/lit/ - Literature

>>22320113
oh and I forgot, the only german who actually tried to follow Kant's philosophy was a devout anglophile who praised Locke and Hume and constantly wrote bitter polemics against all german philosophers... it is truly over.

>When therefore we are told, that we possess a faculty for direct, material (i.e., not only formal, but substantial), supersensuous knowledge, (that is, a knowledge which transcends all possible experience), a faculty specially designed for metaphysical insight, and inherent in us for this purpose—I must take the liberty to call this a downright lie. For the slightest candid self-examination will suffice to convince us that absolutely no such faculty resides within us.
why are there so many fags on this board obsessed with Intellektuelle Anschauung when Schopenhauer already irrevocably exposed this sham in On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
>nooooo you're just a hylic who hasn't experienced it!!
you haven't experienced it either, yet still insist that your perservers of le tradition like some random neoplatonist or islamic mystic did? you are literally cucking yourself by subordinating your own experience to random desert schizos who had a neurochemical anomaly causing them to experienced heightened states of euphoria, and you've deluded yourself into thinking that despite being a normalfag yourself, you will somehow achieve it? some of you even admit that you will never achieve it, yet still hold onto it, presumably because you think at least recognizing that it exists will somehow raise you above the level of everyone else and preserve your elitist self-perception. why won't you people just accept that God doesn't exist?

>existence isn't a predicate because.... because... because it just isn't ok!
will this guy stop riding Kant's dick?

Can suffering be used as a self-evident concept, such that it grounds ethics? Many moral philosophers have tried to identify good with some other value. Perhaps it is better to identify suffering as the negative imperative of all action: self-suffering and the suffering of others. Although one can ask the question: “why is creating or experiencing suffering bad?” I feel the very concept of suffering and it’s instantiation requires negativity and avoidance to be considered in its use, or else suffering becomes a meaningless term. In this way, I feel it’s possible to construct a human-oriented ethics based on suffering as a universal (humanly universal) negative imperative from which all human action should avoid and minimize. Many hold the opinion that struggle is necessary for imbuing human life with purpose and happiness, viewing pleasure and happiness as a mutually conditional dichotomy, but this, I feel, still allows one to say “eliminating suffering is our moral imperative” because, if we take existence as a problem (in the vein of Schopenhauer, Ligotti, other pessimists), then there is no shortage of agent-independent factors, including the problem of being itself, to always cause suffering and pose problems to be solved. Suffering is plentiful in life, and there is no imperative for human action to contribute or be indifferent towards it. Thoughts on this? Can suffering be ontologically grounded as a negative imperative? Any relevant passages on this?

Is he the most famous incel?

> according Schopenhauer biographer David E. Cartwright, the great German thinker also had ideas on love and marriage. They, though, were probably never destined to change the course of Western thought. It seems Schopenhauer believed in tetragamy, which says that marriage should have two men and two women.

Based imagine the sex

>Style is the physiognomy of the mind, and a safer index to character than the face.
>A man's style shows the /formal/ nature of all his thoughts—the formal nature which can never change, be the subject or the character of his thoughts what it may: it is, as it were, the dough out of which all the contents of his mind are kneaded.
>When Eulenspiegel was asked how long it will take to walk to the next village, he gave the seemingly incongruous answer: /Walk/. He wanted to find out by the man's pace the distance he would cover in a given time. In the same way, when I have read a few pages of an author, I know fairly well how far he can bring me.
Is style the physiognomy of the mind?

>>19579482
>>19579505
>>19579546
>Divine Self
>God
>Absolute
All of these faggots lived well after Schopenhauer decoded the essence of the mystical experience, so why do they keep rambling about the same old retarded gibberish?

If he had a 17 year old girl sucking his cock instead of getting rejected all the time he probably wouldn't of been such a sourpuss.

when did you realize all philosophy is just based on the philosopher's access to pussy?