Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- schopenhauer:mvr1:vontade-propria-187 [17/02/2026 18:34] – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
+++ schopenhauer:mvr1:vontade-propria-187 [24/10/2026 04:37] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+====== Vontade própria======
+(MVR1:187)
+<tabbox Jair Barboza>
+Espinosa afirma (Epist. 62) que, se uma pedra fosse atirada, por choque, ao ar, e tivesse consciência, pensaria voar por vontade própria. Apenas acrescento: a pedra teria razão. O choque é para ela o que para mim é o motivo. O que nela aparece como coesão, gravidade, rigidez no estado adquirido é, segundo sua essência íntima, o mesmo que reconheço em mim como Vontade, e que a pedra, se adquirisse conhecimento, também reconheceria como Vontade. Espinosa, naquela passagem, concentrou sua atenção na necessidade com que uma pedra voa, e quis, com razão, transmiti-la à necessidade do ato voluntário isolado de uma pessoa. De outra perspectiva considero a essência íntima, que, como pressuposto, confere significação e validade a toda necessidade real (isto é, efeito a partir da causa), que no homem se chama caráter e na pedra qualidade, como sendo em ambos os casos uma única e mesma coisa, chamada VONTADE ali onde é imediatamente conhecida, e que na pedra tem o seu grau mais fraco e no homem o seu grau mais forte de visibilidade, de objetidade. (p. 187)
+<tabbox E. F. J. Payne>
+Spinoza (Epist. 62) says that if a stone projected through the air had consciousness, it would imagine it was flying of its own will. I add merely that the stone would be right. The impulse is for it what the motive is for me, and what in the case of the stone appears as cohesion, gravitation, rigidity in the assumed condition, is by its inner nature the same as what I recognize in myself as will, and which the stone also would recognize as will, if knowledge were added in its case also. In this passage Spinoza has his eye on the necessity with which the stone flies, and he rightly wants to transfer this to the necessity of a person’s particular act of will. On the other hand, I consider the inner being that first imparts meaning and validity to all necessity (i.e., effect from cause) to be its presupposition. In the case of man, this is called character; in the case of the stone, it is called quality; but it is the same in both. Where it is immediately known, it is called will, and in the stone it has the weakest, and in man the strongest, degree of visibility, of objectivity. (p. 126)
+<tabbox Original>
+Spinoza sagt (epist. 62), daß der durch einen Stoß in die Luft fliegende Stein, wenn er Bewußtsein hätte, meinen würde, aus seinem eigenen Willen zu fliegen. Ich setze nur noch hinzu, daß der Stein Recht hätte. Der Stoß ist für ihn, was für mich das Motiv, und was bei ihm als Kohäsion, Schwere, Beharrlichkeit im angenommenen Zustande erscheint, ist, dem innern Wesen nach, das Selbe, was ich in mir als Willen erkenne, und was, wenn auch bei ihm die Erkenntniß hinzuträte, auch er als Willen erkennen würde. Spinoza, an jener Stelle, hatte sein Augenmerk auf die Nothwendigkeit, mit welcher der Stein fliegt, gerichtet und will sie, mit Recht, übertragen auf die Nothwendigkeit des einzelnen Willensaktes einer Person. Ich hingegen betrachte das innere Wesen, welches aller realen Nothwendigkeit (d.i. Wirkung aus Ursache), als ihre Voraussetzung, erst Bedeutung und Gültigkeit ertheilt, beim Menschen Charakter, beim Stein Qualität heißt, in Beiden aber das Selbe ist, da wo es unmittelbar erkannt wird, Wille genannt, und welches im Stein den schwächsten, im Menschen den stärksten Grad der Sichtbarkeit, Objektität, hat.
+</tabbox>
+{{tag>Schopenhauer vontade}}