Posts Tagged causality

Episode 30: Schopenhauer on Explanations and Knowledge

Discussing Arthur Schopenhauer’s On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, published in 1847 (as an expansion of his doctoral thesis from 1813).

What kinds of explanations are legitimate? S. thought that causal and logical explanations are often confused, resulting in philosophical errors. In laying out the four types of explanation — the four versions of the principle of sufficient reason — he clearly elaborates his modernized Kantian epistemology. We also discuss his strange notion of “will” that was so influential on Nietzsche and Freud. Plus, we discuss “Action Philosophers!”and “Walking Dead.”

Read the book online here or purchase it.We also read this chunk of The World As Will and Representation.

End song: “The Answer,” from the forthcoming album Impossible Things by New People.

, , , , , ,

18 Comments

Topic for #30: Schopenhauer’s Twist on Kant’s Epistemology

Schopenhauer is widely known for being influenced by Buddhism’s claim that life is suffering and for in turn influencing Nietzsche, but his major influence is Kant.

On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, was originally written (in 1813) as S’s dissertation but was later expanded and clarified for proper publication (in 1847). He considered this his core work which you need to read to understand any of the rest of it. Whereas most of the other post-Kantians of note (like Hegel, Nietzsche, and Sartre) ignore or deny the existence of Kant’s “thing-in-itself,” i.e. the objective thing prior to our cognizing it, Schopenhauer makes it the core of his philosophy, connecting it with the “will to live.” So that would be the “will” part in his more famous book The World as Will and Representation, which is very large and will have to wait for a future episode for us to look into. The essay we will be reading covers more of the “representation” part of this, with the principle of sufficient reason being the way in which we understand things: we look for their cause, for the reason why the thing is there and is the way it is. Schopenhauer reorganizes Kant’s analysis of our faculties of knowledge by elaborating four classes of explanation that fall under this principle of sufficient reason, which you can preview here if you’d like.

You can read the book online here or purchase it.

, , ,

2 Comments

Nagarjuna speaks!

This cheeseball video (which I refer to in the podcast as the source of my pronunciations of “Nagarjuna” and “Madhyamika”) reveals that Nagarjuna had a midwestern accent and some goofy iMovie effects at his disposal. He likes using the same font as Avatar, too. And is that a ney flute I hear? Hell, yeah!

My design in doing a Buddhism episode was really to look at contributions that specific thinkers have made to still-current debates on metaphysics and epistemology, but as we found, it’s awfully hard not to get sucked into the tenets of Buddhism more generally, and of course being churlish about a world religion is going to raise more hackles than my casting aspersions on Rousseau or Plato.
Read the rest of this entry »

, , , ,

10 Comments

Episode 27: Nagarjuna on Buddhist “Emptiness”

Primarily discussing “Reasoning: The Sixty Stanzas” and “Emptiness: The Seventy Stanzas,” by the 2nd century Indian Buddhist Nagarjuna.

Is the world of our experience ultimately real? If not, does it have something metaphysically basic underlying it? For Nagarjuna, the answers are “no” and “no… well… not that we can talk about.”

Mark and Seth (Wes was sick) are joined by guest Erik Douglas to discuss metaphysics, causality, the possibility of remaking your perceptual habits, why someone who believes that all is empty might still want to act ethically, and how to deny a claim without affirming its equally dubious opposite.

Look at this document for our primary texts plus a couple of others that we mention; we also skimmed Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way. Secondary sources are discussed here.

End song: “Nothing in this World” by by Mark Lint and the Simulacra, recorded partly in 2000 and partly just now.

, , , , , , ,

17 Comments

Episode 24: Spinoza on God and Metaphysics

Discussing Spinoza’s Ethics (1677), books 1 and 2.

We mostly discuss his weird, immanent, non-personal conception of God: God is everything, therefore the world is God as apprehended through some particular attributes, namely insofar as one of his aspects is infinite space (extension, i.e. matter) and insofar as one of his aspects is mind (our minds being chunks or “modes” of the big God mind).

Also, if you’re not going to sell out and go for a university position in philosophy, should you instead grind lenses in your attic without adequate ventilation? (Hint: no) Plus, the Amsterdam of yesterday, whose heady aroma drove people to write like Euclid, property dualism rears its ugly head, and Mel Gibson as Rousseau!

Read a free version online or purchase the book.

One place to read the earlier Spinoza book I refer to, A Short Treatise on God, Man, and his Well-Being (1660), is here. The Karen Armstrong book I keep referring to is The Case for God,and at the end Wes recommends Matthew Stewart’s The Courtier and the Heretic. Seth also brings up Giles Deluze’s Spinoza: Practical Philosophy.
The dumbed down, non-geometric presentation of the Ethics that I talk about is here.

End song: “Spiritual Insect,” by Mark Lint and the Fake from the album So Whaddaya Think? (2000).

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

13 Comments

Episode 19: Kant: What Can We Know?

Reading Immanuel Kant’s Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, which is sort of a post-publication Cliff’s Notes to his Critique of Pure Reason.

Do we have any business doing metaphysics, which is by definition about things that we could not possibly experience?

Kant says that yes, we can, to a limited extent, but that everyone before him did it wrong, because they didn’t understand how our minds interact with the world to create experience. He insists that once you read his book, you’ll never be satisfied with such “twaddle” again!

LEARN about the faculties of Sensibility, Understanding, and Reason! THINK about whether geometric truths are justified by our intuition of space (maybe) and arithmetic is grounded in our intuition of time (probably not). DOUBT whether we actually impose causality on our experience as Kant says! MARVEL at our guest participant, Azzurra Crispino, as she augments the number of speakers on this episode to a PERFECTLY SQUARE number! GAWK as your world is turned up-flicking-side down by Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” (a term we neither use nor explain in this episode)!

Read the book online or buy it.

End song: “Subjectivity” from the 1994 album “Happy Songs Will Bring You Down” by The MayTricks.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

27 Comments

Episode 17: Hume’s Empiricism: What Can We Know?

Reading David Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

David Hume thinks that all we can know are our own impressions, i.e. what our moment-to-moment experiences tell us. Funny thing, though: he thinks that no experience shows us one event causing another event. We only experience one thing happening, then another, and these sequences tend to display a lot of uniformity. So, if we have any legitimate idea of causality at all, it must just be that: regular patterns of conjoined events.

We discuss what Hume thinks this view implies for the free will question, belief in miracles, whether external objects are actually there, Seth’s experience of Towlie, and more.

Read with us: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9662.

End song: “Twitch” by by The MayTricks, from the 1994 album Happy Songs Will Bring You Down.

, , , , , , , , ,

9 Comments