/lit/ - Literature

[Ritalinbot No.13216932]

I have only one wish in this World and it is to have never have read Schopenhauer. I can safely say that reading his works has ruined my life.

[Ritalinbot No.13216949]

>>13216932
He turned me into a solitary hypochondriac. Fuck Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.13216961]

You are both weak.

[Wohman No.13216986]

>>13216932
you are pathetic

[Anonymous No.13216987]

>>13216932
why is that anon?

[Anonymous No.13217030]

Schopenhauer might make more sense but reading Hegel is probably better for you.

[Ritalinbot No.13217039]

>>13216987
>why is that anon?
Because he made my social isolation even worse than it already was. While other philosophers are against being socially withdrawn, Schopenhauer not only condones it but even incentivizes it. He made me more withdrawn from society than I already was and praised loneliness as being a virtue instead of a vice. Besides that, he kept arguing in his "Aphorisms for the Wisdom of Life" that, the greatest two factors that are conditions to a happy life are creative genius and health. The first one I lack, giving rise to self-doubt and insecurity, and the second one just turned me into a hypochodriac who self-medicated, turning my health worse and making me feel even worse in spirit.

Schopenhauer was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.13217049]

>>13216932
>6
any thread i post in dies so I ZAP your thread out of existence NOW!!! MUAHAHA

[Ritalinbot No.13217056]

>>13217049
You won't end my thread, friend.

[Anonymous No.13217058]

don't read Cioran then

[Anonymous No.13217075]

>>13216932
>"and he turned me into the greatest artistic genius of all time"
>"guess you guys just can't handle the truth"

[Anonymous No.13217081]

>>13216932
Schopenhauer is the skeleton key to get out of inceldom, isolation, loneliness and all of the above. If you read him and managed to only get *pessimism xd kys* then you either read him or wrong or havent read him at all. If anything Schopenhauer should make you not give a single fuck yet still pursuing the arts and philosophies in full throttle. You are a brainlet.

[Ritalinbot No.13217143]

>>13217081
>If anything Schopenhauer should make you not give a single fuck yet still pursuing the arts and philosophies in full throttle.
It's not about pessimism in itself. His works aren't that pessimistic, not nearly like Mainlander or Cioran, but the repercussions of what he says that are really counter-intuitive, specially in regards to isolation. In the Wisdom of Life he constantly repeats that the more a man has in himself, the less he sees in others, and so the genius will isolate himself from others and focus solely on his intellectual pursuits. That's fine as it is, but what happens is that if you have any sort of psychological trouble it will only increase and worsen mental illness. Besides this, he puts so much emphasis on the importance of health that he legit worsened my hypochondria, and the fact that he says intelligence is the only thing that matters in a person's life (which will be the only thing that will enable him to exercise his genius) makes it look like all the other virtues don't matter, which are actually much more pertinent to happiness. He got it all wrong, like intelligence is the only way to happiness and only those of great spirit and genius can be happy through the exercise of their pure genius but the truth is that the other virtues are much more conducive to happiness.

[Anonymous No.13217162]

>>13217143
what is wrong with you physically healthy wise? describe your symptoms.

[Anonymous No.13217180]

Why do you take Ritalin? Adderall has a much better kick, I take Meth in a gel capsule and it is the best option for amps.

[Anonymous No.13217182]

>>13217039
wow anon you're getting there, you're getting there! You're so close to thinking for yourself. Now don't use some grumpy philosopher who babbled on about will to cry about your own un-free will... C'mon, I can read between the lines, have the courage to reject what you obviously on some level realize will lead you to leading less fulfilling life!

[Anonymous No.13217241]

>>13217081
Anon I read him and understood quite well. I read for it to formulate into my my belief system and adjust any knowledge that will not go with by rejection or absorption. I become greater and enforced my individual will above into that of the collective. Schopenhauer ascended me while you forgot yourself.

[Anonymous No.13217246]

>>13217143
Anon what made you think Schopenhauer gave a flying fuck about individual happiness?

[Anonymous No.13217294]

>>13216932
It seems like you aren't strong enough for his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13217387]

Well done for being a pseud drone who takes anything he reads and emotionally resonates with as fact

[Anonymous No.13217405]

>>13217030
>reading Hegel is better for you
Takes 30 mins to read his preface, takes 30 days to understand it.

[Anonymous No.13217423]

>>13216932
Where to start with Schopenhauer?

[Anonymous No.13217432]

>>13217405
>Takes 30 mins to read his preface, takes 30 days to understand it.

[Anonymous No.13217434]

>>13217423
The World as Will and Representation of course.

[Anonymous No.13217439]

>>13217423
The Greeks

[Anonymous No.13217456]

>tfw never read schopenhauer

feels great man
suck it op

[Anonymous No.13217466]

>>13217456
Read him anyways, then follow up with the bible

[Anonymous No.13217471]

>>13217143
>>13217241
So you read Schopenhauer while you were in too weak of a position. In conclusion its not Scopenhauers fault its yours

[Anonymous No.13217477]

>>13217466
i have read the bible
sounds like reading him would be a bad idea?

[Anonymous No.13217489]

>>13216932
Many have felt the same, for a time, including yours truly, OP. I found his writings on the physiognomy of the genius especially terrifying. At the same time I admired this cold, relentless pursuit of objective truth, and no one can fault him for that. We should praise his great writing, his clear exposition, his erudition, and so forth, and if we find ourselves envying such talent we are surely intelligent but still misguided by our own vanity.

Schopenhauer was not without his faults, and I believe I stumbled upon a great one, which perhaps does not compromise the deepest vein of truth in his philosophy (and is, incidentally, compatible with what I believe to be the curative to the problem you describe, OP). If one ascends to the summit of his philosophy one is open to the revelation which Tolstoy describes in his biography, namely, the realization that "the world" with all its inhabitants is moving toward something, and realizing something, and that this very thing is the denial of the will (even if this does not completely encompass what Tolstoy is referring to). Upon embracing this truth and intending to silence the living contradiction which is one's selfish will, one can then work, diligently and tirelessly (whether rich or poor, philosopher or pauper) for the Good, which is simple and impenetrable, but can act as a guiding star for our actions, in which case we overcome what is for Schopenhauer the great tragedy of the world, the illusory, endless return of the Will to privation, hunger, and so forth.

I myself would not put it this way using these terms, since for me this worldview harkens too much to the Eastern perspectives which Schopenhauer held to be so precious. I do not think that what Schopenhauer describes is only a denial, nor do I think the world individual is inherently contradictory. Schopenhauer himself seems to agree with much of the Gnostic worldview, which is terribly pessimistic and self-centered, and this is the very point at which I myself felt dissatisfied with his work as a whole.

My last remark is that the movements of his philosophy and the manner in which he dealt with topics like freedom evidence a less pessimistic view than what he explicitly confesses to believe.

[Anonymous No.13217490]

>>13217471
>So you read Schopenhauer while you were in too weak of a position. In conclusion its not Scopenhauers fault its yours
You speak as if some negative effect occurred anon. To be clear I was in a great position while reading Schopes

[Anonymous No.13217493]

>>13217434
no his thesis brainlet he even says it in the intro

[Anonymous No.13217495]

>>13217477
No it's good but if you want positive Schopenhauriansim just read Wagner.

[Anonymous No.13217501]

>>13217493
No only brainlets need to read that first.

[Anonymous No.13217505]

>>13217495
i have listened to a great deal of wagner; is that sufficient?

[Anonymous No.13217535]

>>13216932
imagine taking yourself seriously enough to read some of the deepest metaphysics ever put to paper, then writing about it on a somalian sock shitting site.

[Anonymous No.13217553]

>>13217501
Schopenhauer references his thesis a collective of 100+ times and says its the basis of his work, the foundation.
>no only brainlets
the state of lit jesus

[Anonymous No.13217560]

>>13216932
You're in a good place to start, now read Kierkegaard and unruin yourself back.

[Anonymous No.13217565]

>>13217505
Partly but no I meant his writings like Religion and Art or Herodome.

The greatest artistic genius of all time. You know that he was aiming for more than just music right anon?

[Anonymous No.13217580]

>>13216932
Do you just make such stupid threads just to spread the Schopenhauer makes people depressed meme?

[Anonymous No.13217592]

>>13217553
>Schopenhauer references his thesis a collective of 100+ times and says its the basis of his work, the foundation.
>>no only brainlets
>the state of lit jesus
Real men don't read instructions you autist.

[Anonymous No.13217598]

>>13217553
Oh and could you give me a sauce for him referencing it a 100+ times, no way he would do it that many times let alone at al.

[Anonymous No.13217609]

>>13217489
>the realization that "the world" with all its inhabitants is moving toward something, and realizing something, and that this very thing is the denial of the will

I did not expect to read something so beautiful today on this godforsaken thread.

[Anonymous No.13217613]

>>13217598
you've never opened a single book by him and you're caught up in an argument just for the sake of upholding your ego. Like 90% of all posts on this board/site

[Anonymous No.13217618]

>>13216932
Vai dormir, anônimo.

[Anonymous No.13217628]

>>13217613
>you've never opened a single book by him and you're caught up in an argument just for the sake of upholding your ego. Like 90% of all posts on this board/site
I read him, you don't understand the wil tpolife because withhout it art would be power and that's whhere nietzsche comes in. nice try beating me now liberal. YOUR A FUCKING PSOOD

[Anonymous No.13217643]

>>13217598
>>13217628
and thats only the work titled referenced their is probably more if we were to include the clauses he made in his thesis

[Anonymous No.13217655]

>>13216932
Yeah because he's right and he shows you how the world really is...and that's depressing

[Anonymous No.13217660]

>>13217643
yOUR fasking it faggot.

>pic iss you

[Anonymous No.13217674]

>>13217039
>Because he made my social isolation even worse than it already was
Social isolation is not a negative thing. If you were already suffering from other people you would never enjoy them.

[Anonymous No.13217675]

>>13216932
The world would have been better withouth Spinoza/Deleuze. I preffer the spook of an schopenhahuerian-horrible-suffering-chaos, than the lucidity of an horrible suffering chaos that could also make you happy and realized at random points in your life.

[Anonymous No.13217692]

>>13216932
In fact the philosophy, more specifically the passive nihilism of Schopenhauer is desolator, constantly induces him to give up. "We are doomed to this world, nothing will change, nothing better! We are lost in the realm of dispurpose and lack of meaning"
Schopenhauer, through the figure of the ascetic, creates a concept: the negation of Desire, not suicide, but the passive withdrawal, at this time, nihilism triumphed. But later, all this is despised by Nietzsche, who on the other hand, creates active nihilism, with the aim of turning nihilism against himself, Nietzsche strongly criticizes Christianity for this, because it represents the victory of the weak, the passive/negative nihists (Schopenhauer), after all, they want another world, they prove themselves, they torture themselves in trials, and that indicates their physical failure, btw, Christianity, as well as the nihilism of Schopenhauer, is a way to be sick. Nietzsche comes to say: "Here are the possibilities of thinking new values: what can life? We spend a lot of time thinking about what other worlds can, what can ideals, what can the spirit, but we forget to gamble in our own existence." Maybe, reading a little Nietzschean nihilism can help.

[Anonymous No.13217733]

>>13217692
Good post, I found it helpful.

[Anonymous No.13217802]

>>13217039
>Schopenhauer was a mistake.
You are a mistake for being so suggestible. Why can't you just take what he says, internally debate it with your own impressions, and see how its stacks up with the rest of philosophy>

Like any philosopher Schopenhauer was a limited man with a limited perspective on the world. And like any philosopher without the absolute discipline of a logical system to ground his conclusions, he let his own moods and biases slip into his writings.

[Anonymous No.13217817]

>>13217039
>It is Arthur Schopenhauer's fault that I'm a dumb coward

wow

[Anonymous No.13217947]

>>13217692
I'll be honest and say I've never read anything from Nietzsche except for half of Beyond Good and Evil maybe 5 or so years ago. It made me feel sick and like I was having a ridiculous fever dream so I had to put it down. I don't remember much from it. But what exactly is his point? What is he getting at? New possibility of life? Ascension? Isn't this the very central purpose of Christianity and the rationale for Christ, as the medium towards ascension? What is so weak about Christ? And if we deny Christ, why don't we accept passive nihilism? Why should we strive, to where should we strive and how should we strive? Is he trying to say that men are able to reach a higher plane using their own hands and minds, without the reliance on a dead God (that we killed)? Is this not a failed experiment which gave us the colossal, Godless mess of the 21st century? I'd like you or any other anon to weigh in on this. I'm a Christian and I'm planning to start reading Nietzsche and Schopenhauer soon. I'd like to have some background first.

[Anonymous No.13217955]

>>13217456
HAHA feels good, bro!

[Anonymous No.13218023]

>>13217947
You don't need background for reading Nietzsche, he's very self-contained.

[Anonymous No.13218146]

>>13217947
By Nietzsche, the weakness of Christianity is precisely the same weakness of negative nihilism, the waiting for another world, this is definitely tempting, but does Christianity really offer us a new life, or a new faith? And the total abdication of the real world by a fanciful world, a world in which existence makes sense, facing the desperate fact that life makes no sense, besides the representation of Jesus (of Paul) as a lenient, a bridge to the victory of the weak, the passive nihists, because they gave up our ideals and our existence to desperately seek a new existence, the active nihilism in turn, forces us not to seek meaning in existence, but to create meanings in existence, to create ideals and not beliefs.

||About the colossal mess of the 21st century, i did not understand what you meant, for me at least it is only a conflict of generations and radical opinions due to aspects born precisely in the 20th century to the 21st, as the almost infinite coverage of information of 1 million sources and "minds", nothing due to religiosity or any related aspects.||

[Anonymous No.13218159]

>>13218023
The fuck is want to start by Zaratustra

[Anonymous No.13218356]

>>13218146
But what new world, new ideals, new existence can such aggressive nihilism offer? It seems to me, that through the rejection of God, man has only turned itself towards indulging base pleasure (what I mean by the 21st century colossal mess statement). Though you may dismiss such indulgence as "passive nihilism", what good is it if mankind gives up one "folly", only to end up in the hands of another? The experiment has been attempted (inorganically, if you consider the fact of Zionist manipulation), and has utterly failed. But for the sake of discussion, let's say one has rejected Christ, has rejected passive nihilism and rejected base pleasure, where would he go seeking? He would seek that which transcends himself, ideals or visions that are unearthly or lead to an unworldly place, no? Where would such a place be? Such a place can only and must be referred to as the kingdom of God, since God is all-transcendent. Therefore, when still not transcendent, we must follow such ideals or principles that would allow us to attains such transcendence. For me, these principles and ideals are the Christ and Christianity. I do not see Christianity as weakness as you do, Christ was active and absolute in his revolt against the worldly system. So much so, that out of passion, he gave his life to his cause, which ironically, is the total transcendence of man. I struggle to see the weakness in this. It is a very real, very active, very powerful, and a very clear message. As for Nietzsche, I fail to see his point. Transcendence implies radical transformation, and the means to acquire such a radical transformation don't seem to be outlined in his works (correct me if I'm wrong).

[Anonymous No.13219240]

>>13217489
this is a good post

[Anonymous No.13219409]

>>13217405
IQ limits

[Anonymous No.13220726]

Bagel, shopy, libnig, Spinach, Can't, neet'shit, fictitious, the cart, shilling, hmm, locked, barely, sorry church guard, the loser, hiding niggard.

They're all hacks tbhfamalam.

[Anonymous No.13220854]

>>13217039
It's just not for you then. Good luck anon.