"following exposition of human nature is given in this very essay which explains why sexual love as well as the love of progeny is all important to human beings:
Although the will attains self-consciousness only in the individual, yet the deep-seated consciousness that it is really the species in which its true being objectifies itself appears in the fact that the affairs of the species as such, i.e. the relation of the sexes, the generation and nourishment of the offspring are to the individual of comparably greater important and consequence than anything else. [W, II, 510] It may seem to us that our individual and selfish concerns are most important to us. In fact, the affairs of the species such as the generation and upbringing of the offspring as well as sexual selection and pursuits are far more important to human beings.3 In this respect, humans behave as instinctively as animals, albeit among humans, both sexual matters and parental love are “guided and directed by the faculty of reason [or] reflection” (W, II, 514), which enhances their sophistication but does not diminish their strength. Schopenhauer reiterates his insight that:
Sexual impulse is the kernel of the will-to-live and consequently the concentration of all willing. In the text [WWR] therefore I have called the genitals the focus of the will. Indeed it may be said that man is concrete sexual impulse, for his origin is an act of copulation ... It is true that the will-to-live manifests itself primarily as an effort to maintain the individual; yet this is only a stage towards the effort to maintain the species. [W, II, 514]
It is not hard to see here why Schopenhauer’s philosophy was influential in the development of Freud’s theories concerning human sexuality. Schopenhauer illustrates as well as explains the vehemence of the sexual impulse by tracing its origins in the all-important issue of the continuation of the species. There is then a connection between sexuality and immortality, or at least between it and a craving and a drive toward overcoming the terrible certainty of death. Schopenhauer brilliantly and graphically describes the omnipresence of this core of all willing:
This is the important role played by the sex-relation in the world of mankind, where it is really the invisible central point of all action and conduct, and peeps up everywhere, in spite of all the veils thrown over it. It is the cause of war and the aim and object of peace, the basis of the serious and the aim of the joke, the inexhaustible source of wit, the key to all hints and allusions, and the meaning of all secret signs and suggestions, all unexpressed proposals, and all stolen glances; it is the daily thought and desire of the young and often of the old as well, the hourly thought of the unchaste, and the constantly recurring reverie of the chaste against their will, the ever ready material for a joke, only because the profoundest seriousness lies at its root. [W, II, 513]
Schopenhauer expands on this connection between sexuality and the inner design of the will-to-live to perpetuate the species in his essay “The Metaphysics of Sexual Love,” which follows his highly speculative piece on “The Hereditary Nature of Qualities,” which in turn is based on his belief that one inherits intellect from one’s mother and will from one’s father. To posit and root human qualities and pre- dispositions in heredity is in accord with Schopenhauer’s tendency to de-emphasize the individual and the individual’s current existence and its experiences, and to assert the role of generation and the species. It is also in tune with the Buddhist belief that pre-dispositions (svabhava) are inherited on the basis of the karma of past lives rather than being an exclusive by-product of one’s current life and its experiences. In any case, Schopenhauer’s attribution of will to the father and intellect to the mother seems to be not only an oversimplification but also an outdated and scientifically unproven assertion."[Raj Singh; Death, Contemplation, and Schopenhauer]
"Nature too, the inner being of which is will-to-live itself with all her force impels both man and animal to propagate. After this she has attained her end with the individual, and is quite indifferent to its destruction, for as the will-to-live she is concerned only with the preservation of the species; the individual is nothing to her. [W, I, 330]
This is why the denial of the will-to-live requires first and foremost, a closer study, control, regulation and even suppression of one’s sexual impulse. Schopenhauer treats such a suppression of sexuality as part and parcel of saying no to the will-to- live and seems to admire the sexual restraint of those who chose an ascetical and saintly way of life. As we shall see, this account of sexuality and of asceticism may be a glaring oversimplification. Whereas a close connection between the sexual impulse and the human being’s thoughtless worldliness cannot be denied, Schopenhauer certainly turns a blind eye to the middle course of moderation that is celebrated in ancient philosophical systems and religions alike. Schopenhauer traces a connection between “genitals” and “generation” to reaffirm his view of sexuality:
Far more than any other external member of the body the genitals are subject merely to the will and not at all to knowledge. Here, in fact, the will shows itself independent of knowledge as it does in those parts which, on the occasion of mere stimuli, serve vegetative life, reproduction, and in which the will operates blindly as it does in nature without knowledge. [W, I, 330]
The body itself is an objectification of willing and genitals more than any other parts represent this objectification. Thus, the relation between willing, worldliness and sexuality is insightfully traced by Schopenhauer. The importance of the unconscious and the omnipresence of sexuality in the psychical and the practical life of the human entity was recognized by Schopenhauer in no uncertain terms. These insights influenced several later thinkers and psychologists in the European tradition including Nietzsche, Freud, Thomas Mann and others. In a discussion of Schopenhauer’s possible influence on Freud, Bryan Magee writes:
In his analysis of the importance of sex in human life Schopenhauer was an intrepid pioneer who held ideas far ahead of his time. Jung was directly influenced by him, and two outstanding authorities on sex – Ellis and Bloch – admired him greatly and cited him frequently ... Freud was familiar with these ideas and considered them of great value ... Freud ... never, in his maturity equivocated over the fact that Schopenhauer had preceded him with his most fundamental ideas, but only over the directness or indirectness of his debt.
It is quite clear in Schopenhauer’s analysis that any denial of thoughtless and matter- of-course worldliness requires a denial or rejection or overcoming of the sexual drive which is but will’s most remarkable manifestation. If sexuality has intimately to do with denial, then it also has a deep-rooted connection with death and death- contemplation."[ib.]
"We can regard our life as a uselessly disturbing episode in the blissful repose of nothingness. At all events even the man who has fared tolerably well, becomes more clearly aware, the longer he lives, that life on the whole is a disappointment, nay a cheat ... The world is just a “hell” and in it human beings are the tortured souls on the one hand, and devils on the other." [Schopenhauer, PP, II, 300]
Quote :
"Brahma produced the world through a kind of original sin, but himself remains in it to atone for this until he has redeemed himself from it. This is quite a good idea. In Buddhism the world comes into being in consequence of an inexplicable disturbance ... in the crystal clearness of the blessed and penitentially obtained state of nirvana and hence through a kind of fatality ... An excellent idea. To the Greeks the world and the gods were the work of an unfathomable necessity; this is fairly reasonable ... Ormuzd lives in conflict with Ahriman; this seems not unreasonable. But that a God Jehovah creates this world of misery and affliction ... and then applauds himself, this is something intolerable. [PP, II, 301]
By translating “life of samsara ought not to be” into “human existence ought not to be,” Schopenhauer presents another moral lesson in this regard. Since, as genuine Christianity endorses it, this existence is “a guilt, a false step,” and since “man is something that really ought not to be,” we must forbear each other and regard “troubles, vexations, sufferings, worries and miseries, great and small” as expected and normal. For, “everyone is punished for his existence and indeed each in his own way” (PP, II, 303). This thought is elaborated in the following footnote: The correct standard for judging any man is to remember that he is really a being who should not exist at all, but who is atoning for his existence through many different forms of suffering and through death. What can we expect from such a being? We atone for our birth first by living and secondly by dying. This is also allegorized by original sin. [PP, II, 303]"[ib.]
"Thus, according to Schopenhauer, the sublime human possibility of the denial of the will-to-live is exemplified by the saints and mystics of the Christians, Hindu and Buddhist faiths. He finds New Testament Christianity quite close in spirit to and even influenced by Hinduism. Old Testament Christianity, Judaism and Islam, he finds quite discordant with his favourite religions, for they are more this-worldly rather than other-worldly. Thus he carefully chooses his examples of will’s denial from later Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. The life of one who lives the denial of will is blessed, for it has forever what true experience of art gives us for a few moments:
How blessed must be the life of a man whose will is silenced not from a few moments, as in the enjoyment of the beautiful, but forever, indeed completely extinguished, except for the last glimmering spark that maintains the body and is extinguished with it ... Nothing can distress or alarm him anymore; nothing can any longer move him; for he has cut all the thousand threads of willing which hold us bound to the world, and which as craving, fear, envy and anger drag us here and there in constant pain. [W, I, 390]
That such denial is nothing but what we have called “death-contemplation” is evident in the concluding words of the autobiography of Madame de Guyon, the “holy penitent” for whom Schopenhauer has the greatest reverence:
Everything is indifferent to me; I cannot will anything more; often I do not know whether I exist or not ... The noonday of glory; a day no longer followed by night; a life that no longer fears death, even in death itself, because death has overcome death, and because whoever has suffered the first death will no longer feel the second. [W, I, 391]"[ib.]
I see why N. picked on the metaphor of the Noonday in TSZ...
"“As the individual thing is related to the Idea, so is suicide to the denial of the will. The suicide denies merely the individual, not the species” (W, I, 399).
Thus suicide is a reaction to individual or one’s own sufferings, whereas the denial comes from a realization of the inherent and possible sufferings of all who draw their breath. This, Schopenhauer explained in the beginning of his discussion of the denial of the will- to-live.
Suicide is also called the “masterpiece of Maya,” since it is “the most blatant expression of the contradiction of the will-to-live with itself.” We may conclude that whereas the denial is a free denial of itself based on the knowledge of itself, a distinct possibility in its human phenomenon only, suicide is will’s “blatant expression” or “self-contradiction” of another kind. It is not based on will’s knowledge of itself but a rash reaction prompted by will’s frustration in not realizing its ongoing desires and cravings. In the will’s highest form, that is, human existence, the conflict caused by will’s commands not only makes the individuals to be willing to exterminate each other but could also prompt “an individual to declare war on himself”:
Suicide is like a sick man who after the beginning of a painful operation that could completely cure him, will not allow it to be completed by prefers to retain his illness ... This is the reason why almost all ethical systems, philosophical as well as religious condemn suicide, though they themselves cannot state anything but strange and sophistical arguments for so doing. [W, I, 399]
Will-to-live is not a stuff that can be broken by force: “The will-to-live cannot be abolished by anything except knowledge. Therefore the only path to salvation is that will should appear freely and without hinderance, in order that it can recognize or know its own inner nature in this phenomenon” (W, I, 400).
This means that suicide obviously involves violence, whereas the denial is the path of non-violence rooted in a superior and fundamental knowledge."[ib.]
Quote :
"The knowledge that is requisite for the denial of the will-to-live must be independent of anything like free choice; “That denial of willing, that entrance into freedom, is not to be forcibly arrived at by intention or design, but comes from the innermost relation of knowing and willing in man” (W, I, 404). This fundamental change in one’s inner nature is not a matter of intention, design, or deliberate choice, but “comes suddenly, as if flying from without. Therefore the church calls it the effect of grace.”
In Section 70, Schopenhauer examines the relevant Christian concepts like grace, being born again, original sin, and so on. Not only that, he finds his own philosophy, especially its final moments as described in Book IV of the WWR, in accord with the spirit of Christianity, but showing an impact of Hindu thought on his peculiar version of Christianity. Although the concept of God is conspicuous by its absence, his own concepts seem to be secularized versions of some important Christian concepts:
“The doctrine of original sin (affirmation of the will) and of salvation (denial of the will) is really the great truth which constitutes the kernel of Christianity, while the rest is in the main only clothing and covering, or something accessory.”
Schopenhauer has a special fascination for the doctrine of the original sin, which he finds in accord with the Hindu and Buddhist theory of karma. The connection between karma (action) and jnana (knowledge) is again visible in the following “Christian” interpretation of the will’s denial:
“Thus we see that genuine virtue and saintliness of disposition have their first origin not in deliberate free choice (works) but in knowledge (faith), precisely as we developed it” (W, I, 407).
That we abhor nothingness so much is simply another way of saying that we will live so much, that we are nothing but his will and know nothing but it alone. [But] by contemplating the life and the conduct of the saints, to meet with whom is of course rarely granted to us ... but who are brought to our notice by their recorded history  ...we have to banish the dark impression of that nothingness, which as the final goal hovers behind all virtue and holiness. We freely acknowledge that what remains after the complete abolition of the will is, for all who are still full of the will, assuredly nothing. But also conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and denied itself, this very real world of ours with all its suns and galaxies is – nothing. [Footnote: “This is also the Prajna-paramita of the Buddhists, the ‘beyond all knowledge’ ... where subject and object no longer exist.”] [W, I, 412]"[ib.]
I cannot accept "will" as a transcendental force governing existence. What Schopenhauer felt as will was an organic need focused upon a source of gratification, which was may or may not be present. He sensed momentum/movement - thrownness - desiring a direction, a goal, a purpose. He sensed the absence of completion, of finality - as an echo of the near absolute past - seeking completion, finality; seeking being in tis becoming.
Will is not necessary to explain cosmic fluidity or how complex unities can gradually emerge through simple relationships of harmony, producing repulsion/attraction, some finding ephemeral balance in the eternal flux of existence. will can only apply to life, indicating a intentional movement towards, sometimes towards higher degrees of resistance, in opposition to the cosmic rule of the non-living which simply follows, like water flowing down a mountain side, the path-of-least-resistance. A river requires no intent, no will, because it simply follows a course determined by power dynamics.
Schopenhauer’s pessimism offers a challenge of overcoming the finitude of the self and the war with nature, the reward is power. This challenge is rooted in one’s personal ability of how suffering is faced, either with romantic idealism, or with courageous acceptance. For many, his words merely failed to resound with enough redeeming optimism that they feel despondent and myopically critical of his pessimistic approach. Minds who require idealistic platitudes within every exploration of the truth of reality, will be the ones who will understand this type of pessimism as melancholy self-defeatism. The beauty of pain is that it promotes fortitude of self and understanding of existence, that is, to those who are disposed to see it and use it for that purpose. Pleasure is fleeting and forgettable; pain lingers both in the body and in the memory having a greater value for self-development.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
In both the essay on sex and the essay on heredity, Schopenhauer attempts to identify the origins of the will-to-live in pre-moral elements and sexual desires, which are as fundamental as they are repulsive. Here he is not only trying to justify and explain sexual desire but also to validate it as a fundamental force in the constitution of the will-to-live. In the latter, he emphasizes an inner design of the will, for which the species is the ultimate goal and the ultimate meaning. According to him, the will is determined by two factors: that which moves it, i.e. the innate impulses that arise within us, and that which informs it, i.e. Nature.
It is no surprise that Schopenhauer would find the sex drive a useful tool to explain the human will to live. In Schopenhauer’s view, the will-to-life is an ever-expanding urge (a desire) that is constantly frustrated. This tendency in Schopenhauer suggests the possibility of a continuity of human nature (Wesen) even though it might mean that there is no real, individuating experience of this nature, in the sense that the Ego is an illusory mask concealing deeper impulses in the unconscious development, (Kraftigkeit) though Schopenhauer is not quite in tune with the anti-essentialist currents in both philosophy and literature of the time.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Sex drive is a method of overcoming mortality. Whether an organism uses genetic reproduction to pass on a part of itself or, as in your case, it attempts to use memetic reproduction to pass on his/her ego (ego used to differentiate it as the lucid part of self) is a matter of opportunity.
I believe Schopenhauer became pessimistic when he realized he could not preserve himself but only a part of himself, and that only after an unbearable, for him, sacrifice of time and energy, with an uncertain success.
What it preserved is probability.
The connection of Nietzsche's Will to Power and Schopenhauer's Will to Life is probability. Probability for...[fill in the blank according to your personal objective, ideals]
Will to Life indicated the probability of probability, which only suffices for lower organisms. Will to Power indicated the expansion of probability - making the possible probable.
The first is a cycle with no end - leading to pessimism, cynicism...spiritual fatigue easterners envisioned a end to as its final objective. The second makes itself the end - which can never be absolutely realized - leading to a confusion that believes that along with the possible the impossible can also be made probable, as an act of transcending into godliness.
How does one distinguish between what is possible and impossible? This is the gene/meme divide, for to the mind all is theoretically possible whereas for the body much is impossible. An ideal/real divide. Wisdom settled in here, to contemplate.
Probability pushed to its theoretical positive limit reaches the absolute, e.g., god, universal, omnipotent, omniscient - certainty. Probability reduced to its theoretical negative limit falls to absoluteness, on the negative side of the binary. Binaries (dualism) is how the mind perceives fluidity - reducing it to an either/or it can process - relative to its own metabolic rhythms. Binaries are also relative to order and chaos - that which can be given a probability quotient and that which can never be given one; energies with pattern and those lacking all pattern. Complexity and chaos are often conceptualized as a single idea.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
SHOGGOTH MK 1
Gender : Posts : 7 Join date : 2021-08-12 Location : The Quantum Multiverse
Indeed, the dualism of order/chaos is often confused with the dualism of complexity/simplicity.
Order is a pattern that can include chaos within itself.
There is a deeper division within the greater binary that has been lost in history, like the Infinite and the Finite. After all, in both order and chaos there is the potential for transformation, e.g., the energy of an atom, which can fuse and fission.
The body is a material process, a continuous, living stream of molecules and ions at work within and in the environment. The mind attempts to cohere static, stable forms from this flow of energy and information - conscious of the materiality of the body and aware of the material nature of its environment. Through binary series of unfolding, it itself gains access to the ternary, Pierce's 'third universe', the universe of the Sign, which exceeds the two elements of the opposition.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
What is new and groundbreaking about Schopenhauser's philosophy is - at least for me (!) - the detachment from the dualistic body-soul(psyche) schema of the world split: the soul (psyche) no longer appears, the bodily impulses manifest or objectify themselves in the body without its intervention.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
He replaces body/mind with will/representation and then reduces the duality to a singularity: Will, replacing the one-god of Abraham, or the 'prime mover' with an abstraction that denotes activity and agency. He then sets Will outside space/time, causality....which is what Abrahamism does in the form of a consciousness preexisting space/time or existence. An existent preexisting existence.....becomes a will preexisting willing.
I challenge this, placing will within existence - space/time causality - and only in regards to life - as that which distinguishes it from non-living energies. I replace Will, or prime mover, with Energy, and do not project it as being beyond space/time and causality but as an alternate term for it.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Kultur
Gender : Posts : 234 Join date : 2021-02-14 Location : Faustian Land
What is new and groundbreaking about Schopenhauser's philosophy is - at least for me (!) - the detachment from the dualistic body-soul(psyche) schema of the world split: the soul (psyche) no longer appears, the bodily impulses manifest or objectify themselves in the body without its intervention.
Nietzsche took the theme from Schopenhauer and developed it into an impressive appeal against Christian contempt for the body.
And Freud took the concept of will from Schopenhauer and made his drive model out of it. He also took over some things from Nietzsche, but most of all from Schopenhauer.
In German there is the distinction between "Körper" and "Leib" (both can only be translated as "body" in English). The "Körper" is the inanimate, the dead body, if you like, the corpse; and the Leib is the animate on/at the body.
For this reason there are again very many misunderstandings in translation, because the other languages have only one word for it, e.g. in English "body".
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
"'In the anxiety and confusion, the sudden calm in the thought of the foetus that one was.' (Emile Cioran, De l'inconvénient d'être né, Of the Disadvantage of Being Born, 1973, p. 20). - In the neighbourhood of these sentences, which would be enough to consolidate Cioran's position as the second patriarch of Eurobuddhism - the first was Schopenhauer - the author writes down a remark ...." (Peter Sloterdijk - translated by me).
So, according to Sloterdijk Schopenhauer was the first patriarch of Eurobuddhism.
Last edited by Kultur on Sat 1 Jul 2023 - 16:12; edited 1 time in total
Kultur
Gender : Posts : 234 Join date : 2021-02-14 Location : Faustian Land
My translation: "Mr. Schopenhauer has cancelled his lecture today, because Mr. Schopenhauer has not finished thinking."
The above sign with the impressive sentence actually hung on the door of a Berlin university where Schopenhauer taught (having a rival in Hegel). At that time, such a text was still possible in the university. Imagine having a professor who cancelled his lecture because he could not finish thinking.
Kultur
Gender : Posts : 234 Join date : 2021-02-14 Location : Faustian Land
For Schopenhauer, "the most real thing had ceased to be a divine rational-just spiritual being. With his doctrine of the will, the theory of the world's ground leaps over from pious rationalism ... to a recognition of the arational marked by horror and astonishment. Schopenhauer first establishes the non-rational energy and drive nature of being. In this he is one of the fathers of the psychoanalytic century; in the future he could also prove to be a distant patron and relative of a chaos-theoretical and systemic age. The fact that he opened the European doors to the Asian wisdom teachings, Buddhism in particular, with the greatest respect: in the long run, this could be his most important intellectual-historical effect. - It may be that his doctrine of the resignation of the will must sound even more alien to the hunger for life of humanity in today's First World than it did to Schopenhauer's contemporaries ...; but it reminds us even today that the unleashed hunger for life will not be able to solve the problems that its free outlet creates by its further increases. - The sentence could have come from Schopenhauer: Only despair can still save us; of course, he was not talking about despair, but about renunciation. For the moderns, renunciation is the most difficult word in the world. Schopenhauer shouted it against the surf." (Peter Sloterdijk - translated by me).
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37196 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Unless there's a subtle nuance to the word 'will' his choice also cultivated the delusion that existence is intentional. Energy would have been more accurate....movement/momentum. Will would be applicable only to life and is the focus of this movement/momentum. Will is what differentiates the living from the non-living.
A stone rolling down a hill has no will, but a will can be projected into it by an observing organism.
His choice simply adjusted god's will, or divine will, by eliminating the part that differentiated it from Buddhism.
Perhaps the current denial of free-will can be traced to his use of that term - later adopted by Nietzsche who added nothing to Schopenhauer's existentialism but only contributed to the psychology of how man ought to react to this insight - rejecting pessimism because it leads to nihilism. His 'Übermensch' and 'eternal return' substituting Abrahamic tropes for the mediocre masses who could not cope with truth about existence. 'Übermensch' being a hypothetical future man that has transcended humanity's primal impulses and can cope with the truth about existence. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche both could not, and so neither reaffirmed life in practice.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Kultur
Gender : Posts : 234 Join date : 2021-02-14 Location : Faustian Land
Natural science celebrated its greatest triumphs in the 19th century, especially in its second half. All Europeans believed in natural science (even the communists!). It is no wonder that in this period someone philosophised about how to bring together natural science, especially physiology, on one side and the will to power and the Übermensch on the other side, but forgot that there is something in man that is even stronger but can never be explained by natural science.
Even during the Enlightenment, there was a similar feeling of elation, which was then greatly dampened during the Romantic and Idealist Period and still is today.
Man is not able to exploit nature because of his will, but because of the leeway he has because he has his language, because it is human language that gives the leeway through which the situations in which, for example, animals are trapped, can be overcome. People create their own situations. Instead of situations, they are trapped in language.
The only time when people were really right in believing in science, by which was meant above all or even exclusively natural science, was during the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. Because science was still going up so much at that time - and that always means that you can have high expectations - and no negative effects on life and nature were known. In the 19th century, things had long since changed - despite the huge successes. This is still true today (by "today" I mean the period from the end of World War 2 to the present day and probably to the future too), although in the meantime the negative side effects have already become huge main effects and science basically does not get any further, but only serves as a slave to technology.
Kultur
Gender : Posts : 234 Join date : 2021-02-14 Location : Faustian Land
Natural science celebrated its greatest triumphs in the 19th century, especially in its second half. All Europeans believed in natural science (even the communists!). It is no wonder that in this period someone philosophised about how to bring together natural science, especially physiology, on one side and the will to power and the Übermensch on the other side, but forgot that there is something in man that is even stronger but can never be explained by natural science.
Even during the Enlightenment, there was a similar feeling of elation, which was then greatly dampened during the Romantic and Idealist Period and still is today.
Man is not able to exploit nature because of his will, but because of the leeway he has, because he has his language, because it is human language that gives the leeway through which the situations in which, for example, animals are trapped, can be overcome. Humans create their own situations. Instead of situations, they are trapped in language.
The only time when people were really right in believing in science, by which was meant above all or even exclusively natural science, was during the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. Because science was still going up so much at that time - and that always means that you can have high expectations - and no negative effects on life and nature were known. In the 19th century, things had long since changed - despite the huge successes. This is still true today (by "today" I mean the period from the end of World War 2 to the present day and probably to the future too), although in the meantime the negative side effects have already become huge main effects and science basically does not get any further, but only serves as a slave to technology.
Every philosophy today must also contain a critique of technology and its suppliers. This is especially true for the types of technology that want to biologically change humans. I am not only referring to genetic engineering, but also, and especially, to digital technology. Not long ago, no one could have foreseen the digital revolution, so much is it something really new. Since it has been there, however, the time intervals between the phases of revolution (innovation phases) have been decreasing exponentially.
According to the results of my philosophy or theory or phenomenology - it doesn't matter, because it's all language - the reason why man revolts against nature, fights it, is not his will, but his language. The human will is already a product of human language.
Before man spoke, his will was different. He himself was a prehuman at that time. It was only through language that prehuman became human. And human is in addition to be understood here as a person. You become a person when you acquire the language. So human babies up to the age of about 8 months are not yet persons, but also no longer prehumans, because they are already directly descended from humans (despite the fact that they are indirectly [very long ago] descended from prehumans).
Humans in this sense (persons) have a different will than the prehumans (prepersons) had/have. And the human (personal) will is one of the countless products of human (personal) language.
The human being can switch between his objectified factuality mediated by his language and his subjective factuality known from before, from which he has emancipated himself after babyhood and occasionally dives back into it, indeed must dive back into it, by regridifying (resubjectifying). He cannot only objectify, but must also resubjectify again and again. And this resubjectivising also enables him to be speechless (pre-linguistic) again like a baby or prenatal living being (perhaps also similar to an animal or a plant or even further).
The human being cannot go beyond his language. Everything he attempts beyond that remains an attempt, remains his language (thus also the highest, most abstract languages like philosophy, logic, mathematics, computer languages, AI, etc.). He cannot go beyond his language. But he can come below his language. He can come before his language, i.e. into pre-language or even into animal language or non-language. But he cannot get beyond his language. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Last edited by Kultur on Mon 3 Jul 2023 - 12:14; edited 9 times in total
