Question About Schopenhauer's Fourfold Root

[Anonymous No.14788168]

"the definition of a thing and the proof of its existence are two different and eternally separate things, since through the one we experience what is meant, but through the other that such a thing exists. 'since being is not genus, it is not the essence of anything.' That means 'existence' can never belong to essence; being can never belong to the essence of a thing!"

Is Shope right to conflate being with existence? Or is being a predicate of existence? Otherwise, his critique seems fairly damning. If so, why hasn't it been headed, even now?

[Anonymous No.14788303]

>>14788168
He doesn't conflate it as much as he prescribes being with essence. He's saying that the experience you have with something doesen't dictate its existence. Hence, why he says just because we are being does not mean that its proof of our existance. The proof of our existance IIRC has something to do with his system of the Fourfold root, i'm too lazy right now to crack open the book but once you become familiar with the four classes everything becomes much more clear. its as if he gives you x-ray vision. It's also a lot of Kant.

The wikipedia page on this stuff isen't too bad either.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Fourfold_Root_of_the_Principle_of_Sufficient_Reason