/lit/ - Literature

>>6866366
poor man's freddy tbh

>>6866372
>implying Nietzsche even comes close to Schopenhauer on music or sound

>>6866366
Can you start over with some of these "god-tier aesthetics"

I mean, look at that hair. I wouldn't trust someone like that with my aesthetics

>>6866366
I'm not really sure I understand his concept of rights as a negative. Can anyone care to shed light on this?

Also, if music is the ultimate mirror of the Will isn't music a thing to turn away from?

>>6866375
>>implying Nietzsche even comes close to Schopenhauer

>>6866703
This, tbh. I started with Nietzsche in undergrad and only as an adult have I come to Schopenhauer, and found the true crown king of 19th century philosophy.

Heidegger is my second love, though. I wish there were more papers dealing with the similarities/differences between the two.

>salty goblin who would have listened linkin park were he born today
>good

>>6866727
Kiss ass for the state.

Dude would have been like Karl Rove.

>>6866721

so write some

>>6866741
I'm not talented, original, or qualified enough to do such. Sorry, just a failure.

>>6866721
Schopenhauer and Heidegger?

I'm unfamiliar with the Heidehher but I just looked the names up Philosopher's Index and there are a couple, mostly to do with art and aesthetics but one tagged with Buddhism (in German). Do you have access to this?

>>6866755
>>6866721
Just remembered that Schopenhauer, Philosophy and the Arts (Cambridge) has an essay on the two in relation to Art and Will, you can find the collection on GenLib

>>6866772
>Schopenhauer, Philosophy and the Arts
Excellent recommendation, thank you!

>>6866378
>implying Schopenhauer doesn't have beast-tier hair

10/10 hair m8

>>6866366
If it werent for Rudolf Steiner I'd be all over his dick.

>>6867097
What does Steiner have to do with anything?

>>6866366
nah

How could he have better aesthetics than Nietzsche if he obviously preferred the topics of metaphysics and ethics, and couldn't even say Yes to life?

>only as an aesthetic phenomenon is life justified

>>6866366
>Implying he didn't copy/paste his philosophy from the Indian Upanishads.

>>6867168
>obviously preferred the topics of metaphysics and ethics
Whoa bro. Not necessarily true. They all fit into one another and are critical to understanding Will and Denial of such.

>>6867171
Implying he had full knowledge of them prior to forming the bulk of his ideas. Plus they were jacked up translations of jacked up translations. Dude was just impressed they more or less supported his ideas.

>>6866366
>implying implications

>>6867136
he was right about everything

>>6867321
What's his connection with Schopenhauer, though?

>>6866366
>thought music was the best art form

mah nigga

He was pretty much right about a big part of his Metaphysics but gets kinda wonky in the end with "even stones are/have Will" etc.

His Aesthetics and Aphorisms are amazing.

He did go full edgelord an women though.

>>6866629

Music surely would need to be avoided at all costs if the will is indeed as evil as he claims it to be. A thinker his stature must have noticed the inconsistency himself. Yet it's there.

>>6867492
>He was pretty much right about a big part of his Metaphysics but gets kinda wonky in the end with "even stones are/have Will" etc.

That's the beginning of his metaphysics, though, what one could call the...bedrock. The fact that inorganic forces (e.g. gravity) and objects (e.g. stones) are manifestations of Ideas and Will is how he starts to explain his metaphysics. I don't see how it's strange to say that gravity wills in that it fulfills its pull constantly and blindly.

I think some of his ideas on women are edgelord, others are sensible and influential, for psychology at least.

>>6866366

>>6867514
Yes, I should have specified that I mean the part where he takes Idealism for a ride. Tbh I was never fully on board with his idea of will as far as non living things are concerned.
I can see gravity though.

>>6867532
But it's the same with rocks and stones, though, and obviously plants. They are simply manifesting the Platonic Ideas of the Will, albeit in a way that is perhaps difficult to identify to those of us who are wholly grounded in the principle of individuality.

>>6867517
Even in life Schopenhauer was more based than Nietzsche. Schopenhauer was a wild old coot who did all sorts of crazy shit, rather than get fucked over by Paul Ree and his Jewess girlfriend.

>>6867545
Yeah I read Schopenhauers biography and to be honest he had interesting life. People have very inaccurate presumptions about it.

>>6867545
I guess I still havent fully wrapped my head around the concept of Will.

Litterally, I read Kant wrong: the philosopher

>>6867563
It's just the blind force "behind" all things, which are objectified by Ideas in spatial-temporal relation. It's "hungry" and keeps striving without goal or end.

>>6867570
I think this is really only true for Schopenhauer's reading of Kant on justice and morality, otherwise he's got a form grasp of Kant. With this I have in mind section 62 of dWaWuV, in which he discusses people as means/ends in regards to Kant's position.

What exactly do you mean?

>>6867570
Literally, shit: the post(er)

Anyway, on topic, who else finds a lot of similarities between the ethics of Schopy and Epicurus?
I seldom see the connection mentioned and he's more often said to have been influenced by the stoics, but I dont see it.

>>6866366

bitter man's spinoza tbh.
Nietszche is a stupid mans spinoza

>>6867587
Spinoza a Shit. He had some decent concepts, but was ultimately logical and rationalistic.

>>6867581
Again, Stoics had the right idea, but Schopy critiqued them on their wholly rationalistic meals to achieve moral goals.

He critiques them quite a bit in dWaWuV, in fact.

(I'm running out of Shopy pics, so please be considerate or help me out with more).

>>6867492
>>6867532
Actually the modern notion of humans being Special is more erroneous. If you're going to project things like consciousness or will onto matter (including humans) then you should be consistent that it is present in all matter, just to varying degrees of visibility. Until proven otherwise this is the default position, to avoid dualisms. muh consciousness from nothing.

>implying aesthetic appreciation is either detached or unrelated to the will

weakest point of Kant too

>>6867603
>>He critiques them quite a bit in dWaWuV
wait what?
I read that like 2 years ago. I guess I have to start drinking less.
>Stoics had the right idea
I prefer Epicureans, butif you look at it from a practical perspective, the way those two groups lived their lives are not that different in essence.

>>6867614
He never says that. Quiets the will, at least some art does, but certainly not fully "detaches" the Will.

>>6867604
Let's not get will and consciousness conflated. But I like where you're going.

>>6867618
Yeah, I mean, like with Spinoza he obviously has some agreement and overlap, but Schopenhauer fundamentally places emphasis on intuitive, direct knowledge rather than abstractions. For this he criticizes the Stoics, Epicureans, and Spinoza.

>>6867545
>>6867555
Is there any specific biography you recommend or is the wikipedia article good enough?

>>6867639
I read the biography part in Magee's book on Schoppy. Overall a very solid book imo.

>>6867639
Wiki is pretty short for him for some reason.

I'd recommend Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy by Safranski (also does a BASED work on Heidegger) or The Philosophy of Schopenhauer by Magee.

>>6867644
>>6867650
I'll check them out, thanks.

I dont like his opinion of facial hair. Also he seems to ride it on a tad too much on woman.

>>6866721
Schopenhauer and Heidegger's philosophies are both symptoms of a DEGENERATING INSTINCT. Rather than courageously affirm life in all of its strangeness and "ugliness," say yes to suffering, to be oneself the eternal joy of becoming beyond terror and pity, and rejoice in destruction, both Schopenhauer and Heidegger retreat into deadening ideals and condemn the darker half of life. They contemplate only the singing of birds like all romantics do.
A philosophy emphasizing Being is a cowardly attempt to find something permanent to hold onto in a world where the only thing that endures is change. Schopenhauer's permanent subject. Trod out the Platonic ideals. The species are fixed. Please, please, give me something to hold onto, anything. Heidegger's precious German soil.
Their philosophies are based on FEAR. They want to get away from themselves. They want desperately to escape from...
Life is as much life as it is death. You are life. You are death. Revere death and destruction with a strange satisfaction. Comprehend the silence of the snake as well as the singing of birds. Look the dark angel firmly in the eye because there is no escape and there is nowhere to hide. If the house is left in darkness out of fear, the spirit of creation will pass it by. But unlike the spirit of creation, the angel of death can see in the dark.

>>6867735
empty memespeak

>>6867735
shut the fuck up, nietzsche

>>6866366
It would be better if there were nothing. Since there is more pain than pleasure on earth, every satisfaction is only transitory, creating new desires and new distresses, and the agony of the devoured animal is always far greater than the pleasure of the devourer

>>6867735
This is all empty blathering. I'm not going to justify it with any serious retort.

>>6867755
The mantis is a beautiful insect.

>>6867748
>>6867752
>>6867768
Don't you ever get tired of commenting on the facial hair of philosophers rather than reading them? I will let you guys go back to your memes and diluted Reddit humor.

>>6867748
>>6867752
>>6867768
Not even one serious response? Nietzsche was right to write for specific ears only.

>>6867823
I don't understand. Is he telling us to just eat up the shit life offers us since its unavoidable?

>>6867492
People have noted that you could say "energy" instead of will and you can see how it would apply to all things

>>6866366
Can anyone give me a brief intro into Schopys aesthetics?
I'm familiar with and have read the works of Kant, Medelssohn, Herder (loosely), Lessing, and Schlegel that pertain to aesthetics so I have a background. Help me out! I wanna participate!

>>6867823
>he thinks it was meant for him
bigmothersmirk.reflection

>>6867735
Sounds gay tbh

Try to find in Schopenhauer an explanation of the origin of intellect. How does he deal with the fact that before the appearance of the intellect, the law of causality was already in motion, creating the organisms we evolved from? If there was will before the intellect then how did the intellect separate from the thing-in-itself? The intellect presupposes a world with causality. He will not touch that topic because it dissolves his sham of a system.

I guess he could always resort to magic for an explanation.

>Whoever at the present time doubts the facts of animal magnetism and its clairvoyance should be called not a sceptic but an ignoramus.

>However, a time will come when philosophy, animal magnetism, and natural science, that has made unparalleled progress in all its branches, will shed so bright a light on one another that truths will be discovered at which we could not otherwise hope to arrive.

>>6867871
>projecting

>>6867514
What are his ideas on women?

Put on noise canceling headphones, lay back, close your eyes and turn on Mozart.

Everything should be apparent.

>>6867881
Ya know I've been wondering this too (I am not really trained in philosophy so bear with me) and to me it was simply the case that what Schopenhauer calls Genius is intellect that has become antithetical to what he calls Will since it acts for its own interests rather than the interest of the Will. He calls subjective thinking or maybe subjective use of the intellect when the intellect is used in favor of the Will and he says that intellect had formed to serve the Will just that intellect developed a tad too much and became Genius which is intellect applied objectively.
p.s. I havent even read the world as Will and Idea.

>>6867881
"How does he deal with the fact that before the appearance of the intellect, the law of causality was already in motion, creating the organisms we evolved from? The intellect presupposes a world with causality"

Your problem of correctly understanding this stems from your realist assumptions. He does in fact deal with the topic - and yes, without resorting to magic for his explanation.

>>6867735
>You are life. You are death.
what do you mean by this?

>>6868028
God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, surfeit and hunger; but he takes various shapes, just as fire, when it is mingled with spices, is named according to the savour of each.

>>6868058
Avataring and shitposting all in one go. Impressive.

dude can't even fix his hair before getting his portrait done

>>6868058
God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, anon.

>All that random physiognomy

I love Schopenhauer but it's a laff whenever he gets into this kind of stuff.

His aesthetics is good, but it seems like it doesn't account for non-representational art at all. You could argue that more modern art represents "ideas" better than realism can, but there's not a lot of room to go with totally abstract stuff.

Also, why would contact with objectified will necessarily quiet internal will? The Ideas are objectified will at a species level aren't they?

>>6867793
except nietzsche actually did try his best to affirm the life of the individual. he loathed nihilism, whereas schopenhauer not only embraced it, but wrote on the subject explaining why it is that nihilistic views hold any reason.

>>6867752 was getting at this, i believe.

>>6868687
what are you talking about?

>>6868058
>500x666
>>6868461

>>6867755
Stop being such a utilitarian.

>>6866727
>>6866733

If both Hegel and Schoppy were to be reborn in the modern world I'm certain whatever view they developed they would still disagree to the same intensity.

I think this is actually unique in terms of great historical disagreements.

>>6867735

>Heidegger's advice to live a better life was hang out in graveyards. Orient yourself towards death and realize your experience comes from your temporary place in the world.
>warned that technology was bad if it separated you from the undefinable aspect of nature
>Heidegger retreated from the world into ideas

K

Most retarded thing i will read on /lit/ all month.
I should know better responding to a fucking retarded tripfag.

>>6868789
>Most retarded thing i will read on /lit/ all month.
something tells me you will read more retarded things

>>6868789
>Heidegger's advice to live a better life was hang out in graveyards
nihilist behavior tbh

>>6867858
No, the will is more fundamental and primordial than energy. The will is the universal, teleological element that dictates the behaviour of all force/energy. The will governs and guides the behaviour of energy and matter

>>6867735
Can you type less like a spastic and say what you want to say clearly?

>>6866366
>pls no women

feel u dawg

>>6867509
u just dont understand

>>6867735
There is a valid point under here if you stopped pretending to be Nietzshce when you typed.

>>6867881
great biography, that is

>>6868468
Schopenhauer Internet Defense Force here.

I think the only goofy part is where he starts to discuss color theory.

Honorable mention for continuously referencing PRIZE essay.

I feel like Schopenhauer's philosophy in regards to aesthetics as how it ceases the Will is fairly accurate and realistic. Nietzsche's idea of amor fati and the eternal recurrence sounds good on paper, but it's realistically unattainable.

Can someone clue me in on what Heidegger is claiming/suggesting?

>>6870842
>Nietzsche's idea of amor fati and the eternal recurrence sounds good on paper, but it's realistically unattainable.
Clue me into why you think this is unattainable, please.

>>6870990
Not him, but it's really just a plot device, anyway.

>>6870990
because only an ubermensch can ever achieve amor fati. In order for one to become ubermensch, a higher man has to be in complete solitude i order to preper for the men --> ubermensch transformation.

It's impossible to be in complete solitude these days. Further, how can you love and embrace something you do not remember? I.e when being a baby?

>>6871077
>he thinks the ubermensch is an actual entity to be actualised

it's more like a carrot on a stick that you hang in front of yourself, m8. more of a direction than an achievable goal.

>>6871025
This, its a thought experiment. He didn't literally believe it

>1840
>not hurling your landlady down the stairs for being an obnoxious cunt

>>6870607

prize essay is based as fuck

should be required reading imo, along with Fourfold Root

>>6871306

All of Schopenhauer's observations about women are essentially accurate. The conclusions he makes and the judgements he pronounces thereon are where the idiosyncrasies of his personal experience crop up.

If he had simply said 'woman is thus and thus, she does this and this', there would have been nothing controversial. But he appends a moral evaluation to these facts that betrays a discreet effort to cast woman in a negative light, when in reality the very same things he points out with respect to woman could quite easily be used to portray women in a positive light, or at any rate not as mendacious little savages (which they are by all accounts, but not necessarily through any particular failing of their own).

In my opinion dealing with women is for the most part a tedious business, especially when the natural attraction to them is not operating with force. Rather like eating when one has no appetite. Women are, as Schopenhauer said, incurable philistines, and as Nietzsche recognized, eternal bores.

>>6871311
I agree, but he can't help but always mentioned that it was CROWNED or PRIZED. Hell, he's even always bringing up how his other essay wasn't CROWNED, despite being the only one submitted.

>>6871328

remember that he went 40 something years without a single piece of recognition for his work. until late in his life he was terrified that everything he had thought and written was condemned to linger in permanent obscurity

>>6871338
Yeah, it's wild to think that he wrote his first editions of dWaWuV when he was more or less a young adult.

Also, he has so many remarks about genius not being recognized in its age of production, but it's all so human to see that he was actually concerned for his own works regardless.

I love when philosophers are, you know, real, identifiable humans, not like Kant or Hegel or Plato, but more like Schopenhauer and Heidegger - making mistakes, living life, having people pissed off at you to this very day.

>>6866703
Nietzsche is basically desperate denial of schopenhauer tbh

>>6871327
I actually find women pretty interesting. Mostly because the dudes I know - in particular the dudes who are into higher-concept stuff - are already interminably set in their ways and refuse to even entertain new ideas unless they already find truth in them. With women, at least the ones in my life, they seem far more capable of empathizing with ideas even if they don't agree with them. Although I will freely admit that I might have just met the exceptions in both men and women.

>inb4 le ebin ">being friends with women" meme

>>6867755

>mfw i have no face

>>6866366
What was president van buren right about

>>6871370
Putting criminals with diseases in an AI-controlled prison

>>6871348

Schopenhauer lived the life of an aristocrat and stayed the fuck out of academia.

>>6871533
I dunno if aristocrat is the right word, more like guy with a nice inheritance who just wanted to play flute, chill, and hang with his poodles all day.

Sorry for inturrupt the thread guys, but could you please tell me what is some good way to get into Schopenhauer? Should I follow the recomendations he mades in the World as Will and representation? or is it there another way to entry his thoughts?

>>6871591

Janaway's introduction to Schopenhauer is not bad.

You could also read a Schopenhauer biography. 'Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy' is by far the best one.

Charging straight in to WWR is a bad idea unless you're packing some serious intellectual firepower

>>6871621
Wasn't thinking about it, but I have been interested in Schopenhauer from quite some time now, just than I haven't started with him because lack of undertanding.

thank you so much

love Schopenhauer, dude was redpill as fuck, based as fuck, totally, dude

>>6867176
>you need full knowledge

>>6871814
Okay, he didn't know anything until after the publication of the first edition (1819). He simply found the similarities striking and they were thus added in for later editions. Regardless, he was using a Latin translation of a Persian translation - hardly grounds to just copy and paste from.

>>6871621
>Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy
Anyone got an electronic version of this, even in PDF? Can't find it anywhere, even legally.

>>6871591

Read his Love, Women and Death essays

>>6869638
Sure - I might be missing something. Feel free to inform me.

>>6871098
If übermensch is really just an idea and something that one can only stride for and be unable to attain then amor fati is also unattainable as only an übermensch is able to attain it.

>>6871621
>'Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy

got a link, friendo?

>>6867650
the Heidegger work is on gen.lib and bookzz but on neither is the Schoppy work. sucks tbh

>>6868876
depends on what he considers retarded.
he sees as it fundamentally misunderstanding a guy
others is just blatant shitposting
you come by what what you get

>>6869638
>not using the current /mu/ meme of the month:
>>you just don't get it

>>6871356
I was friends with a lot of women in my youth, and actually two lesbians at one point. Not everything relates to sexual conquests or escapades, m88s

>>6867735
>Life is as much life as it is death. You are life. You are death.

lol