The review of metaphysics· 2020Q3
The Ambiguity in Schopenhauer’s Doctrine of the Thing-in-Itself
- 22citations
- Q3SCImago
- 2020year
Short summary
This paper argues that Schopenhauer's concept of the 'thing-in-itself' is not a single, coherent idea, but rather comprises three distinct and incompatible views, making a unified interpretation both difficult and undesirable.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Scholars struggle to find a consistent interpretation of Schopenhauer's identification of the 'thing-in-itself' with the 'will'.
- The paper identifies three distinct and incompatible views on the 'thing-in-itself' within Schopenhauer's philosophy.
- A unified, coherent interpretation of Schopenhauer's position is argued to be both difficult to achieve and detrimental to appreciating the depth of his work.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
The general attitude towards Arthur Schopenhauer’s metaphysics is rather fiercely critical and at times even tendentious. It seems that the figure of Schopenhauer as an irredeemably flawed, stubborn, and contradictory philosopher serves as a leitmotiv among scholars. Schopenhauer’s identification of the thing-in-itself with the will continues to be a thorny puzzle in the secondary literature, and it presents perhaps the greatest challenge to Schopenhauer scholars. Schopenhauer borrows the term ‘thing-in-itself’ from Immanuel Kant, who uses it to refer to a reality that is distinct from what appears to us, and hence unknowable. Despite the fact that several interpretations have been offered to make sense of Schopenhauer’s identification of the thing-in-itself with the will, there appears to be no consensus about how to interpret this identification as well as his understanding of the term ‘thing-in-itself’. Unlike the other interpretations, the interpretation that I offer here distinguishes between three distinct and mutually incompatible views that Schopenhauer formulates about the thing-in-itself. I argue that it is not only difficult to give a coherent, consistent account of Schopenhauer’s position, but also not worth trying, because such an endeavor comes at the cost of ignoring the textual richness and depth of thought that Schopenhauer’s works offer.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. The review of metaphysics, 2020 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: General Arts and Humanities
General Arts and HumanitiesArts and Humanities