Carl Reichenbach's Odic Force changed how I saw nature and reality. I learned of that maybe in early highschool. It sent me down a long and esoteric path that I still do not fully understand (because I am retarded). These most recent articles of yours have helped put some of that into better framing for me.
I’ve imagined Schopenhauer’s vitalism was more generalized and less biological. From “The Will in Nature”:
… not only the voluntary actions of animals, but the organic mechanism, nay even the shape and quality of their living body, the vegetation of plants and finally, even in inorganic Nature, crystallization, and in general every primary force which manifests itself in physical and chemical phenomena, not excepting Gravity,—that all this, I say, in itself, i.e. independently of phenomenon (which only means, independently of our brain and its representations), is absolutely identical with the will we find within us and know as intimately as we can know anything;
Within the wider Vitalist lens, I wonder if Schopenhauer isn't the truer Evolutionist then, contra Darwin (or in spite of?) Given his recognition of Platonic structures, but with a proto-vitalist inversion, those same structures manifest in a state of becoming (striving) rather then being, Schopenhauer presents a captivating sense of life as evolution - namely, the ongoing change in heritable characteristics, becoming forms, though never attaining them. But I think this gets to your greater point that you lay out so well above.
Why do you say he had suicidal inclinations when he clearly condemned suicide as a means of being free from misery? Do you mean that in hyperbole?
Schopenhauer applied the will as a metaphysical principle which encompassed all of reality. So even things like gravity or radiation embodied the will. I don’t think DNA or any insight into the details of evolutionary theory would have much nullifying power, as these ideas are more like a contextual basin for any physical state or description. I don’t see realistically how evolutionary theory in particular can dismantle anything really, unless it has specifically outlined a particular account of how critters and life came to be narratively speaking.
Carl Reichenbach's Odic Force changed how I saw nature and reality. I learned of that maybe in early highschool. It sent me down a long and esoteric path that I still do not fully understand (because I am retarded). These most recent articles of yours have helped put some of that into better framing for me.
I’ve imagined Schopenhauer’s vitalism was more generalized and less biological. From “The Will in Nature”:
… not only the voluntary actions of animals, but the organic mechanism, nay even the shape and quality of their living body, the vegetation of plants and finally, even in inorganic Nature, crystallization, and in general every primary force which manifests itself in physical and chemical phenomena, not excepting Gravity,—that all this, I say, in itself, i.e. independently of phenomenon (which only means, independently of our brain and its representations), is absolutely identical with the will we find within us and know as intimately as we can know anything;
Within the wider Vitalist lens, I wonder if Schopenhauer isn't the truer Evolutionist then, contra Darwin (or in spite of?) Given his recognition of Platonic structures, but with a proto-vitalist inversion, those same structures manifest in a state of becoming (striving) rather then being, Schopenhauer presents a captivating sense of life as evolution - namely, the ongoing change in heritable characteristics, becoming forms, though never attaining them. But I think this gets to your greater point that you lay out so well above.
Why do you say he had suicidal inclinations when he clearly condemned suicide as a means of being free from misery? Do you mean that in hyperbole?
Schopenhauer applied the will as a metaphysical principle which encompassed all of reality. So even things like gravity or radiation embodied the will. I don’t think DNA or any insight into the details of evolutionary theory would have much nullifying power, as these ideas are more like a contextual basin for any physical state or description. I don’t see realistically how evolutionary theory in particular can dismantle anything really, unless it has specifically outlined a particular account of how critters and life came to be narratively speaking.
Who's Wittman?
Whitman* fuuuucckk