/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16949605]

are hegelians a literal cult of cope?
>NOOOO TRUST ME MUH GEIST WILL BRING ABOUT UTOPIA AND HEAVEN ON EARTH JUST WAIT A LITTLE BIT LONGER
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T CALL HEGEL A QUACK YOU GOT FILTERED BY HIM
It is almost an entire school of philosophy based on that picture of the crying red wojak wearing a smug mask

[Anonymous No.16949636]

>>16949605
cranky because of that hegel thread, arent you?

[Anonymous No.16949640]

>>16949605
Literally no hegelian wants utopia

[Anonymous No.16949660]

hegel is a piece of shit who wanted to larp as scientist as desperate attempt to be taking seriously. Hegel shows the hype train of intellectualism is a mistake killing society

(HEGEL and) Marx wanted to pass as a scientific be due to the masses being in praise of the scientific. So Marx said he was a materialist and said hisotry is materialistic.
Marx tried to so hard to larp that he even put high school maths his books, and made mistakes, but since the masses were not educated, just like today, they all viewed him as legit.
This from those people that you get ''history is a science'', ''economy is a science'', ''psychology is a science'' and so on. All those non-Stem crappy fields pushed by liberals as a science.


Then 150 years later, all the morons who idolize science and maths from popsci videos on YouTube still praise him.

So I have a question: are you one of them?

[Anonymous No.16949686]

>>16949605
>it's the "Hegel believes the dialectic is continually going to perfection" retard
Of course the Schopenhauer baby would misunderstand this.

[Anonymous No.16949695]

>>16949636
Kek, this.

[Anonymous No.16949705]

>>16949605
Based and true. Hegelian, seethe (just as you've always done).

[Anonymous No.16949719]

>>16949705
It wasn't Hegel seething when Schopenhauer called him a buffoon and continued to humiliate himself before Hegel's good will.

[Anonymous No.16949740]

>>16949719
But it was Hegel fellating King Frederick William the third's genitals so he could advance his academic career. Schopenhauer wanted none of this careerist quackery. He merely mentioned Hegel at times in footnotes and only then as a joke.

[Anonymous No.16949837]

>>16949740
>advances his academic career
And? With the power he held he was nothing but nice to Schopenhauer, and in his life on a whole. Do you think Schopenhauer would have showed Hegel the same compassion?

Schopenhauer supremely championed compassion, asceticism, self-sacrifice and self-control, but he showed none of these things in his everyday life.

Both their philosophies are brilliant, but Schopenhauer was a hypocrite par excellence.

[Anonymous No.16949850]

>>16949740
>at times
The times being EVERY FUCKING SECOND

[Anonymous No.16949895]

>>16949837
Schopenhauer never claimed to be virtuous. "In general it is a strange demand on a moralist that he should commend no other virtue than that which he himself possesses." Stop being disingenuous.
>>16949850
Good, we get to laugh more at Hegel.

[Anonymous No.16949898]

>Spiritual Dialectic
Gay
>Materialist Dialectic
Based

[Anonymous No.16949923]

>>16949895
>"In general it is a strange demand on a moralist that he should commend no other virtue than that which he himself possesses."
Quite true.

>Schopenhauer never claimed to be virtuous.
And? This is such a shit-eating argument. It's the same edgy teens use. "Well ughh, I got news for you bud, I never said I wouldn't be a gay retard, haha that sure showed you!" And it's even more shameful that a Schopenhauerian is using this a defence on Schopenhauer's half. It's a lazy mentality, that refused to accept mistake and sin. Really, Schopenhauer never seemed to be a very kind person in his immediate personal life, and never made much effort to be.

Not everyone is perfect, but in the case of Schopenhauer, he was far from it.

[Anonymous No.16949926]

>>16949636
>satiated.png
Kek

[Anonymous No.16949938]

>>16949923
>Really, Schopenhauer never seemed to be a very kind person in his immediate personal life, and never made much effort to be.
I see no problem with this. I don't wish to marry my philosophers, I don't care about their personalities. What matters is the arguments and the theories which come from great minds. How do you accept the quote as true and then sperg out when I point out it applies to Schopenhauer?

[Anonymous No.16949949]

>>16949660
>Marx tried to so hard to larp that he even put high school maths his books, and made mistakes
I am legitimately interested in what these mathematical mistakes are.

[Anonymous No.16949953]

Wissenschaft was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.16949988]

>>16949938
>implying that quote by Schopenhauer meant morality doesn't matter
You're literally retarded.

You also missed the point that our entire back and forth has been about the characters of Hegel and Schopenhauer (and less decisively their followers).

Schopenhauer seethed like you wouldn't believe, but you should have no problem accepting this according to you (what a cowardly mentality, who claims to care not about character).

[Anonymous No.16950000]

>>16949988
I just went back to see what the back and fourth was about and saw that I said, "Hegelian, seethe". I see that you obliged, I am impressed. Now Hegelian, seethe more.

[Anonymous No.16950215]

>>16949605
Can I just read Hegel Phenomenology of Spirit and Logic and avoid all the Philosophy of History and Grundlagen der Philosophie des Rechts shit?
since it seems that all the pseud marxist shit comes from the latter two and the first can be just based ontology or spiritual enlightenment and Selbstbewusstsein.
>plus they were the only actual proper books he published

[Anonymous No.16950239]

>>16950215
>since it seems that all the pseud marxist shit
wym, Philosophy of History is seen as racist and Philosophie des Rechts as proto fash text

[Anonymous No.16950259]

>>16950239
Im am close to through with Logic 1 going into Logic 2 after Phenomenology of Spirit and I literally have not seen the necessity to advocate for marxism or some historicism yet.
Maybe I am just too pleb and didnt interpret enough into the whole Der wahre Geist. Die Sittlichkeit (The true Spirit. the Ethics) section though.

[Anonymous No.16950286]

>>16950000
I don't want to dislike Schopenhauerians, but you're making it pretty obvious that you aren't a smart bunch.

You can't even argue.

[Anonymous No.16950341]

>>16950259
Marx has revised Feuerbach, who has revised Strauss who has revised Hegel
You cannot get to marxism unless you go through the left hegelians

[Anonymous No.16950434]

>>16950286
I know I said seethe but please actually don't. I wasn't serious as the thread didn't seem serious. Given that you seem to have taken it seriously, I will give you a response. There is no denying that Schopenhauer had his flaws. I concede I would rather in his misanthropy he was more like Goethe and less as he was. Though I believe he had enough redeeming qualities to make up for it in the end. If you look at prominent mystics of both east and west, this inconsiderate attitude and obliviousness to societal norms are surprisingly common. So common that there are words for it, "Theia mania" in Greek and "Avadhuta" in Sanskrit. In the end, he was a person with some good and some bad qualities. What else is there to argue?

Hegel's careerism and charlatanry though, are less visible but more pernicious flaws. Whatever flaws Schopenhauer had, he was at least an honest philosopher who devoted himself entirely to his work. Less could be said of certain other "philosophers."

[Anonymous No.16950607]

>>16949636
Link pls?

[Anonymous No.16950640]

>>16949605
Did you learn about Hegel from some pop philosophy video? If you want to be able to criticize him you will at least have had to put in the work to understand what he was even saying

[Anonymous No.16951455]

>>16949605
Hegel never said that we will eventually reach utopia, that's a strawman.
Unironically Schopenhauer's system is much more of a cope, and it is WAAAY more metaphysically speculative. At the end of the day he was a depressed, melodrammatic nigga who tried to reify his own depr4ssion and pessimism into a goddamn cosmic principle (the Will). Of the two, Schoppy is likely the quack

[Anonymous No.16951581]

>>16951455
The state of existence is one of depression.

How could any optimist ever pull back the veil of reality?

[Anonymous No.16951665]

>>16951581
See? Huge cope. You and Schoppy seriously think that your mental illness not only is not confined to your head, but even has cosmic, metaphysical relevance.

[Anonymous No.16951696]

>>16951665
I'd tell you to check back with me after you die in agonising pain, alone, on a hospital bed; but, I suppose your metaphysics wouldn't allow it.

[Anonymous No.16951795]

>>16951696
My life would have still been pretty good even if it ended in a painful death. That's what Schoppy never had: a life not tainted by depression. He was already angsty and depressed when he started studying philosophy, and in the end he ended up rationalizing his mental illness into a grand metaphysical system.
This is the same case for antinatalists like Benatar: their starting psychological makeout is so fucked up they just assume that their condition must be universal. Literally too mentally ill to discover that most lives are for the most part tolerable, if not good, and this includes animals too. They also usually make the same mistake you've made, namely the one for which a life is deemed bad if it ends in agonizing pain, regardless of how good it was before that pain.

[Anonymous No.16951926]

>>16951795
This, healthy and strong people process pain better than sick people, so they do not consider it as a big thing worth thinking too much about. Only those who can't tolerate it, can't fight against it think pain is fundamental to the existence itself. Nietzsche btfo Schoppy in this regard.

[Anonymous No.16951998]

>>16951795
Schopey acknowledged the existence of an innate 'cheerfulness' that would vary between people. Yet, fundamentally existence MUST be predominantly one of pain, their must always be a spur to further action, an oscillation between suffering and boredom. An endless struggle is the predominant characteristic of all existence, even those blessed with a cheerful disposition shall feel that.

"Tolerable," is, in my view, simply not sufficient. The death bed holds no particular import; it is the general totality of all life's miseries that matters. It's simply a shorthand too try and illustrate the futility of it all.

I can't remember which but I'm reminded of one of Orwell's essays: in a french hospital, watching a group of old stone faced woman pretending to card for a dying man solely for the sake of his invariably meagre inheritance.

[Anonymous No.16952084]

>>16951998
>Yet, fundamentally existence MUST be predominantly one of pain
why? just because we are never satiated by objects we desire? you know for most of the active, healthy and strong people its precisely the opposite, they ARE happy because there is a constant desire, striving, restlessness in life. The jump from the thesis that "there is constant striving in everything that exists" to "it produces suffering" and even more so to "we should treat this suffering as something that has to be avoided at all cost to the point of self-denying" is determined by the type of person, who universalizes his own bad digestion of suffering.

[Anonymous No.16952089]

>>16949660
Excellent post.

[Anonymous No.16953255]

I like both of them.
Both make me laugh.