Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation.
The World as Will and Representation is a work completed by the German philosopher Schopenhauer in 1818.
I read "The World as Will and Representation" translated by Kanji Nishio, Chuokoron Shinsha.
Let's take a quick look at the book.
The world is "my representation" and life. Suffering and liberation.
Schopenhauer's appeal lies in the contradiction and duality of his philosophy, which merged two opposing elements, German mysticism and 18th century Enlightenment thought, into one. Now is the time to re-evaluate his philosophy.
AmazonProducts Page.
The book opens with these famous words.
"The world is a representation of me."
Chuokoron Shinsha, translated by Kanji Nishio, The World as Will and Representation I, p. 5
Russian literature scholar Seiro Sato has stated the following about this.
It was Schopenhauer who provided the philosophical basis for the pessimism of the age, and his major work, "The World of Will and Representation," subtitled "Nature, after all, cannot be studied," begins with "The world is my representation," and continues with "Phenomena are representations and nothing more. Phenomena are representations, nothing more. All objects of any kind are phenomena. The will gives birth to infinite desire, and desire leads to suffering.
Eibunsha, Seiro SatoChekhov in my heart.P36
Seiro Sato is a scholar who has written extensively on Chekhov and Turgenev. Chekhov, Turgenev, and Tolstoy were all strongly influenced by Schopenhauer. Therefore, in his book "My Heart's Chekhov," he also mentions Schopenhauer.
Now, to put this commentary more crudely, "The world is what has appeared (representation) through my subjectivity (will), and when I disappear, the world (representation) also disappears." This is what I mean.
And "If I try to live, desire is born, and that desire gives birth to suffering. Since the world would not exist without me, if I disappear, the world becomes meaningless. Why should I live to suffer in a meaningless world?
Mr. Sato goes on to discuss this pessimistic view.
The pessimism question and answer begins with the student asking himself, "First of all, what is the purpose of life?" and then falls into nihilism, "No matter how I live, in the end death is just waiting for me," and often out of his mouth comes the phrase, "It doesn't matter which way I go.
Ibunsha, Seiro Sato, "My Heart's Chekhov," p. 37
Thus, nihilism, the belief that "we become nothing after we die anyway, so it doesn't matter how we live our lives," has come to dominate the world. Schopenhauer himself was not so much influenced by nihilism as he was by the nihilism of his own life, as is clear from his writings.
But his language is too difficult to understand, and "The World as Will and Representation" is quite a large work. It would be extremely difficult for people then and for us today to fully understand it.
This has led to many misunderstandings, as translator Kanji Nishio explains in his commentary,
Pessimism, irrationalism, philosophy of suicide, enemy of women, reactionism, philosophy of sexuality, philosophy of decadence: Schopenhauer's philosophy has been labeled with various labels, and as they walk around on their own, they appear to the reader like specters with countless faces. Readers will be able to confirm whether or not these general evaluations are truly accurate by reading this book directly.
Schopenhauer's philosophy was rediscovered and brought into the limelight around the middle of the 19th century, during the establishment of modern civil society from the Revolution of 1848 to the end of the century. It was misunderstood, adapted, and passed off according to people's preconceptions, and continued to be labeled with the flamboyant role of avenger and cutthroat in philosophical debates. Moreover, it was precisely because of these preconceptions and misunderstandings that he became famous, an ironic fate.
Chuokoron Shinsha, translated by Kanji Nishio, The World as Will and Representation I, p. 1
He stated. I was reminded that Schopenhauer is still easily misunderstood and difficult to begin with.
And surprisingly, the author himself, Schopenhauer, makes a tremendous statement in his preface.
I have decided to describe here how this book should be read in order to make it as understandable as possible. What I am trying to convey in this book is a single thought. But I could not find a shorter way to convey that single thought than through this entire book, no matter how hard I tried. （I have not been able to find a shorter way to convey that single thought than through this entire book.)
In order to deeply acquaint yourself with the ideas presented in this book,Read this book twiceIt is obvious that there is no other way. Moreover, the first time requires a great deal of patience - and in this book, the beginning presupposes the end almost as much as the end presupposes the beginning - and this patience can only be acquired if the reader is willing to believe in this. I believe that such patience can only be achieved if the reader is willing to believe in it.
Chuokoron Shinsha, translated by Kanji Nishio, The World as Will and Representation III, p. 247-249
Schopenhauer begins by saying. You have to read this book twice to understand it.
He wants us to read such a difficult and long book twice. And he declares from the very beginning that you need patience because you won't understand it the first time. Schopenhauer is indeed a very different man.
And he makes even more demands.
The second request is that you read its introduction before reading this book. That, however, is not included in this book, which was published five years ago under the title "On the Four Roots of the Principle of Basis - A Philosophical Treatise.
Without familiarity with the papers that form the introduction and the preliminary papers, a true understanding of this book will be impossible. The contents of the preliminary papers are assumed throughout the book, as if they were contained within the book itself.
Chuokoron Shinsha, translated by Kanji Nishio, The World as Will and Representation III, p. 251-252
Isn't this indeed harsh, doctor!" I did a double-take. Schopenhauer says that you have to be familiar with the other book before you can understand this one. That book is a Japanese translation, but it is a work in a complete collection, not in a book. Moreover, it is another work that seems to be quite difficult. It's getting tougher and tougher...
But Schopenhauer continued, "I am not concerned about that.
Finally, the third demand that must be made of the reader may even be implicitly assumed. For it is nothing less than a request to the reader to familiarize himself with the most important publications that have emerged in philosophy in the last two millennia, and I am referring to some of Kant's major works. (omitted).
Kantis the only philosophy that presupposes a thorough familiarity with the very subject matter discussed in this book.
Chuokoron Shinsha, translated by Kanji Nishio, The World as Will and Representation III, p. 253-255
This is what I came to. He said that you have to be familiar with Kant to understand this book.
Kant is one of my least favorite philosophers. Basically, I am just not very good at books on Western philosophy such as Plato, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, etc. I just can't seem to get past the halfway point.
They try again and again, but end up bouncing back.
Part of it is that I don't understand the idea, but the part that gets me is why it has to be written in such an abstract and complicated way.
I am an orientalist, so Western abstract and conceptual philosophies don't fit me."
It might be easier if it were done this way, but I'm not very good at it. And I don't have any desire to overcome it. I think this is what they call "not fitting".
Now, leaving me aside, Schopenhauer declares that unless you have read Kant's major works (such as the Critique of Pure Reason) and are familiar with his philosophy, you will not understand this book.
I have not fulfilled any of his requirements. I managed to read through the book once, and although there were some points that made sense, he was right, I didn't really understand the book as a whole. However, I didn't have the energy to read it twice as he recommended...
For readers like me, Schopenhauer states.
I am sure that the majority of the readers, however, will be outraged and will explode with the accusations they have barely been able to contain up to this point, saying: "How can you dare to offer a book to the public with such demands and conditions? How can you dare to offer a book to the public with such demands and conditions, the first two of which are so arrogant and totally irreverent? （How dare you?)
I do not find it necessary to defend myself in the slightest against such accusations. I only hope that readers will be somewhat grateful that I have given them a timely warning so that they will not waste their time, since there is nothing to be gained by reading through this book without fulfilling the requirements I have listed above, and that they should therefore stop reading it. I can only hope that readers will show some appreciation for my timely warning so that they will not waste their time. This book will never suit the taste of such readers, and if anything, it will always be "for the few," and therefore, I am willing to bet that it must wait patiently and modestly for those few who have developed an extraordinary way of thinking who read this book and think it is a good one. I am willing to bet on that.
Chuokoron Shinsha, translated by Kanji Nishio, The World as Will and Representation III, p. 256-257
And at the end, he humorously says
This preface splashes the reader, but readers who have somehow made it to the preface will ask what they can do about this damage, since they have paid cash for the book. -
My final escape is to remind readers that books can be used in many ways, even if they are not read directly. It can fill a space in the stacks just like many other books, and if it has a beautiful binding, it will surely look great in the stacks. Or the reader can place the book on a learned lady friend's dressing table or tea table. Or, last but not least, and this is certainly the best way, and I especially recommend it, the reader can actually critique the book.
Chuokoron Shinsha, translated by Kanji Nishio, The World as Will and Representation III, p. 258
The irony is so tinged with sarcasm that one can't help but chuckle, but I felt that this kind of supercilious attitude was Schopenhauer's true calling card.
Reading "The World as Will and Representation," I was able to understand, albeit vaguely, Schopenhauer's worldview and its connection to India and Buddhism.
However, as Schopenhauer states, as long as the book does not meet his requirements, I still have to admit that the book is not exactly what I was looking for.
But I also felt that this preface was extremely kind in a way.
I think Schopenhauer is saying that I cannot compete with Kant, Hegel, etc. because I clearly lack knowledge of Western philosophy as a prerequisite or have to read it over and over again, even if I don't understand it.
Not everything is something that can be read once and understood immediately. There are things that can only be understood by having a lot of knowledge and then reading and contemplating them over and over again.
It is certainly convenient and appreciated when something is easy to understand and read. However, I felt as if Professor Schopenhauer had given me a stern warning not to think that this was all there was to it.
Dostoevsky is difficult."
I think that such an image is very strong in the world. But to be honest, for me, compared to Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer, Dostoevsky is much easier to read!
Compared to difficult philosophical books, Dostoevsky's novels are very easy to read. After all, the story of the novel makes it more concrete and easier to understand. Reading "The World as Will and Representation" reminded me that this is one of the advantages of novels.
This is "Reading Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation.
Next Article.
Click here to read the previous article.
Related Articles
