This book is fascinating. It is like watching a train wreck that never ends.
Leave it to a man with an ego as large as the great outdoors to write a book about The Will
being the fundamental object in creation.
In the process of developing his view he began by telling the reader not to bother reading his book if the reader is not prepared to read both volumes twice, along with his doctoral thesis, and the works of Kant and of Plato. That was the minimum reading list. He would also like for the reader to be familiar with Berkley, Locke, Spinoza, and to have read Asian religious texts such as "The Dhamba", "The Vedas", and "The Upanishads".
This book is a dense read. Why do I
keep reading it? This sort of thing fascinates me. I like to find a truly different and well developed world view like this and dive in just to see how
the person could believe what they did.(view spoiler)[In a nut-shell: The universe consists of God and the physical universe. We have no organ for experiencing God directly. Information about God comes to us through revelation. He repeatedly tells us that his philosophy does not support a theology.
The primary ontological structure of everything, both living and inanimate, of the physical universe is the Thing-in-Itself. The Thing-in-Itself is The Will which is not self-aware nor does it have a plan. It simply attempts to actualize itself in any way possible. The way it does it is via. Representation as objects making up the physical world and universe. Since everything comes from this self-actualizing and grasping "Will" all things have the quality of aggressive striving for self-interest in whatever form the things are able to assert or promote their own being, even at the expense of other things.
Schopenhauer admires Plato and Kant. However, he spends the last section of the book pistol-whipping Kant. (hide spoiler)]
I would recommend this book to a patient reader, who can endure the repeated lambasting of professional philosophers and complaints of being neglected as a literary figure, interested in a unique vision of the existence of the universe that looks like a Western European version of Asian thought. It is also worthwhile as a critique of Kant.
I enjoyed watching this ontological philosophy unfurl to uncover everything. Or, maybe I just like watching wrecks that never seem to end.["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>