Bump^

Going through Schopenhauers metaphysics, I'm curious if his distinction between reason (ability to re-arrange abstract concepts [mental copies of real things in the world]) and understanding (immediate ability to deduce cause from effect and vice versa - as it occurs in the real world) has any real weight. He gives examples such as an elephant refusing to cross a bridge although others have already crossed it because it can deduce that it's weight will be too much and the bridge will collapse under it. A puppy who can deduce the impact on it's body, of jumping off a very high surface.

These are examples of understanding which he argues is universal for all species of life including plants. In the case of humans however, understanding can extend to causes and effects that don't even have any direct affect on our bodies. His argument as such, is that understanding, being universal, and extending to extremes within humans, means that if both a subject and object are required for existence, the existence of humans evokes the entire existence of the universe. Conversely, evolutionary theorists start just with the object and then argue that the object (e.g. physical matter in space/time) evokes or evolves the subject. The difference is that evolutionary theorists make the assumption that object can exist without subject and thus evolve the subject.

I hope this makes some sense and look forward to your opinions.

Forgot to add: his argument put simply is that - everything exists for the understanding and through the understanding.

In one respect, it's reasonable- roughly, for something to be understood as a description, somebody needs to understand it as a description. Or just that an observation requires a perspective. That's fine. It ventures into nonsense though when you consider it as the basis for an ontology. People can and do conceive of many things, some of which they later decide don't exist (aether), some of which they learn never could have existed (a largest prime), and it becomes impossible to talk about existence in any reasonable way that remotely corresponds to the current usage of "exist", even for not-intentionally-obnxious things.

If through understanding of non-immediate causes and effects, you hypothesize the existence of the aether, and it turns out that your understanding was wrong, this does not conflict with his metaphysics. Although understanding is universal this does not mean that we are impervious to wrongly attributing causes with effects. This is because he's not denying that the objective exists. Merely that it exists through and for the understanding. For example, he considers time as - succession - a necessity of the principle of sufficient reason: as existing for it and through it (the principle of sufficient reason is synonymous with 'understanding').

I see what you're saying though...if our understanding can extend to all the causes and effects in the universe and thus be responsible for their existence, why is some understanding wrong?

To this he may also respond by appealing to the distinction between reason and understanding. It is reason that is responsible for hypotheses such as - the aether - and not 'understanding'. For this he provides many examples of how the greatest breakthroughs in science and philosophy have all come through 'immediate comprehension or understanding of particular causes leading to particular effects or vice versa'. He emphasises the immideacy of it, and denies that long and laborious use of reason is necessary to an understanding of the universe, although many adopt this strategy and although this strategy may help a little. E.g. the immideacy of understanding in newtons apple moment and Einsteins train watching moment (this one isn't in his book obv.).

Drawing a bright line between knowledge-from-understanding and knowledge-from-reason is obvious nonsense.

If you insist.

And yet reason, unlike understanding, is not universal. There ought be some line between them, even if it's not of the type you're thinking.

I think this was a good try for something written 150+ years ago (he lived 1788-1860). Just because humans are looking at it I don't think the universe comes to existence. We already know too much for seriously believing that. I don't even think life is necessary (a bacteria could note the existence too). A stone on Mars "feels" the elements, as do particles colliding.

And we are (advanced) bio-computers, everything enabled in the hardware. The subject is entangled with it, let's say it's part of the software. But differing from traditional computers, our software is partly remodeling the hardware.

Love is the #1 most important thing in life. I also have love for everybody, wish everybody the best and practice true forgiveness.

Also believe in non-dualism. Recently started learning about Vedanta and it makes a lot of sense to me.

If there ever was, or could be, you're on the right road.

Do you think you'll reach Brahma?