re religions, yes, Schopenhauer says religions are basically metaphysics of the people. And he gives his judgements on which religions he thinks best reflect what he thinks is the 'real' metaphysics: Hinduism, Buddhism and New Testament Christianity. The 'wrong' religions: Judaism, Islam

Time is a confusing concept at first, then it becomes easy and then it becomes even more difficult. When we think of the concept of time without the premise of God it is concept hard to grasp. Then when we think of time as being consequently and simultaneously connected with the creation of matter and change, it seems comprehensible. Then when you try to reconcile our experience of time with the nature of God and what time is to Him or what it is not... Yikes. An immutable being which by definition excludes material, change, limits, location, beginning or end yet is the cause of motion, change, matter and time, it becomes a mystery to us. That there is a being whose existence is outside of time yet within time so that time cannot be outside Him goes beyond what we can know as it goes beyond what we can define by our own experience and existence. God can know all things including what we perceive as the future. This goes beyond a prediction of the inner workings of a system which runs along according to rules and even applies to knowledge of the free actions of every person. All things are present to God and although within creation there is a past, present and future in God there is only present. I am who am. The beginning and end, the Alpha and Omega, all time existence belong to Him as He is being itself. Pure existence, pure actuality, pure power.

@@optimoprimo132 A Defense of Classical Theology (Part 0): Introduction kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qtpdosyFzcXDf30.html

@@tombouie Thanks

@@nidhishshivashankar4885 Thks but even in retirement geek physics, math, electronics, the-wife, etc is hard-enough. What I need is good-old-fashion philosophers to figure this otnological stuff out a lot like Schopenhauer did (ex: better/new axioms to based physics on). Contrary to popular belief, throwing more geek physics, math, electronics, the-wife, etc at it just don't cut the mustard (ex: NP problem instead of a P problem). Again thks the Kant pointer. I guest I can try to read him again (but most of it went over my head).

You can’t judge the quality of British TV based on one programme. This was broadcast mid-week very late at night (when almost no-one was watching) to fulfill the BBC’s public service remit. The whole schedule for the day in question will tell an entirely different story.

Sure that's because most of English society is very low brow. But do we have such programs today?

Yeah there we have the audience made up cretins watching reality T. V.

Your observations are, indeed, very astute. My own criticism of Schopenhauer is that how suicide is possible given that all is will-to-life.

It’s in full force today.

wickedness is only a cognate or synonym of diddums-does-not-like-it; a creature of the emotional function with as many different interpretations or meanings there are men. supposedly it is an extended form of earlier wick "bad, wicked, false" (12c.), which apparently is an adjectival use of Old English wicca "wizard" (see witch). Formed as if a past participle, but there is no corresponding verb. For evolution, compare wretched from wretch. Seemingly it comes from the same stable as the religious/moralistic/normative "evil" which apparently is a species of *Super* diddums- does- not- like it, some sort of religious mumbo jumbo and a net that will catch every and any fish, all of them emanating from the emotional function, which only does like and dislike, yes and no, and is more of a sabre than a scalpel.

@@vhawk1951klFeel better now?

That is almost entirely correct, except that Copleston argured for theism not deism.

Also Wittgenstein was a Christian at the end of his life

@@Lamster66 I had to read a transcript of that debate for a college philosophy course. I think Russell was right in saying just because we identify particular causes for particular events doesn't mean the whole of everything has a cause. It's a different logical sphere. As he says, you're looking for something that can't be got and one ought not to expect to get. Some philosophers say that "Why something instead of nothing?" is the fundamental problem of philosophy. I don't think the question even makes sense. The world is just there. Period. Nor am I bothered by the idea of an infinite regress of causes. I don't feel driven by such a concept to adopt an uncaused cause.

@@Lamster66 It's unfortunate that Coplestone uses the term 'necessary,' because it can only apply to statements that are analytic, unless you want to maintain, like Kant, that there are synthetic a priori statements. Russell, in fact, had at one time believed this, and sets it forth as true in his 1911 book "The Problems of Philosophy." But then Wittgenstein came along and convinced Russell that mathematical propositions were analytic and this collapsed Kant's whole argument for the existence of synthetic a prioris. Russell loved mathematics and certainly didn't want to give up the idea that they were giving us knowledge of the world. But, in fact, they tell us nothing about the world because they hold true for any conditions in any possible world. They're tautologies. They're not statements of fact. They're statements of logical relations.

@@JeffRebornNow Depends on your spiritual bent as some believe that gematria is true.

So basically Schopenhauer is an epicurean

@@le2380 Schopenhauer's philosophy could not be further from Epicureanism. For Schopenhauer the search for happiness is one of humanity's most grotesque moral errors. "Happiness" is only the momentarily relief after satisfying a will. The essence of the will, however, is insatiable and the cause of all human suffering. The daily cheerfulness to which he refers is the one attained through solitude and immersion into an activity that instigates the mind; this is why philosophy, music, and the arts in general, are Schopenhauer's prescription against boredom and suffering.

@@a.steinkeller7048 You understand Schopenhauer very well, but epicureanism less so. Contrary to popular belief they were not primarily seekers of hedonistic pleasure/happiness but actually wanted to minimize suffering and achive "happiness" that way (as a absence of pain, aponia, and reaching tranquility of mind, ataraxia). I believe Schopenhauers method as you describe it is a great way of doing this. Of course he wasn't a epicurian per se, but i still think his philosophy shares resemblance with that part of epicureanism.

@@le2380 Yes, he was not an Epicurean per se. The two points on which the two philosophers most definitely converge are 1- the construction of the world without a naturing (creating) nature (natura naturans) (Schopenhauer, A., Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2016, p. 104); and 2- the division of human needs into three categories - (a) natural and necessary; (b) natural but unnecessary; and (c) unnatural and unnecessary (Schopenhauer, A., Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2016, p. 303).

Magee is impressively clear. F.C.'s history is definitely useful but not well-written. He tackles each philosopher in many sections and relies on an almost pointform style. He can help with difficult sections of difficult thinkers, but it is not a literary showcase.

His history is magisterial. Clear and very helpful.

That book was horrible

@@joeybeann I enjoyed it. Sophie's World for grown ups!

You write: "logically I don't think there is ownership of words according to fields of expertise." Purely out of mild anodyne academic interest what is the syllogism of which the conclusion is "There is no ownership f words" - you having used the word "logically" I wonder what exactly you seek to convey by the words "ownership of words", and speaking as a English lawyer grounded in the common law, the word " ownership" caught my eye because the law- English common law, has no concept of 'ownership' presumably because ownership cannot be defined, thus it simply does not concern itself with whatever 'ownership' might be, and focuses on title and possession. Invariably when ever men(human beings) use words they run up against yet another word, specifically 'meaning' which can probably have as many different 'meanings' as there are men, some of whom occasionally seem to suppose that the ',meaning' of words is written in the sky, fixed or objective, which could not possibly be the case, thus each man will understand words differently be they " will", " energy" or any-word-you-please, and no amount of universal or common languages will ever finally dispose of that problem, if problem it be. Broadly speaking words act as pointer of sorts, thus if I use the word bread to you -as in 'pass the bread', am I not in practice point at X(bread) and saying pas that to me? All very well and good for discrete sensory objects such as X or bread, but not possible for pain yesterday, time, understand, and intelligence, ideas, " will", or " energy" or " Ownership" at which one cannot point because they are associations linked to other associations and thus compounds of what are of non-sensory non-discrete objects or associations Depending on the experiencer, words appear to evoke or give rise to, compound associations, or possibly images or whatever it is that men seek to convey when they use the word " ideas" itself a complex or compound of experiences , immediate or merely remembered , which presumably means -re-assembled, but that subject to your better view. My point is that men seem to simply *assume* that because they have the word they necessarily have the (whatever is meant by) "meaning", and if you ask them what they seek to convey or possibly" mean" by will, or energy, or ownership, it frequently turns out that they have no clear idea and as evidence of that they appear to resort to cognates and synonyms , descriptions and circularity, rather than clear definitions, as you will discover if I invite you to *define* ownership, which I respectfully suggest or anticipate that you cannot, because it is a blaub(pronounced to rhyme with orb), " blaub" " being a neologism of my inventing as a compound of blurb and bla bla bla, and blur and the word blaub is intended to convey something like an unfocused photograph or objected seen through a veil or semi-opaque window, such that one can detect an image of something but it is simply *impossible* to detect or discover of what *exactly* it is an image or photograph or representation of sorts, and so it is with a number-if not thousand of words, such as ownership, meaning, idea, time, intelligence and understanding, and men appear frequently dismayed when they discover that they simply *cannot* arrive at a clear defined, focused meaning understanding or image or other representation or substitute for what they experience in their associative apparatus- sometimes called mind, which is no more than an apparatus or function for generating and linking associations(which appear to be inchoate proxies) of what in there experience is more than an association, so " blaub "indicates an unfocusable word/image/ idea, and in my submission, subject to your better view, ownership, will, energy(and any number of words such as law or right/rights) are blaubs, or in the simplest possible terms words/images/ideas that can simply *Never* be defined or brought into focus, perhaps because the reside in the recesses of the associative apparatus or function which is a species of labyrinth, into which the potential Theseus enters at his peril, for what would he use to examine the associative apparatus wherein in lurk untold and innumerable blaubs, which, rather likes shadows move away from you as you approach them to examine them. They simply*Cannot* be examined clarified, defined or focused, because they are compounds of other blaubs. You simply*Cannot* define ownership without resort to cognates and synonyms descriptions and circularity, because it is *Impossible*, and by the same token you*Cannot* imagine a square circle or a nine-sided triangle, which are conceptual impossibilities, just as there are definitional and experiential impossibilities Oddly enough the associative apparatus is but one of a bundle of functions or apparatuses-or possibly brains [possibly processors], with which men(human beings) are endowed, and if they be indeed processors one wonders who or what wrote the firmware that those processors require? Apparently some suppose a certain mysterious Mr.Evolution to be the author of the firmware, which is apparently " self-writing" and the said processors or apparatuses, self-designing", for what *else* could they be?-species of self-assembling, baking and decorating cakes? Not that I hold any brief for Mr.God, which I take to be fanciful, if not quite as fanciful as Mr. Evolution(or unrolling or unfolding), he being -presumably, a close relative of Mr.Trial-and-error, himself the child of Mr.and Mrs.Invention -Fancy.(of the Cumberland Invention -Fancies - a fine old English family)

Yeah they both agreed in the Will being useful to think about as energy. And not something intrinsic to the mind. Then Copleston concluded that what Schopenhauer called Will comprises much of the subject matter of psychology. I don't really get it tbh.

@@vhawk1951kl What the Kentucky fried fuck are you on about

Any thoughts or ponyers on trascending his emphasis on pessimism?

​@@LeonGalindoStenutz a steady diet of Mozart & Rossini

Why on earth would we want that? His pessimism is wonderful.

@@LeonGalindoStenutz "Everything is meaningless, and that's a good thing" would be the go-to fix/cope, or that the Will is Nothing and therefore nothing of concern.

Same here! Wonderful to hear him live.

it's more like, what experienced entities are when they're not being experienced by our sensory apparatus - we experience things in terms of 5 senses - we know there are more senses in the animal kingdom - but we don't know what a thing is in terms of those other senses - as schopenhauer says at one point, the thing in itself = appearance minus our brain & nervous system, which make things appear in this way (human-wise)

One of de Sade's characters has the same despairing realization.

well, I am not an expert, but, I think it can be possible. First, (W)ill, is not the same as (w)ill, Will can be compared with matter from the objetive or external point of view, so, the negation of Will is like de-matterialize reality, it is like destroy the fundamental reality (as you know, matter cannot be destroyed in physical terms), so here is important to understand the idealistic epistemology of Schopenhauer. (Sorry for my mistakes, I am not a native English speaker.)

Great observation. I too sometimes go read the comments under such videos to get some insights.

Opinions are just that.

Copleston wasn’t really a philosopher so far as being an original thinker or creator of philosophy. He is known as an historian of philosophy and it might be better to say simple that he wrote histories of philosophy. I’m not sure what qualifies one as being a historian of philosophy - in so far as the History of Philosophy is a specialty.

@@johnoneill7947 his history of philosophy volume is by far the best introduction to philosophy ever published

@@TerryStewart32 ^^ This x10,000,000

willie lunchette, Please get your facts straight. Schopenhauer died sitting near his desk, alone. He was the first major philosopher to proclaim,in his publications, that there was never a God, just will-to-life.

This is an adult discussion. Go play with your building blocks in the corner.

If you actually read schopenhauer you will find out that he has a lot to say about jesus

What a stupid comment! I am a believer as well, but by your "understanding" Christians like St. Augustine and Aquinas were just losers and morons who wasted their time.