[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 200 KB, 400x534, funny schopenhauer meme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15328461 No.15328461 [Reply] [Original]

Is he correct?

Are we really just stuck in a state of non-stop suffering until we finally reach our pointless death?

If so how does one cope with this knowledge

>> No.15328466

>>15328461
>If so how does one cope with this knowledge
Get a poodle

>> No.15328467

>>15328461
Wait, they had Pringles in schopes time?

>> No.15328547

By doing what you love and remaining blissfully ignorant.

>> No.15329230

He's completely wrong. I'll explain a few reasons why:

He isn't discussing universal human life. He is discussing his life alone. Kant himself says that we only know about others' minds by extending our awareness of our own consciousness and displacing it onto their appearance. In other words, he believed he said something profound like 'life is miserable' but actually only said 'I'm miserable'.

Here's a few less logic/metaphysic-based mistakes which I also believe make his ideas idiotic:
> He clearly conflates the role of metaphysics into that of psychology on multiple occassions. His awareness of suffering seems oblivious to the somatic nature of emotions. Happiness doesn't directly correlate with completed desires like he seems to claim but, instead, seems to come from chemicals which essentially create a system of behaviourism where things are rewarded by happiness and punished by sadness.
> The will is suffering, right? This is the conclusion of book 4. Also, the conclusion of book 3 is that music is a direct reflection of the will over just a reflection of an objectification. If harmonic tension = suffering, why does music with lots of dissonance (jazz, Wagner, etc.) sound so brilliant?
> He build all of his ideas on the postulate that life = suffering. From this, he tells us to all become useless monks, never acting and only eating and drinking for survival. However, if this is false and you simply say 'it is possible to enjoy life', his entire system crumbles.
> He claims happiness only comes from fulfilment of the will. However, this is both vague and blatantly wrong. The fact he criticised Kant for being vague makes this ironic as hell. Fulfilment (or happiness in general) comes from all sorts of random places, non of which can really be called satisfactions of the will. First of all, why does being with your grandparents or parents give your so much pleasure? Why do animals, especially dogs, give us so much pleasure? Happiness is much more complicated than he seems to think it is.

Anyway - don't get bogged down in pessimism, anon. Remember what Milton says...
> The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.
Schopenhauer is like all of those Jew memes you see about spraying a swatstika on their own wall and screaming about being persecuted. He made a hell of heaven then started crying about his own hell like a confused child.

>> No.15329240

OP here, I am underage and just started reading, not sure if this matters.