posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 11:46 PM
Originally posted by miltie
Well we went from Crowley to Jung to Nietzsche and now Schopenhauer. Sorry for going on such a tangent.
Are you kidding me?!?! This is the best discussion I've had on this board to date.
Now, re: Crowley vs. Shopenhauer on the will, I'm not knowledgable enough to answer the question exactly, but from what you said, isn't the
following interpretation possible:
Both Crowley and Shopenhauer saw the Will. Crowley thought it was a good thing, whereas Shopenhauer thought it was a bad thing. Hence Crowley's
philosophy (very different from his epistemology and ontology) held that one should pursue and understand the will. Meanwhile,
Shopenhauer (the old pain addict, he) felt that the very same object was despicable, and so practically speaking he stated that one should escape
It's as if Michel Foucault and I were having a discussion about pain and sex. Foucault would say that one should come to understand the uses and
meaning of pain within sex, while I would say that one should generally try to avoid it (unless one's ideals ran in that direction). We'd both be
talking about the same thing when we said the word "pain," we'd just have a different attitude toward it.
Regarding the ding in sich
, I think Kang was talking about epistemology here, and wasn't referring to a unified thing (I could be completely
wrong, however). If he was
talking about a unified thing, I strongly suspect Kant would have meant God by the ding in sich
I'm not entirely convinced Crowley and Shopenhauer meant God by the word "Will."