My View of the World

If you're interesting in theology and philosophy, then this author should be someone who you're familiar with. If not, it's time to discover him. Popularised in many people's mind by the Cat Theory, he proposes parallel universes and all possibilities existing simultaneously. This is just one theory and there's more theories within theories and plenty more. There's a certain seemingly pretentious style to his writing similar to Freud, but it's comprehensible enough. Recommended!

A very interesting text incorporating views on evolution, consciousness and Eastern mysticism. Worth reading without doubt.

Boring

Bold attempt of Nobel laureate to explain limitations of pure sciences and at same time utility of metaphysics to fill those limitations. A very balanced book.

Excelente obra, espero logo mais comprar a versão física!

Schrödinger’s slim volume offers two interesting “philosophical” takes on the nature of the universe and human consciousness, one essay “Seek For the Road” was written in 1925 and the second, “What is Real?” was penned much later in 1960. The first exudes a youthful embrace of metaphysics and mysticism; the second, while retaining a view consistent with metaphysics, is a bit more plodding and detailed when moving through various lines of argumentation. I begin with my only critique: The writing is grounded in the stylistic choice to approach the content through the use of the scholastic logical (contemplative) trope of “via negativa,” which at times unnecessarily forestalls the revelation of the “positive” content of his position. However, the author draws heavy inspiration from Schopenhauer, one of the more verbose German metaphysicians! This is not a critique of the position he advocates, but only of its expression in certain sections, and this especially applies to the later of the two essays, and it is to this later essay that I devote the lion’s share of my attention, because “What is Real?” concretizes, in a detailed manner, the thrust of Schrödinger’s philosophy. There is limited talk of Quantum Mechanics or Theoretical Physics, for Schrödinger admits that these fields have little to do with the philosophy laid out in the book. Schrödinger embraces an approach grounded in mysticism and metaphysics, and admittedly, such approaches rely far more on human intuition than logical, discursive reason. Importantly, Schrödinger recognizes and stresses the limits of human understanding, and “on this ground alone exact science is never really possible” (p. 83). As related to the world we seek to understand, the best we can do is “reach an understanding about the structure of the world grasped by the senses, but not about the quality of the units it consists of” (p. 88). Here, at first blush, it appears as though Schrödinger is embracing a Kantian view that highlights the unbridgeable distance between the phenomenal and noumenal realms, which would render Schrödinger’s metaphysics impossible and absurd, but this is not the case as I discuss below. Regarding the limits of human understanding in relation to metaphysics, Schrödinger contends that the hypothesis of the material (external) world is a metaphysical assumption or conclusion because “there is nothing observable that corresponds to it” (p. 93). This issue is also related to mysticism, and in a manner undeniably reminiscent of Hume, Schrödinger argues that such a conclusion demands, “the application of a an empirically well-founded mutual relation between two objects (cause & effect) to pairs of objects of which only one (the sense-perception) is ever really perceived or observed, while the other (the material cause) is merely an imaginative construct” (P. 94). Approaching the explication of the main thesis of his philosophy, Schrödinger, in a manner that defies direct realism, naïve realism, and crass materialism, contends: “There are two irrational, mystical [metaphysical] hypotheses: (1) the so-called hypothesis of the real external world, or (2) the admission that we are all only various aspects of the One [Godhead/Mind]” (p. 106). In a nutshell: There is a single Reality (Consciousness/Mind/Being) within which we all participate in our particularity-individuality (principle of individuation). However, the “pluralism of sensitive beings is mere appearance; in reality they are all aspects of the one Being” (p. 101). To westerners such a notion is linked to God; in the Upanishads to Brahman; and in the Pre-Socratic philosophy of Anaxagoras to Nous or Mind (for an interesting reading of the connection between Schrödinger and Anaxagoras see Geldard’s short study of Anaxagoras and Mind. NB: My review of this book is available on Amazon). I note for readers that the comparison to Anaxagoras that Schrödinger’s philosophy inspires, relates directly and offers a solution to the primordial Pre-Socratic question/problem of the One and the Many. I note that Schrödinger stresses that his position demands that the “eschatology” associated with Indian thought is jettisoned – which is to say that he eschews the “karmic” notion of the “soul’s transmigration”. To briefly return to an issue introduced earlier, the second of the two “hypotheses,” identified as the “principle of identity,” shelters undeniable ethical implications, for despite our own identities, we share a common world, and language is the key to our interaction on the inter-personal level. The ethical implications present to Schrödinger’s philosophy relate to both humanistic ethics (Anthro-ethics) and eco-ethics (eco-phenomenological ethics). “In general, everyone stands to receive more happiness if those around him are kind to him that it will cost him if he in his turn kind to others” (p 108). The potential for ethics emerges from the main thesis of the philosophical position, “mercy and kindness towards all living beings (not only our fellowmen) are here praised as the highest attainable goal” (p. 97), Schrödinger associates the sense of “astonishment” with the metaphysical position he espouses, and what is interesting, if we turn to Heidegger’s (1956) late lecture, “What is Philosophy?” is that astonishment (Das Erstaunen) is the grounding attunement of philosophy. Indeed, Heidegger states, that “astonishment” is a “pathos” and serves as philosophy’s archē or beginning: “Astonishment carries and pervades philosophy” (p. 81). The philosophy of My View of the World is directly inspired by the Indian writings of the Vedanta – and, as Schrödinger states, “the mystical and metaphysical doctrine of the Upanishads itself” (p. 101). As pointed out earlier, Schrödinger admits that he also drew inspiration from Schopenhauer’s pessimistic worldview, but it is also possible to reveal a connection to Nietzsche’s early aesthetics-metaphysics (The Birth of Tragedy), where he too, in his analysis of Attic Tragedy, views the “principle of individuation” (solus ipse) associated with Apollonian attunement as illusory (maya); whereas the attunement inspired by the god of orgiastic intoxication, Dionysus, shatters the illusion (tearing the veil as it were), bringing the ancient spectators as participants into the living presence of the “Primal Oneness” (Brahman) of the world, within which we all participate and from which we draw life. Lastly, it should not be surprising that Schrödinger relies on and puts trust in human “intuition” as a legitimate form of insight or understanding, considering he was a dedicated and brilliant scientist – intuition serves as the initial and fertile inroad (archē) to all legitimate developments in the empirical and theoretical sciences. I highly recommend this book for those interested in metaphysical philosophy. Dr. James M. Magrini Former: Philosophy/College of DuPage

I am genuinely disappointed with the print quality. I have always associated Cambridge University Press with excellence in both content and production standards. It surprises me that they would release something of this quality. Do they not inspect their products before shipping?

Excellent book! Must read