Was he right in his criticism of Schopenhauer?

[Anonymous No.14791265]

In relation to compassion being the basis of morality, in the nature of the will, the eliminatability/desirability of suffering?

[Anonymous No.14791289]

>>14791265
Schopenhauer is ALWAYS right.

[Anonymous No.14791293]

>>14791289
>Schopenhauer is ALWAYS right.
hegelfags on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.14791514]

>>14791289
I'd be inclined to agree with Schopenhauer on his answers to the questions anon has proposed, but I'm curious why you make this strong assertion.

[Anonymous No.14791536]

>>14791265
Compassion is a form of understanding that must exhibit itself within before it can be given. The will is, in a sense, a will towards its own understanding and thus compassion towards itself. In seeing itself it may observe others in their subjective state and through self comprehension derive principle from distinction. I have not read either philosopher to judge their positions fully.

[Anonymous No.14791820]

>>14791265
>compassion being the basis of morality
a bit simplistic. morality is very multifaceted. one aspect, the sense of justice, the desire for fair treatment, of getting what one deserves (whether it be reward or punishment), is not necessarily related to compassion. part of nietzsche's project was correcting the assumption that moral 'goodness' is synonymous with altruism.

[Anonymous No.14791901]

>>14791265
They are both retarded dupes, morality is just a series of cultural norms we have adopted that make society work. Nietzsche is right that Schopenhauer's tryhard interpretation of morality as fight against a cosmic will is bullshit, but Nietzsche's own talk about master/slave morality is just edgy shitposting.

[Anonymous No.14792051]

>>14791901
>Nietzsche's own talk about master/slave morality is just edgy shitposting.
t. hasn't read nietzsche