I studied TWWR for many years and was able to work out a similar “compromise” from his metaphysical system. So it’s neat to read this for the first time. But I’ve hit a snag. First, I cringe at his notion that intelligence is fixed from birth. Now, I’m seeing where he holds some clearly racist ideas in Ch. 2. I knew about the sexism, but the racism is just as repulsive. I want to continue reading, but it’s leaving a bad taste in my mouth. How do you handle this sort of thing?
For me it's very easy. I don't read authors with any expectation that I have to like, agree with, or endorse what they're saying at every point. And when it comes to stuff you find off-putting, you make a judgement call. If there's too much of a bad taste in your mouth, well then, you just stop reading and do one of the many other things you could be doing. If you don't find the "bad taste" reason enough to stop reading, you note it, and keep on reading for the stuff that's more interesting in the work
I expect that we have quite different tolerances for reading authors whose ideas we find problematic. I couldn't be much of a philosophy teacher and researcher if I only read people whose ideas or assumptions I didn't find objectionable. So what works for me likely won't work for you
So I found where I would diverge on an issue that’s not peripheral to his account. He says of the man whose center of gravity is entirely in himself that he senses being of a different nature than everyone else. That he views the rest of humanity as ‘they’ rather than ‘we’. I don’t think the latter follows from the former. This is where, in my view, Kant’s identifying (good) willing with practical reason itself is superior to Schopenhauer’s schema where they’re separate. I combine Kant’s equation between them with McDowell’s notion of its source in Second Nature, accessible to everyone through proper upbringing, to preserve Schopenhauer’s sensibility of difference (few people are truly *grounded* in Second Nature) without falling into his sense of fated and terminal alienation (the purpose of true education is facilitating that high grounding). As a teacher I appreciate being bound by the principle of humanity in each student (in addition to my own), irrespective of their natural gifts. I taught high schoolers for years as a Schopenhauerian, and I was miserable. I walked away. I’m teaching middle schoolers now as a Kantian, and I couldn’t be happier. Creating an environment that fosters students’ capacity to individuate within the context of the ‘we’ makes all the difference.
Bro, I read this a while back, when Pewdiepie recommended it one time. One thing that stuck out to me was when, I think Schopenhauer wrote that only the intelligent can be happy and reading is a lesser persons activity. It's been a while since I read it and I probably misinterpreted what he said (if he indeed did say something like that (-: ) but it confused me on the topic of philosophy of life and reading. Does that mesh with your interpretation of the text or am I trying to grapple phantoms?
I studied TWWR for many years and was able to work out a similar “compromise” from his metaphysical system. So it’s neat to read this for the first time. But I’ve hit a snag. First, I cringe at his notion that intelligence is fixed from birth. Now, I’m seeing where he holds some clearly racist ideas in Ch. 2. I knew about the sexism, but the racism is just as repulsive. I want to continue reading, but it’s leaving a bad taste in my mouth. How do you handle this sort of thing?
For me it's very easy. I don't read authors with any expectation that I have to like, agree with, or endorse what they're saying at every point. And when it comes to stuff you find off-putting, you make a judgement call. If there's too much of a bad taste in your mouth, well then, you just stop reading and do one of the many other things you could be doing. If you don't find the "bad taste" reason enough to stop reading, you note it, and keep on reading for the stuff that's more interesting in the work
I expect that we have quite different tolerances for reading authors whose ideas we find problematic. I couldn't be much of a philosophy teacher and researcher if I only read people whose ideas or assumptions I didn't find objectionable. So what works for me likely won't work for you
I’m not going to turn away. Those takes are peripheral enough for me.
So I found where I would diverge on an issue that’s not peripheral to his account. He says of the man whose center of gravity is entirely in himself that he senses being of a different nature than everyone else. That he views the rest of humanity as ‘they’ rather than ‘we’. I don’t think the latter follows from the former. This is where, in my view, Kant’s identifying (good) willing with practical reason itself is superior to Schopenhauer’s schema where they’re separate. I combine Kant’s equation between them with McDowell’s notion of its source in Second Nature, accessible to everyone through proper upbringing, to preserve Schopenhauer’s sensibility of difference (few people are truly *grounded* in Second Nature) without falling into his sense of fated and terminal alienation (the purpose of true education is facilitating that high grounding). As a teacher I appreciate being bound by the principle of humanity in each student (in addition to my own), irrespective of their natural gifts. I taught high schoolers for years as a Schopenhauerian, and I was miserable. I walked away. I’m teaching middle schoolers now as a Kantian, and I couldn’t be happier. Creating an environment that fosters students’ capacity to individuate within the context of the ‘we’ makes all the difference.
Glad you found an approach that works for you
Bro, I read this a while back, when Pewdiepie recommended it one time. One thing that stuck out to me was when, I think Schopenhauer wrote that only the intelligent can be happy and reading is a lesser persons activity. It's been a while since I read it and I probably misinterpreted what he said (if he indeed did say something like that (-: ) but it confused me on the topic of philosophy of life and reading. Does that mesh with your interpretation of the text or am I trying to grapple phantoms?
Bro, I don't know what you're asking here
Me neither, bro