2008-05-03, 11:35
#1
Citat:
Arthur Schopenhauer
Studies in Pessimism
IMMORTALITY:22 A DIALOGUE.
[21 Translator’s Note.—The word immortality—Unsterblichkeit—does not occur in the original; nor would it, in its usual application, find a place in Schopenhauer’s vocabulary. The word he uses is Unzerstörbarkeit—indestructibility. But I have preferred immortality, because that word is commonly associated with the subject touched upon in this little debate. If any critic doubts the wisdom of this preference, let me ask him to try his hand at a short, concise, and, at the same time, popularly intelligible rendering of the German original, which runs thus: Zur Lehre von der Unzerstörbarkeit unseres wahren Wesens durch den Tod: Meine dialogische Schlussbelustigung.]
THRASYMACHOS—PHILALETHES.
Thrasymachos. Tell me now, in one word, what shall I be after my death? And mind you be clear and precise.
Philalethes. All and nothing!
Thrasymachos. I thought so! I gave you a problem, and you solve it by a contradiction. That’s a very stale trick.
Philalethes. Yes, but you raise transcendental questions, and you expect me to answer them in language that is only made for immanent knowledge. It’s no wonder that a contradiction ensues.
Studies in Pessimism
IMMORTALITY:22 A DIALOGUE.
[21 Translator’s Note.—The word immortality—Unsterblichkeit—does not occur in the original; nor would it, in its usual application, find a place in Schopenhauer’s vocabulary. The word he uses is Unzerstörbarkeit—indestructibility. But I have preferred immortality, because that word is commonly associated with the subject touched upon in this little debate. If any critic doubts the wisdom of this preference, let me ask him to try his hand at a short, concise, and, at the same time, popularly intelligible rendering of the German original, which runs thus: Zur Lehre von der Unzerstörbarkeit unseres wahren Wesens durch den Tod: Meine dialogische Schlussbelustigung.]
THRASYMACHOS—PHILALETHES.
Thrasymachos. Tell me now, in one word, what shall I be after my death? And mind you be clear and precise.
Philalethes. All and nothing!
Thrasymachos. I thought so! I gave you a problem, and you solve it by a contradiction. That’s a very stale trick.
Philalethes. Yes, but you raise transcendental questions, and you expect me to answer them in language that is only made for immanent knowledge. It’s no wonder that a contradiction ensues.
Schopenhauer närmar sig frågan genom att påpeka att den är inkorrekt ställd; Thrasymachos häver ur sig en vag och opreciserad fråga om livet efter döden, och kräver samtidigt ett precist och tydligt svar, vilket uppenbarligen är omöjligt. Det hela kan liknas med människor som jämt ska ställa följande fråga: "Vad är meningen med livet?", utan att inse att ordet "mening" i denna kontext kan motsvara cirka sju olika betydelser. Det går inte att ge precisa svar på oklara frågor, och inom logiken räknas detta nästan som ett retoriskt grepp (om man vill göra ner sin motståndare ställer man medvetet frågor till denne som vederbörande omöjligen kan svara på, vilket gör att motståndaren framstår i dålig dager och därför kan förlora diskussionen).
Citat:
Thrasymachos. What do you mean by transcendental questions and immanent knowledge? I’ve heard these expressions before, of course; they are not new to me. The Professor was fond of using them, but only as predicates of the Deity, and he never talked of anything else; which was all quite right and proper. He argued thus: if the Deity was in the world itself, he was immanent; if he was somewhere outside it, he was transcendent. Nothing could be clearer and more obvious! You knew where you were. But this Kantian rigmarole won’t do any more: it’s antiquated and no longer applicable to modern ideas. Why, we’ve had a whole row of eminent men in the metropolis of German learning—
Philalethes. (Aside.) German humbug, he means.
Thrasymachos. The mighty Schleiermacher, for instance, and that gigantic intellect, Hegel; and at this time of day we’ve abandoned that nonsense. I should rather say we’re so far beyond it that we can’t put up with it any more. What’s the use of it then? What does it all mean?
Philalethes. Transcendental knowledge is knowledge which passes beyond the bounds of possible experience, and strives to determine the nature of things as they are in themselves. Immanent knowledge, on the other hand, is knowledge which confines itself entirely with those bounds; so that it cannot apply to anything but actual phenomena. As far as you are an individual, death will be the end of you. But your individuality is not your true and inmost being: it is only the outward manifestation of it. It is not the thing-in-itself, but only the phenomenon presented in the form of time; and therefore with a beginning and an end. But your real being knows neither time, nor beginning, nor end, nor yet the limits of any given individual. It is everywhere present in every individual; and no individual can exist apart from it. So when death comes, on the one hand you are annihilated as an individual; on the other, you are and remain everything. That is what I meant when I said that after your death you would be all and nothing. It is difficult to find a more precise answer to your question and at the same time be brief. The answer is contradictory, I admit; but it is so simply because your life is in time, and the immortal part of you in eternity. You may put the matter thus: Your immortal part is something that does not last in time and yet is indestructible; but there you have another contradiction! You see what happens by trying to bring the transcendental within the limits of immanent knowledge. It is in some sort doing violence to the latter by misusing it for ends it was never meant to serve.
Philalethes. (Aside.) German humbug, he means.
Thrasymachos. The mighty Schleiermacher, for instance, and that gigantic intellect, Hegel; and at this time of day we’ve abandoned that nonsense. I should rather say we’re so far beyond it that we can’t put up with it any more. What’s the use of it then? What does it all mean?
Philalethes. Transcendental knowledge is knowledge which passes beyond the bounds of possible experience, and strives to determine the nature of things as they are in themselves. Immanent knowledge, on the other hand, is knowledge which confines itself entirely with those bounds; so that it cannot apply to anything but actual phenomena. As far as you are an individual, death will be the end of you. But your individuality is not your true and inmost being: it is only the outward manifestation of it. It is not the thing-in-itself, but only the phenomenon presented in the form of time; and therefore with a beginning and an end. But your real being knows neither time, nor beginning, nor end, nor yet the limits of any given individual. It is everywhere present in every individual; and no individual can exist apart from it. So when death comes, on the one hand you are annihilated as an individual; on the other, you are and remain everything. That is what I meant when I said that after your death you would be all and nothing. It is difficult to find a more precise answer to your question and at the same time be brief. The answer is contradictory, I admit; but it is so simply because your life is in time, and the immortal part of you in eternity. You may put the matter thus: Your immortal part is something that does not last in time and yet is indestructible; but there you have another contradiction! You see what happens by trying to bring the transcendental within the limits of immanent knowledge. It is in some sort doing violence to the latter by misusing it for ends it was never meant to serve.
Läs hela artikeln
Tidigare i dag fick jag ett mejl angående en Schopenhauertext som aktualiserar ämnet om odödlighet, d.v.s. relationen mellan livet och döden. Vi har inte behandlat Arthur Schopenhauer tidigare här på SNUS, delvis därför att vi först skulle vilja presentera hans självklara föregångare Immanuel Kant, som utvecklade den filosofi även Schopenhauer kom att företräda: transcendental idealism. Vi kommer längre fram att kort beskriva detta filosofiska system, eftersom det i grundläggande drag utgör stommen i Svenska Nihilistsällskapets filosofi, men i denna artikel försöker vi att hålla oss till Schopenhauer och ett specifikt område: det paradoxala förhållandet mellan livet och döden. För enkelhetens skull väljer jag att publicera hela texten, som är en fiktiv dialog mellan två personer (varav en givetvis företräds av Schopenhauer själv), och kommentera bitar ur den.
