/lit/ - Literature

>>18175570
Knowing for sure acts as a catalyst for other forces, making consensus less likely. People always have reason to kill each other, competition for resources for the most part. That in itself is not even necessarily bad, wars gave us some serious progress, but in recent times it could seriously threaten the survival of the species.
Also, as we have seen in Islam and to the same degree in the Middle Ages, metaphysical certainty hinders scientific progress.

Why do philosophers like these two value solitude? Isn't it unhealthy?

> Conclusion: We moderns will more than likely side with Nietzsche when we first encounter both thinkers. Even including creationists who oppose Darwin, because modernity is essentially the idea that life fundamentally has the possibility and the promise of continuing onto more perfect forms by transcending itself beyond the now. Therefore, Nietzsche expresses modernity much better than Schopenhauer in certain respects.

> However, Schopenhauer ends up defending the tougher case with better results. He is the superior philosopher, for he has that mysterious relation to the absolute that preoccupies both great thinkers and great artists alike. By peering into the abyss of himself, Schopenhauer detects the echoes of being. Even though these faint echoes are contaminated by his subjectivity, and resonate perhaps only with others of like disposition, the resonance extends deeply and the totality of cosmos is detected therein.

http://www.hyperboreans.com/heterodoxia/?p=113

Neet stans BTFO?

>>6352572
The problem is not that it is done for the sake ascetics only, but for a god we can neither reach nor create. It is therefore not petty but in vain.