woensdag 16 augustus 2017

Schopenhauer dacht zelf dat hij een Kantiaan was, maar hij was een Spinozist, volgens Jenny Bunker in haar dissertatie ‘Schopenhauer’s Spinozism’

Jaren geleden had ik twee blogs over Schopenhauer: blog van 16-09-2009: Schopenhauer’s Spinoza; en blog van 03-12-2010: Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) over Spinoza: 'Ecce Judaeus'
In het eerste, van alweer acht jaar geleden, schreef ik: “Intussen kwam ik deze intrigerende tekst tegen van dr. Jenny Bunker, lecturer in Philosophy in Southampton University over haar thesis, ‘Schopenhauer’s Spinozism’: “to interpret Schopenhauer as a misguided Kantian is to miss much that is of interest in his philosophy. While acknowledging Kant’s influence on Schopenhauer, I aim to show first, that central elements of the latter’s philosophy (for instance his monism and his emphasis on the willing as much as the knowing self) are much more plausibly in a Spinozist tradition and second, that reading Schopenhauer as a Spinozist helps us to make sense of certain tenets of his thought which otherwise remain puzzling.” [hier]
Die tekst zou ik graag lezen, maar is nog nergens te vinden.”


Nu kwam ik onlangs het PDF van haar dissertatie die in 2015 plaats had tegen:
Jenny Bunker PhD Thesis SCHOPENHAUER’S SPINOZISM, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON FACULTY OF HUMANITIES, January, 2015. [PDF]

Ik geef het hier alvast door. Wat ik gelezen heb maakte mij nog niet zo enthousiast als ik 2009 dacht te zullen zijn. Maar ik hoop mij binnenkort aan 't lezen van de hele tekst te kunnen zetten.



Ik wijs – naast waarop ik mijn blogs al wees - verder op de volgende studies:

Ernst Clemens: Schopenhauer und Spinoza (dissertatie), Leipzig, 1899 – microform op archive.org
Ik had al eerder naar deze dissertatie verwezen, maar toen stond ie nog niet op internet.
Bela Egyed, Spinoza, Schopenhauer and the Standpoint of Affirmation. In: Phaenex 2 (1):110-131 (2007)
Abstract: "This paper has two aims: to show the affinities between Schopenhauer’s and Spinoza’s ethics and ontology, and to show that Spinoza’s position, where it is in conflict with it, is superior to Schopenhauer’s. The main focus is on Schopenhauer’s attacks on the affirmation of the will-to-live. It is argued that these attacks are not even convincing in terms of what he says about “better knowledge”, namely, that they are valid only against vulgar forms of affirmations of the Will. Also, it is argued that Schopenhauer’s attacks on Spinoza do not carry much weight. For, they are either the result of misunderstandings or, when they are not, they are based on assumptions rejected by Spinoza himself. In conclusion, it is claimed that Schopenhauer’s synthesis of Plato’s, Kant’s and Hindu philosophy into a “single thought” is neither as original nor as convincing as he took it to be.
philpapers en PDF
Henry Walter Brann, ‘Schopenhauer and Spinoza’. In: Journal of the History of Philosophy 10 (2):181-196 (1972) [muse.jhu]. Dat begint aldus:
Everyone familiar with both Schopenhauer and Spinoza should be aware of the fact that the two philosophers have something very important in common, i.e. the uniformity and monistic character of their systems. Strangely enough, very few contemporary scholars seem to mention this phenomenon, let alone deem it necessary to make a thorough investigation of the problems involved. This has not always been the case; rather frequently, in our studies of the great thinkers of various historical periods, we have found that the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries have produced an abundance of books and papers dealing with problems of decidedly current relevance. This discovery specifically concerns the relations between Schopenhauer and Spinoza. Just seventy years ago, two completely obscure students of philosophy, namely Ernst Clemens [Schopenhauer und Spinoza, 1899] and Samuel Rappaport [Spinoza und Schopenhauer, 1899], have written their doctoral dissertations precisely about our topic.
Let's say it in advance: these two young scholars of unknown reputation have done an excellent job by treating the theme much more thoroughly than the most recent researchers. Clemens reaches the conclusion that Schopenhauer's "monism of the will" is nothing but a transformation of "Spinoza's abstract monism,"  and he cites Rudolf Lehmann as follows: "If one wants to call Schopenhauer's system a synthesis, it could only be named a synthesis of Kant and Spinoza." Rappaport, on the other hand, shows as early as 1899 that Schopenhauer, in the period of the development of his own philosophy, was deeply influenced by Spinoza, a fact which can best be examined now by perusing Arthur Hübscher's completely new edition of Schopenhauer's Der handschriftliche Nachlass. Despite the paucity of present-day discussions of our problem, there is a modern British author who recognizes Schopenhauer's "sympathetic" attitude towards Spinoza. Patrick Gardiner points out in his study of Schopenhauer: "In many ways, Schopenhauer was sympathetic towards Spinoza's general ideas, especially regarding the latter's rejection of the Cartesian view of reality as comprehending two distinct kinds of substance, 'thinking' and 'extended'... etc. 
Jenny Bunker had dus aardig wat wegbereiders, zou je zeggen.
_____________________
Website Jenny Bunker bij New Humanist

 

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie plaatsen