Good old Copleston, the Thomas Aquinas loving jesuit. His history of philosophy will never be surpassed.

As Coppleston rightly says here, Kant saw (as Schopenhauer did too) that there can only be ONE underlying reality. This follows from the fact that space, time and identity are constructs of the mind (rather than that underlying reality 'transcends' space and time, as he says here). Another point I'd like to make is that Reality in itself is, strictly speaking, UNDIFFERENTIATED rather than 'one' which implies 'many' by which it is contrasted. The 'many' is an illusion, appearance only.

watching this on my TV (on my wii) thank you so much for posting these, an absolutely incredible resource

Aren't we lonely already? Personally I find in Schopenhauer a soul mate. He doesn't console you but lifts you in higher spheres by deep insights. It is more comforting than lies of religion, ''metaphysics for the folk''. With him you find that you are not alone. You don't have to read him to lose naiveness. Experience family violence, war, stupidity of masses when guided in catastrophe by skillful demagogue... and you can't watch world in the same way. History is not changing nor is men.

The thought that this kind of content was aired on TV at some point in the past, makes me depressed. I think there is an objective element to the saying that "everything used to be better", at least when refering to the last couple of decades.

Thanks for putting this up, very insightful and informative.

Flame0430, you have my deepest gratitude for this and all your other priceless uploads.

Baside great CONTENT to understand in a better way great presenters of a decade or more before also gave a great feeling of their majestic depths of understanding and simplicity of flow telling. THANKS.

I've got the book that was published by Magee and i've been searching these programs for so long. Thanks, thanks flame0430. This will help to improve my english and knowledge about philosophy.

I am really happy to see all of the views that these videos get!

And finally Germania can be defined as what is modern day Germany with Alsace and Lorrain perhaps and then some of what is now Poland, populated with the various Germanic tribes of old-Jutes, Saxons, Teutons, Visigoths etc. Greatness is defined intuitivly as men of great talent in the Arts and Sciences, courageous and free and have through their respective works left the world in the light of greater understanding and beauty that previously wasn't there before their impingment upon this world

I agree, it was an odd thing for Coppleston to say about Schopenhauer, that 'conceptual mastery over the world of phenomena' was his intention. Aren't all philosophers after a conceptual understanding of the world? In any case, Schopenhauer's intention was to understand not so much the world of phenomena as the reality behind it, the noumenon. Nor was he after a mere conceptual understanding. On the contrary, the insight he attains has profound life-changing consequencies.

Yes, its like the 'collapse of the wavefunction', the observation, is a transposition of reality into forms necessary for understanding (the equipment design; particle or wave), while before, was unconfined and undefined by those a-prior forms. Same with QM entanglement of two systems.

@cirosuperiore Well if a farmer could explicate the mind-body problem, I'd be most impressed. And if he could not, then perhaps you would be able to do so. The very fact that large questions such as these persist is evidence that philosophy fulfills a very deep need human beings have of framing their questions about the world, whether or not they can be answered scientifically, or indeed, in principal.

Reality can not be represented as it is in itself (Noumenal reality), within the confines of an object (mind) less complicated than itself. To be known, reality must conform to a-priori conditions of understanding; forms under which reality is understood. The result, phenomenal reality cannot be considered independent of an observer, and includes conceptual artifacts not discoverable in reality apart from an observer; space, time, causality. We get a sense of this in quantum electrodynamics.

It seems that in accordance with Kant's Kritik (1st book) and Schopenhauer's ideas (The worls as will and representation) it is not only QED that agrees , but also Quantum Relativity's cornerstone yncertainty principle.

Frederich Copleston wrote that because Schopenhauer was such an amazing writer people think there is something there. I always struggled to see Copleston's point. But Copleston was also a genius like Schopenhauer. The super smart see what we can't. J.W Dunne reminds me of Schopenhauer. Dunne was an amazing writer who reckoned he figured out the meaning of life. But Schopenhauer and Dunne didn't influence the smartest next generations. (Rudy Rucker wrote a complicated critique of Dunne in his book on the Fourth Dimension). The thing about Schopenhauer is that he was respected by the top minds like Einstein, Poincare, Kurt Godel, Popper, Wolfgang Pauli and a few others, but they didn't embrace Transcendental Idealism. Very clever people find flaws in Schopenhauer. It this true? Are we seduced by an enchanter? The other explanation is a conspiracy against Author Schopenhauer. But are we to believe Einstein read Schopenhauer and could not understand the philosopher? Or is Copleston correct in saying we have been enchanted by the brilliance of the man?

F.C. Copleston's 'History of Philosophy' started my interest in philosophy. I agree with Schopenhauer's focus on will and phenomena.

noumena is and of itself, it does not require 'discovery' it is the realisation of actuality that is realised in the nature of Being

QUESTION: How does Schopenhauer's idea of the Will relate to the Selfish Gene meme? With S. you get the Will, a metaphysical idea that there is a Will that drives us all and all life forms to propagate itself and we serve/surfer for the Will. In the Selfish Gene, R. Dawkins says it is all about the Gene and well "replicators" such as memes, or cultural 'genes'...

The Will is not some animalistic impulse that has no control or understanding of itself. We must remember that there is an undeniable conscious force that is intelligent and responsible for bringing this Representation ( the Universe) into clear view or some master programmer has all the answers. So, how can we infer that absolute will has a blind drive and only through art or death does it comes to rest or peace within itself. We are only finite beings and cannot introspect absolute will.

@Theemilduque En realidad, lo más probable es que no existan subtítulos para esta entrevista. Te recuerdo que este programa es de los 70s u 80s y en esa época no existía la TV por cable, y, por lo tanto, los programas no se emitían en otros países y no había necesidad de ponerles subtítulos. Sí hubiera algún programa de computadora para ponerle subtítulos yo mismo los haría, pero no creo que exista.

@highlikeafly Haha. you are right my friend. often it is. we play with our words more then we play with Time

absolutely brilliant

@Nonoyawns (including, but surely not limited to, Spinoza and Schopenhauer) and he is seen as a fore-father of the major philosophical trend of existentialism. Finally, both during his life and afterward, Nietzsche was and is considered an essential philosopher in the tradition, with little legitimate academic dispute of his influence. So basically what I'm saying is, if anyone is a philosopher, Nietzsche is indisputably among them.

Dear DerfRellim11, people who has little interest in philosophy that I met were in general people whom's knowledge was incridible,but lack of kindness. Well, instead of seeking for people who has the same interest, you must apply wisdom instead of talking about it. You will find happyness by thinking how can I make my life better with the others, not by thinking who has the same interest.So make people happy and you would be happy!

It is difficult to suggest an adequate English term to convey what 'Vortellung' expresses. What Schopenhauer was trying to convey was the nature of the world of appearances, the phenomenal world: it is a mental construct, as Kant held it to be. I actuallly prefer 'idea' to 'representation' for phenomena do not represent or stand for Will, nor is there a causal relationship; rather the two are aspects of the same thing (Schopenhauer is really a dual aspect theorist). How about: 'phenomena'?

Of course it raises the question, is Kant and Schopenhauer's noumena really noumena or is it also part of phenomena? it appears to be a contradicto in adjecto as both Hegel and Nietzsche said

absolutely brilliant!

Never mind telling me what I need to 'revisit', just address my argument. WHAT exactly do you dispute and WHY?

Well, the will IS noumenal (as Western philosophers would say, rather than 'mystical'). We don't 'give in' to the will, for we ARE the will. The Will is our uttermost essence, our Being. S. talks a lot about the Will being blind. It stumbles on, driven by desire, insatiable striving, without purpose - a pretty grim picture of reality, I know. It is also irrational said S. (prefiguring Freud).

@jezmuff I don't understand the point of denying labels to individuals, especially when the label itself is so vague, and the individual in question is so obviously deserving. Nietzsche is a philosopher for various reasons. First, his writings focus heavily on ethics, aesthetics, and religio among other things, which are all commonly considered the greatest themes of philosophy. Second, he clearly has a place in a philosophical tradition. He referenced various philosophers (specifically Sp CONT

Schopenhauer meticulously deconstructs mechanics of our daily life, desires, sorrows, and happiness......all a biological process. We are indeed moist robots:)

1234fyfe, I think you need to 'reviisit', as you put it, an elementary English grammmar book (though I wouldn't have been, in the ordinary course of events, so rude as to say so). The preposition is 'with' not 'vs': you conflate something WITH something else. In any case, 'conflate' doesn't mean 'confuse', it means, in this context, 'fail to distinguish between two senses'. How can I be conflating 'unitary' with 'undifferentiated' when say, quite clearly, 'undifferentiated rather than one'?

Nietzsche said he considered Schopenhauer a greater philosopher than himself.

I understood what you meant by an imperative. It was the 'mystical' bit that I couldn't make much sense of. Anyway, Will cannot act against itself anymore than a bird can fly over itself. It can only cease its striving, which was Schopenhauer's solution to the pain and suffering in the world c.f Buddhism. By the way, what do you mean by 'even' Schopenhauer? There is no 'Good' that the Will can excercise that can end the suffering other than cessation.

Indeed.

Energy, that the noumenon MANIFESTS as, is phenomenon, but Will is itself noumenon. The noumenon is unknown, will is unknown. You might say that the will is not unknown and that I experience it, but this is not so. I do not, cannot, experience my will anymore than an eye can see itself. I cannot observe myself in the act of willing. Always it is AFTER the act of willing that I percieve it. I AM that will. I AM that noumenon. Therefore I cannot know it or perceive it.

@godno1god no you're quite right in my mind. psychedelics are ontological confrontations of utmost sincerity and urgency. it is no suprise that it inspires philosophical thinking. often paralleling the greatest traditions of eastern philosophy - and the western minds that spoke of similar things.

I rather like Russell's "History..." but it's a personal view of a man of his time. And quite a good read.

@xARMINIUSx Nietzsche a greater man and bigger risk taker, meaning? Just curious what you have in mind. I must say I realize while I agree with more pragmatic, grounded, empirical anti-systematic thinkers, I have a fondness for metaphysics and systems and grand philosophies that give us big pictures, even if they are fictitious, merely poetic works. But what's real mean for Nietzsche?

It's not JUST some animalistic impulse, for Will is in everything: in pig, tree, jellyfish, bacterium, photon...in human unconsious as well as, yes, conscious, but just as conscious and unconscious are fundamentally one, so all else is fundamentally ONE. The conscious is a mere patina on the vast, dark, fathomless Noumenal Will beneath. S. himself called it blind. It devours Itself. Few today would hold with you such an optimistic Enlightenment position - Habermas perhaps. How 'undeniable'?

has somebody the title of this vid? I mean, the speech in written form? if, yes, send me! I'm not a native English speaker... so... it's hard to understand it all ieBrazil

Why "pessimistic"? Why "pessimism"? Unfair title of his philosophy. "Realism" is, for me, the most appropiate.

Copleston seems rigid in his thought compared with Magee, who is the better philosopher here. Unfortunate pairing in what otherwise was an excellent series. Nothing like this exists on today's television - evidence I think of the dumbing-down that commercialism and free-market ideas have wrought in the public realm.

conceptual mastery,, wowl;';

Sir, maybe its your sense of reason and not my articulation thats in question here. An imperative is the conscious force of the Will that can and does excercise its "Good"-- reacting against its so-called necessary "Evil", which stems from a temporal attribute of material desire. Even, Schopenhauer would have seen this. Once again, Im not questioning the reality of a transcendental Will but the Absolute character of its Will and purpose for Universal order and a highly complex genetic code

lol! I gotta clarify for my sake. He was a terrible reader of philosophy? He read terribly? He understood philosophy poorly? He along with G.E Moore was loosely credited with linguistic analysis, a form of clarification for philisophical statements that were arguably obscure. He wrote book after book on the subject that suggested he had a great grasp of philisophical problems. So why if he was terrible, who's not and where does that leave you and I? Ah I guess we can still criticize right?

Edward the second and Richard the second! What does David Hume think of it?

I don't think it is dry at all. It's not an action movie, it's a scholarly work.

@DerfRellim11 i feel for you man! this stuff is what life is all about, and you try to share it or make sense of it with the people around you and all you hear is, sex, beer, girls, yea!

He was interested in truth and he thought that he found it.Vanity is the first thing that came to my mind when I have read your answer.I don't understand well. We all want to realise our will and we are all vane a bit.Look at me,playing smart man on YT.As for the will as a metaphysical principle it matters not if you are fighter for truth or deceiver.Only in our world as a representation we will judge.Other philosophers that Schopenhauer despised were just following their will.Were they wrong?

@elpapaya94 I don't know.

His history of Philosophy is dry and tedious; but much more preferable to Russell's 'History of Western of Philosophy' which is lamentable in the extreme.

A'int that the question?. To Be Or Not. Catholicism or Atheism. I have been fascinated by how a COPPLESTON, HANS KUNG, could remain CATHOLIC. I have also understood how to be an atheist. Have ended up a Vedanta Hindu .

@clusterherpes Aww man you're so cool. I thought nobody else had read that story XD

OK, fair enough. What do you think he means by there being a 'mystical imperative' to the Schopenhauerian Will? Presumably you understood something by it to be able to disagree with it. Incidentally I thought you were bullshitting because you didn't say exactly WHAT you didn't 'admit' and WHY you didn't admit it - just saying you disagree and nothing else isn't contributing anything to the debate.

13point7, a bit much yes? No one suggested it was a competition between the Teuton and the Jew. qqmor, not convincing examples with Spielberg, Frank, Kubrick, entertaining and courageous in their own way, I would not put them on par with the great thinkers, German or Jew. RationalE-you can mention individuals who are many years apart and I think our friend would argue that they have a common backround, that backround being blood and kinship. But he wasn't convincing was he?

I find that incredibly hilarious.

@Theemilduque Yo lo haría se alguien me explica como

The Will goes beyond just representation. Within itself, there are two apriori counter active attributes off Intellect and Form. These are indubious transcendental superflous traits within the empirical world,and reasons with the evil representative Will of Schopenhauer. So, we should not assume that Will is Absolute reprobal. Schopenhauer, on Buddhist principles recognized Maya (Desire of the Will) and Atma (Freedom of the Will). We must remember there is always a balance in NAtuRE.

And the most curious point I would ask, is how could the most learned person in Britain be a CATHOLIC? It amazes me. (No offense to believers).

Sí, ojalá los hubiera

Vagaries... I believe...English accent hard to tell

On a superficial level perhaps, but his philosophy itself is profoundly religious, and would not have come about if he'd listened to the likes of Dawkins and not read the Upanishads et al.

Well, it's hardly brilliant just to say, 'I don't not [sic] admit that', without saying what specifically you don't admit, let alone on what grounds you don't admit it. People aren't to know you were challenging him on the 'must' bit - they aren't mind readers. Look, I'm not defending SirMelanin. He isn't much cop at articulating his ideas, and you've got to use a large measure of imagination intuiting what he means (if he means anything at all).

@lemerdealepen I wouldn't say philosophy is easy or even that anybody can do it. Most people really suck at it. They in fact see the world as they are told to see it. Most of his work was done before 30. Perhaps he was gay?

Actually from what I've read he was very sexually active, at least in his younger days, & if you think philosophy is easy I guess haven't tried reading Kant, Hegel, Derrida among others.

people study philosophy for the sake of studying philosophy

If you accept Schopenhauer even in a superficial way, you cannot consistently disrespect phenomenology (which I would say you can't reasonably do anyway, unless you're fed on silly rhetoric (or don't you "see"?))...

@Phavonic I pretty much dislike the charlatan you've mentioned. Pure reason, then.

people dont study philosophy for its usefulness......

did this guy help atheist ayers except Jesus before his death

I am in error this problem is irrational and blind faith in the east!

@SanGuevara It's because they're losers. Don't worry, my friends are losers too. Not because they don't like Schopenhauer but for not being interested in academic lectures

at 0:09 he says vagaries of fashion

Anne Frank is a stretch.

@melvinbrand Oh, I should not laugh... How immature of me!

@melvinbrand Your use of english it is deplorable.

the subject / object discussion is such a crock...please leave that up to the neurologists, and neuropsychologists and not to philosophy. the world of experience is a scientific questions not a philosophical question.

Don't admit what, exactly? I think you're bullshitting.

"The first western philosopher to be openly and explicitly atheist". Rubbish. Baron d'Holbach was that before Schopenhauer and as far as I know there was a medievil European philosopher who was atheist as well.

@hillsidePonderer there was a time when philosophy was the science that presumed to study nature. that was the time of Aristotle and Plato and other arm-chair philosophers up to Heidegger or Sartre. None ever contributed anything to the understanding of reality. a shoemaker a blacksmith or a farmer knew infinitely more than any philosopher about matter and nature. Philosophy is a dead subject just like alchemy or astrology. Ethical philosophy may be their only saving grace.

Reality can not be represented as it is in itself (Noumenal reality), within the confines of an object (mind) less complicated than itself. To be known, reality must conform to a-priori conditions of understanding; forms under which reality is understood. The result, phenomenal reality cannot be considered independent of an observer, and includes conceptual artifacts not discoverable in reality apart from an observer; space, time, causality. We get a sense of this in quantum electrodynamics.