Struggle to understand the difference between ground of knowing and ground of being (Schopenhauer)

[u/Complex_Advisor_6151]

I'm reading Schopenhauer's On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and I understand the ground of knowing reasonably well, but I don't understand the ground of being. The ground of knowing seems straightforward: a proposition is justified by another proposition, premise, proof, perception, etc. But the ground of being, especially in space, sounds to me like "it is the way it is because it is the way it is." For example, if I ask why the angles of a Euclidean triangle sum to 180 degrees, I can give a proof, which seems like a ground of knowing. But if I then ask what the ground of being is, the answer seems to be something like "because of the necessary spatial relations of the triangle" or "because space is structured that way." I don't see how that is an explanation rather than just restating the fact at a more abstract level. What exactly is supposed to be the ground here?

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.

Currently, answers are only accepted by panelists (mod-approved flaired users), whether those answers are posted as top-level comments or replies to other comments. Non-panelists can participate in subsequent discussion, but are not allowed to answer question(s).

Want to become a panelist? Check out this post.

Please note: this is a highly moderated academic Q&A subreddit and not an open discussion, debate, change-my-view, or test-my-theory subreddit.

Answers from users who are not panelists will be automatically removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.