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。
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信