I was Perkwunos

25 years old. philosophy poetry coral reef brain barrier

[perkwunos-two]

ok my blog lives folks you can find me back on @perkwunos

[weirdlandtv]

[perkwunos-two]

I was considering making like a Wordpress or something for longer blog posts on philosophy that I was gonna advertise on here they took me out right when I was about to try to use my clout. I even have something on Nietzsche mostly finished I was gonna post

[perkwunos-two]

Bernie Sanders please bring back my blog

[perkwunos-two]

I blame the Roman Empire for my blog getting deleted

[perkwunos-two]

[perkwunos-two]

The most fundamental point of comparison between Schelling and Nietzsche is that they both developed philosophies of the will. Schelling says: “in the final and highest instance there is no other Being than Will. Will is primordial Being…” (HF, 24). And Nietzsche claimed: “This world is the will to power -- and nothing besides!”…

… Schelling considers the will to lie outside of the typical categories of rational thought: it escapes the sort of analysis that we apply to experience. And second, as I will discuss in the next section, Schelling stresses its ontological primacy, its generative and grounding function in producing the seemingly tame and reasonable structures of reality.

The question of the “irrationality” of the will provides a point of positive comparison between Nietzsche and Schelling from which Schopenhauer is excluded. All three stressed the fact that the will lies outside the accustomed structures of intelligibility. With Schopenhauer though, this is really decisive; we formulate concepts guided by the principle of sufficient reason, and since the noumenal will does not obey this principle, it cannot be conceived. But since Schelling and Nietzsche largely broke free from a epistemological dualism of phenomena and noumena, they were not similarly constrained by the Kantian representational problematic. Nietzsche agrees that his own conception of will lies outside of traditional structures of intelligibility -- but his business is to subject these structures to rigorous critique and to invent / discover new concepts for conceptualizing the will. And Schelling too took the will’s irrationality as a challenge to thought more than anything else, experimenting with different ways of expression and representation. “Will is primal being…” Schelling writes: “All philosophy strives only to find this highest expression…” (HF, 24).

…

… they both try to enhance the repertory of philosophical method by combining it with art. … This reliance on artistic presentation does not strictly speaking distinguish Schelling and Nietzsche from Schopenhauer, who thought music could accomplish the sort of presentation (or expression) that philosophy could not. Still, in contrast to Schopenhauer, Schelling and Nietzsche did not make the sharp disjunction between art and philosophy that Schopenhauer did. Schelling and Nietzsche (notwithstanding Zarathustra) generally prefer to work within rather than outside philosophy, and extend rather than police its boundaries.

Judith Norman, “Willing and Time in Schelling and Nietzsche” in The New Schelling

[perkwunos-two]

this website is so precarious you never know when you’re gonna go but then like Nietzsche said ‘build your house on the slopes of Vesuvius’ etc.

[perkwunos-two]

I’m perkwunos but tumblr deleted me for seemingly no reason

hoping to get that sweet blog back but for now I’m here...