On the Freedom of the Will by Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.18415287]

>Every causality and every explanation presupposes some original force; therefore an explanation never explains everything, but always leaves something inexplicable. We see this in the whole of physics and chemistry; in their explanations, the forces of nature are everywhere presupposed; such forces manifest themselves in the phenomena, and the whole explanation consists in reducing things to them. A force of nature itself is not subject to any explanation, but is the principle of all explanation. Nor is a force of nature subject to any causality, but is precisely that which endows every cause with causality, i.e., the capacity to produce an effect. It is itself the common substratum of all the effects of this kind and is present in each of them.

>Thus the phenomena of magnetism are reduced to an original force called electricity. Here the explanation stops; it gives merely the conditions under which such a force manifests itself, i.e., the causes that call forth its efficacy. The explanations of celestial mechanics presuppose gravitation as the force by virtue of which the particular causes are here effect in determining the course of the heavenly bodies. The explanations of chemistry presuppose the secret forces that manifest themselves as elective affinities according to stoichiometric relations. To these forces are ultimately due all the effects which promptly occur when called forth by specified causes. IN just the same way, all explanations of physiology presuppose the vital force, which reacts in a definite way to specific inner and outer stimuli. And so it is everywhere. Even the causes dealt with by so comprehensible a science as mechanics, such as impact and pressure, presuppose impenetrability, cohesion, rigidity, hardness, inertia, gravity, elasticity, which are unfathomable forces of nature no less than those just mentioned. Hence causes everywhere determine nothing more than the when and where of the MANIFESTATIONS of original, inexplicable forces, and only on [the latter's] assumption are [the former] causes, i.e., necessarily bring about certain effects.

[Anonymous No.18415295]

>Now just as this is the case with causes in the narrowest sense and with stimuli, so too is it equally the case with MOTIVES [of the will]; for in essence motivation is not different from causality, but is only a form of it, namely causality that passes through the medium of cognition. Therefore here too the cause calls forth only the manifestation of a force that cannot be reduced and consequently cannot be explained any further. The force in question, which is called WILL, is known to us not merely from without as are the other forces of nature, but also from within and immediately by virtue of self-consciousness.

>Only on the assumption that such a will is present and is of a definite quality in a particular case are the causes directed to it, here called motives, efficacious. This particularly and individually determine quality of the will, by virtue of which the will's reaction to the same motives is indifferent in each human being, constitutes what we call his CHARACTER. ... It determines first of all the mode of operation of the different kinds of motives on the given human being. For it underlies all the effects that are called forth by the motives, just as the universal forces of nature underlie the effects that are produced by causes in the narrowest sense ... Like the forces of nature, this character is also primordial, unalterable, and inexplicable.

[Anonymous No.18415297]

>>18415287
Literally self help-tier "philosophy".

[Anonymous No.18415352]

>>18415287
>>18415295
OP here, with my question now. Is it just me or does this seem like a step BACK from Kant's formulation? This is all Kantian, but Kant would insist that the impenetrability of the fundamental forces is just part of the structure of our cognition. He would (and did) explicitly state that we know nothing about the "interior" of the phenomena. A relevant quote by Nietzsche:
>We have discovered a manifold succession where the naive man and investigator of older cultures saw only two things, "cause" and "effect," as it was said; we have perfected the conception of becoming, but have not got a knowledge of what is above and behind the conception. The series of "causes" stands before us much more complete in every case; we conclude that this and that must first precede in order that that other may follow but we have not grasped anything thereby. The peculiarity, for example, in every chemical process seems a "miracle," the same as before, just like all locomotion; nobody has "explained" impulse.

Schopenhauer seems to be implying that we do know the underlying laws or aspects of nature, like gravity or certain ratios and constants, are "given," and are given in a stable and unchanging way, i.e., they are simple and primordial, and atemporal, underlying all temporal and contingent phenomena. But that would be synthetic a priori knowledge of nature ITSELF, of the thing in itself, not of the conditions of our knowledge (the only a priori knowledge permitted by Kant).

Kant would say we don't know whether the thing in itself, nature as she really is, is "really" what we see, how we see it, let alone whether it is unchangingly and essentially so.

Even weirder then is Schopenhauer's reduction of the will to a non-Kantian, non-living, mechanical "function," with an inert and constant nature, like the law of gravity. Not only does Schopenhauer not know any of the above about the laws of nature, he further doesn't know whether the will is like or unlike them "in itself," because he doesn't know anything in itself (if he is a Kantian).

It's not even like Schopenhauer is rejecting Kant's position consciously. He's using Kant to say something Kant specifically and deliberately spoke out against. Not just against it being true, but against our ability ever to even know whether it's true or not.

>>18415297
Ironically relevant what Schopenhauer is talking about here. Even if you are shitposting, your mind is so trained and conditioned by social media discussion formats that you didn't even read the excerpt, just saw Schopenhauer's face and decided on what "camp" you are in relative to him. That frightens me and I hope there's enough left of you in there that it frightens you too.