/lit/ - Literature

>As soon as he has given them his earnings on which to keep house they are strengthened in this belief. Although all this entails many disadvantages, yet it has this advantage—that a woman lives more in the present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console him when he is weighed down by cares. To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination. (CONT)

>It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.9 So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters. (CONT)

>>20722706
>notorious incel writes several page cope essay about pussy
I already know what you are going to say:
>B-b-b-but he was a genius!
No, he is babby's first philosopher, I literally read him when I was 14 and still listening to Linkin Park, he is a completely shit reader of Kant, and there is a reason that no serious academic study of Schopenhauer is undertaken, and his main reception has been among literary authors without any training in rigorous philosophical thought.
He is a complete fucking retard - that is not to say he is terrible to read, on the contrary, he is very enjoyable in his curmudgeon screeches, but that does not make a good thinker.

>>20722706
Greatest philosopher of all time. He and Nietzche are the one-two punch to destroy thousands of years of sophistry.

>Nature has made it the calling of the young, strong, and handsome men to look after the propagation of the human race; so that the species may not degenerate. This is the firm will of Nature, and it finds its expression in the passions of women. This law surpasses all others in both age and power. Woe then to the man who sets up rights and interests in such a way as to make them stand in the way of it; for whatever he may do or say, they will, at the first significant onset, be unmercifully annihilated. For the secret, unformulated, nay, unconscious but innate moral of woman is: We are justified in deceiving those who, because they care a little for us,—that is to say for the individual,—imagine they have obtained rights over the species. The constitution, and consequently the welfare of the species, have been put into our hands and entrusted to our care through the medium of the next generation which proceeds from us; let us fulfil our duties conscientiously.

>But women are by no means conscious of this leading principle in abstracto, they are only conscious of it in concreto, and have no other way of expressing it than in the manner in which they act when the opportunity arrives. So that their conscience does not trouble them so much as we imagine, for in the darkest depths of their hearts they are conscious that in violating their duty towards the individual they have all the better fulfilled it towards the species, whose claim upon them is infinitely greater. (A fuller explanation of this matter may be found in vol. ii., ch. 44, in my chief work, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung.)

>>20722736
>incel writes
Subhuman roastie, he had many relationships throughout his life

>his main reception has been among literary authors without any training in rigorous philosophical thought
LMAOOOOOOO sure woman, all of these plebs had no """training""" in """rigorous""" philosophical thought.

>Those who have cited his influence include philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche[26] and Ludwig Wittgenstein,[27] scientists such as Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein,[28] psychoanalysts such as Sigmund Freud[29] and Carl Jung, writers such as Leo Tolstoy,[30] Herman Melville,[31] Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse,[32] Machado de Assis,[33] Jorge Luis Borges, Marcel Proust,[34] and Samuel Beckett[35] as well as composers such as Richard Wagner,[34] Johannes Brahms,[34] Arnold Schoenberg[34][36] and Gustav Mahler.[34]

>Influenced
Anjos, Assis, Bahnsen, Beckett, Bergson, Borges, Brahms, Brouwer, Campbell, Einstein[9], Fet, Cioran, Dilthey[10], Freud, Gray[11], Hardy, Hartmann, Hesse, Horkheimer, Huysmans, Jung, Reve, Kraus[12], Ludovici[13], Ligotti, Mahler, Mainländer, Majorana[14], Mann, Maupassant, Michelstaedter, Nietzsche, Proust, Rank, Reve, Rilke, Ryle[15], Santayana, Schlick[16], Shaw, Schoenberg, Schrödinger, Solovyov, Spengler, Tolstoy[17], Vaihinge,r Volkelt, Wagner, Weininger, Wittgenstein, Zapffe, Zola.

>>20722764
And, most importantly, he influenced the philosopher Adolf Hitler.

>>20722771
It was Nietzsche who influenced Adolf

>>20722736
>muh academia
>muh rigorous philosophical thought
You are a pseud

>>20722771
Fuck no, Hitler pissed on Schopenhauer's ethics. Where H*gel saw Napoleon as worldly spirit or some shit, Schopenhauer saw Napoleon conquest as just another manifestation of a blind and dumb Will.

>>20722736
You posted cringe

>>20722777
>Hitler pissed on Schopenhaur's ethics
Yeah, because they suck shit.

>>20722789
Hitler was a Nietzschean. Schopenhauer is opposite of Hitler.

>>20722777
>Schopenhauer saw Napoleon conquest as just another manifestation of a blind and dumb Will
Was he wrong?

>>20722774
Adolf remarked that in WW1 he always kept a copy of World as Will and Representation on him, and he also remarked that he was never particularly inspired by Nietzsche (in contrast to Schopenhauer, who he always kept with him).
>>20722777
The fact that he did not agree with his ethics does not mean that he was mainly influenced by him. Schopenhauer's ethics, like Kant's, are stumbling blocks of their entire philosophies, but much of the rest is still highly insightful.

>>20722797
No he was right. He would have hated Hitler too.

>>20722798
Bruh, Schopenhauer's ethics are directly based on his metaphysical theory. If Adolf rejected Schopenhauer's ethics and pessimism then in what way Hitler was inspired by Schopenhauer?

>Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man; and this it is which develops that discord in married life which is so prevalent and almost the normal state.
>It is natural for a feeling of mere indifference to exist between men, but between women it is actual enmity. This is due perhaps to the fact that odium figulinum in the case of men, is limited to their everyday affairs, but with women embraces the whole sex; since they have only one kind of business. Even when they meet in the street, they look at each other like Guelphs and Ghibellines. And it is quite evident when two women first make each other’s acquaintance that they exhibit more constraint and dissimulation than two men placed in similar circumstances. This is why an exchange of compliments between two women is much more ridiculous than between two men. Further, while a man will, as a rule, address others, even those inferior to himself, with a certain feeling of consideration and humanity, it is unbearable to see how proudly and disdainfully a lady of rank will, for the most part, behave towards one who is in a lower rank (not employed in her service) when she speaks to her. This may be because differences of rank are much more precarious with women than with us, and consequently more quickly change their line of conduct and elevate them, or because while a hundred things must be weighed in our case, there is only one to be weighed in theirs, namely, with which man they have found favour; and again, because of the one-sided nature of their vocation they stand in closer relationship to each other than men do; and so it is they try to render prominent the differences of rank.

>>20722819
Schopenhauer's biggest mistake was taking up pseudo-Eastern nonsense. It fails to cross the is-ought gap and fails the common experience of individualization. It was the one act of sophism - the autistic Schopenhauer is hypersensitive to his surroundings, therefore that sensitivity should be the basis of all ethics.

Nietzche (and Hitler) corrected this by confirming there is no ultimate basis for ethics, it is all Will. In fact, by inflicting harm on others, affirming the world of suffering, you can achieve your higher goals. If you can't be an aesthetic, be a barbarian.

>>20722851
>Nietzche (and Hitler) corrected this by confirming there is no ultimate basis for ethics
Yeah, rape, looting, murder and war good, compassion and renunciation bad. Thank moustache faggots for "correcting" Schopenhauerian ethics and "crossing" the is-ought.

>>20722854

>>20722851
Schopenhauer never intended to cross the gap because his ethics are descriptive, not prescriptive. But you mongrel faggot would know this if you actually read him instead of larping here like a retard

>>20722764
The claim was that the main reception was among literary writers. You then quote, at length, the list of people influenced by him, which are primarily literary authors. Well done, you massive spastic.

But let's play a bit: explain to me how and why, in detail, music mirrors the will, and how we might come to this realization. I know Schopenhauer does not inspire much independent thought, but surely, you've given this some consideration. Entertain me.

>>20722775
No, but Schopenhauerfags are. Every single one of them has no training in the history of philosophy, has read only excerpts of Kant (at best), has read less than 100 books in their entire lives, and are below the age of 23.

>>20722779
You did not post a retort.

>>20722996
Cope harder whore

I really, really feel that women are cute and adorable and I would like to squeeze one and smell their recently showered hair while we sleep in the same bed and I wish she was petite and tiny so I could easily pick her up.
What is Schopenhauer's prescription for me?

Kant is Schopenhauer's master the same way Schop is N's master.

>>20723045
That post-nut clarity will destroy you. Imagination is comfy and safe, go experience things to get fucked in the ass. Then don't come back crying that Schopenhauer didn't warn you.

>>20723026
With what? The confusion and seething anger by Schopenhauerfags who crumble under minimal scrutiny? Not my problem.

>>20723045
>What is Schopenhauer's prescription for me?
Do not have sex but remain incel. Listen to music because somehow it is the will and somehow experiencing the will directly will give you pause from being will which will feel good or something, which you shouldn't pursue at all because all striving is bad but then you should anyway.

>>20723068
Go away woman. I don't like discussing Schopenhauer with women, he is beyond the women understanding. I was trying to convince a female friend that she shouldn't marry and should focus on her art. That retarded bitch got married with a rich fag. Women are stupid.

>>20723068
Schopescrotes are quite the breed.

>>20723056
Wait so what usually happens? Can't a woman just be nice to you and grow old together in like a loving way?
>>20723076
But doesn't Schopenhauer argue that this is only a preliminary pause from the will before you attain the better consciousness(not sure what the English term is, but essentially nirvana).
I also don't think all striving is inherently bad, just that the existential attribute of desire and fleetingness makes the majority of things phenomelogically unfulfilling.

>>20722996
>No, but Schopenhauerfags are. Every single one of them has no training in the history of philosophy, has read only excerpts of Kant (at best), has read less than 100 books in their entire lives, and are below the age of 23.
I literally wrote two master theses on Schopenhauer. There is a huge academic revival in Schopenhauer. You wouldn't know of course.

>>20723088
>meets minimum critical engagement
>AHHHH I'M GOING INSAAAANE I CAN'T DISCUSS WITH YOU BECAUSE X, Y, Z
Very gay, very cowardly, also I'm a man with hairy balls.

>>20723076
>somehow experiencing the will directly will give you pause from being will
The suffering comes from the Representation, it creates divide (first of all, and fundamentally) in the distinction between subject and object where there should be one-ness.

>>20723105
>Wait so what usually happens? Can't a woman just be nice to you and grow old together in like a loving way?
How many of couples after 25 years of marriage would that will claim after a lot of thought that they will spend another lifetime together? Sadly not many. And just look at the relationship landscape in our generation, it's utterly pathetic and dishonest. Will is only interested in survival and procreation after those things it kicks you on your ass. IMO marriage and especially procreation in today's economic, political, social and climate landscape would be a disaster. When you marry the other person you are fucking responsible for their safety, comfort and lack of suffering. It's such a great responsibility.

Nonetheless for average joes Schopenhauer prescribed some method to fund sexual partner in the Metaphysics of Love so read it. He preached celibacy only for elite monks and shit.

>>20723140
Why representation arose in the first place?

>>20723155
Because otherwise we wouldn't have this conversation

>>20723135
>Very gay, very cowardly
Then go read his main text or a small article on Schopenhauer's aesthetics on Stanford wiki

>>20723161
Isn't this begging the question. Why the divide happened in the first place? Why we got divided from primordial light?

>>20723171
The question can't be answered, it's leads to a Munchhausen situation where you're metaphorically trying to lift yourself out of quicksand by pulling your own hair. You can't use consciousness to explain consciousness, but with Schopenhauer, the entire world is a consciousness (as Representation)

>>20723165
I asked you those questions about his aesthetic philosophy because the reader capable of independent thought will ask them while reading him, because the answer is conspicuously absent.
I thought you might have some thoughts on the matter - especially since Schopenhauer seems quite adamant that one should think for oneself, and it seems quite clear that the answer is no.
Anyway, perhaps you should consult his "main text" again with a bit more of a critical attitude, and you might become a worthwhile interlocutor or reader.

>>20723182
Hmm so we're fucked and fundamental questions are still unanswered
He implied a hidden dimension of Will. What is your understanding of it?

>>20723189
You're, I am sorry of talking like an obnoxious dickhead. I don't like you gotcha attitude of people regarding Schopenhauer.

>>20722865
Nigger

>>20723213
>He implied a hidden dimension of Will.
I'd need a quote or something to what you mean exactly because desu this doesn't ring a bell. Going without context I'd assume he means that the Will is more fundamental to humans/beings than the intellect and therefore will remain largely unknowable by definition

>>20722736
You must admit that Schopenhauer's idea of the will as an irrational drive that is the only thing we can directly apprehend in life is incredibly influential, if not born out of his retardedness

>>20723225
Keyed

>>20723228
His relative nothing for enlightened individuals who are free from reincarnation

>>20723264
He names only a few individuals who actually reached this state, Jesus, Buddha, St. Francis of Assisi, Madame de Guyon. It's not attainable for the vast majority of humans. It's a relative nothing because the Will can only be denied, not destroyed

>>20723272
>the Will can only be denied
How? When ALL is Will? There must be a separate dimension. Otherwise how one can deny the will? If it's a denial of representation then why not the monks aren't relative nothing

>>20723298
Representation

>>20723303
>Representation
Even if you deny representation you're still a part of the Will and what stopping the Will from throwing you again in the meat grinder like it did before? That's getting into magical woo woo.

>>20723298
He's talking about the mercurial manifestations of the unconscious, read your Jung.

>>20723320
>what stopping the Will from throwing you again in the meat grinder like it did before?
Nothing, all you can do is end your own particular instantiation of the Will (by living an ascetic life until you die of hunger on a mountaintop)

>>20723323
>Jung
The retard who called blind and dumb Will, a God? No thank you.

>>20723334
You can call it whatever you'd like, it is what it is, hylic.

>>20723331
Then what is relative nothing? There must be a separate dimension or whatever you want to call it where "enlightened" individuals go.

>>20723342
It's relative because it concerns individuals

>>20723340
>it is what it is
Yes, a blind, dumb and irrational Will.
>hylic
Lmaooo go fuck yourself retard

>>20723350
Semantic games bro. I think this is the failure of human intellect, even Schopenhauer gave up at the point of Nothingness which we have experience rather than understand.

>>20723367
Yeah, but it's still relative. If you're the same Anon you're reading too much into the word, it's not really important. It's a relative nothingness because it concerns your individuality. And from nothingness onward philosophy can't say anyhing affirmative and we need to look at mysticism

>>20722736
>>notorious incel
Schopenhauer was notoriously lecherous. He was as far from an incel as you can get, and many of his critics have used that fact to claim he was a massive hypocrite.

>>20723383
Yeah there is one anecdote of 50 year old Schopenhauer getting rejected by a young girl and ever since people think it's indicative of his entire life. In his late teens he toured Europe with an aristocratic friend and fucked women and even though he was jealous of the (bigger) success of his friend he still got laid. Plus he had multiple affairs and even a child that died in infancy

>>20723377
For how many eons you're fighting? It is time to put down the sword?

>>20722706
How do I cope with the fact how much this man was right about everything?

>>20722752
Add Stirner and you get a cocktail to burn away all pseuds.

God's will is eternal. Man's will to life is not.

>>20723729
>God's will
No, that's just blind, dumb and irrational Will, Will-to-Live.

>>20723729
You have psychologically castrated yourself. I admire such a feat

>>20723750
You're projecting.

>>20723770
That's what everybody do. I am just repeating what Schopenhauer said.

>>20723760
The will of God, it is the will.

>>20723801
According to Christian teaching, evil does not exist, and if one is innocent, everything will be all right. But Christianity by being misinterpreted in this way has made us all infantile and has robbed us of our sound instinctual attitude toward life. We all try to be innocent sheep, and then we are of course helpless. The idea of sheep-mentality and infantilism and a certain kind of wrong Christian attitude is that one is innocent so nothing can happen, for the protecting angels will apparently care for you. But reality contradicts this kind of teaching because in this world and in nature innocence does not help. It invites
the wolves.

>>20723837
The gnostic gospels say otherwise, fag.

>>20723851
Do you tend to operate based on what others say? Sounds gay to me

>>20723837
Are you a Christian?

>>20722706
>>20722709
>>20722712
Did he even have anything worth reading?

>>20723937
If I was, it would have to be as a fool for Christ's sake as Paul says, meaning I would give up all my possessions and shock people to challenge their sin. I choose to face the world on its own terms, in the here and now. Maybe I will burn in hell, but at least it will have been for something rather than the nothing of resignation

>>20722736
LOL seethe and cope, roastie.
And remember there is no single woman philospher worth mentioning who didn't just copy some male one.

>>20722736
he's a better philosopher than Kant, but he's still wrong

>>20723105
>Wait so what usually happens? Can't a woman just be nice to you and grow old together in like a loving way?

if God wills it

>>20723837
you have no idea what you're talking about. look at the crusades bro. If anything, Christianity makes the soul too active (if that were even possible) by restoring it to its primal nature and then elevating it even beyond that.

>>20724172
Yes, look at the Crusades! Cold brutality is very often covered up by sentimentality, not just that of the Christian. Hermann Göring would lovingly stroke his lions after creating a government office to exile Jews and organizing the Final Solution

>>20723105
>Can't a woman just be nice to you and grow old together in like a loving way?
They just can't it's against their nature.

>>20724159
>you share a board with these cretins

>>20722736
>there is a reason that no serious academic study of Schopenhauer is undertaken
Wasn't he quite influential in that a lot of Neo-Kantians felt the need to address the criticisms that he'd made of Kant?

>the list of people influenced by him, which are primarily literary authors. Well done, you massive spastic.
I suppose it defends on how you define "literary" but I'd say that it's at the very least a relatively even divide between artists on the one hand and the philosophers, psychologists and scientists on the other.

>>20724919
*depends

>>20722706
Why tf do people pay attention to incel’s takes on women? It’s laughable. Like I know nothing about finance so I’m not writing on the topic and don’t lecture people. This was just a sad bitter man who didn’t have enough sex so he created a whole incel mythology where women are dumb and have cooties.

>>20724979
Because his critique is absolutely correct, his assessments have a powerful and ruthless efficiency in exposing the charade that men are too horny to properly understand.

>>20724992
Lol no

>>20722996
I dunno I'm 40 and like Schopenhauer, seems like a swell guy. Also YWNBAW

>>20724979
kys rostie

>>20722771
>>20722774
Hitler was more influenced by Wagnerians i.e. alcoholic anti-Semitic agitators

>>20725016
Kek.

.

>>20724979
Whore

>>20723155
Acutal answer: the split never happened as an event in time, before which the Will was undivided. It was always like that

>>20726708
Then why I am me and not the other?

>>20723105
>Wait so what usually happens? Can't a woman just be nice to you and grow old together in like a loving way?
That's up to you. Become a good man. Find and commit to a good woman. My parents are 30 years married, had 10 kids, and are still in love with each other.

>>20724219
ignorant. the crusades were anything but cold

>>20724741
Let me explain. Kant begins to develop the false and self-contradictory "insights" of eastern religion under the guise of western philosophical concepts. Thus he begins by severing, like a lobotomist, the connection between the mind and being. But he fails to take this sickness to its end. Hegel does the same. He almost gets to Hinduism, but he stops short by his refusal to let go of history (something which only entered the world, properly speaking, because of Christ).

Schopenhauer, although false, is true to the project of Hinduism. He basically depicts it using the language of german idealism rather than sanskrit. The world is pure consciousness, brahman. Whether this is will or awareness is really besides the point, the system still functions the same.

>>20726714
cope answer: because will in its blind thrasing just refuses in certain instances to acknowledge its own nature. "will" is nothing more than consciousness' own self-refusal

based answer: because the schopenhauerian/hindu system defies our most fundamental intuitions ("Hmm, I don't seem to be God, thus I'm probably not") and thus ought to be discarded.

>>20727040
>>20727045
what do you think about Nietszche

>>20723045
You are a woman.

>>20723961
Yes, his entire opus.

>Tfw you haven't gotten caught up in semitic language games and can simply enjoy the eternal superhuman autistic glory of music

See you in nirvana, losers

>>20727167
I'm a guy,

>>20722736
Female hands typed this

>>20727245
a woman in a male body
read schoppy to reclaim manhood

>>20727268
I got the book.

>>20727628
Good.