/lit/ - Literature

Discord and Twitter posts should be a mandatory 24 hour ban.

>>20192701
>Schopenhauer
>Neoplatonic or vedantic

I don't know what corporeality specifically has to do with it, corporeality in Schopenhauer is just a result of the composition of various physical forces, which manifest like anything else as part of Representation's progressive emanation from the Will. Or I guess it would be more appropriate to say its dialectical self-differentiation or something, since strictly speaking the development of the realm of Representation or Idea is "impelled" by the Will but not a subset of it (Schopenhauer leaves entirely open the question of why there are two primordial domains/forms of being, Will and Representation).

Technically everything should be determinate in Schopenhauer, we don't really have free will. Our "character" is pre-determined like anything else in nature. So really, there is no free will, although obviously most Schopenhauerians don't follow Schopenhauer's actual system very closely and are free to modify this in a more Kantian direction that allows for free will. But I guess the Discord tranny is not talking so much about free will as about the possibility of liberation from "samsara?" But again, then I don't know why corporeality is what is decisive. Corporeality is just yet another grade or complex of forces within Representation.

Schopenhauer's quasi-Buddhist, quasi-Vedantic thoughts on the possibility of liberation are probably closest to Zen, Taoism, or Theravada, or to other attempts to find a "minimal" nondual praxis in which understanding and transcendence of samsara doesn't result in some mystical vanishing or becoming a rainbow body, it just results in zen-like chill. "Before enlightenment, carry water; after enlightenment, carry water."

But once again, no one says you have to follow Schopenhauer on this. You can easily integrate him with neoplatonism or hermeticism if you want to, since the most insightful parts of his thought are the unsystematic ones. The system is the least interesting.

>>20193036
He sort of is in a loose way. He read Anquetil-Duperron's translation of the Upanishads very closely throughout his life, and followed the development of Buddhist and Hindu studies closely. Anquetil-Duperron was actually translating a Mughal syncretist text that (if I remember right) incorporated both Shankara's commentary and later Sufi commentary, and Schopenhauer knew this and knew enough to figure out which parts were original and which parts were the accreted commentary layers and note all this in his personal copy. He was definitely familiar with mid 19th century discourse on Buddhism and Hinduism.

He is sort of neoplatonist in a loose sense in that his cosmology is emanationist but it owes more to Schelling than to anything like Pseudo-Dionysius.

>>20192707
Agreed