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:
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.
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
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:
Jenny Bunker had dus aardig wat wegbereiders, zou je zeggen.
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.
_____________________
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten