The Philosophy of Schopenhauer

《The Philosophy of Schopenhauer》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在行业资料-天天文库。

1、ThePhilosophyofSchopenhauerByAcumen,2005.xiv+306pp.£50.00cloth,£16.99SchopenhauerByRoutledge,2005.xviii+272pp.£50.00cloth,£12.99paperBothofthepresentvolumesareintroductory,withtheYoungperhapsbeingmorestudent-friendlyinbothstylea

2、ndorganization.IalsofindYoungtobethemoreinsightfulofthetwo;indeed,itisdifficulttothinkofaSchopenhauervolumeascontemporaryorasinteresting,whichisnottosayIagreewithallofit.JacquetteexplainsthathepaysspecialattentiontoSchopenhauer’s“argumentsbywhichhehopest

3、oprovething-in-itselfisWill”(p.viii).Thisissomewhatmisleading,forwhilethatissuemustbeprominentinanytreat-mentofSchopenhauer,JacquetteprovidesanequallyweightedconspectusofthemainthemesofSchopenhauer’ssprawlingthought.Forsure,heelidessomerelativelymargin

4、alissues,suchasSchopenhauer’sideasoncolourandwomen,buthealsopassesoverissuesthatarecentraltoSchopenhauer’sengagementwithKant,suchashisrejection(intheFourfoldRoot)ofKant’sargumentofthe‘SecondAnalogy’andhiscollapseofthetwelvecategoriesintocauseplusspacea

5、ndtime.JacquettebeginsbyseekingtoexplainSchopenhauer’sapparentlybizarreidealisminrelationtoitsmorefamiliarKantianpredecessor.Ineffect,SchopenhauertookhimselftobefollowingKantofthefirsteditionofthefirstCritiqueandrejectingthesecondedition’sapparenttimidit

6、yinthefaceofaccusationsofidealism.Unfortunately,Jacquette,forthemostpart,followsSchopenhauer’sconfusingremarksonKant’srevisionstothefirstCritique.HepresentsKant’s‘refutationofidealism’asbeingdirectedatBerkeley’sdogmaticidealism(p.18);infact,ofcourse,Kan

7、t(B274–5)isexplicitindirectingtheargumentagainstDescartes’sproblematicidealism,understandingBerkeleytohavealreadybeenrefutedintherevisedAesthetic(JacquettealsoconfusesKant’sgeneralnotionofmaterialidealismwiththesubcategoryofDescartes’sproblematicideali

8、sm).Indeed,Kant’s‘refutation’justmakesnosense,ifunderstoodasspecificallydirectedatBerkeley.Ingeneral,Kant’seffortsbetweenthefirstandsecondeditionsofthefirstCritiquewerenottobacktrackonidealism,buttounderminetheaccusationofempiricalidealism