/lit/ - Literature

I am not only a great philosopher, but also a great writer. Why don't you discuss me more?

>>4642218

You do know what a private fortune is, right?

>>4353722
>rolling in his grave

>>4300054
>Anybody give me a brief summary of why he's good or no good?
He's got cool hair.

>>4292294
One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man's without being essentially happier or unhappier.

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.

Read my boy Schopenhauer. Not only does he have a dark brooding philosophy that brought upon the likes of Nietzsche, he also has killer sideburns! Bitches be all up in his shit nigga.

>>3650569
>mfw brits in charge of discussing anything other than horses, dogs or women

>>3610482
>>If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something.
Lel, I can just see him smiling wryly while writing that down with his poodle at his feet.

>implying this debate hasn't been over for 200 years

A man can DO what he wills, he cannot CHOOSE what he wills.

>mfw bitches still don't understand the difference between DOING what you will and CHOOSING what you will

Fuck will get ascetic.

What does /lit/ think of this article?

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

Schopenhauer related because he fought against misandry too

>mfw the world dying can be deproblematized by a swift switch of allegiance.

>Implying Schopenhauer implies life is bad
>Implying you don't only know about Schopenhauer as proto-Nietzsche
>Implying
>Implying
>Implying

>Arthur's face when

I AM SCHOPENHAUER
SON OF A BITCH HEGEL
DO YOU WANT DIALECTIC?
DO YOU WANT MADDENING WEBS OF WORDS NORMALLY RESERVED FOR THE MADHOUSE?
HEGEL IS PIG DISGUSTING
ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE IS MURDERER
FUCKING PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT

Hey /lit/,

What's your opinion on Schopenhauer? I haven't seen him talked about much here.

Why did I put off reading Schopenhauer for so long? His works are fantastic.

>>1513123
As soon as he has given them his earnings on which to keep house they are strengthened in this belief. Although all this entails many disadvantages, yet it has this advantage — that a woman lives more in the present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console him when he is weighed down by cares. To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.

Hey Faggots,
My name is Schopenhauer, and I exist because of our interconnected status within this metaphysical construct. All of you are Hypothetical, Matter-recognized, impedances on the eternal nature of mindness who spend every second of their meaningless, yet quaint existence looking at that which chooses to gaze upon them. You are everything bad in the world, as perceived by a greater majority of the moral sphere. Honestly, have any of you ever even fucking read The World As Will and Representation? I mean, I guess it's fun being completely unaware of the vast cosmic existence that pervades our very souls, deeming our own actions petty and inconsequential, playing to our own insecurities, but you all take this to a whole new level. This is even worse than that douche, Hegel.
Don't be a limited physical construct. Just hit me with your best shot (assuming that it exists within an existential realm of which I myself can perceive, if not interact with). I'm pretty much perfect (suck it, Descartes!). I was captain of the debate team (master-debater class of 1804) , and wrote a book. A fucking book. What books have you written, other than "jacking off to naked drawn Japanese people FOR DUMMIES"? My metaphysical treatises are the foundation for that which influenced the likes of Nietzsche, Wagner, and a whole mess of Germans. I have a hot bitch or ten in my stables at all times ("women are by nature meant to obey" who said that, faggots? Not you, that's fucking who.). You are nothing but an endless interplay of images and desires.
Thanks for listening, as if it mattered.
Pic Related: It's me and my fucking boss sideburns.

>>1314811

Hey Faggots,

My name is Schopenhauer, and I exist because of our interconnected status within this metaphysical construct. All of you are Hypothetical, Matter-recognized, impedances on the eternal nature of mindness who spend every second of their meaningless, yet quaint existence looking at that which chooses to gaze upon them. You are everything bad in the world, as percieved by a greater majority of the moral sphere. Honestly, have any of you ever even fucking read The World As Will and Representation? I mean, I guess it's fun being completely unaware of the vast cosmic existance that pervades our very souls, deeming our own actions petty and inconsequential, playing to our own insecurities, but you all take this to a whole new level. This is even worse than that douche, Hegel.

Don't be a limited physical construct. Just hit me with your best shot (assuming that it exists within an existential realm of which I myself can percieve, if not interact with). I'm pretty much perfect (suck it, Descartes!). I was captain of the debate team (master-debater class of 1804) , and wrote a book. A fucking book. What books have you written, other than "jacking off to naked drawn japanese people FOR DUMMIES"? My metaphysical treatises are the foundation for that which influenced the likes of Nietzsche, Wagner, and a whole mess of germans. I have a hot bitch or ten in my stables at all times ("women are by nature meant to obey" who said that, faggots? Not you, that's fucking who.). You are nothing but an endless interplay of images and desires.

Thanks for listening, as if it mattered.

Pic Related: It's me and my fucking boss sideburns.

Where does one start when reading Schopenhauer?

>>1109133
-Arthur Schopenhauer

damn right, force that meme

That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time, or otherwise fool it away, is a grievance and a wrong as serious as it is common, which should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. In my opinion, the best arrangement would be that by which women, whether widows or daughters, should never receive anything beyond the interest for life on property secured by mortgage, and in no case the property itself, or the capital, except when there cease to be male descendants. The people who make money are men, not women; and it follows from this that women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it, nor fit persons to be entrusted with its administration. When wealth, in any true sense of the word, that is to say, funds, houses or land, is to go to them as an inheritance they should never be allowed the free disposition of it. In their case a guardian should always be appointed; and hence they should never be given the free control of their own children, wherever it can be avoided.

>>605073

Schopenhauer

Dual knowledge which we are only privy to with our own bodies and consciousness. Everything else is only known from one side.