Schopenhauer in "ON THE SUFFERINGS OF THE WORLD" says this:>I know of no greater absurdity than that propounded by most systems of philosophy in declaring evil to be negative in its character. Evil is just what is positive; it makes its own existence felt. Leibnitz is particularly concerned to defend this absurdity; and he seeks to strengthen his position by using a palpable and paltry sophism. It is the good which is negative; in other words, happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end. The TL note says this:>Leibnitz argued that evil is a negative quality—i.e., the absence of good; and that its active and seemingly positive character is an incidental and not an essential part of its nature. Cold, he said, is only the absence of the power of heat, and the active power of expansion in freezing water is an incidental and not an essential part of the nature of cold. The fact is that the power of expansion in freezing water is really an increase of repulsion amongst its molecules; and Schopenhauer is quite right in calling the whole argument a sophism.What exactly is the argument here? Why is one of these ideas truer than the other? Why isn't Schopenhauer's conclusion that evil is the positive characteristic a sophistry as well? He just states it as if it's fact. Genuinely trying to grasp this. I can certainly see it being more true than the reverse, but as an absolute truth in regards to everything seems to be an excessive conclusion.
bump for interesting discussion, unfortunately/lit/ has convinced me schop is better about these topics than metaphysics, as nobody has yet to explain to me how Schop can alter Kant's metaphysics in a way that opens himself up to Hume's criticism without addressing that criticism
>>24736590read Schopenhauer's books you fucking retard. we are not here to spoon feed you.
>>24736593I did and I posted something FROM HIS ESSAYS.If I continue reading the essay this specific excerpt is from all I get is concepts presupposing the idea that evil is the positive force of existence.
Never read either of these guys btw>What is the argument hereSchopenhauer is saying the complete opposite of Leibnitz and I guess a bunch of others as well. Schopenhauer is saying the default isn't good, it's evil, and that we only interrupt or take pause from this evil through the expression of good as satisfaction. >why is one of these ideas truer than the other It isn't necessarily, that's how philosophy works.
>>24736562from schoppy's point of view it makes sense to call the world evil but he simplifies Leibniz when he writes in the monadology about a more complex and abstract system
>What exactly is the argument here?I think you understand it already. It's simply that in the past evil was characterized as being a lack or a negative with respect to good. Schopenhauer points out that evil isn't a lack or a negative. Evil in itself makes itself felt and thus it is positive.It doesn't seem to me that there's necessarily any ontological dimension to his argument (I haven't read Schope so I could be wrong here). You could look this simply as another way to see things that has not been thought before.
>>24736832The problem I have is that he doesn't just point out that evil isn't a negative, he specifically views all "good" things as a negation of the "bad" things. It's a very absolute idea for him, one that seems to be true in any of his writings, but especially this one that seems to be a sort of summary of his ideas.I think his entire philosophy is ontological. If I had to summarize it, it would be something like "suffering is intrinsic to being" which seems to be pretty absolute. But he doesn't really prove in any way that that is the case, at least in every scenario. I could be totally wrong here.
Is Schopp pro-will or anti-will? I sure as hell ain't no boodist and I ain't looking to diminish my desire.
>>24736844>But he doesn't really prove in any way that that is the case, at least in every scenario. I could be totally wrong here.>you must do things to survive>survival is a desire>you can never stop doing things or you die>thus desire can't be fulfilled so suffering is an intrinsic quality of beingI think this is his proof
>>24736845Schopenhauer was more interested in understanding nature than giving actual life advice.
>>24736845>>24737006doesn't he think it's a good idea to deny the will and be an ascetic monk
Finally, after months of arguing with you faggots, something we can agree on. I won't even suggest Schoppie is plagiarizing because I know that niggie didn't get past page 5 of the Logic."Nothing, it is said, is only the absence of being, darkness thus only the absence of light, cold only absence of heat, and so on. And darkness only has meaning in relation to the eye, in external comparison with the positive factor, light, and similarly cold is only something in our sensation; on the other hand, light and heat, like being, are objective, active realities on their own account, and are of quite another quality and dignity than this negative, than nothing. One can often find it put forward as a weighty reflection and an important piece of information that darkness is only the absence of light, cold only absence of heat. About this acute reflection in this field of empirical objects, it can be observed that darkness does in fact show itself active in light, determining it to colour and thereby imparting visibility to it, since, as was said above, just as little is seen in pure light as in pure darkness. Visibility, however, is effected in the eye, and the supposed negative has just as much a share in this as the light which is credited with being the real, positive factor; similarly, cold makes its presence known in water, in our sensations etc., and if we deny it so-called objective reality it is not a whit the worse for our doing so. But a further objection would be that here, too, as before, it is a negative with a determinate content that is spoken of, the argument is not confined to pure nothing, to which being, regarded as an empty abstraction, is neither inferior nor superior. But cold, darkness, and similar determinate negations are to be taken directly as they are by themselves and we shall then see what we have thereby effected in respect of their universal determination which has led them to be introduced here. They are supposed to be not just nothing but the nothing of light, heat, etc., of something determinate, of a content; thus they are a determinate, a contentful, nothing if one may so speak. But, as will subsequently appear, a determinateness is itself a negation, and so they are negative nothings; but a negative nothing is an affirmative something. The conversion of nothing through its determinateness (which previously appeared as a determinate being in a subject thinker, or in some other form) into an affirmative, appears to the consciousness which is fixed in the abstraction of the understanding as the acme of paradox; the insight that the negation of the negation is something positive, simple as it is, or rather because of its very simplicity, appears as a triviality to which haughty understanding need pay no heed..." - Hegel SoL 168 (cont'd)
>>24736599Why are you still reading Schopenhauer when you yourself admit that we have refuted him? Read Fichte.
>>24737762Fichte anon...is that you?
>>24737783Hello fren. We have to find a way to reach these Schloppie kids, they're going to ruin their life :(
