Struggling with Philipp Mainlander

[Mr. Snrub]

It's taken me a while to get to him and I had high hopes. How could I not I with such a awe-inspiring premise as "God has died and His death was the life of the world"

My problem: I'm trying to get through The Philosophy of Redemption and I'm consistently taken out of it by his attempts to naturalize Schopenhauer's will leading him to faulty scientific conclusions.

A few of my favourites: Gaseous planet core, gaseous expansion from the sun to replace tangenital force in Newtonian physics and states of sexual partners during intercourse effecting offspring.

Metaphysical head scratchers: The idea of chemical compounding as "inorganic rape", the implication that dying childless is sufficient for redemption of an individual will.

I know the scientific ones are down to 19th century limitations on knowledge but Schopenhauer doesn't seem to get himself into half as much trouble writing before Mainlander simply be exercising restraint!

I'm only half way through the Physics but one more of these and I'm fixin' to skip to the Aesthetics.

I've noticed a few Mainlander fans on the forum. Feel free to weigh in and tell me I'm dumb.

 

[Nauyaca]

I do have some objections to Mainländer's position, this will sound incredibly arrogant but I think I can "correct" (for lack of a better term) some of his statements, this of course, from the premise that all experience is subjective, which is to declare that my position does not override anyone's interpretation of existence, so "correction" might be to strong and disrespectful of a word since all of this so called corrections only work for me.


First, his god metaphor is very unnecessary, you could justify "God has died and His death was the life of the world" from an artistic, almost dramatic point of view, by the way, this unity wasn't god understood as perfection, if it can die, then this thing he calls god is not a true god per se, just some fallible entity.


If the will to die permeates everything in existence, why suicide? Emil Cioran runs circles around Mainländer on this regard "it is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself to late" establishing that death is completely insufficient, it does not delete existing, we mistake the end of conscious interaction with true erasure from existence, the later is impossible, for the crime of suffering inside of this cursed existence has already taken place, you are forever part of the chain of causality, death erases you from the present, not from the past, or the future by virtue of the butterfly effect your actions set in motion.


Suicide in this context is an empty gesture, it can be justified only from an utilitarian point of view, "this pain sucks, so I will stop the pain" the pain ends, yes, existence does not, you endure until the universe decides to die, if ever


Sad really, he truly believed his dead was an act of redemption, when, in my humble opinion, it was just another act in a chain he thought he was breaking, existence itself is a tragedy we are completely unable to escape.

That's why suicide is not metaphysical freedom, it's merely pain management. It may be valid on utilitarian grounds ("stop the suffering here and now"), but it's no cosmic act.

Sorry if the post came out to long, I hope my ideas makes sense, take care.

 

[Mr. Snrub]

Good point that God in that quote is almost enirely for dramatic purposes of we're thinking of a perfect entity but it's just a synonym for will in Mainlander/Schopenhaeur language right? It's still God as far is the philosophical system goes even if it's a demiurge rather than a perfect creator.

I was just thinking about that Cioran quote earlier. I never even thought to apply it to the eternal existence of thing-in-itself but that gives it added weight.

I like the way you describe it and honestly it sounds more in line with Schopenhaeur despite his own fondness for the idea of redemption through ascetisism. Mainlander is almost naive and hopeful in comparison to think it would be so easy to escape existence.

I will keep reading for now because I am enjoying it and his attempts to naturalize the will does lead to correctly predicting later scientific discoveries sometimes.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.