/lit/ - Literature

>>16195858
Behind you, dude!!

>>16195858
Yes you can reconcile them. In short, Schopenhauer's metaphysics with Nietzsche's ethics.

>>16195906
Absolutely based and redpilled. Thats the way that I always see it

>>16195906
So in essence, retain Schopenhauer's philosophical pessimism (and the arguments he forwards for it) but dispense with his ethics, and instead apply a Nietzschean embrace of this pessimism?

>>16196084
Yes

>>16195906
What does this even mean..

>>16195906
Can't have Nietzsche's ethics for Schopenhauer's metaphysics. The solution to Schopenhauer is to accept his metaphysics and adopt Stoicism as the coping mechanism.

>>16195858
Even in the early Schopenhauer as Educator there's very little about Schopenhauer per se; they can both be read with profit but there's no reconciling these dudes. Nietzsche takes what he wants from both Kant and Schopenhauer but in the end deep sixes them entirely.

>>16196373
>Can't have Nietzsche's ethics for Schopenhauer's metaphysics

Yes you can. You just need to stop being a fucking pussy lmao

>>16196084
Not exactly "dispense" with his ethics. I found that with a few modifications, compassion ethics is fully compatible with the negative arguments Nietzsche puts forward in BGE.

>>16196084
the otherway around
retain Nietzsche's ""optimism"" with his early Platonism (BoT) and Schopenhauer's 'metaphysics' (vorstellung and der wille), even fusing Nietszches will and Schopenhauer...
Hol' up, this is just neo-Neoplatonism.

>>16195858
Nick Land was correct.

>>16195858
Neither but Schopenhhaur is an actual philosopher and not a shitty philosophy-as-art guru so I am going with him I guess. His metaphysics are about as wrong as you can get though.

>>16197398
You aren't wrong. Schopenhauer is literally neo-neoplatonism.

>>16197398
>Hol' up, this is just neo-Neoplatonism.
No it's not, you are an idiot

>>16197459
There is no neoneoneoplatonism stop using /lit/ buzzwords

>>16197474
Of course there isn't a "neo-neoplatonism" and that was the point of the post. Are you new or just dense? That just means Schopenhauer reintroduces Platonism.

>>16197501
>You aren't wrong. Schopenhauer is literally neo-neoplatonism.
>Of course there isn't a "neo-neoplatonism" and that was the point of the post. Are you new or just dense?
lmao whatever you say nerd

>>16197461
>No it's not, you are an idiot
>If beyond this, however, the reader has lingered in the school of the divine Plato, he will be all the better prepared and the more receptive to hearing me.

>>16197576
you are still an idiot

>>16197596
>

>>16197398
How can you keep Nietzsche's optimism with Schopenhauer's metaphysics though? Isn't Schopenhauer's pessimism and asceticism a necessary result of his idea of the Will?

Battle of the incels. Neither win because they are both losers.

>>16195858
Schopenhauer would have Neetzsche ass blasted if they lived in the same time
don't fool yourself

>>16198081
The will is constant struggle, strife, suffering
>Schopenhauer: this sucks, deny the will and embrace asceticism
>Nietzsche: struggle is life, embrace the will and become Übermensch

>>16195858
>who do i agree with?

>>16196084
>So in essence, retain Schopenhauer's philosophical pessimism
Nothing to do with his metaphysics, dumbshit.

>>16197596

Accept it, dude. You just got BTFO.

>>16195906
But why

>>16199690
Because antinatalism was refuted by Charles Darwin.

>>16199706
>Charles Darwin.
refuted himself

>>16197431
How?

>>16195906
>Schopenhauer's metaphysics with Nietzsche's ethics.
That's actually just Nietzsche.

>>16196084
>>16196265
>>16196373
>>16199690
>>16200931
Reconciling them in this way is basically what Jung does. I would try to explain it, but I already wrote a post on it a few days ago so I link that instead (read the second paragraph):
>>/lit/thread/S16061479#p16084470