[ 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: 9 KB, 220x301, schoppy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16341312 No.16341312 [Reply] [Original]

>man is a compound of needs which are hard to satisfy
>their satisfaction achieves nothing but a painless condition that leads to boredom
>boredom is a direct proof that existence is in itself valueless
>thus human life is a mistake

What the hell was Schopenhauer smoking? Why the fuck am I agreeing with Schoppy?

>> No.16341325

>>16341312
Pyschology proved him wrong.

>> No.16341366

>>16341325
He can't be proven wrong. He can only be denied, as Nietzsche did.

>> No.16341428
File: 138 KB, 652x680, 1595977112440.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16341428

>>16341312
Nothing interesting has never been done out of boredom.

>> No.16341438

>>16341428
Based Hegelian "Nothing great in the world has ever been accomplished without passion."

>> No.16341447

>>16341312
The Nothings Noths, and there is an emptiness in being, but that doesn't mean it is valueless or doesn't have a reality to realise, hence Schopenhauer and Wagner's morality.

See>>16338474

>> No.16341797

>>16341438
has never anon, not has ever.

>> No.16341831

>>16341797
Indeed, you sound passionate.

>> No.16342798

>>16341312
Pessimism.
Because its easy and you want to be a victim/ are to lazy to not be a victim.

>> No.16342874

>>16341312
>man is a compound of needs which are hard to satisfy
Let me choose a compound of needs that are hard to satisfy. Do I have a man now? Obviously not, therefore his first premise is wrong.
>their satisfaction achieves nothing but a painless condition that leads to boredom
Wrong. It develops skills of the man, makes him wiser, more experienced. The whole process of working towards the achievement is often very gratifying and meaningful experience.
The condition at the end is not just painless, it feels great to have achieved something. And there's nothing wrong with boredom. Boredom is where you think about what to do next.
>boredom is a direct proof that existence is in itself valueless
If it were so direct, then most people who have ever been bored would kill themselves after realizing there's no value to life and existence, or at least jump to the conclusion that there's no value to existence. But clearly they don't. You can go any bored person and ask, "is it clear to you now that existence is valueless?" and no doubt a lot of them will answer "what are you talking about lmao".
This shows that the proof going from boredom to existence being valueless is in no way direct, and if it exists, requires a lot of elaboration.
>thus human life is a mistake
None of your premises are true.

>> No.16343265

>>16342874
>>thus human life is a mistake
>None of your premises are true.
That actually makes the conclusion true.

>> No.16343268

>>16343265
Lol moron go away.

>> No.16343552

>>16342874
>>man is a compound of needs which are hard to satisfy
>Let me choose a compound of needs that are hard to satisfy. Do I have a man now?
You are a fucking retard.
>man is a compound of needs
is not
>man is NOTHING BUT a compound of needs

>> No.16343585

>>16343552
But it does. If a compound of needs is just a part of what a man is (i.e. there is more to a man than his compound of needs), then according to you it would also be accurate to say "Man is a hand" because a hand is part of man (there is more to a man than his hand) and that doesn't mean "Man is nothing but a hand".
Also, man is a penis.

>> No.16343653

>>16343585
Wrong again. Man is inherently a compound of needs, it is part of what being a man means. A man with no hands is still a man, man without having a compound of needs is not truly a man.
Do you think Schopenhauer is suggesting that human consciousness is literally nothing besides a compound of needs? If that were true, then a pure ascetic who completely denies the will would not be a man anymore.
You are either misunderstanding or being dishonest.

>> No.16343673

>>16343653
>Man is inherently a compound of needs, it is part of what being a man means
Part of being a man also means having a penis. But that doesn't mean that man is a penis.
A man with no penis is not truly a man.
So what about having a compound of needs warrants saying that a man is a compound of needs that a penis doesn't satisfy?
>Do you think Schopenhauer is suggesting that human consciousness is literally nothing besides a compound of needs?
It seems to me that this is what the sentence implies.
>If that were true, then a pure ascetic who completely denies the will would not be a man anymore.
But you said that man is inherently a compound of needs, so if there is no compound of needs then surely there is no man? Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

>> No.16343698

>>16343673
>So what about having a compound of needs warrants saying that a man is a compound of needs that a penis doesn't satisfy?
Who said? Man is a compound of needs with a male reproductive system. So? Schopenhauer is talking about the needs, so that's all he mentions. You are the one jumping to the conclusion that he means that man is zero besides a compound of needs.
If he was talking about sex he could just as easily have said
>man is a penis
Again, so? That doesn't necessarily imply that man is not also a compound of needs.
>It seems to me that this is what the sentence implies.
Well I think that is your misunderstanding.
I don't really care about arguing anymore, but I think you get my point

>> No.16343709

>>16343698
>Again, so? That doesn't necessarily imply that man is not also a compound of needs.
The point is that it's clearly ridiculous to say that "man is a penis". This is clearly false, man is much more than just a penis.
You provide 0 reason why saying "Man is a compound of needs" is more sensible than saying "Man is a penis".
>I don't really care about arguing anymore, but I think you get my point
I see, so you admit defeat. I should have known..

>> No.16343726

>>16343709
>The point is that it's clearly ridiculous to say that "man is a penis". This is clearly false, man is much more than just a penis.
You provide 0 reason why saying "Man is a compound of needs" is more sensible than saying "Man is a penis".
Actually I said that saying man is a penis isn't particularly ridiculous if the discussion is specifically about reproduction or sex. Just like "man is a compound of needs" is a summary of the being he is discussing when talking about existence.
>I see, so you admit defeat. I should have known..
Okay, I see that the reason you're getting so hung up and fixated on such a benign sentence is that you have autism and think this is a "debate" or competition. Do you think this "conversation", or any other on this website actually matters?

>> No.16343739

>>16343726
>Actually I said that saying man is a penis isn't particularly ridiculous if the discussion is specifically about reproduction or sex
Ok, then our disagreement has reached its final point. You think it makes sense to say "X is [some part of X]" while I find it ridiculous. This has been educational. However, I would like to see whether or not I'm in the minority that thinks "Man is a penis." is a ridiculous statement.
>think this is a "debate" or competition
It became a debate when you insulted me.
>Do you think this "conversation", or any other on this website actually matters?
Yes, I learn a lot from these conversations. Do you think they don't matter? Then why do you participate in them?