/lit/ - Literature

>>15373062
You cannot refute that which is irrefutable.

>>15373062
Refute this

>If you want a safe compass to guide you through life, and to banish all doubt as to the right way of looking at it, you cannot do better than accustom yourself to regard this world as a penitentiary, a sort of a penal colony, or [Greek: ergastaerion] as the earliest philosopher called it.[7] Amongst the Christian Fathers, Origen, with praiseworthy courage, took this view,[8] which is further justified by certain objective theories of life. I refer, not to my own philosophy alone, but to the wisdom of all ages, as expressed in Brahmanism and Buddhism, and in the sayings of Greek philosophers like Empedocles and Pythagoras; as also by Cicero, in his remark that the wise men of old used to teach that we come into this world to pay the penalty of crime committed in another state of existence--a doctrine which formed part of the initiation into the mysteries.[9] And Vanini--whom his contemporaries burned, finding that an easier task than to confute him--puts the same thing in a very forcible way. Man, he says, is so full of every kind of misery that, were it not repugnant to the Christian religion, I should venture to affirm that if evil spirits exist at all, they have posed into human form and are now atoning for their crimes.[10] And true Christianity--using the word in its right sense--also regards our existence as the consequence of sin and error.

>If you accustom yourself to this view of life you will regulate your expectations accordingly, and cease to look upon all its disagreeable incidents, great and small, its sufferings, its worries, its misery, as anything unusual or irregular; nay, you will find that everything is as it should be, in a world where each of us pays the penalty of existence in his own peculiar way. Amongst the evils of a penal colony is the society of those who form it; and if the reader is worthy of better company, he will need no words from me to remind him of what he has to put up with at present. If he has a soul above the common, or if he is a man of genius, he will occasionally feel like some noble prisoner of state, condemned to work in the galleys with common criminals; and he will follow his example and try to isolate himself.

>>15373062
He was extremely elitist. Epicureanism is god-tier but only if you're gifted with high intelligence.
He despised the average person, which is ironic, because he wrote to be extremely accessible.

Anyone can understand him, and whoever understands him and agrees with him will therefore consider him/herself a genius--which is silly, because Schopenhauer is extremely easy and entertaining to read.

First major issue (from OP):
Conflating the role of empirical and metaphysical study.

Schopenhauer's role is primarily metaphysical and his ideas are usually respectable when they stick to metaphysical realms (like his ontology or his colour theory). However, he massively invades upon the empirical sciences' realms.

For example - his theories on gender. He has numerous quotes saying "woman are X, men are Y", typically mentioning psychology or biology vaguely. However, he applies his metaphysical generality and lack of evidence to something which is empirical (the behaviour of humans). All he has really discovered about women is that "all women I've met, probably only a few dozen, fit within my self-fulfilling prophecy". I'll demonstrate why this is such as stupid way of forming arguments. About 99% of people I know are British (as I am British). Therefore, according to Schopenhauer's generality, "99% of people are British and this is part of nature".

>>15373062
I've seen maybe one or two anons infrequently posting Schopenhauer. Why does that vex you so much? I've noticed a certain type of person in philosophical circles that instantly begins to seethe as soon as Schopenhauer is mentioned, and without regard to his arguments or even to truth, starts to attack anything that is related to the man. Help me understand this type of person.

>>15373130
>being superior means having difficult writing
filtered

>>15373176
Society depends on chumps in the hamster wheel. Make sure it's the other guy and not you.

>>15373130
I'm reading his essays and they read like eloquent shitposts about random shit
The rant about whip cracking took my sides

I will bite. I've read everything he's written twice. The only thing that holds me back now is that I value time, as he teaches in the wisdom of life. Even in his main work he can spare some advice like in the fourth book when he mentions that someone who was born with nobility or fortune does not have it easy, because "the security of which he is indebted to society." "Pure idleness and living through the exertions of others with inherited property, without achieving anything, can indeed be regarded as morally wrong, even though it must remain right according to positive laws." The same sentiment rings through Proust, who was MIGHTILY influenced by Schopenhauer. In short, do your work. Schopenhauer teaches love, even if he's deemed a pessimist. Yes, he is not an optimist, by his own words, and yes, the state of life ON THIS WORLD or IN THIS LIFE is "wretched," as he says, but he does not say that it is wretched beyond the veil of maya. Schopenhauer is an educator like Nietzsche said. If you keep his work handy while working through the rest of the canon, you will begin to know. He takes the best of Kant and discards the worst. He makes Kant legible. His use of METAPHORS! When he says Kant performs cataract surgery, and HIS (S's) philosophy are the eyeglasses afterwards? His metaphors and similes are again echoed in Proust, who, if you've read as well as you've read Schopenhauer, you can see the connection. They outline life. They DO offer solutions: art and asceticism. Schopenhauer is defended from Russel's weak criticism that Schopenhauer didn't LIVE what he PREACHED. At the beginning of book 4, Schopenhauer says he is not trying to prescribe. He is just describing what IS. He influenced Wagner, Einstein, Nietzsche, Darwin, Borges, PROUST PROUST PROUST, Wittgenstein, Mann, and even some of Nabokov's final words to his son on a hike were Schopenhauer's (look for what the son wrote, I can't remember what it was). Schopenhauer before Freud wrote of dreams and consciousness and psychology. His wisdom of life is the ULTIMATE self-help. Seriously, read it, and read it close.

>>15373130
Even if in his personal life he despised society and called them common, this was because his intellect and he just could not stomach it. In the same list of aphorisms he gives at the end of the wisdom of life, after praising solitude above society, he says that one cannot despise anyone without wanting that person to not exist. In his main work, he says that we are all one. The tormented and the tormentor suffer in exchanges, together. We are all will. He praises compassion, sympathy, and love.

>>15373144
You haven't read Schopenhauer. You haven't given him your faith. To try and convince you would be to try and convince the onanist.

Second major issue (from OP again):
He conflates the objective and the subjective, building objective falsehoods on subjective, wrong postulates.

I'll keep this one quick. Kant, his apparent idol, clarified that our knowledge of all 'other people' and their minds are mere extensions of our own minds displaced onto other appearances. Therefore, Schopenhauer should be able to see that he can't really build statements of meta-psychology like "life is suffering" based only on his own life. He would probably argue that, since the will is beyond plurality, this distinction is arbitrary. However, once again, applying metaphysics (will) to something empirical like suffering is an idiotic error. All he concludes is "MY life is suffering", a rather useless statement. Think of it this way - how would he even know that Brazilians or Canadians and Germans have a similar life? What if his view of constant striving is just a reflection of A) his own mind and B) his milieu.

>>15373062
I don't understand what "Will" has do to with noumena. Seems like a total non-sequitur.

>>15373062
I agree with Schopenhauer that the world is will and representation and that the nature of existence is a loop of desire and suffering, and as a corollary I agree with him that the Vedas are extremely Based and incredibly True.

>>15373176
Only Plato, Schopenhauer and occasionally some 19th/20th century philosophers are discussed here. It is a massive echo chamber.

>>15373062
>be antinatalist thought leader
>condemn the nature of human existence
>still criticize Nietzschean moral relativism
Was he just bitter he'd never be /ourguy/?

>>15373231
I see Christians frequently discuss Aquinas and Aristotle, Kant is regularly discussed in technical depth, there are also Heidegger and poststructalist threads as well as analytic ones. This board is philosophically extremely diverse and your complain is not justified. Your issue is *not* that other philosophers are not discussed. Your issue is rather that Schopenhauer is discussed at all. It is apparent by silly little "refutations" that you have put time to write and construct. Why, because Schopenhauer, according to you *has to be wrong*. Again, I ask: why are you so obsessed with Schopenhauer? I would do some self-introspection if I were you.

>>15373203
>Therefore, Schopenhauer should be able to see that he can't really build statements of meta-psychology like "life is suffering" based only on his own life. He would probably argue that, since the will is beyond plurality, this distinction is arbitrary. However, once again, applying metaphysics (will) to something empirical like suffering is an idiotic error. All he concludes is "MY life is suffering", a rather useless statement.
I don't think you're understanding what he meant by suffering. It meant unfulfilled desires. So long as there are desires (willing) there will be unfulfilled ones, both through failure and opportunity cost. Thus life is suffering. This is not unique to Schope and can be found in the Stoics and the Tao and the Hindu Vedas.

>>15373201
I've also read his work twice. He specifies that, to read his work, you must read it twice at least (in WWR ed. 2 introduction I believe). He doesn't clear up Kant; he absorbs his ideas and mashes them into a form which fits his system. Kant is perfectly legible without it being spoon fed to you. Regarding the impact of his work, I agree that he was well received. It doesn't mean it was correct, just that his ideas suited the artistic environment and the historic period (post-revolution and pre-war, a bit of a luminal spot in progress for Europe).

Regarding the bottom message, why would I give him "faith"? It's not the Easter Bunny; it's metaphysics (albeit conflated and confused at times). I followed his arguments and have arrived at my own conclusions from them.

Finally - regarding the 'wretched' nature of life. Here is one of my largest problems. His conclusion to lift the veil is essentially ascetic, preventing the will from surviving by going into pure perception. First of all, the entire conclusion of this thought is pretty much "yeah, go be a monk, it appears to be a mere negation of life but it's not like you're missing out on much anyway". This conclusion (and most of book 4) depends on the postulate that life = endless suffering. This is clearly subjective, regardless of his attempt to reduce the will to endless striving. It's essentially a child saying "because I say so" in response to everything.

If you truly believed in his ideas, you wouldn't be in this website and you wouldn't be reading his work. You would be a pure ascetic, ignoring everything in the world and rotting like a waste of a life.

>>15373302
>If you truly believed in his ideas, you wouldn't be in this website and you wouldn't be reading his work. You would be a pure ascetic, ignoring everything in the world and rotting like a waste of a life.
This is just immature idealism, when you're older you'll realize how dumb it sounds. If you engaged with these works you criticize honestly you would be a far more empathetic person.

I haven’t read his more intellectual work. I like reading his “self-help” books because they’re actually self-destructive and he is an absolute asshole, so I laugh a lot and also relate

>>15373302
Sorry, legible was the wrong word. He corrects Kant. You agree with Kant's morals? With Schopenhauer, I can agree and not be ascetic. I pursue art. I am caught. I have not reached that point yet past art, if I ever do. If I did, I would not necessarily be "ignoring everything," nor "rotting," nor a "waste," if it were true. Your view here on his philosophy is more pessimistic than it actually is. I do see what you're saying about the suffering. I would just challenge you to say, do you not think life is an endless STRIVING?

>>15373062
I really like the guy, but something I can't get past which is a complete and fundamental error, is his assertion that "pleasure is just the negation of pain."

That is so completely, clearly, and 100% not the case, that it damages the entirety of his system. I think he realized it, too, because his writing became a lot more cheerful as he aged. But, he couldn't admit his mistake, or the rationale for 90% of his work would collapse.

He also lived like an Epicurean pleasure-seeker, not an ascetic, so he didn't "eat his own cooking." Rather than saying "pleasure doesn't really exist," Epicurus was far more correct in saying "pleasure is dangerous and should be carefully managed, and to have your cake and eat it too is the true aim of life."

>>15373062
Because the problem with Schopenhauer and philosophical pessimists in general is that they aren't wrong. So any attempt at being Anti-them is essentially a question of how to imagine comfortable lies to sink back into fantasy with.

>>15373348
Explain for us why you think it's not the case? How are you going to have the concept of pleasure without creating the inverse of it? You could use a different semantic word instead of "pleasure" if you like, but the relation under the symbols is fundamentally true.

>be a worthless piece of shit human being
>postulate that the world is nothing but worthless piece of shit human beings
Thanks Art, very cool!

>>15373366
I just have to appeal to my subjectivity or your subjectivity. When you experience pleasure, it feels good, and that is clearly its own experience, not an absence of pain.
I get his point that all pleasure is just "fulfillment of a desire", but desires aren't bad either. Just manage them both. Realize how your desires come about, and how your pleasures come about, and indulge them both.

>>15373366
>>15373382
It's most correct to say that philosophies arise to deal with the material conditions of the society. For example, if you're a shit-smeared peasant doing back-breaking subsistence farming, you probably need a suffering-centric philosophy that explains pain to you, and why the monks get to write books in the monastery why you labor for little reward.

>>15373348
Really? I thought that's one of the things that's rather straightforward. "What is immediately given to us is always only the want, i.e., the pain." A satisfaction of a desire. PROOOOOOOOOOUST.

> All satisfaction, or what is commonly called happiness, is always really and essentially only negative, and never positive. It is not an original gratification coming to us of itself, but must always be the satisfaction of a wish. The wish, i.e., some want, is the condition which
precedes every pleasure. But with the satisfaction the wish and therefore the leasure cease. Thus [412] the satisfaction or the
pleasing can never be more than the deliverance from a pain, from a want; for such is not only every actual, open sorrow, but every desire, the importunity of which disturbs our peace, and, indeed, the deadening ennui also that makes life a burden to us. It is, however, so hard to attain or achieve anything; difficulties and troubles without end are opposed to every purpose, and at every step hindrances accumulate. But when finally
everything is overcome and attained, nothing can ever be gained but deliverance from some
sorrow or desire, so that we find ourselves just in the same position as we occupied before this sorrow or desire appeared. All that is even directly given us is merely the want, i.e., the pain. The satisfaction and the pleasure we can only know indirectly through the remembrance of the preceding suffering and want, 411
which ceases with its appearance. Hence it arises that we are not properly conscious of the blessings and advantages we actually
possess, nor do we prize them, but think of them merely as a matter of course, for they gratify us only negatively by restraining
suffering. Only when we have lost them do we become sensible of their value; for the want, the privation, the sorrow, is the positive, communicating itself directly to us. Thus also we are pleased by the remembrance of past need, sickness, want, and such like, because this is the only means of enjoying the present
blessings. And, further, it cannot be denied that in this respect, and from this standpoint of egoism, which is the form of the will to live, the sight or the description of the sufferings of others affords us satisfaction and pleasure in precisely the way Lucretius beautifully and frankly expresses it in the beginning of
the Second Book—

>>15373382
For "it feels good" to be meaningful, there must be things that feel worse. These things are negated by the thing that feels good. He's using negation in the sense of definitions.

>>15373360
>So any attempt at being Anti-them is essentially a question of how to imagine comfortable lies to sink back into fantasy with.That's quite the nerve for someone who thinks the world is a parade manipulated by a cosmic will

>>15373382
Aaaaaaand the argument is over because the picture.

>>15373397
The material conditions of society only arise in the mind that perceives them. I recognize you're appealing to dogmatic materialism but I don't think we're going to solve the materialism/idealism shootout in this thread, at least, I don't personally have the patience to get into that. But maybe others do

>>15373399
First world problems the philosopher

>*blocks your path*
This nigga's funny. That nigga ain't.

>>15373642
True

>>15373062
Schopenhauer was comfy in my self-pitying phase but I eventually grew to understand what he really is. A gnostic, self hating, incel fuckwit.

>>15373715
Also, Cioran was better.

>>15373715
Looks like another poster who didn't really understand "life is suffering" and mistook it to be some kind of My Chemical Romance type emo statement instead of a metaphysical claim necessitated by the existence of will.

>>15373729
Read Schopenhauer, forget him, and become an Epicurean. It's what Schopenhauer did.

>>15373735
Evasion huh? Zzzzz

>>15373729
Will is a spook.

>>15373757
So he's "right." So what? You still have to get up in the morning, eat breakfast, commute to school or your job, and do laundry. To handle that, you need a pragmatic philosophy, like Epicureanism, not "we are all suffer because da will."

>>15373201

I love you. I have all of Cambridge's Schopenhauer books. I've read all of them once, some twice, and Fourfold + WWR1 three times. You are spot on with everything. Cheers.

>>15373791

Christianity > Schop > Buddhism > Neet > Stirner > other memes

Schopenhauer is great but his basis for advocating compassion is weak

so christianity, buddhism, hinduism, platonism resolve this eternal hunger of will, no? i mean, just stop desiring, deny yourself and be filled with divine love.

>>15373062
just popping in to say that this is a high quality thread; /lit/ needs more threads like this

>>15373642
> What Kierkegaard finds most attractive in Schopenhauer’s philosophy is his pessimism and his critique of philosophy professors who do not live in what they profess. Kierkegaard held that his fellow Danes related to Christianity as a pie-in-the-sky abstraction, especially the “assistant professors” who turned Christianity into a speculative, purely philosophical matter. For this reason he remarked that “theological students who are obliged to live here in Denmark in this nonsensical (Christianly) optimism could be advised to take a daily dose of Schopenhauer’s Ethics to guard against being infected by this drivel.” Schopenhauer’s pessimism was an effective “counter-poison” in relation to the poison of “eudaemonistic Protestantism, especially Danish epicureanism.”

> But what attracts Kierkegaard to Schopenhauer here is also what, in another sense, repels him. Schopenhauer is at once too pessimistic and yet not pessimistic enough. Schopenhauer represents all of life as suffering (rather than ethico-religious voluntary suffering, that of the self-denying Christian paradox-existence) and proposes Indian asceticism as the proper response to this pessimistic view of reality, an asceticism that amounts to denial of the will to live—a kind of non-existence, as it were. But this universal pessimism easily becomes an inverted optimism, for “if to exist is to suffer, then to exist in such a way that it is as if one did not exist … is clearly eudaemonism. … If to exist is to suffer, eudaemonism of course cannot be sought in the direction of existing, it must be sought in the direction of not existing…

>>15374741
> Yet, for Kierkegaard—father of existentialism that he is—the more crucial issue is not dialectical, but existential: i.e., Schopenhauer betrays his own life-view:

> Representing a misanthropic view of life as he does so competently, he is then extremely happy, actually happy in a deadly earnest way, that The Scientific Society in Trondheim (ye gods, in Trondheim!) has crowned his prize-essay—it does not occur to him that perhaps The Scientific Society rated it as a bit of rare luck that a German sent them a treatise. Pro dii immortales! And when Copenhagen does not crown a second-prize essay by S., he rages, quite earnestly, over it in the preface included in the published version.

> Finally, Kierkegaard levels a third criticism at Schopenhauer, chiding him for his rejection of the deontological side of the ethical. Kierkegaard wonders if it is actually possible to be an ascetic without the divine “You shall,” or at least some “motif of an eternity.” He observes that Schopenhauer “really gave up Christianity, [and] always praises Indian Brahminism. But he has to admit himself that those ascetics are, after all, determined by a consideration of eternity, are qualified religiously, not by [philosophical] genius, and the eternal confronts them as a religious duty.” Kierkegaard seems to think if Schopenhauer had only humbled himself under Christianity’s “You shall,” he would have had less hypocritical concern for worldly rewards. Even so, in Kierkegaard’s estimation Schopenhauer is “a very important author and one who will also have his importance for Christianity.”

>>15374741
>>15374749
>*blocks everyone's path*

>>15374741
>>15374749
Nice

I don't know guys, I can't help but see some honour in the struggle against the conditions of our current world - as if to live and claim victory and greatness in spite of it.
>>15374798
Hey bro

>>15373715
Imagine having shittier takes AFTER you read an author. Schopenhauer is a gnostic, yes, and that's based.

As someone who has Schopenhauer's complete set of books from Cambridge, let me just say this:

Every thought that you could ever imagine thinking in your whole entire life, Schopenhauer has already thought that thought, and he's taken that thought further than you ever could.

This is Schopenhauer's genius.

>>15373715
>if he hates the world, he must hate himself

how convenient for the world that this is always the case, isn't it? wow!

>>15374938
He's a goth, not an emo! Gawd!
Stupid poser conformist assholes.

As for people complaining "Well he didn't live by his philosophy so therefore it invalidates his philosophy!"

His philosophy is that everyone has an immutable, intelligible character. His genius is purely confined to his cognition, which is secondary. So while his genius has this philosophy contained in his head, he still has his character that is primary.

I believe as he got older, it sounds like he became more relaxed and easy-going and jovial, as Bryan McGee states in his Schopenhauer book, so it looks like he was able to tame his character over time by the knowledge contained within his cognition.

>>15374923
>Schopenhauer is a gnostic
Elaborate plz

>>15375072
How could he not be? The world is prison where all happiness is an illusion and suffering/dissatisfaction is the rule

>>15375083
Okay I get that. But don't gnostics believe in a pure spiritual aspect that one can work towards? Schopenhauer has no such inclination to my recollection

>>15375105
pleroma = cessation of the will in death/aesthetic experience

>>15374931
BS. how is this even possible?

>>15375144

Read Schopenhauer and find out.

>>15374931
feels good to agree with Schopenhauer by intuition without reading his books at all

>>15373130
trying to sound smart while explaining simple ideas is low IQ

>>15374938
>if he hates the world, he must hate himself
>the world as will & representation

>you're in the lecture hall and this guy slaps your jew on a stick
What do?

>>15374798
Sadly, Nietzsche's ultimately frustrated arc of life did little to dispute Schopenhauer's views, and, that being Nietzsche's own standard, safe to say nature votes with the Schope.

>>15375259
Tell him that I feel sorry for his father

Bump

>>15373062
Come now, doubters. Redemption can only come through the redemption of another. In a complete self-sacrificing will, are you transformed into love of other. And here lies the fatal difference between Buddhist and Christian--: the Buddhist will always be willing to an unwilling, while the Christian will as much as he may, but in the spirit of conviction, willing but always willing to self-sacrifice, ones own death; it is the "free inclination" in which Schiller spoke of, and in this it is an actual Buddhism. Who could fill this (possibly human) role of conviction if not God?

>from one of Schiller's letters to Goethe:—
>"If one would lay hand on the characteristic mark of Christianity, distinguishing it from all mono-theistic religions, it lies in nothing less than the upheaval of Law, of Kant's 'Imperative,' in whose place it sets free Inclination. In its own pure form it therefore is the presentation of a beautiful morality, or of the humanising of the Holy; and in this sense it is the only æsthetic religion."—

And again, as Wagner says:
>taken strictly, they are mere forbiddals... We have no idea of entering upon a criticism of those Commandments, for we should only encounter our police and criminal legislation, to which their supervision has been committed in the interest of civic order,
>Impossible, that commandments here should bring about a knowledge only to be woken in the natural man by proper guidance to an understanding of the natural descent of all that lives.
>Only the love that springs from pity, and carries its compassion to the utmost breaking of self-will, is the redeeming Christian Love, in which Faith and Hope are both included of a—Faith as the unwavering consciousness of that moral meaning of the world, confirmed by the most divine exemplar; Hope as the blessed sense of the impossibility of any cheating of this consciousness

From earlier in the essay:
>Nevertheless it is quite appalling to find this philosophy, based as it is on the most perfect of ethics, described as shorn of hope; from which it follows, that we wish to be of good hope without the consciousness of true morality. That upon this very depravation of men's hearts rests Schopenhauer's relentless condemnation of the world—in its only aspect shewn to us by history,—affrights all those who take no pains to track the paths so plainly traced by Schopenhauer for turning the misguided Will. Yet these paths, which well may lead to hope, are clearly and distinctly pointed out by our philosopher, and it is not his fault if he was so fully occupied with the correct portrayal of the only world that lay before him, that he was compelled to leave their actual exploration to our own selves; for they brook no journeying save on foot.
Redemption through Love:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2tq8fFDVys

>>15373062

>What do you mean your life isn't that bad? Well you just have gotten used to it.

Pseud.

>>15376108
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKfIlYCs04o

>>15373062
>post a refutation of any of his ideas
dude was a fucking antinatalist lmaooo

>>15376027
Based post

>>15376108
>>15376124
t. haven't read Schopenhauer

The feeling I get is that his misogyny is relatable to a lot of people on this board and therefore whatever philosophy he argued for is something they try to justify into subscribing to

>>15376131
>'It is certain' says Novalis, 'my Conviction gains infinitely, the moment another soul will believe in it.' It is a boundless favour.-- He never forgot this good Kadijah.

>>15373130
>he was extremely elitist
And?

>>15376218
Sure. That's not a critique of his philosophy though. And people who subscribe to Schopenhauer for that reason are fucking stupid.

>>15374430
Oh how so much there is under the power of our will, this can only lead to naive egoism;-- in the truly intentional satanic sense.

>>15376173
schoppy was an antinatalist
pic related

>>15376317
Him not thinking the birth of a child is a good thing is not the same as him taking a positive position to say that reproduction should cease. I don't think alcohol is good. I don't think people are therefore compelled to cease drinking.

>>15376395
cope harder

>>15373062
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5iqYuFmzqg
He was a sad, angry little man.

>>15376395
So, you are drinking shitty alcohol then.

Also if you want edgy philosophy then mr. Milk Shop is better than mr. Arthur from Danzig

>>15375259
Ask him who he meant when he said the world is an illusion for the benefit of its creator who is the only true being

>>15376457
Seethe faggot
>>15376560
Retard who thinks Schopenhauer is edgy because he read the Wikipedia summary

Sad westernization of Eastern Philosophy.

>>15376629
so you're a man who lacks reasoning and sympathy, hmm i understand you it's okay dude just keep coping.

>>15376667
Anon, I think we all know Wagner completed was Schopenhauer was trying to do; though Heidegger got closer to truth. It is merely left up to us --in respect to Schopenhauer and Wagner, not Heidegger and the historic development of philosophy-- to fulfil and mark well complete this idea to ourselves, which Wagner did in primary; as if left to mystical discovery by ourselves in practical life, his art and only secondarily his prose.

>>15376667
>lacks reasoning
Still haven't responded to my original argument. Keep posting tumblr-tier quote photos though. You seem pretty across the material.
>lacks sympathy
Because you were arguing in good faith

>>15376712
you're a man who lacks reasoning and sympathy with reference to this >>15376317 statement

>>15373062
sneed

>>15373062
> only taught in Continental programs

Lol

>>15373062

Schopenhauer's entire philosophy can be refuted easily with 2 arguments.

1) He confuses object of knowledge and subject of knowledge. Schopenhauer says we can know the noumena through wills and sensations, as they are opposed to the mind. But this is false. Wills and sensations as objects of knowledge are opposed to thoughts, but NOT the mind. The mind is always the subject: You can notice this because you can Imagine a sensation, but cannot "feel" a thought.
If the mind is still the subject, then wills and sensations are phenomena, not noumena. His entire philosophy crushes.

2) Vivekananda's argument: Schopenhauer says the will Is beyond time, space and causation. It Is beyond the Principium Individuationis. This Is contradictory. By definition, A Will requires a subject (A Willer) and an object (a Willed). This demonstrates, Once again, that Wills and sensations are still phenomena, and Arthur's Metaphysics was completely wrong.

On the argument of women, he himself changed his mind during the last years of his life and admitted was wrong.

Basically, Schopenhauer was just a depressed guy trying to intellectualize his depression because he wanted the world to cry with him.

>>15373292
This. It's fascinating how the boards' main philosophies of interest change week after week. Last month Aristotle-threads popped up, anons' interest gets kindled and then there's more. So yes, there no echo chamber at all.

>>15376771
t. 80 IQ materialist

>>15376771
>Vivekananda's argument: Schopenhauer says the will Is beyond time, space and causation. It Is beyond the Principium Individuationis. This Is contradictory. By definition, A Will requires a subject (A Willer) and an object (a Willed). This demonstrates, Once again, that Wills and sensations are still phenomena, and Arthur's Metaphysics was completely wrong.
That's retarded, anon. One wrong Schop points out with Kant's treatment of noumena, trying to place noumena in his system is that Kant tends to portray it as standing in a causal relationship with phenomena, and this out of convenience because it's the first image our mind forms when we learn there is something beyond perception. It's obviously a transgression to think of it this way, so here is already a foreshadowing of how Schope will later come to name it 'the Will' to make certain that it is conceived of as a process without any hint of fixity for the mind to grab a hold of it; unknowable, everywhere and nowhere. Why do you think he calls it Will with a capital 'W', dummy? To emphasize its utter irrationality.

>He confuses object of knowledge and subject of knowledge. Schopenhauer says we can know the noumena through wills and sensations, as they are opposed to the mind. But this is false. Wills and sensations as objects of knowledge are opposed to thoughts, but NOT the mind. The mind is always the subject: You can notice this because you can Imagine a sensation, but cannot "feel" a thought.
If the mind is still the subject, then wills and sensations are phenomena, not noumena. His entire philosophy crushes.
This is a very autistic take and you obviously have only read through secondary sources.

>>15376771
>Reddit-spacing

>>15376683
Based

>>15376883
Based. You articulated my response better than I was going to.

>>15373100
He's fantastic at diagnosing suffering but terrible at providing workable solutions, which for human beings, do exist.

This is the problem with Schopenhauer -- you can't disagree with him really because he completely nails the human experience of suffering, which is, fundamentally, life. Most of life is uncomfortable, unfortunate, and unexpected. In this there is suffering.

But I really do believe there's a second part -- Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, you could argue Spinoza, plenty of others believed or touched on, in their own way, the second part as well. Life is suffering, but a human being can overcome this, and in that action and attempt, paradise can be born. Not every human being, state-dependent, but in the base range, every human being could overcome life's suffering.

Schopenhauer's a lot like a really, really great doctor with terrible bedside manner. He's fantastic at telling you why you're in pain, but he offers no non-unitary solutions beyond enforcing his view that life is suffering through-and-through. He's the polar opposite of the typical self-help writer, except far more intelligent and insightful; just instead of pumping you full of positive platitudes endlessly, he reminds you in sharp, concise, accessible, and sometimes terrifying writing about how miserable you really are and can be in the world.

He studied sickness for so long that it seems like he became a believer that there was nothing else in the world but sickness. He chose to view the world as a penal colony -- and there are parts of it that would absolutely fit with that diagnosis. But there's a lot of other parts of the world that may just be genuinely good, if not holistically, then on an individual, case-by-case basis. It really does depend on a point of view -- and his isn't wrong, in fact, it's pretty and painfully accurate. But I do think it's ultimately one-dimensional.

>>15376883

>Why do you think he calls it Will with a capital 'W', dummy? To emphasize its utter irrationality.

But he continues to describe
it as an Animalistic instinctual Will.

I suggest you to dedicate yourself to mysticism over Philosophy. Philosophy tries to give answers but cannot overcome the Kantian limits of reason. Only mysticism can.


>This is a very autistic take and you obviously have only read through secondary sources.

Not an argument.

>>15376944

Very interesting take. While I don't agree with the metaphysical basis of his philosophy, I recognize this world is not a Fairy tale and is full of sufference in many places. Recognizing the problem is the First step, but then we need to find a solution. For me it's eastern Philosophy and stoicism, but everyone has the right ti find his own solution.

>>15377014
autist

>>15373062
Biggest problem is what he takes from Kant, see (from memory) ch1 of bk2 WWR. Close, but there's a better argument to arrive at a very similar conclusion.
His aesthetics has has a problem, that the will-less subject implies its necessary correlative, the purely knowing subject. This is close to what happens, but not quite.
That being said, I love the guy and he had a great style.

>>15377047
I agree absolutely. I think there's something to be said for recognizing that everyone faces common suffering, and each person has the right to find their own way to deal with it.

>>15374819
>I don't know guys, I can't help but see some honour in the struggle against the conditions of our current world - as if to live and claim victory and greatness in spite of it.

Same.

>>15374749
>"Kierkegaard wonders if it is actually possible to be an ascetic without the divine “You shall,” or at least some “motif of an eternity.” He observes that Schopenhauer “really gave up Christianity, [and] always praises Indian Brahminism. But he has to admit himself that those ascetics are, after all, determined by a consideration of eternity, are qualified religiously, not by [philosophical] genius, and the eternal confronts them as a religious duty.”

Did Soeren study Indian Philosophy? He seems to have a pretty good understanding of It despite the age in which he lived.

>>15377462
>>"Kierkegaard wonders if it is actually possible to be an ascetic without the divine “You shall,” or at least some “motif of an eternity.” He observes that Schopenhauer “really gave up Christianity, [and] always praises Indian Brahminism. But he has to admit himself that those ascetics are, after all, determined by a consideration of eternity, are qualified religiously, not by [philosophical] genius, and the eternal confronts them as a religious duty.”
Funny that this was exactly what Wagner did to Schopenhauer, he made in his own words the possibility of a "turning of the misguided will" by his principles, and I believe there is nothing more needed to be said on the subject in hearing that quote of Wagner's. It explains full-well the mind of his ambitions in relation to the present Schopenhauerian system.

Furthermore I cannot help but feel that this is best fulfilled in the movement of Codreanu.

>>15376275

>>15376944

I mean, I get what you're saying, it's well written, but you are so totally wrong in him not providing workable solutions.

He provides you the ultimate solution - negation of the will, and backs it up with Buddhism/New Testament Scripture that fit like a glove into his system.

If you are diagnosing suffering by any other means other than recognizing everything as one and treating everything/everyone as you would be treated ("tormentor is the tormented and vice versa"), than you aren't solving suffering, you are merely temporarily reprieving it.

>>15376317
This to me seems like a questioning of rationalism.

>>15376317
That says nothing about antinatalism, just that taking the burden of having children isn't a rational, but rather an instinctual decision

>>15379043
>>15380291
both of you lack reasoning and sympathy.

>>15380366
kek

>>15376576
me, obviously

He is my guy. Totally right about women.

>>15373130
No wonder why Borges loved Schopy.

>>15375246
OH SHI-

>>15380291
this
>>15376317 is a brainlet

>>15381037
How about Jews ?