/lit/ - Literature

>>16808904
>incel
Stop trying to recruit great philosophers into your ranks. Schopenhauer, Kant, Newton and others weren't "incels". Incels are a particularly pathetic breed.

>>16808904
>incel
how was he an incel?

>>16808904
Miserable conservatives are the most embarrassing. It's one thing if you truly love status quo and want to preserve it, but being a bitchy pessimist who wants to continue suffering is just pathetic.

>>16808939
Wanting to continue suffering is about the bravest thing one can do

>>16808939
leftoid cope, read pic related

>>16808927
Incels aren't real, except maybe for failed rapists. 99.9% of people called this are actual volcels because they're too pussy to just go rape someone.

>>16808945
brave but also stupid

>>16809003
And so in any case the opposite of pathetic

Also it's only stupid if you assume that nothing worthwhile can be learned from suffering

>>16808945
No, it's not. Only if you believe in something worth obtaining through suffering is it brave. Fetishizing the suffering itself is just the final cope of slave morality. Conservative pessimism is a rejection of rising above and overcoming, a rejection of even the possibility of making something meaningful. It's a call to inaction.

>>16809058
>only if you believe
Anything you or anyone does is based on the belief that something valuable is to be gained from it you brainlet

>>16809084
Have you learned to read? If you had managed to get through more than six words before your reflexes hit the reply button, you would have recognized the contrast I draw between valuing something obtained through suffering (as a means) and valuing suffering itself (fetishizing).

>>16808904
Holy based.

>>16808904
Baste

>>16808904
If misery is natural why make such an effort to maintain the misery which currently exists? Would it not make far more sense to be indifferent to all reforms, revolutions, and reactions? Schopenhaur like a lil bitch desu

>>16809101
I'm telling you the distinction is personal and not universal. A man who fetishizes and worships suffering clearly believes that he can gain something through it. Hence me calling you a brainlet

>>16809727
Ah, I understand you know. Fair enough man, you got me there

>>16808904
STOP FUCKING MEMING SCHOPENHAUER AND NOT GOING PAST A SUPERFICIAL "LE SAD MAN" ANALYSIS OF HIM

It would be more based if he roamed the street killing antifa

>>16810589
This. Please stop memeing him.

>>16810642
I just makes me very sad anon.

He is one of the greatest thinkers ever. I just wish people on here engaged with his metaphysics and epistemology. His emphasis on the non-rational was such an important shift in philosophy. He was a literal genius and he will have a lifelong impact on me despite the fact that he might have got some things wrong (or at least didn't draw out the full implications thereof). Sure, his writings on suffering are piercing but it's related to his broader system. He doesn't engage in a hedonic calculus nor in suffering in the way usually conceptualised by normie retards. And what of his aesthetics and ethics? They're never mentioned here.

Thomas Mann likened reading Schopenhauer to one's first ever romantic experience. I'm very much the same.

Thanks for reading my blog.

>>16810712
I made the same complaint earlier in another thread. Anons are refusing to engage with his work beyond a superficial level and make all sorts of uninformed judgements about him. I believe there is also one other anon who means well, but keeps making these meme threads. What makes it worse is that substantiave threads don't even get replies.

>>16810712
Wasn’t Hume the first guy to move to a non rational source of ethics?

>>16811526
You're right in saying that Hume was the first to say that ethics is founded upon fundamental desires and could not be syllogistically derived.

I was more so referring to non-rationalism in light of Kant's contraction of epistemology. Schopenhauer said that the metaphysical essence of the world is non-rational (a step beyond Kant) and that the rational was entirely a product of the perceiving subject imposing a priori intuitions to the object of perception (which he takes from Kant but he restructures its formulation light of the principle of sufficient reason).

As for Schopenhauer's ethics, my read is that he seeks to formulate compassion in a naturalistic manner so as to implicitly overcome Hume's is-ought divide. As the non-rational essence of the world (the Will) is ultimately an individual unity (not a multiplicity of will as Nietzsche or Mainländer would argue), any violence I do to you is ultimately a violence done to myself.

So Schopenhauer's ethics differ to Hume in how they relate to the former's broader metaphysical system. In my view, Schopenhauer expounded the implications of non-rationalism to a greater and perhaps more compelling extent than Hume. Hume's non-rational ethics are also arguably related to his treatment of causality and causal inference. Because Kant reconceptualises causality, Schopenhauer is given the wiggle-room to contract the principle of sufficient reason to the extent that he is able to introduce the notion of non-rational Will in WWRvol1.

>>16810712
yeah bro, why don't people discuss his retarded color theory more

>>16812688
You're the same fuckwit who skims "On Women" and thinks that constitutes his whole corpus.

Goethe had a big role to play in that outmoded colour theory. Does that mean that reading Faust is useless? At least argue in good faith you dumb cunt.

>noo you can't just better the world like that!
Sounds like the reactionaries on 4chan

>>16812781
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium, atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

>>16808904
>even if some utopian society were established, people would still fight each other out of boredom, or would starve due to overpopulation.
*women would still do this. they are never happy. men on the other hand can eat chips and drink themself into a coma and be happy.

>>16811666
I doubt you read the second volume of The World as Will and Representation. Schopenhauer believed there was something Platonist and independent of one's character, and he implicitly expresses agonisticism towards the possibility of transmigration.
Most people tend to ignore the Platonist elements of Schopenhauer's metaphysics. It really just boil down to a Platonist styled Kantian reading of the Upanishads. If Schopenhauer were alive today, he would become a sincere practitioner of Vedanta.

>>16808904
Wagner btfo'd.

>>16812807
You seem knowledgable on Schopie. Does his ontology have more in common with Plato or Plotinus?

>>16812807
But I have. If you could point me to passages where he's implicit about transmigration, that would be lovely. I'm willing to learn if I've overlooked stuff.

>>16812838
I'm not knowledgeable on philosophy. Everything I learn is from secondary sources and friends.
>>16812854
I said implicitly. If Schopenhauer believes there's something independent and relatively permanent about character, then it's obvious he's alluding to some kind of agnosticism about transmigration or rebirth.
I have a friend who has read all of Schopenhauer, and he talked about these weird Platonist elements of Schopenhauer, which is more prevalent in the second volume. I don't see people ever discuss that, but SEP and IEP do touch on it.

>>16812838
>>16812854
This is what I am referring to:
>Our intelligible character is our character outside of space and time, and is the original force of the will. We cannot have access to our intelligible character, as it exists outside our forms of knowing. Like all forces in nature, it is original, inalterable and inexplicable. Our empirical character is our character insofar as it manifests itself in individual acts of will: it is, in short, the phenomenon of the intelligible character. The empirical character is an object of experience and thus tied to the forms of experience, namely space, time and causality.
My friend who also read all of World as Will and Representation argues Schopenhauer had a lot of complex views on the Platonic nature of character. Why does not one ever talk about this?

>>16812838
>>16812854
This is what I am referring to:
>Schopenhauer gives an explanation of the active nature of agency, but not in terms of the causal efficacy of agents. Instead, the key to accounting for human agency lies in the distinction between one’s intelligible and empirical character. Our intelligible character is our character outside of space and time, and is the original force of the will. We cannot have access to our intelligible character, as it exists outside our forms of knowing. Like all forces in nature, it is original, inalterable and inexplicable. Our empirical character is our character insofar as it manifests itself in individual acts of will: it is, in short, the phenomenon of the intelligible character. The empirical character is an object of experience and thus tied to the forms of experience, namely space, time and causality.
My friend who also read all of World as Will and Representation argues Schopenhauer had a lot of complex views on the Platonic nature of the "intelligible character". Why does not one ever talk about his distinction between intelligible and empirical character?
I just found that Schopenhauer did believe in palingenesis!

>>16812876
>I said implicitly
Yeah, I'm aware. What I was asking for was which essays in the second volume this view can be formed from. For something to be implicit in a text, there next to be a point of reference in that text in the first place - unless what you're saying is an overall "vibe".

I assumed your friend's view has some grounding in "On Death and its Relation to the Indestructibility of Our True Nature" and the related essays in the second volume which I guess I should re-read. I'll be honest, I haven't read any neo-Platonists. The link between that essay and Phaedo is obvious but I never extended my reading of Schopenhauer to the level of mysticism that your friend seems to be reading in. I am aware of Schop becoming more of a mysticist as he aged but again, I didn't take it that far. Maybe it was an oversight on my behalf. I want to meet your friend.
>>16812912
I see now. Thank you for that. That seems to be in relation to his prize essay on free will and where our sense of moral agency comes from. But I can certainly see the connection being made now. Much appreciated.

>>16812934
>Why does not one ever talk about his distinction between intelligible and empirical character?
They do. But it's usually in a comparative study with Kant's moral theory rather than Platonism. I'm this anon >>16812940

>>16812940
Check this. "Intelligible character" does relate to his promotion of palingenesis. This image also gives a quote for his view on palingenesis. He distinguished palingenesis from metempsychosis, but they are somewhat similar.

>>16812950
Thanks again. It's been a bit since I've read P&P. Time to read it again with fresh eyes.

>>16809667
Thats literally his philosophy. To be indifferent. that was him being indifferent.

>>16808904
Bump

>>16808904
>incel
Schopenhauer had a bunch of bastard children.

>>16812824
Wagner stopped being a cringe revolutionary once he discovered Schopenhauer.

>>16811666
Very informative anon, thanks for posting

>>16808986
Inceldom is about more than just getting sex, retard. We want an actual loving relationship, not *just* wet holes

>>16808904
>>16808927
This, Schopenhauer was a volcel, a person who had the willpower to choose to have nothing to do with the female sex in spite of being heterosexual. There is a vast gulf between Schopenhauer and stymied coomers that cannot be crossed.

>>16808939
Actually it's insanely based; only a wise person well-acquainted with history can see through appearances to know that things are never going to get better.

>>16814941
>This, Schopenhauer was a volcel, a person who had the willpower to choose to have nothing to do with the female sex in spite of being heterosexual. There is a vast gulf between Schopenhauer and stymied coomers that cannot be crossed.
For one, he's a genius. But nevertheless, Schopenhauer may have chosen to "have nothing to do with the female sex", but he sure did.

>>16808904
Bumpe

>>16814941
> can see through appearances to know that things are never going to get better
That's one of the many reasons why he's not accepted in academia.

>>16808904
You don’t actually fit in here, OP. None of you tardcath larpers do
We have a board for you already on r9k. Gtfo

>>16818041
Who tf is larping as a tradcath ITT? There's no room for religion in Schop's system. Nietzsche called him the only honest atheist in Europe. You're just seething because Schop saw through the LARP of being a "revolutionary".

>>16808904
"He became worried for his own property" is pretty much the origin of all right-wing """"""""thought""""""".

>>16808904
>and that even if some utopian society were established, people would still fight each other out of boredom
t. Chuck Palahnuik.

>>16818086
>Synic nihilist bootlicker.
So you’re the nihilist division. Who can keep track

>>16818104
>>Synic

>>16818086
>Cynic nihilist bootlicker.
So you’re the nihilist division. Who can keep track

>>16818148
Thanks. What the hell was that all about

>>16808927
>>16808934
Guys can we all stop pretending that 2010s definition of incel is relevant
If u go on 4chan, everyone thinks your an incel, an incel might as well equate to dreg or autist or general other compared to larger social norms, a principle which works against what is generally worked for, out of no particular purpose other than himself and his own ideas or philosophy

>>16818086
What else did he say about revolutionaries?

>>16818260
Have a look at his essays "On Philosophy at the Universities" and "On Jurisprudence and Politics" in his Parerga. They're great reads in their own right but it will help you understand his view of the institutions of the time and why he was critical of "progress" contra Hegel.

In essence, he believed that history deals with particulars, not universals. Hence, for Hegelians and the related schools, their notions of "progress" were founded upon a misunderstandings of the principle of sufficient reason which, to Schop, only applied to the world of phenomena, not the thing-in-itself. That's why he finds the notion of an "absolute" ridiculous. I don't have the exact passages from WWR handy but I still want to help you. I came across a short paper called "Schopenhauer's View of History: A Note" which is a nice condensation of his view. It's only six pages.

Pic related might also be illuminating.

>>16818041
>Schopenhauer
>tradcath
Once again you outed yourself as a pseud

>>16818767
I was talking *to* anonymous

>>16818098
>"He became worried for his own property" is pretty much the origin of all right-wing """"""""thought"""""""
Oh so Stirner is right wing now? Great news

>>16818589
>Schopenhauer
Thank you, anon. I'll look into them.

>>16814810
>personally identifying as an incel
I forgot how cringe this board is

>>16818832
If anything is more cringe it is irrational hatred towards incels. We're wearing our badges with pride, you're no better than illiterate normies who hate us without even entertaining the thought that we might be right

>>16818795
If the revolutionary had the power to take it, Stirner would be fine with it. If Schoap bubbles likes pain so much, why the saber and pistol? What hypocrisy.

>>16818845
>irrational hatred
Its pretty reasonable to despise someone this cringey
>we might be right
Your status as celibate is involuntary and has nothing to do with whatever meme ideology you masturbate over

>>16809667
didn't you read it? it threatened his life and property

>>16818854
>If Schoap bubbles likes pain so much, why the saber and pistol? What hypocrisy.
Wow, what a piercing insight. You are clearly very well-versed with his thought. Are you going to now say he is was ebic sad man who should have just killed himself.

>>16818854
>still regurgitating the vulgar wikipedia version of Schopenhauer

>>16818916
I’m regurgitating the Schopenhauer put forward by anonymous in this very thread.

>>16818894
It was a question, you wilting lily

>>16808904
>fight each other out of boredom
Accurate

>>16819678
>I know for I have come from another dimension where commynism is the reality
Inaccurate

>>16819695
Why do you insist in annoying me in multiple threads?

>>16819701
Get a name so I can filter you

>>16808904
I read it like "He became women for his own safety". And story in my mind was with him in the dress and wig. I even imagined how he flirtatious "gave one of the officers his opera glasses."

>>16819714
And turning myself into a trip?
You're really plaining the ruin of this place!
Good try though.

>>16819714
Answer me something, why do you so tenaciously seek male attention if you're a lesbo?

>>16819737
Fool.
The place used to be full of trips. Back when the place was about literature.
B/tards never learn

>>16819749
Oh I would prefer lit be full of nice women, believe me.

>>16819756
Tool.
I can read in more languages than you, butterfly.
You're probably a rancid monolingual anglo.

>>16819760
The quality of discussion would drop even more. You women, in general, lack combativeness. You're too early too eager for a consensus.
But DON'T believe me.

Thoughts?

>>16819867
Gautama left his wife and family to be a hermit.

>>16819910
Didn’t push them down a flight of stairs

>>16819910
>Gautama left his wife and family to be a hermit.
That's my only quaint with Budha. I mean, he always knew what kind of guy he was.