威尔的一致性和我心中的thing:重新解释形而上学的叔本华

MELINTAS Pub Date : 2022-12-09 DOI:10.26593/mel.v37i2.6296
I. Mustika, Albertus Harsawibawa
{"title":"威尔的一致性和我心中的thing:重新解释形而上学的叔本华","authors":"I. Mustika, Albertus Harsawibawa","doi":"10.26593/mel.v37i2.6296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to present a different reading from the mainstream interpretation that corners Schopenhauer: a consistent interpretation. The authors use a method of acquiring knowledge by acquaintance and description. Schopenhauer’s theory is often considered inconsistent because it concludes will as a thing-in-itself. The will, which is obtained through direct observation of the body, is a representation that is still shrouded in the veil of time form, while thing-in-itself is completely different from representation, and is beyond the reach of space, time, and causality, with reference to principle of sufficient reason. Concluding will as a thing-in-itself is therefore considered inconsistent. However, this interpretation might be wrong because Schopenhauer never claimed that direct observation of the body would yield knowledge of the thing-in-itself. From the very beginning, he realised that direct knowledge of thing-in-itself was impossible, because the knowledge, regardless of its form, was always knowledge of appearances. He knows that will does not qualify as a thing-in-itself. The true function of the will in Schopenhauer's metaphysics lies in the name and concept by which one can think about thing-in-itself objectively.","PeriodicalId":18472,"journal":{"name":"MELINTAS","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Konsistensi Will dan Thing-in-Itself: Menafsir Ulang Metafisika Schopenhauer\",\"authors\":\"I. Mustika, Albertus Harsawibawa\",\"doi\":\"10.26593/mel.v37i2.6296\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article aims to present a different reading from the mainstream interpretation that corners Schopenhauer: a consistent interpretation. The authors use a method of acquiring knowledge by acquaintance and description. Schopenhauer’s theory is often considered inconsistent because it concludes will as a thing-in-itself. The will, which is obtained through direct observation of the body, is a representation that is still shrouded in the veil of time form, while thing-in-itself is completely different from representation, and is beyond the reach of space, time, and causality, with reference to principle of sufficient reason. Concluding will as a thing-in-itself is therefore considered inconsistent. However, this interpretation might be wrong because Schopenhauer never claimed that direct observation of the body would yield knowledge of the thing-in-itself. From the very beginning, he realised that direct knowledge of thing-in-itself was impossible, because the knowledge, regardless of its form, was always knowledge of appearances. He knows that will does not qualify as a thing-in-itself. The true function of the will in Schopenhauer's metaphysics lies in the name and concept by which one can think about thing-in-itself objectively.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MELINTAS\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MELINTAS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26593/mel.v37i2.6296\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MELINTAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26593/mel.v37i2.6296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在呈现一种不同于主流解读的解读:一种前后一致的解读。作者采用了一种通过认识和描述来获取知识的方法。叔本华的理论常常被认为是不一致的,因为它把意志归结为自在之物。通过对身体的直接观察而获得的意志,是一种仍然笼罩在时间形式的面纱下的表象,而自在之物则完全不同于表象,它超出了空间、时间和因果关系的范围,就充分理性原则而言。因此,将意志总结为自在之物,就被认为是前后矛盾的。然而,这种解释可能是错误的,因为叔本华从未声称对身体的直接观察会产生对自在之物的知识。从一开始,他就认识到,对自在之物的直接认识是不可能的,因为这种认识,不管它的形式如何,总是对现象的认识。他知道意志不具备作为自在之物的资格。在叔本华的形而上学中,意志的真正功能在于它的名称和概念,人们借以客观地思考自在之物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Konsistensi Will dan Thing-in-Itself: Menafsir Ulang Metafisika Schopenhauer
This article aims to present a different reading from the mainstream interpretation that corners Schopenhauer: a consistent interpretation. The authors use a method of acquiring knowledge by acquaintance and description. Schopenhauer’s theory is often considered inconsistent because it concludes will as a thing-in-itself. The will, which is obtained through direct observation of the body, is a representation that is still shrouded in the veil of time form, while thing-in-itself is completely different from representation, and is beyond the reach of space, time, and causality, with reference to principle of sufficient reason. Concluding will as a thing-in-itself is therefore considered inconsistent. However, this interpretation might be wrong because Schopenhauer never claimed that direct observation of the body would yield knowledge of the thing-in-itself. From the very beginning, he realised that direct knowledge of thing-in-itself was impossible, because the knowledge, regardless of its form, was always knowledge of appearances. He knows that will does not qualify as a thing-in-itself. The true function of the will in Schopenhauer's metaphysics lies in the name and concept by which one can think about thing-in-itself objectively.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Johann Adam Möhler’s Dynamic Ecclesiology Critique of Medical Perspective on the Beginning of Human Person Based on Biblical and Biological Insights Tradisi Biantara dan Paparikan dalam Pembuka Tata Ibadat Pemberkatan Pertunangan Masyarakat Sunda-Katolik Spiritualitas Humanum: Penghargaan Martabat Kaum Perempuan di Institusi Pendidikan Tinggi Katolik Problem Argumen Improbabilitas dalam The God Delusion: Kritik terhadap New Atheism Dawkins
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1