Copenhauer

[Anonymous No.16559294]

>EVERYTHING IS WILL! EVERYTHING IS BAD AND SAD BECAUSE I SAY SO, LOOK AT HOW ANIMALS EAT EACH OTHER AND PEOPLE GET BORED. SO VAIN, SO FULL OF SUFFERING.
>just deny the will the bro
Has he a hack?

[Anonymous No.16559298]

>>16559294
great thread op. thanks for your contribution

[Anonymous No.16559392]

>>16559298
t. coping pessimist

[Anonymous No.16559411]

>>16559392
>Has he a hack?
At least I can form sentences. Come back to discuss philosophy once you learned English.

[Anonymous No.16559414]

>>16559294
He wasn't a hack, just a glorified repackage of Eastern ideas

[Anonymous No.16559422]

>>16559294
>>16559294
He wasn't a hack but he sure liked to call religions cowardly when his entire ethics was based on denying "the will" aka the thing which pushes all life through tests and trials so it can ascend to greater heights because boohoo it hurts sometimes.

Nietzsche was a retarded autistic faggot but atleast he found a way to introduce the bare minimum bravery to exist.

[Anonymous No.16559445]

>>16559414
>just a glorified repackage of Eastern ideas
i.e. hackery. Eastern philosophy is just empty platitudes

[Anonymous No.16559453]

yeah yeah, its easy to dismiss the idea that life is suffering when you're a 22 year old baby. stick aroudn for another ten years and see if you still think its a joke

[Anonymous No.16559512]

>>16559453
That’s just your interpretation, bro

[Anonymous No.16559861]

>>16559512
26 here and he's right
theres a reason why pretty much every single philosophy and religion from every single continent has accepts the idea that life is suffering. they just deal with it in different ways.

[Anonymous No.16559966]

>>16559861
Funny how Copenhauer directly identifies Judaism as a life-affirmative religion and today we are all kike slaves. Denying the will to live is a product of weakness and cope pushed by life-affirmative Jews to destroy their enemies.

[Anonymous No.16559978]

>>16559966
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16559980]

>>16559966
the opposite
the will to live is itself a cope to deal with the meaninglessness and unavoidable suffering of life.
shopenhauer is literally just brutally honest. you can will to live and affirm and a that nonsense and it might make you feel better about it in the short to medium term but the reality is that it doesnt matter and at some point that wil be broken and beaten out of you. thats why nietzche also came up eternal return, a secondary cope for when the first cope(will to power) fails.

[Anonymous No.16559982]

>>16559980
>the will to live is itself a cope to deal with the meaninglessness and unavoidable suffering of life.
well said

[Anonymous No.16559984]

>>16559980
Schopenhauer is great, but let's be real, you didn't understand Nietzsche's refutation of him. Schopenhauer wasn't brutally honest so much as he was simply expressing with honesty his own decadent will.

[Anonymous No.16559990]

>>16559978
Deep down you know I’m right. Copenhauer makes it very clear in the WWR that he understands that nature viewed objectively is nothing but the struggle for existence, raging on eternally. Jews benefit in the struggle by forcing life-denying creeds like Christianity and Buddhism onto the goyim, historically at least. Today they can just as easily degrade and destroy us with the bait of the false idea of progress

[Anonymous No.16559991]

>>16559984
So Nietzsche's great refutation is simply a glorified ad hominem?

[Anonymous No.16559999]

>>16559991
It's more exposing Schopenhauer's inability to fully realize the implications of his own philosophy. Decadence is innate; it can't be fixed. Some wills are rising, while others are declining, and they can't have a meaningful effect on one another.

[Anonymous No.16560000]

>>16559991
No, Nietzsche did tell pessimists to kill themselves, but he refuted them all by saying that any judgement for or against life is just an interpretation made by those speaking under the influence of a certain kind of life — i.e. weaklings and copers in this case

[Anonymous No.16560001]

>>16559966
one day life is going to come down on you like a ton of bricks, you do realize that?

[Anonymous No.16560009]

>>16559984
nietzche and schopenhauer have basically the same worldview, nietzche just chooses to look at it in a different way. the fact tthat he has to do this is evidence of cope. he cant just deal with and accept reality, like shopenhauer. he has to invent something in order to cope with it.

[Anonymous No.16560012]

>>16560001
>not just accepting the ephemeral nature of things and the fact that shit happens and we all die eventually
No need to cry like a little bitch.

[Anonymous No.16560014]

>>16560009
Nietzsche doesn't "choose" to look at it a different way, he is a different way. The way we look at things is an expression of our will.

[Anonymous No.16560020]

>>16560014
cope

[Anonymous No.16560025]

>>16559999
Schopenhauer might have very well had a 'decadent will' (whatever that means) and it would nevertheless have no bearings on his arguments. If the premisses are true and their reasoning follow, then the arguments stand on their own, notwithstanding their author. Though I would not expect Nietzsche to understand this since he seemed to have never formed a single logical argument. That is not to say he lacks insight though. I do not doubt his creative genius.

[Anonymous No.16560026]

>>16560020
Rope

[Anonymous No.16560031]

>>16560000
So he just asserts an unjustified relativism and expects us to believe him?

[Anonymous No.16560038]

>>16560012
whatever, just stand by your principles and don't crumble when tragedy strikes, because it will and probably when you least expect it.

[Anonymous No.16560045]

>>16560025
>whatever that means
It means his will rejects itself out of weakness.

>If the premisses are true and their reasoning follow, then the arguments stand on their own
If Schopenhauer's premises are true, which Nietzsche understood and assumed, then the arguments do not stand on their own — they are merely expressions of the will producing them.

[Anonymous No.16560056]

>>16560045
>then the arguments do not stand on their own
How come? Assuming a Kantian-Schopenhauerian framework (i.e., the principle of sufficient reason), how does it follow that logical arguments are merely will-expressions?

[Anonymous No.16560061]

>>16560056
>How come?
Read Nietzsche to find out, particularly what he says about Kant. Schopenhauer understood a lot, but didn't fully embrace his idea of the will.

[Anonymous No.16560070]

>>16560061
From what I've read of Nietzsche regarding Schopenhauer, he was either idolizing him or insulting him. I did not see a line of reasoning.

[Anonymous No.16560078]

>>16560025
Not everything's like a mathematical proof you should just rationally evaluate, sometimes the psychical makeup or character of the source is pertinent, for example when they're trying to moralize and generalize the human condition.

[Anonymous No.16560082]

>>16560070
Read Nietzsche on Kant, truth, and the thing-in-itself, that's where you'll find the reasoning.

[Anonymous No.16560096]

>>16560078
>Not everything's like a mathematical proof you should just rationally evaluate,
True, but Schopenhauer argues rigorously, and so a "refutation" of him in turn requires a rigorous formulation.
>>16560082
Is this in a particular collection?

[Anonymous No.16560121]

>>16560096
>Is this in a particular collection?
Not really, Nietzsche is all over the place. But you'll probably find the best of this type of material in either The Gay Science or Beyond Good and Evil.

[Anonymous No.16560146]

>>16559294
>Realising that life is suffering is a way to cope
learn how to use words before making shitty bait threads

[Anonymous No.16560297]

>>16559392
Schopenhauer's entire philosophy is a critique of coping.

[Anonymous No.16560466]

>>16559294
One day an anon that has actually read Schopenhauer will post an insightful thread which gives rise to nuanced discussion. Alas, today is not that day.

[Anonymous No.16560738]

>>16559445
>is just empty platitudes
What isn't though?

[Anonymous No.16560757]

Pessimism is defeatist cope.

[Anonymous No.16560791]

>>16560466
You could always start new threads, anon.

[Anonymous No.16560883]

>>16560757
This. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.16560901]

>>16560146
Did you think people wouldn't see the retarded manner in which you frame things. Presenting his hack philosophy as a "realization" instead of some bizarre interpretation.

>>16560757
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16560914]

>>16559422
>"the will"
>aka the thing which pushes all life through tests and trials so it can ascend to greater heights
This is not some Evola retardation we're discussing here.

[Anonymous No.16560929]

>>16560791
I have tried to in the past. People seem to avoid them if it isn’t an out of context quote in greentext and something akin to „was copenhauer just a le epic sad man???“. You give up after a while.

[Anonymous No.16560938]

>>16560901
Fucking hell, you’re borderline ESL. No wonder why you didn’t understand him.

Schopenhauer‘s thought is so stupid yet you had to make an entire thread seething about how dumb he supposedly is.

[Anonymous No.16560942]

>>16560466
true this is not it

[Anonymous No.16560949]

>>16560929
I've tried too with mostly similar results, but some of my threads also lead to some very fruitful discussions. If you have some particular passage or idea on your mind it never hurts to make a thread. You never know who shows up next time.

[Anonymous No.16562061]

Lots of cope ITT

[Anonymous No.16562079]

>>16560929
No one cares about your boring threads, simple as. Strawmanning thinkers and making fun of them always leads to better and funnier threads

[Anonymous No.16562125]

I rarely take "refutations" of a particular philosophers into account, but Nietzsche really did put Schoppie into his place.

[Anonymous No.16562607]

>>16559453
If anything its been the other way for me, its very easy to think life is suffering wehn you are 18-22 and are confronted with the realities of life on your own and taking on responsabilities and so on, most depressed people are in that age range. When you grow up a bit more you learn to find meaning in things and not too dwell too much on others. Im way happier at 32 than I was at 22.

[Anonymous No.16562846]

>>16560938
Seething

[Anonymous No.16562860]

>>16559294
damn schoppy btfo, how will he recover?

[Anonymous No.16564106]

>>16562079
This highlights the intelligence of this board.

[Anonymous No.16564259]

>>16559294
Schopenhauer‘s metaphysics with Nietzsche‘s ethics.

[Anonymous No.16564278]

>>16559445
>blanket statements

[Anonymous No.16564285]

>>16560738
Kant

[Anonymous No.16564288]

>>16559294
>LOOK I'M HAVING FUN SO LIFE IS GREAT, LOOK AT HOW ANIMALS PLAY TOGETHER LIFE IS A GIFT HAHAHA I'M SWIMMING IN AN ETERNAL SEA OF JOY
Said the massive retard.

[Anonymous No.16564300]

>>16564288
>>LOOK I'M HAVING FUN SO LIFE IS GREAT, LOOK AT HOW ANIMALS PLAY TOGETHER LIFE IS A GIFT HAHAHA I'M SWIMMING IN AN ETERNAL SEA OF JOY
This, but unironically.

[Anonymous No.16564349]

>>16564300
>Said the massive retard.

[Anonymous No.16564356]

>>16564285
Schopenhauer is just Kant with Upanishads so what's wrong with him?

[Anonymous No.16564375]

>>16564356
Same thing that's wrong with Kant.
>The world is my representation
>b-but this is fact and there is a Transcendental World™
Nietzsche rightly put them both in their place on the matter.

[Anonymous No.16564391]

>>16564375
The only thing Nietzsche put in his place was his own mental health.

[Anonymous No.16564401]

>>16564391
Wrong, try again.

[Anonymous No.16564402]

>>16564288
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.16564405]

>>16564356
Except he isn’t. Read the Fourfold Root. Stop getting your opinions such as memes from literally pic related.

[Anonymous No.16564406]

>>16559294
Someone explain to me why suicide is affirmation of the Will to Live?
>>16559414
He actually misunderstood some Buddhist conceptions and topics.

[Anonymous No.16564417]

>>16564406
>Someone explain to me why suicide is affirmation of the Will to Live?
Because he is a hack like all philosophers, stop reading books and have sex

[Anonymous No.16564437]

>>16559294
He was an ugly incel who got rejected by that prime 17 year old jb and ever since snapped the fuck out.

Life is pure bliss.

>t. Not ugly and having sex

[Anonymous No.16564466]

>>16564405
I did you little bitch. Now explain to me how is the Will not Brahman?

[Anonymous No.16564476]

>>16564402
A massive retard. It is said on the post.

[Anonymous No.16564491]

>>16564401
Try to what? Make Nietzsche sane? Impossible bud.

[Anonymous No.16564524]

>>16564491
>Try to what?
Not be wrong. I'm willing to bet you don't even know Nietzsche's main arguments.

[Anonymous No.16564547]

>>16564406
>Someone explain to me why suicide is affirmation of the Will to Live?
People kill themselves because of a frustrated will to live. If they lived in a version of the world where they would be satisfied they would carry on living. It is an affirmation of the will to live because you react to live. It's like saying "I can't stand to live in a life that doesn't fit me". While if you deny the will to live it wouldn't matter for you to keep on living or not.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Studies_in_Pessimism/On_Suicide
It's short.

[Anonymous No.16564552]

>>16564524
I don't, go ahead.

[Anonymous No.16564572]

>>16564552
>spoonfeed me
Not how philosophy works. If you want to understand him, you need to read him. I'll just say this: neither Kant nor Schopenhauer properly reinterpreted knowledge under their own philosophies, but Nietzsche did.

[Anonymous No.16564577]

>>16564572
>No arguments.
Ok, thank you.

[Anonymous No.16564586]

>>16564577
They're in his books, buddy.

[Anonymous No.16564597]

>>16564586
Yeah ok, thank you. Have a good night.

[Anonymous No.16564634]

>>16564597
Why do you want someone to regurgitate a philosopher's arguments at you? Seems like you're more interested in winning an internet argument than learning something. Nietzsche provides the critiques of Kant and Schopenhauer in his books, everyone who has read him knows this.

[Anonymous No.16564638]

>>16564106
Intelligence is ultimately a cope as well. Low IQ chads are superior physically and reproductively

[Anonymous No.16564646]

>>16564288
>WAHHH I WANT TO BE SAD ALL THE TIME

[Anonymous No.16564672]

>>16559966
>Copenhauer directly identifies Judaism as a life-affirmative religion
Source?

[Anonymous No.16564686]

>>16559445
>empty platitude

[Anonymous No.16564692]

>>16559980
This guy gets it. I'm tired of Neetfags downplaying his cope

[Anonymous No.16564723]

If I weren't a theist, I'd think Schopenhauer was right about everything but from a deist framework.

[Anonymous No.16564728]

>>16564692
Cope isn't an argument.

[Anonymous No.16564733]

>>16564638
An intelligent chad trumps the low IQ chad. Though, I don't disagree that dumb chads are still sexually desirable. The thing is, I don't care. I see worth in intellectual exchange.

[Anonymous No.16564740]

>>16564634
Yes, i have understood that you are redirecting me at Nietzsche's work to fully understand his views on the thing in itself and i thank you again for your suggestion and kindly wish you to have a restful sleep as this conversation is over until i follow your advice.

[Anonymous No.16564750]

>>16560000
Alright then who isn't a coper by this definition?

[Anonymous No.16564752]

>>16564646
>WAHHH I WANT
Not gonna make it.

[Anonymous No.16564768]

>>16564259
>Nietzsche‘s ethics

[Anonymous No.16564775]

>>16564672
It’s said in several places in The World as Will and Representation. Pic related is from volume two. Basically he paints Judaism as far more life-affirming and optimistic than Christianity, which he says in its most authentic forms is pessimistic and founded on a denial of the will, having a more Indian spirit than a Semitic one. He also lumps together Islam with Judaism as life-affirmative and calls Protestantism more Judaic in comparison to authentic pessimistic Christianity

[Anonymous No.16564796]

>>16564375
>Nietzsche rightly put them
Nietzsche's critique on anyone essential boils down to him saying they are arguing in bad faith. Compare Nietzsche's refutations of anything to Schopenhauer's critiques of Kant, or Kant's btfo of Hume.

[Anonymous No.16564805]

>>16564437
>He was an ugly incel
Happened to the best of philosophers.

[Anonymous No.16564839]

>>16559445
*stated in infinitely more superfluous platitudes than the great religions of old.*

[Anonymous No.16564875]

>>16559294
Make an OP without mispelling every fifth word and maybe I'll bother contributing to your thread

[Anonymous No.16564889]

>>16559453
Wow guess you suck at existing bro. You're supposed to leave the bullshit worlds of school and college and live enough to gain tangible wisdom and experience that life becomes easier and more fulfilling, each goal better and easier than the last.

You will always gain things and lose things as life progresses, that much is certain, which is why copenhauers religion of suffering and loss is a retarded fetishism of the pain of existence rather than any tangible path forward for those who aren't pussies or lack the ambition to do something with their time here.

[Anonymous No.16564892]

>>16564875
Thanks for replying to my bait thread

[Anonymous No.16564938]

>>16560026
Nope

[Anonymous No.16564951]

>>16564405
>'The philosophy of Kant, then, is the only philosophy with which a thorough acquaintance is directly presupposed in what we have to say here. But if, besides this, the reader has lingered in the school of the divine Plato, he will be so much the better prepared to hear me, and susceptible to what I say. And if the reader has also received the benefit of the Vedas, the access to which by means of the Upanishads is in my eyes the greatest privilege which this still young century (1818) may claim before all previous centuries, (for I anticipate that the influence of Sanskrit literature will not be less profound than the revival of Greek in the fourteenth century,)--if then the reader, I say, has received his initiation in primeval Indian wisdom, and received it with an open heart, he will be prepared in the very best way for hearing what I have to tell him. It will not sound to him strange, as to many others, much less disagreeable; for I might, if it did not sound conceited, contend that every one of the detached statements which constitute the Upanishads, may be deduced as a necessary result from the fundamental thoughts which I have to enunciate, though those deductions themselves are by no means to be found there.'
Preface to the first edition of the world as will and representation.

[Anonymous No.16564977]

>>16564889
Not the same anon. I work in a prestigious field, studied a prestigious degree, exercise four times a week and have an active social life. Schopenhauer’s philosophy is the most profound I have ever read, yet I fit the bill of the striving individuals you seem to praise. His „pessimistic“ conclusions about the world are entirely correct. If you think it just encourages passivity, you are sorely mistaken. Look to his analysis and praise of the genius. Look to his discussion of aesthetics. The ascetic ideal which he praises is by his own admission only attainable for a very select few. Whether you find this worthwhile is beside the point. For the rest of us, he recommends compassion. You can both compassionate and not the passive oaf you despise (as do I). Sometimes the compassionate thing to do is not the meekness that Nietzsche rightfully critiques (though, he conflates compassion with pity too often).

[Anonymous No.16565008]

>>16564951
That's different to the reductivism that anon was engaging in. No one is denying the influence they had on him.

[Anonymous No.16565106]

>>16564889
>for those who aren't pussies or lack the ambition to do something with their time here.
That's rich coming from someone that will never have a fraction of the impact Schopenhauer or the many he influenced have had on the world.

[Anonymous No.16565133]

>>16565106
>that's coming from someone who didn't espouse an entire life's work of meaningless nihilism like some some autistic pussy who would aid in the decline of civilization.

Kys nigger

[Anonymous No.16565164]

>>16565133
So what have you done against the supposed decline of civilization beyond calling people niggers on the internet my dear übermensch?

[Anonymous No.16565188]

>>16565133
You haven't read Schopenhauer you faggot. You also clearly avoided responding to this you coward: >>16564977

[Anonymous No.16565455]

>>16564951
>(for I anticipate that the influence of Sanskrit literature will not be less profound than the revival of Greek in the fourteenth century,)
I like Schop but he missed the mark on that one

[Anonymous No.16565499]

Why pessimists don't just commit suicide if there's so much suffering?.
If you can't, it's proof of the will to live but a very bleak one.

[Anonymous No.16565550]

>>16565455
in California 50% of young white females do yoga and talk about chakras

[Anonymous No.16565569]

>>16565550
You think scene is in anyway influenced by real philosophy or literature?

[Anonymous No.16565726]

>>16565499
You’ll never get a good answer to this one because deep down 99% of pessimists prefer living to death

[Anonymous No.16565768]

>>16560914
>>aka the thing which pushes all life through tests and trials so it can ascend to greater heights
>This is not some Evola retardation we're discussing here.

[Anonymous No.16565772]

>>16565726
I know, but it's the first step to get out of that stupid loop mentality that gives nothing (death).

[Anonymous No.16565787]

>>16565726
This problem only concerns pessimists who value non-existence as a supreme good.

[Anonymous No.16565886]

>>16559294

Not entirely a hack, OP, but he definitely rides the coattails of the "pessimist's charm."

[Anonymous No.16565942]

>>16562607
This is me to a T, and what you say about depression/anxiety is very true as well, it kind of just fades as you get older.

[Anonymous No.16566216]

>>16562607
That doesn't disprove life is suffering though.

[Anonymous No.16566351]

>>16562607
>Schopenhauer is wrong because he just draws upon idiosyncratic experience
>Let me draw upon idiosyncratic experience to show why he’s wrong

[Anonymous No.16566364]

>>16565726
>>16565499
Suffering is an affirmation of the will to life. To will, and not have what you will, is to suffer. A man who commits suicide wills stronger than most, and when he does not get what he wills, cannot handle it, and ends his life. Therefore suicide is a result of a strong, but frustrated will, the opposite of the denial of self that Schopenhauer writes about.

How about you read him before you make dumb statements?

[Anonymous No.16566437]

Tfw you’ll never see a debate between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16566572]

>>16566437
About year or two back and I ran across a philosophy website that had an essay of someone larping as Schopenhauer and proceeded to btfo of Nietzche base don Schopenhauer's work and Nietzsche's assumed misunderstanding of it. Tried to find the site again but nothing is comes up. In consolation take some confirmed Kierkegaard talking about Schopenhauer.
https://www.academia.edu/215298/Kierkegaards_Uncanny_Encounter_with_Schopenhauer_1854?auto=download

[Anonymous No.16566635]

>>16564796
Are you saying Nietzsche's refutations aren't always devastating and based? They're always founded in a Schopenhauerian sense of will, but taken to a more radical extreme. Schopenhauer also probably would have admired Nietzsche greatly. When Schopenhauer shared his interpretation of the world as a representation of will, he was practically begging for the arrival of a Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.16566636]

>>16559411
>once you learned English
Oops.

[Anonymous No.16566666]

>>16559445
Thats some really nice eastern philosophy you have there anon.

[Anonymous No.16566726]

>>16566364
Damn, trannies are truly the next step of human evolution.

[Anonymous No.16566828]

>>16566572
Thanks for that anon, great read about two based men.

[Anonymous No.16568514]

>>16566351
you're a brainlet, he was addressing another poster not Copenhauer retard.