Introducing 'Decoding 叔本华's Metaphysics'

我的新书 Decoding 叔本华's Metaphysics (DSM),现在可以从 亚马逊英国, 亚马逊美国, and 其他零售商。在这篇文章中,我想给您一个简短的概述,告诉您我为什么写这本书以及为什么我认为它很重要。


我完成之后 世界观念—该书实际发行前一年多—I started an effort 至 trace my ideas back 至 their historical predecessors 和 anchor them in the Western philosophical tradition. In regard 至 19th-century philosopher Arthur 叔本华, I 至 ok it light at first 和 read Christopher Janaway's little book 叔本华: A Very Short 介绍. 我将在DSM中描述这种经验以及接下来发生的事情:
在叔本华的许多名言中’我相信[Janaway]书中的作品—to my surprise—与我自己的作品中提出的形而上学有明显的相似之处。自然,我感到他的观点令人信服。然而,贾纳威(Janaway)对叔本华(Schopenhauer)提出批评’形而上学。他似乎在做什么—or failing 至 make—of 叔本华’我的话跟我想看的完全不同。 Janaway看到了问题和矛盾,我认为这些问题和矛盾是清晰,优雅和一致的。但是由于Janaway是自称专家,而且我只是在上下文中仔细阅读引号,因此我最初怀疑我对它们的阅读过多。

The only way 至 clarify the issue was 至 sink my teeth into 叔本华’s magnum opus:这本共两卷,长1200页的第三版 意志与代表世界 [1859],与Janaway本人使用的译文相同。 ...在随后的几个月中,我吞噬了冗长的两卷本套装,阅读并重新阅读。我在其中认识到了我十年来努力使之成为焦点的许多想法的回响和预感。从细节到细节,我自己的作品与现在正在阅读的作品之间的血缘关系是非凡的。这是一位19世纪著名的思想家,他已经以清晰而有力的方式想出并传达了我所从事的许多形而上学。我能找到什么更好的盟友?然而,令我困惑的是叔本华’s “形而上学很少有追随者”(Janaway 2002:40)。在过去的200年中,它完全无法影响我们的文化,即使是最随意的观察者也可以证明。
With DSM, I try 至 change this, for I think there is tremendous value in 叔本华's legacy for a 21st century readership, particularly in the modern context of quantum mechanics 和 the 'hard problem of consciousness':
I believe 叔本华’s most valuable legacy is precisely his metaphysical views: they anticipate salient recent developments in analytic philosophy, circumvent the insoluble problems of mainstream physicalism 和 constitutive panpsychism, 和 provide an avenue for making sense of the ontological dilemmas of quantum mechanics. ... Had the coherence 和 cogency 叔本华的 ’形而上学早已被认可, 困扰我们当今文化的许多潜在的哲学不适—对我们的科学,文化精神和生活方式产生了潜在的影响—本可以避免的。 (强调)
我提供一个概念框架—a decoding key—for interpreting 叔本华’s metaphysical arguments in a way that renders them mutually consistent 和 compelling. With this key in mind, it is my hope that even those who have earlier dismissed 叔本华’形而上学将能够以崭新的眼光回到它,并最终释放其意义。


有人提出了一个关于他人著作的完全合法和良好的问题 我的讨论论坛的参与者:
我从来不明白为什么有人会读一本关于别人写的书的书。 ...为什么不只是阅读原著并用自己的思想来决定作者想说什么呢? ...为什么要打扰第三方,而不仅仅是阅读原件?

  1. disambiguate 叔本华's conceptually-loose terminology usage;
  2. 根据现代心理学阐明他的论点;
  3. 将他的思想放在当时还不存在的量子力学的背景下;
  4. 将他的论述与本体论和心智哲学中出现的现代问题联系起来,这些问题在他当时还不存在。
  5. 在一个以现代语言表达的连贯框架中总结和归纳了他的观点,今天的人们可以轻松地将其联系起来。
All this said, I do think the best is indeed 至 read 叔本华's own words, if people are willing 至 face them: 叔本华's 意志与代表世界 alone has 1,200+ very dense pages in tiny fonts, written in an accessible but old-fashioned style. Because I suspect that most people don't have the time or the interest 至 plow through that, I felt an alternative would be valuable, for I want 至 make 叔本华's thought available 至 them 至 o. DSM has only 144 pages 和 costs a fraction 叔本华的 's 原版的. After reading it, if their curiosity is piqued, the more interested readers can approach 叔本华 他self with a solid basis for making sense of his words.


on the one hand, I aim 至 rehabilitate 和 promote 叔本华’通过形而上学的形而上学来解决它的形而上学,从而解决它的明显矛盾并释放其构成思想的意义和连贯性。另一方面—更自私的说法—我希望证明我早期作品所阐明的我自己的形而上学立场是’只是一种奇特的或仅是时髦的,但却部分地代替了西方哲学中既定的,健壮的和不断发展的思想链。


我要驳斥实现这两个目标的关键要素—在DSM中详细阐述—of present-day criticisms 和 misrepresentations 叔本华的 's metaphysics, which unfortunately are rampant in academia. As a philosopher who has produced 原版的 工作 myself, the idea of my own writings being one day subjected 至 the kind of disfiguration 和 outright abuse suffered by 叔本华, at the hands of presumed experts, makes me sick. My sympathy for 叔本华 compels me 至 try 和 improve the standing of his 工作 .

不幸的是,一些学术界的学者没有创造出自己的原创作品,而是选择以(错误地)代表和批评死去的哲学家的作品谋生。这些哲学家不再为自己辩护,似乎在向这些学者授予许可,让他们将已故哲学家的解释困难转嫁给已故哲学家。错误甚至不会归因于今天的高中生。换句话说,一些批评家似乎将自己的智力迟钝误解为他们所批评的哲学家的论点中的(完全令人难以置信的)缺点。这些批评者通过自称是知识上的高手,也许觉得他们的目标来之不易—多亏了后者 原版的 工作 —rubs off on them.

Christopher Janaway characterizes Schopenahuer's metaphysical contentions as "something ridiculous" or "merely embarrassing," which should be "dismissed as fanciful" if interpreted in the way 叔本华 clearly intended them 至 be. He claims that "叔本华 seems 至 stumble into a quite elementary difficulty" in an important passage of his argument. And so on. The freedom Janaway allows 他self 至 bash 叔本华, 和 the arrogant, disrespectful 至 ne with which he 确实 it, are breathtaking. It is so easy 至 bash a dead man who can't defend 他self, isn't it?

Ironically, all this actually accomplishes is 至 betray the utter failure of Janaway's attempt 至 grok 叔本华. Indeed, his apparent inability 至 comprehend even 最基本的 points 叔本华 makes, 和 至 think within the logic 和 premises 叔本华的 's argument, is nothing short of stunning. Here is someone who just 确实n't get it at all, 和 yet feels entitled not only 至 write books about 叔本华; not only 至 characterize 叔本华's argument as "ridiculous," "embarassing" 和 "fanciful" (Oh, the irony!); but even  edit 叔本华's own 工作 s! By now 叔本华 has not only turned in his grave, but strangled 他self 至 a second death.

Even more peculiar is Janaway's suggestion that it is 叔本华 who is obtuse, for the "elementary difficulties" Janaway attributes 至 他 couldn't be seriously attributed even 至 a high-school student 至 day, let alone a renowned philosopher. At no point 确实 Janaway seem 至 stop, reflect 和 ponder the glaringly obvious possibility that perhaps 叔本华 确实 知道他在说什么,这是 他 (Janaway) who just 确实n't get it. Instead, he portrays 叔本华 as an idiot; how precarious, silly 和 conceited. He even accuses 叔本华 of crass materialism, despite 叔本华's repeated ridiculing of materialism 和 the fact that 叔本华's whole argument consistently refutes it in unambiguous terms. I discuss all this in detail in DSM. Here it shall suffice 至 observe that, 至 be an expert on anything, it takes more than just study; for if one can't actually 理解 在研究什么,没有大量的学术引用将无意义的废话变成文学。

I richly substantiate my criticism of Janaway in DSM: I carefully take his contentions apart, while clarifying 叔本华's points in a way that should be clearly 理解able even 至 Janaway. So if you think I am exaggerating in this post, please peruse DSM: it can be leisurely read in a weekend or, with focus, in a single sitting, so it won't cost you much time at all 至 see whether I actually have a valid point.


Amazingly, some attribute dual-aspect monism 至 叔本华. Indeed, 在撰写本文时,维基百科列出了他的形而上学作为一个实例。. I can only imagine two reasons for such a vulgar misunderstanding: either one has read only the title 叔本华的 's main 工作 (意志与代表世界)并仅从中得出结论,或者实际上不知道双重方面一元论的含义。再次,我将在DSM中详细说明。





Giotto di Bondone的 约阿希姆的梦 (1303-1305). 资料来源:维基共享资源。
正如我最近在社交媒体上发布的那样, 几天前,一家俄罗斯报纸发表了一篇关于我的作品的评论文章。我知道一些俄语单词,但实际上看不懂文章。但是,说俄语的读者告诉我,其中的一种批评是:尽管我们可以直接看到与其他人和动物的互动,但是分离性身份障碍(DID)患者的不同变化却看不到或彼此直接互动。因此—大概是这样—我说生命,生物学,是普遍意识中分离的形象,是不连贯的。

It so happens that, in my upcoming book on 叔本华's metaphysics, I tackle precisely this criticism in the passage reproduced below. In it, by 'universal will' I mean universal consciousness. Since I offer this as a defense of 叔本华's metaphysics, the implication is that, in my view, 叔本华, 至 o, explains personal identity 和 life in terms of universal dissociation. I make this case quite extensively in the book, which will very soon be available for pre-ordering.

来自的长报价 Decoding 叔本华's Metaphysics

在这一点上可以提出的批评是:而我们可以在普通的清醒生活中感知并直接与其他个体互动—毕竟,我可以肯定地看到其他人和动物并与之互动—人类DID [Dissociative Identity Disorder]患者的变体不能感知同一患者的另一变体并直接与之交互;从第一个变化的角度来看,第二个变化没有什么变化。第一个变更无法触及第二个。那么,如果像我一样的其他人和动物与普遍意志的改变类似,我该如何伸出手去接触他们呢?

理解这一点的关键是严格解释类比:我们将(a)具有DID的人比喻为(b)具有类似DID的普遍意志。但是请记住,与人的情况不同,从普遍意志的角度来看,没有外部世界。后者是 前假设,所有事物都存在于其内部。所以当我们联系这个人时,我们正在比较苹果和香蕉’外部世界的生命,是内在生命的完全内生的普遍意志。 比较后者与人更容易’s dream life, 因为只有这样,两种情况下的所有体验状态才是内部产生的,而不受外界的影响。这,也只有这是一个合理的类比。

主持人莎拉(Sarah)只记得她前一天晚上的梦涉及听到一个女孩在呼救。四岁的Alter Annie回忆起一个男人开始割伤自己的阴道时被赤裸绑住,无法哭泣的噩梦。九岁的安(Ann)梦想着观看这个场景,并拼命大喊大叫以寻求帮助(显然是主持人的声音’的梦想)。十几岁的乔梦想着来到这个场景并与小女孩聚在一起’攻击者头顶;在她的梦中,他跌倒在地,她离开了。在安和安妮的梦里,那个有俱乐部的少年出现了,把那个人摔倒在地,但他又站起来,重新开始了进攻。四岁的莎莉(Sally)梦想着开心地和她的洋娃娃一起玩,别无其他。安妮和安都报告说,一个小女孩梦their以求地在房间的一角玩耍。尽管此时没有明确的虐待者识别出的变态表现,但有时会出现类似于莎拉的幻觉声音’叔叔建议可能还有另一种变化,使攻击者梦the以求’s vantage. (巴雷特1994: 171)