AC

Thesis – In the material world, subjects are bound by the endless

production of desire, the Will. The Will stems from an ontological
insecurity the subject has. Each subject has an ego, a sense of feeling
ontologically distinct which doesn’t represent the “true self” but creates
a view of the subject based on what it’s not, the “other”, an illusory
characterization formed by the limited capacity of reason and the senses.
Yet, each subject strives to gain relational connection to the world to
gain a stable ontological state. As a result, the desire to make oneself
feel whole is externalized. The Will is the root cause of suffering in the
material world since obtaining the object of desire inevitably fails to
secure the Subject ontologically, leading to an endless cycle of pain and
the desire to have desires. The largest desire from the Will is pleasure, it
creates temporal cessation of desire only to recreate the pain of lacking
it in the future. This Will is not real, it’s relative to relation in time and
space. Each material object that the Subject views as “ontologically
distinct” is only existent relative to its position in time and space, which
makes them relatively real, not absolutely real. However, there is an
absolute real independent of reason or the senses that permeates the
world, creating the link between the Subject and the “Other”. This
transcends space and time and is not viewed in terms of what it’s not,
therefore it’s entirely devoid of qualifiers since it breaks down the
subject-object dualism and therefore is beyond conception of reason.
This is only accessed through ascetic mystic experience, by which one
renounces what the material world has to offer, thus turning the Will on
its head, which is a result of meditative practice and avoiding actions
which perpetuate otherization and the Will.

1. There is a Will intrinsic to the nature of materiality – all “ontologically

distinct” beings strive in the material world, driven endlessly by desire.
The impact of the Will is suffering – there is no escape – temporary
satisfaction of a desire is immediately replaced by a new desire, and if
not that it is replaced by the second order desire of boredom, the desire
to have desire to fulfill.
Singh 10 (Singh, R. Raj. Schopenhauer: A Guide for the Perplexed. Bloomsbury
Publishing, 2010.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lib/umichigan/reader.action?
docID=601950)

the will disposes entirely with an ultimate aim and object. It

At all grades of its phenomenon, from lowest to the highest,

always strives, because striving is its sole nature, to which no attained goal can put an
end incapable of final satisfaction
. Such striving is therefore human being is a phenomenon . (W-I, 308) According to Schopenhauer,

of the will , just as other entities are, at all grades of Being, inanimate things, plants and animals also are. The will is always goal oriented and has aims which it is striving to accomplish incessantly in all levels of its phenomenon.

Everything is striving to realize its nature endless striving. . Since will brings aims, goals and dynamism to all things, it fills them with

Thus man is a bundle of needs, wants and cravings which know no final satisfaction , unless
the will at the summit of its knowledge of itself, in the human existence alone, resolves to deny rather than affirm itself. Striving is the kernel and in-itself of everything that exists which in case of human existence, manifests itself most distinctly

When
being endowed with a human consciousness superior to that of all other entities. This striving in man is appropriately called ‘will’, by Schopenhauer a term indicative of resolve, process, goals, ends and endless desires.

the will is hindered through obstacles between it and its temporary (immediate) goal, it
is called ‘suffering’ . Thus suffering is defined as hindrances placed in the advance of the will towards its immediate and presumed aims. The attainment of the temporary goal of the will is defined as satisfaction,

both suffering and temporary satisfaction do not deliver lasting

well-being, and happiness by Schopenhauer. Thus

happiness, since each so-called satisfaction is the starting point of a new striving . ‘Thus

that there is no ultimate aim of striving means that there is no measure or end of
suffering’ (W-I, 309). Thus inevitability of striving that is part and parcel of the will means that suffering is inevitable and ineradicable as a matter of course. This gives Schopenhauer the rationale for his pessimistic judgement

knowledge is
of life as such. Schopenhauer offers a graphic account of suffering in human life throughout his early and later writings. Suffering is felt to the highest degree in human existence because in human existence,

ever more distinct than in any animal and in its enhanced consciousness, pain also
increases. the more one knows the more one suffers
Schopenhauer asserts that ; a genius suffers most of all. Although suffering is more feebly

Life is a prevented
expressed in animal world, it offers a mirror t the human to witness how ‘all life is suffering’, for life means ‘striving’ and striving never has a smooth sailing. also a constant warding-off of death, ‘

dying, an ever deferred death’ struggling to nourish and preserve the body is
. Knowing that there is death,

another reason for suffering Willing and striving are the essence of
. Thus the will is more appropriately named ‘will-to-live’.

all living and the basis of willing is need, lack and hence pain . In case of the highest grade of will’s objectification, the human body appears

in-built in this concretized will-to-live is to

as an objectified will-to-live, with an iron command to nourish it. Thus man is a bundle of needs and wants. An additional task

propagate the species . As Schopenhauer explains in his essay on sexual love, the purposes of the will-to-live are unknowingly carried out by those attached in the bond of love and marriage. Furthermore,

when objects and activities of willing are temporarily

the needs and wants of romantic love have their own aspects of suffering. Furthermore,

missing, boredom strikes and existence seems to become a burden. ‘ life swings like a Hence

pendulum to and fro between pain and boredom ’ (W-I, 312). Ensuring and striving after their own existence is what keeps all living things engrossed and in

As soon as their existence is ensured to human beings or striving after existence

motion at all times.

gets a respite, they are at a loss as to ‘how to kill time’ Being free of existential this becomes a big issue.

cares at once makes humans burdens to themselves. Boredom is not to be taken lightly
for it imposes a compulsory sociability on people and obliges them to seek out one
another, even though at bottom due to deep-seated egoism, there is no love lost
among them . At the same time, human life is a continuous surge between willing and attainment. But the satisfactions of petty attainments are short-lived and wishes appear under new versions and forms. Schopenhauer

pure knowledge and genuine delight in art transforms us to being pure

acknowledges that

spectators of existence. But since pure intellectual and aesthetic pleasure require rare talent, they appear in very few. And these select few receive this higher satisfaction at the cost of feeling very
lonely among beings that are incapable of pure knowledge and aesthetic feeling. These moments of pure knowledge and art-experience are also like fleeting dreams in an existence that is given over to willing and craving for the most part. It is

Suffering is essential to life and it is really its various

the accidental nature of the appearance of sufferings that accords them their power.

forms that make their appearances subject to chance suffering is . But we frequently overlook the basic fact that ‘

essential to life, therefore does not flow in upon us from outside, but everyone carries
around within himself its perennial source’ happiness is only negative. (W-I, 318). Thus all satisfaction or so-called

Every satisfaction is fulfilment of a wish, and a wish or lack or desire has to be the
precedent condition of every pleasure. Schopenhauer returns to the theme of the positive nature of suffering in all of his early and later works. He is quick to point out the

the sight or description of another’s sufferings brings us a

moral failings of human egoism in his graphic description of human miseries. How

feeling of satisfaction is described by Schopenhauer with a quote from Lucretius: ‘Not

that it pleases us to watch another being tormented, but that it is a joy to us to observe
evils from which we ourselves are free’ (W-I, 320). An evidence of Schopenhauer’s observation can be found in the reactions of the tourists to the plight of the poorer native
populations around the sun and sand destinations. Many tourists seem to draw a perverse feeling of joy at their own superior economic situation and can hardly suppress their self-congratulatory satisfaction during their bouts of eating and
drinking in their all-inclusive resorts. As if the cares, anxieties and preoccupations of the actual world are not enough, human mind has a tendency to create an imaginary higher world for itself, a world of demons, gods and saints and a
thousand superstitions. To these conceived deities must be offered ‘sacrifices, prayer, temple decorations, vows and their fulfilment, pilgrimages, salutations, adornment of images and so on’. Events of this life are accepted as the counter-
effects of these divine beings. Such religious activities fulfil a double need of people for help and support as well as for activity and diversion. Schopenhauer points out that such spiritual and religious innovation took place more significantly
among peoples whose lives were made easy by mildness of climate and fertility of soil, first among the Hindus, then Greeks and Romans and later Italians, Spaniards and others. Schopenhauer emphasizes that his account of life’s suffering is not
just an ‘a-posteriori’ accumulation of instances of human miseries within history and experience. This could be deemed as a one-sided description lacking in universality which is required in a philosophical analysis. He maintains that his account
is a ‘perfectly cold and philosophical demonstration of the inevitable suffering at the very foundation of the nature of life; for it starts from the universal and is conducted a priori’ (W-I, 324). However, an a-posteriori confirmation of this truth is

the reality and primacy of human suffering is not merely deduced

to be found everywhere. What Schopenhauer means is that

from the various instances of pain and rejection in human condition. Rather, suffering
lies at the core of life as real and inevitable, part and parcel of existence as such . All the instances of
suffering which seem to be accidental occurrences are rather essential and inevitable components of existence, a testimony to the truth of suffering residing in the core of life. Of course, there are innumerable satisfactions felt at the
realizations of the goals of our strivings. But these are short-lived and too few compared to the widespread frustrations at the thwarting of the will’s endless cravings that prompt ceaseless quests. Add to these frustrations of wilful projects of
human being, the tragic facts of the nature of existence, needs, wants and necessities of the basic demands of life, the knowledge that death is certain but its timing is uncertain, the pains of human relationships, meetings and partings. All in all,
the nature of life and its manycoloured unfoldings contain an ocean of suffering. A significant part of it is lawful and inevitable aspect of existence itself, another part is bound to subdue us even though there is a portion of it that we can possibly
encounter and overcome with heroism. Schopenhauer maintains that a happy life is impossible; a heroic life of compassion and fortitude is an option. According to Schopenhauer, anyone whose judgement is not paralysed by prejudices of

optimistic doctrines will acknowledge that ‘this world of humanity is the kingdom of
assured

chance and error’. Folly and wickedness are rampant in it. Schopenhauer continues to present a graphic account of the darker aspects of

everything better and excellent struggles through as an exceptional

human life. In this world,

occurrence, In the sphere of thought, art and

and lasting creative works of great minds are those that have outlived the malice of their contemporaries.

action, the absurd, the dull and the fraudulent are the order of the day, disturbed only
by brief interruptions of the contributions of the genuine heroes and genius intellects . As far

as a rule, every life is a continual series of mishaps great and small,

as the individuals are concerned, ‘

concealed as much as possible by everyone’ (W-I, 324). Everyone is aware that others will draw a perverse satisfaction at the miseries of others from which they are at

How can anyone in one’s right mind call this unjust and miserable world ‘the best
the moment free.

of all possible worlds’ Schopenhauer wonders. If we were to take the most ‘hardened
and callous’ optimists through hospitals, prisons, torture-chambers, slave-hovels,
battlefields and other abodes of misery, they would have to give up their doctrines of
the glories of human existence . But this hopeless and irreversible condition of man is ‘precisely the invincible and indomitable nature of his will, the objectivity of which is his person’ (W-I,

An external power can never change or suppress this will, and no supernatural power
325).

can possibly deliver him from the sufferings that are the consequence of the life which is
a phenomenon of the will . Everything depends on the individual left to himself; any possible deliverance depends on the will of man himself. In vain does he make gods for himself, and seeks from

optimism,
them through prayer and flattery what can be brought about only by his own willpower. As man does have the capacity to deny this will-to-live as exemplified by sanyasis (monks), martyrs and saints of all faiths. But

at a fundamental level as the basic judgement of the nature of life, remains a ‘bitter
mockery of the unspeakable sufferings of mankind’ . Schopenhauer shows the atheistic tenor of his thought and offers a scathing critique of ritualistic
religion. However, he shows a great deal of admiration for saints and ascetics of all major religions, for he views them as genuine practitioners of the denial of the will, a difficult but nobler way of life. The acknowledgement of the suffering
inherent in human life is the starting point of wisdom and higher life according to Schopenhauer. He regards this pessimism as realism. To overlook and downplay the misery of others is both insensitive and immoral; to deny suffering in one’s

Suffering is very real and continuous throughout life’s various phases and at
own life shows shallow thinking.

the same time delivered to us in totally unpredictable and staggering modes, and
changing realities are hard to handle The respites from suffering, happy interludes are .

far too few and short-lived . By no means are suffering and happiness equal and opposite. Suffering is fundamental; the will and its allied cravings ensure inevitable hardship. All happinesses and
satisfactions are temporary breaks from the ongoing suffering essential to life. This is certainly a pessimistic and one-sided appraisal of life based on an interpretation of the character of the will-to-live, both willing and living being ongoing
quests and ongoing strivings, involving innumerable goals and innumerable frustrations. Due to the fact that our bodies and our lives are the abodes and arenas of the will-to-live, life and suffering have to be synonymous as two sides of the
same coin. The evidence for this basic truth can be found everywhere in the human condition. Schopenhauer cites instances of common woes and miseries, along with the meanness of human egoism, systemic exploitation of the downtrodden
and widespread heartlessness as sure signs of suffering that is part and parcel of life. Does Schopenhauer deliberately and/or compulsively downplay the positive and the good in human life? He does acknowledge the good but only in a heroic
encounter with suffering, and in an impassioned contemplation of the nature of the world by a small number of thinkers, artists and geniuses, and most of all in the saintly lives of those who say ‘no’ to the will’s commands and cravings. Any
other happiness or good has to be a temporary delusion according to him. The change, the striving and movement within life is taken to be something negative, a pointless turmoil, the opposite of the calm of salvation. Thus the Buddhist
dualism between samsara (worldliness) and nirvana (salvation) seems to be embedded in Schopenhauer’s insight.
2. While the Will is intrinsic to material existence, it is not inherently our
“real” essence. Rather it is a manifestation of the Absolute. Given that
the Will can be destroyed through asceticism, it cannot be Reality but
that which hinders knowledge of true reality. Reason cannot bring us to
the absolute at best, and at worst reintrenches us in the Will and takes
us away from the absolute
Krishnananda ’99 (Studies in Comparative Philosophy, Jan 1, 1999, Swami
Krishnananda, Indian Philosophical Scholar and Monk, https://www.swami-
krishnananda.org/com/Studies_in_Comparative_Philosophy.pdf, DOA:6/24/20)//YB

Will is
Schopenhauer's more like the mula-prakriti of the Vedanta, which is essentially unconscious activity, rather
than Reality whose essential nature is consciousness. Individual consciousness which expresses itself in the intellect is defined by the constitution of prakriti whose representation is the intellect. Intellect is the medium

in the Vedanta, prakriti is not Reality, and consciousness is not the

through which intelligence becomes manifest. But,

expression of prakriti. Consciousness is the essence of Reality which is beyond prakriti .

the psycho-analysts
But it is true that the intellectual intelligence in man is controlled by its unconscious Master, the prakriti with its primary modes of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Perhaps Freudian

would be friendly with Schopenhauer as he would be an aid in demonstrating their

theory that
of psychological determinism, the conscious is always determined by the nature of the unconscious, and that free-will is an illusion produced by the false notion that the conscious is independent of the

Instinct, craving, urge, is at the root of even the operation of reason.

unconscious. We are here reminded of Bradley's

But the urge for knowledge is not

saying that metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct, and that to find these reasons, again, is no less an instinct.

an irrational blind force. The instinct that makes it impossible for us to desist from the
noble enterprise of metaphysics is a superrational aspiration which voices forth the
longings of the infinite in us . Schopenhauer's blind Will cannot answer to this deepest truth in us, nor can the unconscious of Freud go beyond a mere sum of the unmanifested creative

Consciousness is not a by-product of the unconscious Will,

impressions and impulses left by our past conscious acts, since ages.

any more than it is a secretion of the material brain. Schopenhauer's theory that consciousness is only a mirror of the unconscious Will is, as it can be

How can consciousness be

very easily shown, an untenable assumption. The arguments against materialism naturally level themselves against this view of Schopenhauer.

manifested by an unconscious principle unless it is hidden in the unconscious itself? If

consciousness is latent in the unconscious, then the unconscious itself must be
endowed with consciousness, though we may accept that this consciousness remains
unmanifested in it. If consciousness is different from the unconscious, it is not even a
manifestation of the unconscious, and in this position even the existence of the
unconscious cannot be known for want of any relation between consciousness and
the unconsciou If, on the other hand, consciousness and the
s. We can as well say that the unconscious does not exist at all.

unconscious are one in essence, the unconscious gets illuminated by consciousness

and its essence becomes consciousnes s. Even on this supposition the unconscious ceases to be. If it is said that the unconscious alone is, and there is no such thing as
consciousness, we say that, as in that case no one would know that there is the unconscious, there is no warrant for the supposition that the unconscious exists. Schopenhauer can convey to us no meaning by asking us to run away from Reality

Reality cannot be abandoned or destroyed or overcome; it is the Supreme

or to overcome Reality.

Being which every one has to realise in one's own self. How can such a Reality be a
blind Will, a body of craving that brings misery? Instead of asking us to rise from phenomena to Reality, he wants us to be rid of Reality. Moreover, the real

Schopenhauer's
should necessarily be the good. It requires no argument to prove this, for the Real is naturally not different from one's own self. Have we to flee from our own selves? Has this teaching any sense?

Will, the evil principle, has to be considered a cosmic conception of the individual will
which is characterised by the evil of craving. A cosmic being, by itself, cannot be evil,
for no ethical or moral value, desire, pleasure or pain can be attributed to what is
super-individual . Evil is meaningful only in the individual, not in Reality. We can accept the theory of a primordial unconscious cosmic existence, as the prakriti of the Vedanta, and a conscious Idea appearing in it, as

We have to posit a Reality

Ishvara or Hiranyagarbha. But we cannot make even this conscious Idea an appearance of the unconscious, for consciousness cannot proceed from unconsciousness.
whose essential nature is consciousness and which manifests itself in the cosmic
unconscious as the conscious Idea . Further, the evil has to be confined to the individual psychological will which is a spoilt child of the cosmic Will, and should not be taken to the

Schopenhauer's advice that one should free oneself from

cosmic Will itself which is a metaphysical principle transcending good and evil.

the evil will amounts to nothing more than that one should transcend individual
existence, and cannot mean that one should avoid Reality itself, which is an
impossibility. He has made the mistake of objectifying the individual will in the cosmos and calling it a metaphysical Reality. Even if everyone's will is to be evil, it does not mean that the cosmic Will is evil, for even all
individual wills put together cannot make the cosmic Will. The argument against Kant's supposition that the categories of the understanding, objectively present in the sense that they are in all men, determine the nature of perceived objects,

Will is not Reality; it is the dynamic executive power of

applies also to Schopenhauer's belief that the evil will has a metaphysical existence.

consciousness, cosmically as well as individually. In the cosmos it is free; in the

individual it is bound and determined . Schopenhauer's philosophy has, however, great value if only we would take it in its application to psychology, and not as a fully
convincing system of metaphysics, not forgetting at the same time that while psychology is concerned with the behaviour and the functions of the individual mind, it is totally ignorant of the transcendental aspirations and the sublime conscious

. It is not because we reason that we

endeavours of the higher spiritual reason in man. Our want, says Schopenhauer, determines and is at the bottom of our reasonings

want; reason is the servant of want. Want is considered to be the master of even the
reason. We cannot influence people by appealing always to their understanding; understanding is dominated by volitional cravings. We have to appeal to the Will which is the seat of desire. Schopenhauer thinks that there is no
use of reasoning and argumentation with people,—they can never be persuaded or convinced by appeal to reason,—they yield when the activities of their Will, their private cravings, their urges, their interests are appealed to. We forget what

Reason or understanding is a mere tool in the hands of the

we merely understand; we remember what we desire.

cravings and fears of the Will. The Will-to-live, not the understanding, is the
mainspring of all action . Schopenhauer would agree with us if we say that all life is a struggle for food, clothing, shelter, sex and protection from outside attack. Only we have to add, though

there is another higher instinct in man which

Schopenhauer never seems to have had the patience to reflect over it, that , a secret aspiration

supersedes all the lower instincts, the aspiration for the wisdom of Truth , notwithstanding that this is rarely
seen in most human beings. Organic attraction and mechanical pull are both to Schopenhauer expressions of the Will-to-live. This Will tries falsely to overcome death by self-reproduction. This is why, says Schopenhauer, the sexual urge is so
strong in all beings. It is just another phase of the Will-to-live, the assertion of its immortality, its attempt to live eternally as an individual of the species. The instincts for self-preservation and self-reproduction are not different from each other.
The latter is only the process of ensuring the existence of the former in the future, too. Hence there is only one instinct, the turbulent, unquenchable Will-to-live. The intellect has no power over this instinct. Schopenhauer makes the romances
of love merely the subtle contrivances of the Will-to-live, the instruments used by it in its dark and wild operations to preserve itself. He concludes that sexual love brings misery to the individual because its aim is not the pleasure or the good of

the attempt of
the individual but the continuation of the species, for which nature shrewdly covers the reason of the individual and induces it to lay faith in the illusion that this is for its own pleasure and good. Thus

the Will to immortalise itself ends in its defeat, for what is here immortalised is not
the individual but the species. The individual has been cleverly deceived! Pleasure has no place in the process of the preservation of the species. Here Schopenhauer gives merely a
psychological interpretation of the Will-to-live asserting itself as the Will-to-reproduce. Its metaphysical implications are to be discovered in the dialectical process of Hegel and the 'satisfaction' of 'actual entities' in the philosophy of Whitehead.
The neutralisation of the thesis and the antithesis in the synthesis, which is the way in which all things create and recreate themselves and which Hegel employed to describe the integrating process of the higher evolution of the individuals
towards the realisation of Self-consciousness in the Absolute applies distortedly in relative individuals, ignorant of any such higher purpose, to the reproduction of individualities. In Whitehead the Hegelian dialectic continues in an elaborate
manner. The actual entities of Whitehead supply the data which are sought to be unified into the 'satisfaction' of the innate urge to create. An 'actual entity' is said to enjoy the process of creating itself out of its data, feels a 'satisfaction' in its

a creative urge is immanent in

self-emergence. An 'actual entity' becomes a 'superject' when it emerges out of the pre-existing world of actual entities. The implied meaning of all this is that

all things, which in its higher liberating archetypal existence becomes an integrating
conscious march to the realisation of the Absolute, and in its lower binding reflected
aspect in mortal individuals assumes the form of a blind seeking to perpetuate the
species. Here the lower becomes a travesty of the higher. The Greek philosophers had evidently this in their minds when they held the extraordinary view that sexual love represents in the world of sense a shadow of Divine love.
The Hindu ethics, too, regards marriage not as a contract of love, but as a sacrament, a devout union of souls for the fulfilment of a purpose higher than the mundane. It was not any element of passion but a dutiful surrender to law that

all this is true metaphysically

determined the meaning of marriage in ancient Hindu society. It was a spiritual aim that directed the union of the sexes. A note, however, has to be added that

but the ordinary individual in the world of sense gets perpetually

and in highly advanced societies,

blindfolded forgetting all spirituality in the nature of things

and stupidly , does not only fail to benefit by these higher implications, but

heads towards a fall into the mire of bondage and grief due to its cravings As a rule it .

has to be held that there is no possibility of discovering the spiritual in external

objects as long as one is locked within the prison-house of a world of ignorance, desire
and attachment. Schopenhauer gives the lower empirical side of the picture, and does
not rise to these heights which we know the man of today is not endowed with the ability to understand. For Schopenhauer marriage is the disillusionment of love, a trick by which every one is made

The Will can be conquere

to fall a victim to the blind Will. d, says Schopenhauer, by overcoming the Will-to-reproduce. The Will-to-reproduce is considered the greatest evil, for it seeks to perpetuate

Schopenhauer says that passions can be subdued by the domination of

the misery of individual existence.

knowledge over the Will. Most of our troubles would cease to be troubles if only they
could be properly understood in relation to their causes . Self-control provides to man the greatest protection against all external compulsion

True greatness is in self-master

and attack. y, not in victory over the worlds. The joy of the within is greater than the pleasure of the outside. To live in the self is to live in peace. The evil
Will can be overcome by conscious contemplation on the truth of things. Schopenhauer even recommends the company of the wise and intimate relations with them as aids in this contemplation. Knowledge is the great purifier of the self of

When the world is viewed not by sense but by knowledge, man is liberated from the
man.

evil and bondage of the Will Knowledge takes us to the universal essence . . How can this profound insight be
 How can knowledge give man freedom
consistent with the notion that consciousness, intelligence or knowledge is only a phenomenon, an appearance of the Will?

from the Will if it is only a creature projected by the Will? Further, when the Will is
Reality and also blind and evil, there can be no such thing as freedom, for the ultimate
aim of existence is to return to Reality, and so the eternal experience that we have to
aspire for ought to be one of unconsciousness, evil . How can Nirvana from the Will or the attainment of happiness and peace be possible, which

How could Schopenhauer give us a chaste philosophy

Schopenhauer so forcibly pleads for, if the Will is Reality and consciousness its effect?

through his intellect if the intellect is an appearance of the evil Will? Will not then his philosophy itself become a
product of blind craving and evil? Schopenhauer gives evidence to a confused mind which longs for universal and eternal freedom in perfect knowledge, but which at the same time condemns this longing by denouncing Reality as a blind and

His resignation to asceticism which, he says, can destroy the Will and enable one to
evil Will.

attain freedom shows that the Will is not Reality but a clinging to individual existence,
and that Reality is freedom, happiness and peace .

3. The material world, bound by the Will, is only real as we view the world
as a relation between ourselves – the “self” – and the “the world”,
something ontologically distinct from the self. Thus, when the subject-
object-distinction collapses, the Will no longer exists and is revealed as
an illusion of the creative process of the Absolute Real. Thus, the only
way to transcend the material Will – the root cause to suffering, is
identification with the Absolute
Krishnananda, 1972 (Swami Krishnananda, Indian Philosophical Scholar and Monk at
Divine Life Society, 01-01-1972, accessed on 6-29-2020, The Realisation of the Absolute,
"The Realisation of the Absolute", https://www.swami-
krishnananda.org/realis/realis_2.html)

The world is a presentation of outward variety and seeming contradiction in existence. It is a disintegrated appearance of the Absolute, a limited expression of Infinitude, a degeneration of the majesty of immortal Consciousness, a diffused form

Each separated entities of the world claims for itself an

of the spiritual Completeness, a dissipated manifestation of changeless Eternity. of such

absolutely independent existence and regards all objective individuals as the not-Self.
The not-Self is always considered to be in absolute contradiction to or at least
absolutely distinguished from the self's own localised being. The exclusion of other limited objective

bodies from one's own subjective self involves a relation between the two , and this relation is the force that

keeps intact the network of diverse consciousness. Everything hangs on the other thing for its subsistence through contact. A lack of the character of self-sufficiency discloses the deceitful nature of the relative reality of things marked off within

The fact that every

themselves. obvious entity expresses within itself an urge to relate itself to
demarcated

other objective beings through internal psychoses and sense-operations points out the
inability and impossibility of individualised centres of consciousness to maintain the
apparent truth of their professed self-existence. The universe rolls on ceaselessly in the cycle of time, and reveals a newer characteristic of itself every

Things do not rest in themselves but ever pass away into something else.
moment.

Everything in this universe is change. Change is the law of life. Nothing is without changing itself. An inadequacy felt in the attainments of the current state of existence is the

. Action is impossible unless the self feels in itself a deficiency

forerunner of all enterprises in the life of the individual

which can be filled up by an active endeavour to possess the missing part that would
contribute to the completion of its nature . A felt necessity for a fuller state of experience is the mother of all attractions and repulsions. The whole cosmos seems to be

Struggle is the
a restless field where dynamic powers are arrayed in battle as if to extirpate themselves for a nobler cause. Tranquillity can well be said to be non-existent in the history of the space-time world.

meaning of phenomenal endurance. The Upanishads solve the riddle of relative strife through the intuitive perception of the Essence. The heroic leap of the individual into the

unknown is the expression of the want of a superior joy. The dissatisfaction with limitedness in life directs the soul to catch the fullness of perfection in the truth of its Integrality, with which the individualised condition is not endowed. Hence,

universal movement and individual effort, though differing in their altruism of nature, can be understood as a reflection of the tendency to Self-Perfection of Being. The pressure of the truth of the absoluteness of consciousness is the source of
the force that compels individuals to transcend their finitude and find their eternal repose in it alone. This permanent Verity is the supreme object of quest through the cosmical endeavour in creation, wherein alone all further impulses for

externalisation of forces are put an end to. The desire to become the All terminates in the experience of Infinitude. This aspiration to transcend states and things points to the unreal character of the universe. "The one Being, the wise diversely

speak of." —Rigveda, I. 164. 46. "There is nothing diverse here." —Katha Up., IV. 11. "Existence is One alone without a second." —Chh. Up., VI. 2.1. The life of every individual bears connections with the lives of other individuals in varieties of

ways, in accordance with the degree of its awareness of Reality. Every thought sets the surface of existence in vibration and touches the psychic life of other individuals with a creative force the capability of action of which is dependent on the

Objects entirely cut off from one another can have no relation
intensity of the affirmation of the mind generating that thought.

among themselves. cogitation and understanding are messengers of the fact

Sense-perception,

that there exists a fundamental substratum of a uniform and enduring Consciousness.

Cognition is impossible without a pre-existent link between the subject and the
object. Thought cannot spring from emptiness, for emptiness is itself nothing . Activity is possible

The denial or assertion of something

because there is creative imagination and imagination is a moving objectified shadow of Consciousness.

presupposes the awareness of the thinking subject and the subject cannot stand apart
from self-awareness . The perception of an object reveals the
. Self-consciousness is, thus, unavoidable in being. It is an eternal fact

conscious relation that is between the subject and the object. This relation should be based on a fundamentally changeless being,

The world is made up of forms. The forms

without which even a relation is not possible. All contacts presuppose an immovable ground which supports all movements.

of things disclose their unreal nature when subjected to a careful examination of their
composition and working. A thing is a member of the society of diverse phenomenal centres appearing to divide against itself a basic Noumenon. A thing is an object of thought, an internal form,

A form is differentiated from existence as a whole by a

and an external form is known through thought itself, which is consciousness objectified.

particular mode characterising it. It cannot be said that a thing has a is defined by a mode or that it

definite form unless it becomes an object of thought. Thought itself is conditioned by

forms, and it is thought, again, that knows external forms and determines their nature .

The laws governing the modes of thinking shall have sway over its objects also, for the rules that regulate the process of knowledge and restrict its operations determine all the contents thereof, which, therefore, cannot be known independent

All forms of objective knowledge are, thus, deceptive and

of and free from the conditions to which the knowing process is subject.

give to the knower nothing of reality. The truth of the object of thought can be known
only when it is freed from the modes of thought, and the truth of thought itself can be
known only when it is not conditioned by the forms which it takes. Neither the mind
nor its object, taken independently, can be said to truly exist. That the mind exists
cannot be proved unless there is a modification of the modal consciousness , which is called a psychosis or

which is not possible without the mind's taking the form of an object or an
a mental transformation, , again,

objective condition. That objects exist also cannot be proved unless there are minds to
cognise and know them. Each is explained only by the other and not by itself. Nothing
in this world, neither the subject nor the object, is independent and self-existent. The
test of reality is non-dependence, completeness and imperishabilit y . When things are judged from this standard of truth,

the phenomenal subjectivity and objectivity in them are found to break down and
reveal their ultimate unreality. The appearance of the subject-object-distinction has to
be finally attributed to the creative activity of consciousness itself, though the relation
of consciousness the idea of causality itself is an effect of
and change in the form of any activity is beyond understanding and explanation. As

the want of real knowledge, a question as to the cause of this want has no meaning. But

the affirmation of consciousness has to objectify itself in the form in which it is desired
to manifest itself, as all forms are contents of consciousness. Whatever an individual affirms must ultimately happen or be

Misery or suffering and pleasure or happiness are

materialised into effect, because each centre of consciousness has infinity at its background.

experiences relative to the understanding of the individual, and are of such a

character and degree as is the condition of the individual consciousness in relation to
the Absolute Being. There is really one experience which is absolute, and it can be styled neither a misery nor a pleasure. That One Experience is diversely felt as variety, and is fictitiously termed as either this or that, and
 The form of the world is found to be a magical appearance when subjected to
of this nature or of that.

the test of severe discrimination .

4. Thus, the meta-ethic is mysticism. Ascetic mysticism allows us to turn

around the Will and make it deny itelf, renouncing what the world has to
offer and instead living closer to the Absolute
Acheson 81. James, University of Canterbury. “Madness and Mysticism in Bekett’s
Not I” Journal of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association 55:1
91-101 | rpadhi
Others, like St. Paul, have described hearing voices-voices that have broken abruptly in upon their ordinary everyday activities. Julian of Norwich and 81. Catherine of Siena, for example, describe not only hearing the voice of God, but replying
to it; St. Teresa and Ana de la Encarnacion tell of writing under God's dictation.Their experiences have obvious relevance to Not I, where the 'buz- zing' (p. 7) in Mouth's head transforms itself into an uncontrol- lable voice not consciously her
own, a voice which sometimes raises questions to which she replies. Interestingly, her lack of control over the voice and over her own bodily movements are prefigured in Schopenhauer's description of the mystical experience in The World as

Schopenhauer argues that we are all subject to an inner striving

Will and Idea, a work Beckett is known to have read.2~

force, 'the will to live', which impels us to seek out sources of pleasure and to avoid
pain. we generally treat other people in terms of the gratification of our own
As will-motivated beings,

physical and psychological needs: Yet there are some men-ascetic mystics-who we are all basically selfish.

choose to renounce what the world has to offer in order to live closer to God. They
renounce the world, and after a long period of asceticism, the will 'turns round': it 'no
longer asserts its own nature, . . . but denies it' the individual mystic (WWI, I, 490). With this turning of the will,

achieves an indifference to worldly pleasure so profound that he ceases to perceive his

surroundings, and ceases, too, to dwell on his own existence. '[We] can understand the meaning of Madame Guion', comments

Everything is alike to me; I cannot will anything more:

Schopenhauer, 'when towards the end of her autobiography she often expresses herself thus: "

often I know not whether I exist or not'" (WWl, I, 505). Normally Mouth is able to will her behaviour-to scream, for example, 'should she feel so inclined ... scream . . .

But her visionary experience (the result, perhaps, of a life of poverty-dictated

(screams)' (p. 9).

asceticism) brings with it a marked dissipation of will; she says that it made her feel 'so dulled ... she did not know what position she was in ....
whether standing ... or sitting or kneeling' (p. 7). Similarly, the voice that takes her over works independently of her brain, as though her brain were disconnected from the 'machine' (p. 11)- the body- it usually controls. When it speaks, it is of

'nothing she .could tell' (p. 14); in other words , it speaks of an ineffable experi- ence like the mystic's of union with
God.

5. Thus, the standard is meditative introspection– only process which

allows us to shed the ego – and realize the united Absolute.
Snauwaert 9 - Associate Professor of Educational Theory and Social Foundations of
Education; Chair of the Department of Foundations of Education, University of Toledo

(Dale, “The Ethics and Ontology of Cosmopolitanism: Education for a Shared Humanity,”
Current Issues in Comparative Education 12.1, Directory of Open Access Journals)//BB

Cosmopolitans assert the existence of a duty of moral consideration to all human

beings on the basis of a shared humanity . What is universal in, and definitive of, cosmopolitanism is
the presupposition of the shared inherent dignity of humanity. As Martha Nussbaum states: [Human good can] be
objective in the sense that it is justifiable by reference to reasons that do not derive merely from local traditions and
practices, but rather from features of humanness that lie beneath all local traditions and are there to be seen
whether or not they are in fact recognized in local traditions. (Perry, 1998, p. 68) If a shared humanity is
presupposed, and if humanity is understood to possess an equal inherent value and dignity, then a shared humanity
possesses a fundamental moral value. If the fundamental moral value of humanity is acknowledged, then a universal
duty of moral consideration follows, for to deny moral consideration to any human being is to ignore (not recognize)
their intrinsic value, and thereby, to violate their dignity.
The duty of moral consideration in turn
morally requires nations and peoples to conduct their relations in accordance with
ethical principles that properly instantiate the intrinsic value and dignity of a shared
humanity. If valid, the fundamental aims of the education of citizens should be based
upon this imperative. In order to further explicate this cosmopolitanism perspective, the philosophy of one of
history’s greatest cosmopolitans, Mohandas K. Gandhi, is explored below. Reflections on Gandhi’s Cosmopolitan
Philosophy While most commentators focus on Gandhi’s conception and advocacy of nonviolence, it is generally
recognized that his core
philosophical beliefs regarding the essential unity of humanity
and the universal applicability of nonviolence as a moral and political ideal places
Gandhi in the cosmopolitan tradition as broadly understood (Iyer, [1973] 1983; Kumar Giri, 2006). At
the core of Gandhi’s philosophy are the interdependent values of Satya (Truth) and Ahimsa (nonviolence). Gandhi’s
approach to nonviolent social transformation, Satyagraha, is the actualization in action of these two values
(Bondurant, 1965; Iyer, [1973] 1983; Naess, 1974). Gandhi’s
Satya is multifaceted. Its most fundamental
meaning pertains to Truth as self-realization . Satya is derived from sat, Being. Truth is Being;
realizing in full awareness one’s authentic Being . Truth, in this sense, is the primary goal of life.
Gandhi writes:¶ What I want to achieve . . . is self-realization . . . I live and move and have my being in pursuit of that
goal. All that I do by way of speaking and writing, and all my ventures in the political field are directed to this same
end. (Naess 1974, p. 35) Self-realization , for Gandhi, requires
“shedding the ego,” ”reducing
one self to zero” (cited in Naess 1974, p. 37). The ego per se is not the real self; it is a
fabrication. This egoic self must be transcended . As the egoic self loosens and one
becomes increasingly self-aware, one deepens the realization of one’s authentic
being, and that being is experienced as unified with humanity and all living things .
Scholars normally understand human identity in terms of personality, which is a socially constructed self-concept
constituted by a complex network of identifications and object relations. This construction is what we normally refer
to as the ego or self-identity. Our egoic self-identity is literally a construction, based upon psychological
identifications (Almaas, 1986a, 1986b; Batchelor, 1983). From this perspective, the
ego is a socially
constructed entity, ultimately a fabrication of the discursive formations of culture ;
from this point of view, the self is exclusively egoic. This perspective has its origins in the claim that consciousness is
solely intentional: the claim that consciousness is always consciousness of some object. From this presupposition, the
socially constructed, discursive nature of the self is inferred. If consciousness is solely intentional, then the self is a
construction, and, if the self is a construction, then it is always discursive – a prediscursive self cannot exist. It can be
argued, however, that intentionality itself presupposes pre-intentional awareness. A distinction can be made
between intentional consciousness and awareness. Intentional consciousness presupposes awareness that is always
implicit in intentional consciousness. If intentional consciousness does not presuppose a pre-intentional awareness, if
there is only consciousness of, then there is always a knower-known duality, and that duality leads to an infinite
regress. To be conscious of an object X, one has to be conscious of one’s consciousness
of X, and one would have to be conscious of one’s consciousness of one’s
consciousness of X, and one would have to be conscious of one’s consciousness of one’s consciousness of
one’s consciousness of X . . . ad infinitum-reductio ad absurdum . Therefore, there must be
implicit in intentional consciousness a level of awareness that is pre-intentional, pre-
discursive, and non-positional (Forman, 1999). To be conscious of anything presupposes pre-intentional
self-awareness, and being pre-intentional, awareness must be in turn pre-discursive and non-positional (Almaas,
1986a, 1986b; Aurobindo, 1989, 2001; Batchelor, 1983; Buber, 1970; Forman, 1999; Fromm, 1976). When
the
ego is shed, a pre-discursive, nonpositional self-awareness is revealed . One can be
reflexively aware of one’s consciousness. Gandhi held that pre-discursive self-awareness, the
core of our being, is unified and interdependent with all living things . He writes: “I believe
in the essential unity of man and, for that matter, of all that lives (Naess 1974, p. 43).” In an ontological sense,
Gandhi maintains that Satya, Truth, is selfrealization, a realization of one’s self-awareness as essentially unified with
and thereby existing in solidarity with all human beings and with all living things. Pre-discursive
self-
awareness is experienced as non-positional, and, being non-positional, it is unbounded; it exists as a field
of awareness that is interconnected with all sentient beings . This state is an
experience and is only known experientially . Therefore, the assertion of a shared humanity is based
upon a common level of being. Human intentional consciousness is expressed in a vast plurality of cultural
expressions; implicit within this plurality, existing as its ground, is a shared level of awareness of being that unites us.
From the perspective of ontological Truth, nonviolence follows from the unity and
interdependence of humanity and life; violence damages all forms of life, including
 one’s self. Nonviolence uplifts all. Gandhi writes:¶ I do not believe . . . that an individual may
gain spiritually and those who surround him suffer. I believe in advaita (non-duality), I
believe in the essential unity of man and, for that matter, of all that lives . Therefore, I
believe that if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and, if one man
falls, the whole world falls to that extent . (Naess 1974, p. 43)¶ In this experience, one becomes
aware of the interrelated and interdependent nature of being. On an existential level, there exists a fundamental
interconnection between one’s self and other beings. As
Buber suggests, “we live in the currents of
universal reciprocity (Buber, 1970, p. 67).” From the perspective of this experience—and
this is a direct experience—to harm the other is to harm one’s self . From the
perspective of existential interconnection, nonviolence, the essence of morality,
rests upon an awareness of our fundamental interconnection.
6. Weighing
a. Pursuit of pleasure over pain reinvests in and is a manifestation of
the Will
b. The sum of pleasure and pain in the world is finite so it can
neither be increased or decreased.
c. Deliberation – calculating every possible result of an action would
take infinite time making decision-making impossible.
d. Util is infinitely regressive – you have to calculate the
consequences of consequences and so on which makes action
impossible.
e. Desires and pains are qualitatively different for everyone – means
we can’t universalize pleasure or pain, i.e. masochists would find
things pleasurable that other people don’t.
7. The role of the ballot is to vote for whoever wins their metaphysical or
ontological theory of reality
a. It’s a prior question, ethics and epistemology stem from one’s
metaphysical worldview
b. The most important philosophical question is the nature of reality
and ontology
Madhu, 13 (NR Madhu, 11-8-2013, accessed on 6-30-2020,
Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses , "A reflective analysis of
perceptions on education of swami vivekananda and sri aurobindo",
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/12799)

The truth that knowledge resides inside the mind and not outside it was revealed to the ancient Rishis when they
reached the pinnacle of their quest. Indian philosophers have always believed and stressed on the state where the enquirer and his target of enquiry becomes one. “Tattuvamasi Swētakētō...”. (Chandogya Upanishad.

6.8.7).Which means ‘O Shwethaketho – thou art That.’ The ultimate truth resides in you. All the philosophies that emanated in Bharat have upheld the vision that the purpose of
human life is the acquisition of knowledge . There may be certain small variation in the path to acquire this knowledge. It is obvious that the term

the ultimate knowledge is,

ultimate truth does not imply materialistic knowledge. According to Indian Philosophy, ‘Atmajnana’ ( Self- realisation ).

The
The ultimate knowledge can be acquired only when one realises ‘Brahma Jnana’. Brahma Jnana is nothing but the realisation of God. The Upanishads have expressed the fact as, ‘Tatwamasi’ or thou art That.

identification of the Self with the Brahman is true knowledge. One who experiences this truth about
 The purpose of education is
Brahmam will see the manifestation of God in all elements. ‘Abheda Darshanam Jnanam’ is what the Rishis had to say about true knowledge.

reaching the level at which one views all elements with the same attitude . ‘Sarvam

This implies that everything is Brahman

Khalvidam Brahama’ is the term used in the Chandokyopanishad. . The above facts can be expressed by the

self- realisation is the ultimate knowledg

brief statement that e. This is the core belief of Indian philosophy. This realisation of the Brahmam was
never against the acceptance of the reality of the material world. Yet, Indian Philosophy was never based on materialism.

c. To clarify – even if they win offense under my framework, you

vote aff given concede to my metaphysical world view or don’t
provide a competing interpretation of reality. On theory shells,
ROB comes before theory because they’re essentially asking for
your ballot so they have to provide a competing ROB to evaluate
theory under
d. No risk of abuse – just beat back the fw with your own
e. Better for debate – the fundamental question is whether or not
we are real and what we are. Everyone has a certain conception of
what this is, they can just leverage that. Anything else requires
abstraction and extrapolation beyond that, which is built on shaky
epistemic ground, harms critical thinking, and destroys clash,
which is key to fairness
 Offense
Economic Sanctions otherize nations, emphasizing the self-other
dichotomy and forcing ontological estrangement
De Buitrago 15 [Brackets Original. Sybille Reinke de Buitrago (researcher at the Institute for Peace Research and
Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH) and at the Institute for Theology and Peace, Hamburg, Germany, PhD in
political science from IFSH/University of Hamburg). “Self-Other Constructions, Difference and Threat: US and Arab “Othering”
of Iran.” Regional Insecurity After the Arab Uprisings. Pg 85-106. 2015. Accessed 6/18/20.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9781137503978_5 //Houston Memorial DX]

As the United States takes a global approach to national security, developments in Iran and the Middle East are of vital interest.
US–Iranian relations were fairly good historically and up until the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the Iran hostage crisis. Afterwards, the United
States changed position towards Iran several times. During the Iran–Iraq War, the United States favoured Iraq, but in the mid-1980s also sold
weapons to Iran, and under Clinton in the 1990s issued sanctions against Iran. From 1998 on, under Iranian reformer Khatami,
tensions softened. With 9/11 and George W. Bush portraying Iran as an enemy and including it in the
“axis of evil”, relations deteriorated again, a situation which was further reinforced by Ahmadinejad’s more radical Iranian foreign
policy. With Rouhani replacing Ahmadinejad and moving towards the United States, the rhetoric between the two countries became much
friendlier and less antagonistic, and diplomatic relations were restored after more than three decades. In the US perspective, a key issue of
contention is possible Iranian nuclear weapons. Such weapons in Iranian hands are considered a clear threat to US national interests, and they
would challenge US identity as global leader. Some US decision-makers therefore determine such weapons as warranting a military strike
against Iranian nuclear facilities; the option of a surgical strike has been actively debated (see e.g. Kroenig, 2012). Another issue is state-
sponsored terrorism. The Country Reports on Terrorism (US Department of State, 2012) still link Iran with: sponsoring terrorism and promoting
violent extremism; arms smuggling to the Taliban in Kandahar province, Afghanistan; contributing to Iraq’s destabilization despite pledges to
promote stabilization; and supporting the Assad regime with money, training and weapons in the Syrian civil war (ibid.), the latter as another
issue of contention (World Views, 2013). These threat issues fit directly with existing images of Iran as a potential threat to stability and security
in the region and beyond. And the response, favoured by some, of striking Iranian nuclear facilities fits with the belief in displaying strength and
with the US identity of global leader. Under the first Clinton administration, Iran policy was also sensitive to the small changes within Iran after
Khatami came to power. Some mistakes in US policy were admitted and restrictions eased. The second Clinton administration tightened policy
again somewhat. Bush, however, would only accept grand changes in the Iranian political system. When he took a hard-line policy stance in 2002
and included Iran in the “axis of evil”, Iranian reformers lost legitimacy internally, conservatives were empowered and opportunities for
improving relations were lost (Haas, 2012, pp. 107–117). Under Bush, the
difference between self and other –
between the United States and Iran – was increased in discourse and policy action.
Iran was again the threatening other. Above all, the United States blames Iran for causing difficult US– Iranian relations
by acting against US and allied interests. Iran is accused of using “some of... [its] hostility towards Israel ...[as a] smokescreen to justify its efforts
to offset US conventional military power in the Gulf and gain a strategic edge over its Arab neighbours” (Cordesman, 2014). Now, the US
administration is called upon to play the “good cop” by appearing as willing negotiator in talks with Iran, while Congress plays the “bad cop” by
threatening tougher sanctions or to restore sanctions if Iran should not show good will – though Iran’s need
for opportunities to save face at home is also acknowledged (ibid.). Accusations of Iranian intransigence were voiced by National Security
Advisor Tom Donilon in 2011. The
United States, on the other hand, is said to act with the
international community’s support to increase pressure on Iran in a structured and
cooperative manner that also considers regional security. Thus, “Iran’s model of extremism, violence,
and the denial of basic human rights” is likened to al-Qaeda and said to threaten regional peace and stability, while the correctness of American
actions is affirmed (USIP, 2011). Iran
is furthermore accused of constant concealment and
insincerity regarding its nuclear developments, which must be countered by US and
international action (Smedts, 2012, p. 222; Thielmann, 2012), fitting with the view of
Iran as threat and the created distance making Iran the dangerous other. Only a few attest to
Iran displaying normal state behaviour by simply using opportunities and following realpolitik, only couched in ideological terms, and acting
rationally based on costs and benefits to assure regime survival, territorial sovereignty and regional influence – which can also include
cooperation with the United States (RAND, 2009, p. 1; Davis et al., 2011, p. 10). While language towards Iran has softened under Obama, the US
National Security Strategy draft still sees Iran as a threatening and destabilizing state of concern and even likens it to North Korea; although
diplomacy is said to come first, the military option remains on the table (The White House, 2013, pp. 4, 8). This again points to both the existing
mistrust and the view of the other as threat. Despite attempts to improve relations, the United States, but also Iran, seems to be falling back into
its past zero-sum game and views of the other as hostile, misleading, irrational and intransigent (Limbert, 2010, p. 146 ff.). Overall,
Iran
is portrayed as an extremist, a global aggressor, an outcast, a human rights abuser
and internally divided, and is being placed opposite to the democratic,
internationally supported and “force for good” United States, which only reproduces
the view of the self–other dichotomy.
Sanctions are a form of power-over, where an actor uses something to
pursue their interest contrary to another’s-- this is a form of control and
domination which guts deliberation and is a manifestation of the Will
Hendriks 17 [Carolyn M. Hendriks (Crawford School of Economics and Government, Australian National University).
“Deliberative governance in the context of power.” Policy and Society. Pg 173-184. 3/3/17. Accessed 6/16/20.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.08.004 //Houston Memorial DX]

‘Power-over’ occurs when the powerful exert control or domination overthe

powerless for a desired outcome.6 This is sometimes referred to as coercion where
an actor (or set of actors) uses force or threat of sanction to pursue their interests. In
other words, ‘A exercises power-over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B
interests’ (Lukes, 1974, p. 27). This is a zero-sum understanding of power where someone’s gain, is another’s loss. ‘Power-over’ has at
least three different dimensions (Lukes, 1974):Primary or first dimension power refers to the direct domination of A over B in an observable
conflict arena (Gaventa, 1980, pp. 13–14; Lukes, 1974, pp. 11–15). This dimension of ‘power-over’ is the one most closely associated with
interest group pluralism for it refers to a bargaining or decision-making process in which there are clear winners and losers. 2. Second
dimension power is a more indirect form of ‘power-over’ where A manipulates the rules of the game so that B does what A wants (Gaventa,
1980, pp. 14–15; Guinier & Torres, 2002, pp. 327, fn 313; Lukes, 1974, pp. 16–20). This kind of power creates a ‘mobilising bias’, for example, by
excluding certain participants or issues from politics, or through non-decisions (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962, 1963). 3. The third dimension of
‘power-over’ refers to more subtle forms of control and domination, which can be exerted through observable or physiological means. It occurs
when A uses symbols, myths and narratives to manipulatively influence B’s reality, including how she perceives her own wants and the
inequalities around her (Guinier & Torres, 2002, pp. 327, fn 313; Lukes, 1974, pp. 21–25). It can also involve A shaping how B views the
possibilities for change, to the extent where B sees it as inappropriate or even pointless to challenge A’s power (Gaventa, 1980, p. 20). Given its
subtle and tacit nature, the third dimension of power is difficult to place under surveillance and monitor. ‘ Power-over’
is
pervasive feature in all democracies and one at the centrepiece of interest group
politics. This is the kind of power that is intentionally designed out of structured
(micro) deliberative procedures. The general thrust of this argument is that forms of
strategic action such as control, domination, manipulation and deception are
inconsistent with the communicative conditions necessary for deliberation (see
Cohen, 1997).