/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11430149]

Was Schopenhauer right about Hegel being full of shit?

[Anonymous No.11430153]

Spotted the Schopenhauerlet

[Anonymous No.11430155]

No

[Anonymous No.11430169]

no Marx was

[Anonymous No.11430171]

no Marx wasn't

[Anonymous No.11430176]

>>11430149
Obviously, Schopenhauer is a meme

[Anonymous No.11430178]

>>11430169
/thread

[Anonymous No.11430182]

both are

[Anonymous No.11430184]

>>11430171
yes he was.

materialism > idealism

[Anonymous No.11430185]

>>11430149
Schopenhauer was more right but he's still wrong.

[Anonymous No.11430187]

>>11430149
As a rule of thumb Schopp generally shits on philosophy in academia.
Hegel is the caricature of all that's wrong with it.

[Anonymous No.11430199]

>>11430184
no he wasn't

idealism > materialism

[Anonymous No.11430203]

If you are at all interested in philosophy then you should endeavor to read (or at least try to read) Hegel at some point. Schopenhauer was insanely jealous of Hegel's success, so take everything ol Arty says about Georg with a healthy serving of salt.

[Anonymous No.11430215]

>>11430184
>>11430199
>can't we find some kind of compromise

[Anonymous No.11430217]

>>11430184
Materialism is not the same as the natural order. Therefore, it's a form of idealism and equally rests on unprovable axioms. Marx was still wrong.

[Anonymous No.11430220]

>>11430217
he was wrong better than hegel

[Anonymous No.11430253]

>>11430149
Schopenhauer's metaphysics is pretty good but then he gets it all wrong when he claims that life is inherently bad because it contains mostly suffering which is shitlib brainlet reasoning. The suffering gives life meaning and it would be shit without it.

[Anonymous No.11430257]

>>11430217
>natural order
>talks about "unprovable axioms"

[Anonymous No.11430262]

>>11430253
t. 20-y/o college student living with his rich parents

[Anonymous No.11430306]

>>11430257
It has an order that began and will continue whether we are here to observe it or not. It is objectively more true than any bullshit ideology. I don't give a fuck about your stupid "is/ought gap" that only exists when you are trying to justify a special morality that is different to nature.

[Anonymous No.11430350]

>>11430306
>It has an order that began and will continue whether we are here to observe it or not.
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.11430379]

>>11430350
I'm aligning with what "is". The burden of proof is on you to show that there is something else of meaning. And you can't without unprovable axioms so I guess unless people are willing to take your little system on belief, then you lose.

[Anonymous No.11430383]

>>11430253
>The suffering gives life meaning and it would be shit without it.

If only he ever adressed this ...

[Anonymous No.11430385]

>>11430379
>It has an order that began and will continue whether we are here to observe it or not.
Prove this

[Anonymous No.11430386]

>>11430253
>suffering gives life meaning and it would be suffering without it
what?

[Anonymous No.11430395]

Schelling > Hegel

[Anonymous No.11430401]

>>11430306
>>11430350
>>11430379
The natural order is called the mind and with it the material world is born and dies.

[Anonymous No.11430402]

No. Laruelle was, though.

[Anonymous No.11430409]

>>11430385
There are no arguments against hard solipsism so I can't conclusively. But on a scale, it's clearly more true and observable than some horseshit conjured up by a 19th century neckbearded autist. Literally everything observable proves my "position".

[Anonymous No.11430414]

ITT: nuh uh, uh huh, nuh uh, uh huh, nuh uh, uh huh

[Anonymous No.11430419]

>>11430386
Contrast creates definition. Without an opposite, things can't exist.

[Anonymous No.11430445]

>>11430419
>It would be suffering not to suffer

This is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11430447]

>>11430253
>The suffering gives life meaning and it would be shit without it.
His argument was not "we should not have to suffer and we should only feel pleasure" it was "everyone agrees that suffering isn't justified in itself, but it's 95% of what we do."

[Anonymous No.11430456]

>>11430409
>Literally everything observable proves my "position".
So then retard that seems to contradict the whole order without observation shit

[Anonymous No.11430457]

>>11430447
Hold on are you even going to question the idiocy of his assertion?

>it would be insufferable not to suffer

Please don't respond to an argument that doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.11430465]

>>11430447
By reducing everything to the sensory, it discards all metaphysical systems or any value outside of "muh feels".

Can things have "value" outside of pleasure or pain? If so, the suffering is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.11430479]

>>11430457
I said it would be shit. You took that to mean "suffering". If feeling is all that matters, why even read? Why not just take a bunch of opiates and pass away?

Clearly no one believes this.

[Anonymous No.11430480]

>>11430465
Can you fucking explain yourself you rat?

>Life would be meaningless without suffering

don't you see this translates to:

>life would be insufferable without suffering

Explain this you imbecile.

[Anonymous No.11430487]

>>11430253
maybe if you really understood his metaphysics you would think a little bit more about the empirical and character determinism that he considered unavoidable.

[Anonymous No.11430488]

>>11430479
Ohhhh, ok I understand now, by "shit" you meant not "suffering" but errr, uhh, bad or boring or whatev---Shut the fuck up dude. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.11430492]

>>11430465
>By reducing everything to the sensory, it discards all metaphysical systems or any value outside of "muh feels".
Schopenhauer does not reduce everything to the sensory, he's just honest about how important the sensory is.
>Can things have "value" outside of pleasure or pain? If so, the suffering is irrelevant.
Alright, I'll put an irrelevant knife in your eye and you can ignore it because you value things beyond pleasure and pain.

[Anonymous No.11430546]

>>11430480
>>11430488
Life without suffering would be meaningless. If it's really just about "happy feelings" and it's 95% suffering then why even play the game? You have to believe there is something more.

>>11430492
Hi Inmendham. Nothing personal, I respect what you are doing Gary. It's just that I realised that aligning with our natural role is more fulfilling even if it means objectively more suffering. We'll be content with our misery if we return to nature. The reason we struggle is because we are being force fed into a soulless machine to extract labour.

[Anonymous No.11430557]

>>11430492
It would be natural and not irrelevant to defend myself in such a situation. No animal just sits there and lets himself be injured. That's human overthinking nihilist bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11430575]

>>11430546
Keep repeating the same nonsense, fag. If "life with suffering" = meaningful life, then all you are saying is that a life without meaning would be a life without meaning. What you are saying doesn't mean anything or signify anything you dimwit.

[Anonymous No.11430576]

>>11430546
You can see this for yourself by doing any meaningful activity instead of a surrogate activity.

[Anonymous No.11430582]

>>11430575
The meaning is that we are nature. Nature has become sentient in us. And we must incarnate natural law as a principle of being.

[Anonymous No.11430584]

Didn't Schop have a rivalry with him and jealous of how Hegel's classes would fill up instead of his?

[Anonymous No.11430590]

>>11430546
>Hi Inmendham. Nothing personal, I respect what you are doing Gary. It's just that I realised that aligning with our natural role is more fulfilling even if it means objectively more suffering.
I know who this is and I laughed. I think you're delusional about being fulfilled by returning to nature though. I get that you're a modern and you don't know what nature is actually like, but it's not very nice because it runs on brutal conflict and constant erosion.

[Anonymous No.11430592]

>>11430582
Shut the fuck up dude. Your argument amounts to this:
>since A=A, schopenhauer is wrong

[Anonymous No.11430611]

>>11430582
I understand what you're saying here, but have you considered that nature is absolute donkey shit and perpetual human discontent and suffering is thanks to being an embodiment of donkey shit?

[Anonymous No.11430621]

>>11430611
>i understand what you're saying here
No you don't man, stop lying.

>we are nature
>nature has become sentient in us
These are contradictory.

>we must incarnate natural law
If we already are nature then what the fuck does it mean that we "have to incarnate" nature?

[Anonymous No.11430624]

>>11430590
Gary literally makes the same arguments about having a knife in the eye and such. I used to agree with him 100% for many years. I have watched hundreds of his videos.

Then I read Ted's manifesto (He also says primitive life is very tough but still the right thing). I started to spend more time outside, away from the city. I how to build things, how to forage for food and find resources in the wild.

And I realised that life isn't really that shitty afer all, just this pathetic excuse for a life, that makes us feel like cattle.

This system is designed to keep us trapped with false hopes and distractions, extracting the best years of our lives with the promise of throwing us a few dollars when we are too old to be used anymore.

Nature is harsh and bullshit and full of suffering but it's fair in a way that no civilisation can be. There are real consequences behind every action. That's what truly being alive is.

[Anonymous No.11430644]

>>11430621
he's being imprecise in his language but it's not difficult to infer what he's getting at, don't be a jerk man!

[Anonymous No.11430649]

>>11430624
>There are real consequences behind every action. That's what truly being alive is.
For a real life, I would endure disease, starvation, being torn limb from limb, being eaten alive. I would rather die trying to survive a cold winter or be mauled by a bear. Rather any of that than to work for 40 years, having my hand held at every stage, retire in old age completely exhausted by pointless drivel and distractions, to spend the rest of my years in "comfort" and mourning for having never lived. There is no dignity in living like a dog. Fuck this fake life.

GIVE ME LIFE OR GIVE ME DEATH.

[Anonymous No.11430651]

>>11430644
It's imprecise because he doesn't know what he's talking about. He didn't say anything except a lot of nonsense

[Anonymous No.11430652]

>>11430445
https://youtu.be/cHZl2naX1Xk?t=2m42s

[Anonymous No.11430656]

>>11430624
this is exactly the realization Tolstoy comes to at the end of the confessions. life isn't shitty, we were shitty

good post

[Anonymous No.11430662]

>>11430649
Before you tell me to just do it:

Living in the wild is absolutely illegal in my country (Many, many laws would prevent me) and I would be locked up for even trying. Rotting in a jailcell would be worse than rotting in an office. Even if they both suck immensely.

Yes, I have looked at moving to other countries.

[Anonymous No.11430673]

>Rather any of that than to work for 40 years, having my hand held at every stage, retire in old age completely exhausted by pointless drivel and distractions, to spend the rest of my years in "comfort" and mourning for having never lived. There is no dignity in living like a dog. Fuck this fake life.

[Anonymous No.11430678]

>>11430673
systemcucks can only mock what they don't understand

[Anonymous No.11430679]

>>11430673
kek

[Anonymous No.11430680]

>>11430656
Thanks, I had no idea he shared this view. I will definitely have to read this now. Another shocker is Candide (Voltaire). It's not until the very end that we find out this is also his conclusion, regarding what to make of life's "suffering". To work hard and live earnestly. From such a cynical novel, I honestly did not expect such a conclusion.

[Anonymous No.11430697]

>>11430624
>There are real consequences behind every action.
this is happening too in the system you hate. different actions different consequences. what exactly do you want to say with that.

[Anonymous No.11430699]

>>11430673
>complaining about being a literal slave, permitted only to create more unnecessary resources for ((( banks ))), without any of the freedoms to live as your ancestors enjoyed for tens of thouands of years (And millions pre-cognitively) is the same as being a cringy edgy nihilistic atheist

d-d-don't complain goy. m-man up and pay those taxes!

[Anonymous No.11430705]

>>11430680
>I understood that my question as to what my life is, and the answer -- and evil -- was quite correct. The only mistake was that the answer referred only to my life, while I had referred it to life in general. I asked myself what my life is, and got the reply: An evil and an absurdity. and really my life -- a life of indulgence of desires -- was senseless and evil, and therefore the reply, "Life is evil and an absurdity", referred only to my life, but not to human life in general

>What if an executioner passing his whole life in torturing people and cutting off their heads, or a hopeless drunkard, or a madman settled for life in a dark room which he has fouled and imagines that he would perish if he left -- what if he asked himself: "What is life?" Evidently he could not other reply to that question than that life is the greatest evil, and the madman's answer would be perfectly correct, but only as applied to himself. What if I am such a madman? What if all we rich and leisured people are such madmen? and I understood that we really are such madmen. I at any rate was certainly such.

[Anonymous No.11430708]

>>11430697
The relationship between action and consequence is completely artificial, butchered and repackaged at every level. It's designed to make people feel more disconnected, so they can be sold an identity and continuously consume junk to try and fill their existential pain.

[Anonymous No.11430720]

>>11430699
I can't say that I didn't expect you to begin postulating that life sucks because of a Jewish conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.11430723]

>>11430705
The humility and objectivity to critique oneself with his own criticisms of the world is quite impressive. Not really something you see a lot of thinkers seriously apply. Very compelling.

[Anonymous No.11430737]

>>11430720
If you knew the number of years I researched and planned and tried to escape this system, you wouldn't call it a fucking conspiracy. The way is blocked at every exit. You're just too far away from the perimeter to realise you're in a cage.

[Anonymous No.11430749]

>>11430149
Do a degree, yeah.
https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/2000/9/the-difficulty-with-hegel

[Anonymous No.11430760]

>>11430737
dude tell us about it. I wanna get the fuck out too

[Anonymous No.11430767]

>>11430708
you dont know what you talk about. you have a personal notion about what an "action" is. the nature is manipulable. everything is manipulable.

[Anonymous No.11430773]

No

[Anonymous No.11430781]

I went through some of the phenomenology with the help of Sadler and it was filled with great ideas and I couldn't find any examples of obscuration.

[Anonymous No.11430787]

>>11430773
>Nietzsche still there
Kek’d

[Anonymous No.11430799]

>>11430767
Yes, you can bastardise nature and do a worse job of what it does best. "People" with warped minds have been doing that for at least some ten thousand years now. Doesn't make it right.

[Anonymous No.11430821]

>>11430799
>what it does best
Devouring nature that sends its creatures into the blood-soaked ring? To toil, to sicken from heat, and grow decrepit when its vital fluids have been wrung out in blind pleasures and surges? What great work is this, you mad man? Or are you still in a stupor from dumb amazement at the glittering stars and the soothing inebriation of predetermined equipoise?

[Anonymous No.11430830]

>>11430799
yes, i understand but you always need a degree of "bastardise" nature. i mean, the nature is open, death is inside of life. i dont want mistify this or something. i dont know what i want to say. english is not my first language, i only say every action have consequences, in a human and twisted society and in a open nature with her own power´s dynamichs. change is in everything.

[Anonymous No.11430899]

>>11430821
>What great work is this, you mad man?
Work that the greatest minds in all human history couldn't come together to reproduce even the smallest fraction of.

The cycles and interactions of nature and her creatures, let alone something like human brain is orders of magnitude more complicated than anything you could even conceive of designing but I guess it's just shit because it's not styled quite to your tastes. Tastes broken by the brainwashing of a slave system and senses dulled by artificial flavours, nonetheless. Sensibilities that have been distorted to negative nature because it undermines what the system can "provide".

[Anonymous No.11430902]

>>11430169
Even ironically. Makes me mad

[Anonymous No.11430906]

>>11430830
We have had tools for some 100,000 years but our lifestyle was not dramatically different until around 10,000 years ago when we began agriculture. That is a huge departure from the way that every other animal lives.

My objection is against the life begun after agriculture and it has only gotten worse and more bastardised with more technology and more civilisation. Now our situation barely even resembles life. It's more like a factory.

[Anonymous No.11430911]

>>11430215
>materialism = idealism

[Anonymous No.11430964]

>>11430902
t. snowflake

[Anonymous No.11431086]

>>11430911
This
Idealism is about making this version of the world be like the version that is on my mind, which will make me use material means to do so, which in turn will have an effect of well-being on my mind the more in parallel both version are, etc etc.

[Anonymous No.11431603]

>>11430906
i understand this from an emotional point. and i agree. but from a philosopical point (or something) life is unbearable, life is always changing. have no limits.

>barely even resembles life.
i mean, life shouldn´t be an adjective. life is everything.

[Anonymous No.11431702]

>>11430149
Nah, hegel perfected the kantian method senpai desu

[Anonymous No.11431722]

another extremely producive lit thread

[Anonymous No.11432105]

>>11431702
Hegel seen through Kants bullshit