/lit/ - Literature

>>16947032
hilarious how hegel got completely exposed before the end of his career and died in disgrace from cholera while Schopenhauer lived to a ripe old age and got to witness the beginning of an everlasting fame

hegel's legacy is marx, collectivism, despotism and state sponsored genocide. Schopnenhauer's legacy is Nietzsche, individualism, aristocracy and the last vestiges of artistic genius

Originality and clarity

You'll find that either one of these criteria is easy to satisfy, but meeting both is quite difficult

>>10771018

>implying

So you're dancing at the club when this guy walks over, throws your girlfriend down the stairs and says 'the world is my will'. What do you do?

Keep in mind that he's friends with Goethe and could probably have you poisoned during the next cholera outbreak.

To understand Schopenhauer you must understand the difference between physiological processes and intellectual ones. Gathering and supplying sensory data is a physiological process; it can even be reduced in most cases to a purely mechanical process. Vision is more complicated than the other senses, likely because light is a more delicate stimuli than say an odor or a sound, which is at bottom a vibration of the air.

Vorstellung, which is often erroneously translated as 'Idea', means representation. This term is not simply a concept, but a description of a complex physiological and intellectual process. It also refers to the way in which our whole perceptual apparatus operates.

The human body deals only in effects, that is to say, everything we receive from without must be construed as effect. When you run your hand along the bark of a tree, nerve endings in your hand relay a particular kind of data up the nervous chain. It passes through the spinal column and is forwarded to the brain, specifically that faculty known as the Understanding. This faculty takes the raw sensory data and imposes the forms of the intellect upon it, namely time, space and causality. The last is most crucial in grasping the purpose of this function, for it is only through applying the law of causality to sensory data that we arrive at perception of an object. The EFFECT arrives first; it lingers as a kind of resonance, because it is awaiting its ground or sufficient reason, so that it may then ENTER active consciousness in a causal fashion, that is, as the effect of a cause. The cause however has to be worked up and PROJECTED by the Understanding. Only once this process has been carried out do you perceive the object which is the cause of the sensation you just experienced: you then perceive the surface of the tree as an object extended in space, enduring in time, and casually operative. It is just the same with vision: the sensation, that is to say, the stimulation of various cells within the retina, is classified as an EFFECT which needs a cause. The effect is traced back to its source by the Understanding; an object is worked up in the mind according to the data it has received from the eyes and PROJECTED into space to ground the EFFECT which has just arrived and which is currently waiting to appear in the proper fashion. The object then appears in your vision. Thus we pass from the effect to the cause without stopping. This process is automatic and consistent, and moreover it is integral to the human brain. It develops through experience, but it does not derive therefrom. Failure to distinguish this difference is the chief failing of English empiricism.

All of Schopenhauer's observations about women are essentially accurate. The conclusions he makes and the judgments he pronounces thereon are where the idiosyncrasies of his personal experience crop up.

If he had simply said 'woman is thus and thus, she does this and this', there would have been nothing controversial. But he appends a moral evaluation to these facts that betrays a discreet effort to cast woman in a negative light, when in reality the very same things he points out with respect to woman could quite easily be used to portray women in a positive light, or at any rate not as mendacious little savages (which they are by all accounts, but not necessarily through any particular failing of their own).

In my opinion dealing with women is for the most part a tedious business, especially when the natural attraction to them is not operating with force. Rather like eating when one has no appetite. Women are, as Schopenhauer said, incurable philistines, and as Nietzsche recognized, eternal bores.

ayyy baby if you ever feel like getting tossed down the stairs give me a call

>>7261686

>1845
>not hurling your landlady down the stairs

>>7232743

>pretty sure it's a shopped image
>shopped image
>schopped

>No child under the age of fifteen should receive instruction in subjects which may possibly be the vehicle of serious error, such as philosophy or religion, for wrong notions imbibed early can seldom be rooted out, and of all the intellectual faculties, judgment is the last to arrive at maturity.

>>7089855

university philosophy will ruin any real enthusiasm for the discipline

read On Philosophy at the Universities by Schopenhauer. Things have not changed in the least. If anything the situation is worse

if you have a serious interest in philosophy, for god's sake, stay the hell away from university philosophy

>1840
>not hurling your landlady down the stairs for being an obnoxious cunt

>>6798355

The overarching consequence of this process is just what Schopenhauer states, namely:

>Therefore, the fact that, on the occasion of certain sensations occurring in my organs of sense, there arises in my head a PERCEPTION of the things extended in space, permanent in time, and casually operative, by no means justifies me in assuming that such things also exist in themselves, in other words, that they exist with such properties absolutely belonging to them, independent of my head and outside it. This is the correct conclusion of the Kantian philosophy.

>Newspapers are the second hand of history. This hand, however, is usually not only of inferior metal to the other hands, it also seldom works properly.

>>6587613

Wille is different from Hegel's Absolute because Schopenhauer's philosophy proposed a double-aspect theory of reality, namely wille and representation. The wille gets its qualities through inverting those which belong to representation. The thing in itself is thus resolved as something more than the mere x Kant left us with. Hegel's Absolute is something else, namely what Schopenhauer calls it: 'nothing but the cosmological proof incognito.'

>Schopenhauer: 'But where does it come from, your Absolute?'

>Hegel: 'Silly question! Haven't I already said it was the Absolute? That will do, upon my soul.'

>>6587613

Wille is different from Hegel's Absolute because Schopenhauer's philosophy proposed a double-aspect theory of reality, namely wille and representation. The wille gets its qualities through inverting those which belong to representation. The thing in itself is thus resolved as something more than the mere x Kant left us with. Hegel's Absolute is something else, namely what Schopenhauer calls it: 'nothing but the cosmological proof incognito.'

>Schopenhauer: 'But where does it come from, your Absolute?'

>Hegel: 'Haven't I already said it is the Absolute? That will do, upon my soul.'

>2015
>subscribing to neuromaterialism

I expected better from you /lit/

Do you guys even double aspect theory?

Who was the toughest philosopher?

Plato and Socrates both get votes for being former soldiers.

I bet Schoppy could wreck Hegel. He tossed that obnoxious landlady down the stairs like it was nothing.

>you will never become the one true successor to Kant and throw your landlady down the stairs for being an obnoxious cunt

Daily reminder that Fagel was a charlatan and his philosophy ultimately led to the death of a hundred million people

What's the deal with Schopenhauer's popularity in Spanish speaking countries?

I think it's great, but I've always been curious where it comes from

>1860+154
>still confusing freedom of action with freedom of will

YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WILL

YOU CANNOT CHOOSE WHAT YOU WILL

He's nothing. A few books on logic to throw into the pile. Outstanding.

Like many prodigies, he failed to live up to his bright promise.

Still many levels above the average university educated cretin, but nothing meant to last across the generations. No magnum opus, no system, no value system.

Color me unimpressed.

>>5456071

>The chief objection I have to pantheism is that it says nothing. To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word "world".

Spinoza already got rekt by Schopenhauer m8, read P&P