarded one. Then when he treats Kant’s account he still doesn’t see it, he just goes on a sophism about how Kant’s subjective causality is ackshually objective because it involves sense organs and the brain. lol. The Schoppie pseuds need to come home. No more baby food, they need tough, fleshy meat in their mouths to make them strong.

>>24676815
To put it a clearer way - other idealists are asking “why is the world coherent?” Schopenhauer says “what’s the problem your brain uses your sense organs to create experience! DUH retards! Heckin’ charlatans with your big words!”

>>24675693 (OP)
>Angloid
>Chink
why would I ever listen to such deracinated subhumans discuss German philosophy?
Absolutely pathetic such filth even get to put such great names in their mouths.

Daily reminder that Hegel’s dialectic of conscience permanently exploded Fichte. There is no recovery from that, Fichteans can only dissolve into tubercular insanity just like the beautiful soul.

>>24676979
Hegel’s absolute spirit is still in motion and that’s the essence of Fichte’s I=I. The dialectic of conscience is at most a riff on Fichte, not a refutation. Hegel even goes out of his way to use Fichtean language, even in the result.

>>24676997
Hegel’s also a shithead for claiming in that whole section that Fichte’s morality was individualistic. Fichte’s I=I is just as intersubjective as Hegel’s absolute.

>>24677005
It comes down to - Fichte proceeds a priori, so his absolute is admittedly rather bare. Hegel in the phenomenology goes a posteriori, so he was able to see something Fichte didn’t, reconciliation as absolute spirit. But it’s still more like a riff on Fichte.

>>24676821
>what’s the problem your brain uses your sense organs to create experience! DUH
...yeah?
Or rather, your brain was created to process the information from your sense organs.

>>24675693 (OP)
Schopenhauer killed Fichte with his big fucking dick

>>24677017
NTA but Schopenhauer is giving a physical explanation to a transcendental problem. That makes him a vulgar materialist and a dogmatist, not a kantian nor an idealist. Kant is asking what are the conditions of possibility of phenomena as such or why do things appear to us. Since physical processes are contents of phenomena, an answer such as Schopenhauer's is not valid at all. The physical is something that appears to us, so the question can also be framed as to how is there anything physical in the first place. It's like materialists that say logic comes from the brain, or try to give a naturalistic explanation. But the natural explanation (and the scientific models in general) presupposes logic. They're using a certain application of logic to explain logic itself, do you see the problem with that? Well, Schopenhauer is doing the same thing. It is true that we have sense organs that send signals to our brain, but that doesn't answer the actual question. The (transcendental) subject is not the brain, since it is the pre-condition of the objects, not an object such as the brain.

Haven't read Schopenhauer btw, but if he does give that type of answers and/or rejects the transcendental stance, he can't call himself an idealist, at least a kantian one.

>>24676821
I see you're still repeating your misunderstanding after I clarified Schopenhauer's position for you last week. I know it's you from your manic, insecure posting style.

>>24677146
>NTA but Schopenhauer is giving a physical explanation to a transcendental problem. That makes him a vulgar materialist and a dogmatist, not a kantian nor an idealist.
>Haven't read Schopenhauer btw

No need to clarify, it was obvious

>>24677385
I never saw your response buddy, I don't spend 24 hours a day on /lit/ like you do. But as I recall you were trying to explain how the brain isn't "causing" causality it's "constituting" it, and I made fun of you for making a meaningless distinction. As this anon here >>24677146 rightly says, Schopenhauer is a crude dogmatist.

It's actually an old problem for idealists - why are some people unable to escape the dogmatic stance? Hegel thought anyone could do it with practice. Fichte thought it was a matter of morals. But I'm pretty sure some people are cognitively unable to avoid thinking in terms of objects and 'processes' of change in object. This anon here is a good example: >>24677017. It's like talking to blind people about colors.

>>24677403
I didn't say the brain constitutes causality. I said that Schopenhauer's view is that the four principles of sufficient reason together constitute the empirical world for the understanding. This word "constitute" does not refer to material causality. Material causality is one of the four roots. The union of the four roots is the "constitution" of the empirical. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does Schopenhauer describe this as being caused by the brain.

The fact that the word "constitute" is sometimes used like the word "cause" in daily life has no bearing on its use in a particular metaphysical system.

>>24677428
>I didn't say the brain constitutes causality. I said that Schopenhauer's view is that the four principles of sufficient reason together constitute the empirical world for the understanding. This word "constitute" does not refer to material causality. Material causality is one of the four roots. The union of the four roots is the "constitution" of the empirical. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does Schopenhauer describe this as being caused by the brain.
First of all, I was only talking about mechanical causality in the first place, showing how insufficient it is compared to what Kant was trying to do, and the absurd postulate of the brain. You're saying "there are these other roots... and he never speaks of the brain as the cause of all four!", an absurd non sequitur. But what does Schopenhauer himself say? I suppose I don't NEED to quote since you've already read the book...
"It is only when the Understanding begins to act—a function, not of single, delicate nerve-extremities, but of that mysterious, complicated structure weighing from five to ten pounds, called the brain—only when it begins to apply its sole form, the causal law, that a powerful transformation takes place, by which subjective sensation becomes objective perception. For, in virtue of its own peculiar form, therefore à priori, i.e. before all experience (since there could have been none till then), the Understanding conceives the given corporeal sensation as an effect (a word which the Understanding alone comprehends), which effect, as such, necessarily implies a cause. Simultaneously it summons to its assistance Space, the form of the outer sense, lying likewise ready in the intellect (i.e. the brain), in order to remove that cause beyond the organism; for it is by this that the external world first arises, Space alone rendering it possible, so that pure intuition à priori has to supply the foundation for empirical perception." Etc. etc.

You don't seem to understand what's at stake here. I'll try to spoon-feed you. If you explain material causality by the brain, then material causality isn't really grounded in anything, because it is still contingent. Schopenhauer is completely ignoring, in fact shows no awareness of, the ur-problem of idealism. This means he has no metaphysics. So far all you've done is try to wiggle out of the argument, which you don't seem to understand, and you don't even seem to have read the relevant texts.

>>24677449
(continuing) And, by the way, do you know how Schopenhauer's fourfold root relates to Kant? ONLY material causality is the kind that Kant is concerned with in the transcendental analytic. Schopenhauer does not claim that the four roots are the same, he sees them as species of a genus. So for you to say "wellll who cares you're only attacking material causality lol" ignores how important material causality is and how Schopenhauer himself thought of his four causes. And it's going to be like this forever - you don't think about what I say, you just try to come up with some retarded "response" without thinking about what you're saying or what I'm saying. Schopenhauer's "knowing" is Kant's reason. His "being" is just Kant's forms of intuition. Etc. Saying "the world makes sense because our brains make it make sense" does not answer the central problem, it's sheer dogmatism.

>>24677449
>First of all, I was only talking about mechanical causality in the first place, showing how insufficient it is compared to what Kant was trying to do, and the absurd postulate of the brain. You're saying "there are these other roots... and he never speaks of the brain as the cause of all four!", an absurd non sequitur. an absurd non sequitur.

I was describing the content of my previous post, which you mischaracterized. That post was a reply to this verbatim quote:

>he explains natural causality as being caused by the understanding. So he's explaining causality by causality.

It was not a non sequitur to clarify Schopenhauer's position on the relationship between causality and the other roots. Nor is it a non sequitur to answer your claim that the difference between "constitute" and "cause" is a meaningless distinction. I hope we can agree on those points. Nor did I ever say that "the brain" causes causality.

In general, you don't seem to remember what people actually say.

>>24677468
>you don't think about what I say, you just try to come up with some retarded "response" without thinking about what you're saying or what I'm saying.

This is ironic

I dont like the dogmatism with which certain idealista act as if you must necessary accept all their presuppositions.

Its why ive lately been looking for critics of Kant and Hegel and the like. Too much circlejerk culture in that department and I dont want to look to the analytics beyond Wittgenstein.

>>24677544
>>24677550
He does this to everyone he talks to here, I wouldn't worry about him too much. Just a contrarian.

>>24677590
Hey NTA, but dont do this "talk behind ones back, but literally right infront of everyone to see, so he knows nobody wants to talk directly with him but also nobody likes him" type of bullying. That shit is fucked, and not conducive to discussion, its way too easy and convenient to encourage a different kind of dogma and immediate dismissal than even his.

What this thread and board needs in general is a more open minded Hegel/Fichte proponent. Aka the type similar to a professor that wont immediately dismiss you for thinking differently or not having the same intuitions but will walk you through the holes in your own intuitons.

Maybe thats too good to be true, not just here, but even in universities, who knows. All I know, is that this thread has made me recognize the theoretical importance of teachers, its not about whos the most intelligent, its about who can break that natural barrier of resistance to anything that doesnt immediately buy into a whole host of preconceived notions.

>>24677601
If a regular poster consistently turns every thread they're in into bloodsports and refuses to engage anons based on what they've actually said, they're welcome to keep doing that, but there's no reason to encourage engagement with them. You are right that it's better to have posters willing to meet people where they're at, but part of that starts by not feeding those posting in bad faith.

>>24677654
>but part of that starts by not feeding those posting in bad faith.
If youre talking about Fichte anon. I dont think hes bad faith. Ive noticed this alot when it comes to philosophy on this board and maybe in general. The philosopher this most happens with is Nietzsche, because people dont really engage with Schopenhauer enough beyond the surface level to get attached to anything unique to him that couldn't be said by a blackpill influencer.

These people get attached to certain philosophies and constantly treat it almost like a religion, where if youre not familar with the particular scripture and its particular accepted interpretation. EVEN if that scripture is literally telling you "It is okay and good to beat your children and sleep with women early in puberty".

They will do this magical song and dance where YOU are the retard for interpreting the words of the text as it is expressed, because there isnt some mystical all encompassing mode of judgement you have yet bought into by virtue of being part of the majority group that worships said work.

I've sort of noticed this with Fichte anon. He keeps referring back to "YOU HAVE TO CRITICIZE IN THIS HYPER SPECIFIC TRANSCENDENTAL WAY OR IT'S ALL COMPLETELY INVALID. Me of course? I dont really need to justify anything, transcendental idealism is real and true because its transcendental idealism bro!"

So it gets to start to feel like. You cannot engage with this work any other way, than subsuming yourself in a system that necessarily circularly validates that work and all the esoteric terms it creates to internally seem coherent.

This is just my rambling, I dont say this as a professional or anything. Its just my personal observation. Ever since a certain point, I've noticed and learned philosophy is much much closer to religion than I ever wanted to believe. The stupid anon will take this to mean I must worship science, but that would be a rationalization to hide from the implications of what I said.

If youre NOT talking about the Fichte anon though. Then we are on fundamentally different planes of existence.

>>24677677
>>24677682
There's always going to be anons hyperfixated on how the one thing they're really into is right and they don't need to read anything else, like how most Schopenhauer anons treat Hegel. Most of that is shitposting anyway. But >>24677385
>>24677428
>>24677544
Doesn't come across as one of those anons, and looking at the argument from last week in the archives shows he wasn't of that sort there either. Addressing someone's point isn't, as Fichteanon wants to have it, a non sequitur, and calling a distinction meaningless without further ado is handwaving for the sake of winning, hence he's bad faith posting.