/lit/ - Literature

>>22638138
I'm sorry about your hair dude

>>22638138
why?
Absolute Will is no different than any other monistic Absolutes as they are ultimately indistinguishable as they are existentially unknowable.
He was another clown pushing Absolute Nihilism.

>>22638138
I'm sorry he didn't get that underage pussy he wanted which led him to nihilism

>>22638138
It should have always been him

>>22638189
Lmao, what’s the backstory on this?

>>22638199
based Nietzsche surpassing his mentor

>>22638163
>Absolute Will is no different than any other monistic Absolutes as they are ultimately indistinguishable as they are existentially unknowable.

>>22638245
Ok.
Do you have a counter argument or are you a typical pseud who buys into non-teleogenic thought-terminating philosophies?

>>22638263
>Do you have a counter argument
There is nothing to argue against but a vague generalization using undefined terms. What do you mean by "indistinguishable" and "existentially unknowable"? Clearly Schopenhauer's philosophy is different from the wide array of other kinds of philosophies labeled "monism", we don't need to determine if his philosophy is "existentially unknowable" in order to establish a number of important differences etc between his thought and the dozens of different types of thought considered monism, so you linking those two things in that way made no logical sense.

>>22638296
Ok.
We'll keep it simple.
How is Schopenhauer's Absolute Will distinct from any other Absolute.
If there is distinction, how is this knowable and communicable outside of speculation/abstraction of Absolutes.

>>22638138
Lol no.

>>22638138
I’m sorry, you were right about everything not only about women. And you’re the last honest western philosopher.

>>22638296
>>22638312
Also to remind you, Schopy's Metaphysics is Impersonal.
So... I'd like to hear how a person can know is Metaphysics.

>>22638138
just put a pause on it. it changes too much

>>22638312
>How is Schopenhauer's Absolute Will distinct from any other Absolute.
Well, for one it's unconscious and a good number of other Absolutes are said to be conscious or self-aware/sentient in some way. Secondly He identifies the Will or its subsequent manifestations with the world and even the human body which plenty of Absolutist doctrines disagree with.

>If there is distinction, how is this knowable and communicable outside of speculation/abstraction of Absolutes.
Schopenhauer thought that the Will is apprehensible through introspection, so in that sense one can study his writings, use introspection, and then directly discern differences oneself. And on the flipside, other philosophies or religions that propound their own philosophies would give their own separate justifications for how you can understand that their ideas are different from Schops, i.e. they either use a separate logical process to arrive at their position that expounds a different idea or it's sourced from divinely revealed scripture or the supermundane insight of sages etc which only talk about their ideas and not Schopenhauer's.

>>22638384
>Well, for one it's unconscious and a good number of other Absolutes are said to be conscious or self-aware/sentient in some way.
So unknowable. Gotcha.
There goes Epistemology and verifying truth.
>Secondly He identifies the Will or its subsequent manifestations with the world and even the human body which plenty of Absolutist doctrines disagree with.
How. What real mechanism(s) are demonstrated else this is another Theology of Divine Revelation of Will and not Philosophy.
>Schopenhauer thought that the Will is apprehensible through introspection, so in that sense one can study his writings, use introspection, and then directly discern differences oneself. And on the flipside, other philosophies or religions that propound their own philosophies would give their own separate justifications for how you can understand that their ideas are different from Schops, i.e. they either use a separate logical process to arrive at their position that expounds a different idea or it's sourced from divinely revealed scripture or the supermundane insight of sages etc which only talk about their ideas and not Schopenhauer's.
See my previous statements: I'm still hung up on how this isn't a Nominalistic (proto-Existentialism) where any knowledge gained is endemic ot the individual; thus devolving into solipsism and relativism (despite aiming for a Universality of Will).
This is my Monism accusation, in that Shopy doesn't reconcile the Will (One) with the Many (arbitrary wills); thus all Will(s) collapse into a Monad and no real distinctions can ultimately be discovered/known/communicated epistemically.

Also, I appreciate you engaging in dialectics with me in good faith.
Sincerely.

>>22638434
>So unknowable. Gotcha.
Incorrect from the POV of his thought/system, Schopenhauer thought that you can know it through introspection, you can agree or disagree if that's feasible but that's what he thought.
>How. What real mechanism(s) are demonstrated else this is another Theology of Divine Revelation of Will and not Philosophy.
The method he uses to arrives at that conclusion is irrelevant to the original question of whether he propounds something different from other Absolutes, you falsely claimed he didn't, and I corrected that by giving several examples of how his Absolute is different; for you to then counter that by requesting a spoonfeeding of his method of arriving at that conclusion is engaging in the argumentative fallacy known as 'goalpost-moving' since your original contention has already been shown to be wrong.
>thus devolving into solipsism and relativism (despite aiming for a Universality of Will).
His system isn't solipsism because one individual isn't imagining hallucinations of all individuals and their conscious experience but there is one trans-individual or supra-individual Will the produces the world and bodies and it can also be located within the psychological depths of living beings.
>This is my Monism accusation, in that Shopy doesn't reconcile the Will (One) with the Many (arbitrary wills); thus all Will(s) collapse into a Monad and no real distinctions can ultimately be discovered/known/communicated epistemically.
Well, this is a question about the nuts-and-bots of his metaphysics, and how real he how considers to be the individualization of the Will to be, and how he defines 'real' and a host of related questions, however you can only sufficiently gain this by actually reading his works where he talks about his ideas, which it seems like you haven't, and it's a waste of time to engage with someone who is trying to making metaphysical critiques about a metaphysics which they haven't really engaged with or studied, especially when they aren't even doing so in the interest of the open-ended pursuit of truth but are just trolling for people to engage them in their religious apologetics in threads about philosophers which they haven't read, the online equivalent of knocking on random peoples doors to ask if you can talk to them about Jesus.

>>22638534
>Incorrect from the POV of his thought/system, Schopenhauer thought that you can know it through introspection, you can agree or disagree if that's feasible but that's what he thought.
I agree, that self-introspection (Know Thyself/Meta-cognizance), but how is this knowledge verifiable and communicable between other wills? For example, imagine a Boltzmann Brain universe where we are just Incorporeal Floating Wills (not much different than chan), how could we come to shared truths/shared reality?
How are transcendentals (logic, reason, math, time, etc.) established as metaphysical building blocks to build to Schopenhauer's original thesis (else it just begs the question and assumes)? It seems devorced of substance for the sake of "Cogito, ergo sum"/Solipsistic self-belief.
>The method he uses to arrives at that conclusion is irrelevant to the original question of whether he propounds something different from other Absolutes...
Not yet I haven't move the goalpost; my attempt was to demonstrate the incoherence/inconsistency between Shopy switching between Personal Self-Will and Impersonal Absolute Will; you can't have both. Shopy elivates Impersonal Will to that of a Absolute that will ultimately be know through Personal discovery of self-wills (or ego death of one's will). This is the same fallacious argumentation as the Buddhists with Nirvana but with different aesthetics (Will); thus a Theology masked as a Philosophy.
>His system isn't solipsism because one individual isn't imagining hallucinations of all individuals...
Again, oneself is not a reliable source for epistemology.
One's confidence in the certitude (faith) of one's experiences and will is solipsism.
See Hume's "The Problem of Induction".
>Well, this is a question about the nuts-and-bots of his metaphysics...
This is a fallacy: "You have to have total knowledge of Schopenhauer's Ouevre else it doesn't make sense".
Again this comes off as Biblical apologetics; much like Marxists who demand further reading of Marx when flummoxed.
I want to know how anybody can come to Schopenhauer's Truths about Reality without reading his works.
This is Philosophy is it not?
There should be a priori and (synthetic) a posteriori methodology to this epistemology and also to the meta-ethics of why we should follow this particular worldview universally.
If not, then I don't see why Schopenhauer's is right and not just arbitrary based on his own experiences/will.

>>22638189
>>22638206
bump

>>22638651
>I agree, that self-introspection (Know Thyself/Meta-cognizance)*
* has some epistemic validity...

>>22638362
>ywn go back in time and teach schopenhauer how to score mad pussy
Books for this feel?

>>22638966
>ywn intentionally go into his empty lecture hall, sit down, and ask: "Where is everyone? Did Professor Hegel cancel class?"

>>22638208
>Nietzsche's mentor
>Schopenhauer

>>22638163
>absolute nihilism bad
seethe and cope

>>22638362
>>22638199
If his mother was so great then why is she called arthur's mother and not by her own name? Why aren't her ideas immortal if they sold so many more books than he did? It's literally a tale as old as time, success is not a measure of merit but of sycophancy and compliance to grudging and interested power, which is why great men are rarely great in their own time but great woman are never great outside of theirs.

>>22638138
The metaphysical and ontological aspect of his philosophy is absolutely horrendous, but his conclusions are still right for the most part.
He's decently fun to read but he really didn't say anything profound.

>>22638138
Please forgive me Schopenhauer whenever I go away from your wisdom I get fucked in the ass.
You're the truth.

>>22638138
>According to Arthur Schopenhauer, "there is more to be learned from each page of David Hume than from the collected philosophical works of Hegel, Herbart and Schleiermacher taken together."
Did he mean here that Hume is good or that the other three are worthless?

>>22639946
He was a Hume simp

>>22639300
All Absolutism is Nihilism for both the One(s) and the Many.
>seethe and cope
It wouldn't matter...

>>22639946
he meant that he is better than the ones who failed to reflect on their derivations as being falsely recontextualized since he didn't fail to recognize it and that Hume is implicitly better than him for he wouldn't have been able to provide a filtrative condensation

>>22638189
Nihilism is objectively correct, or at least it's ultimately correct. So saying that nihilism is... le bad is just a faggot cope

>>22638138
Look at his massive head he must be retarded

>>22638138
>ywn go back in time to be in his lecture class
feels bad man

>>22638138
If only we could get him and the late Nietzsche in a room together, or exchanging letters. Then again I have a feeling he'd just insult Nietzsche, call him a barbarian, while actually agreeing that in the end his philosophy leads to nihilism. When you think about it, their philosophies are about taste: they agree the world is horrible and full of suffering, they just prescribe a different attitude towards it.

>>22638138
rip bro, you would've loved doomer edits

hey guys, just got back from reaching enlightenment to tell you all: Schopenhauer was right

>>22639544
>REEEEEEEEEE
You're a loser who won't be remembered for anything and Kanye West is more relevant to most people's lives than Schopenhauer. Cope.

>>22638138
Im sorry Hegel is so much better in every single way

>>22644382
>Defender of the Jewish status quo of his time
>Better than something

>>22643548
If that is really the argument you're making the you already lost