BROPENHAUER

[Anonymous No.17261711]

*is a more valuable thinker than Gotama-Buddha*
How did he do it? Why didn't a Schopenhauerian school or at least circle of followers never form?
Did he get crushed between Hegel and Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.17261736]

>>17261711
>How did he do it? Why didn't a Schopenhauerian school or at least circle of followers never form?
>didn't >never

He spawned two enormous cults. One died out in the 1950s. One still blabbers endlessly to this day. Neither credit him sufficiently.

So no, he wasn't crushed.

As for the Shakyamuni Buddha, Schopenhauer-Kant permanently fastened his religion in logic, so there is something to your claim.

[Anonymous No.17261737]

>>17261711
>Why didn't a Schopenhauerian school or at least circle of followers never form?
It did form in Germany. At the start of 20th century he was Germany's most prominent thinker. After the war, though, his influence diminished mostly because the worldview and the values he advocates are radically opposed to the "modern" worldview.

[Anonymous No.17261738]

[Anonymous No.17261745]

>>17261738
Funnily enough, near the end of and after his life, people were appreciating Schopenhauer far more than Hegel. It was common consensus that Schopenhauer retroactively refuted Hegel.

[Anonymous No.17261767]

>>17261738
>>17261745
Schopenhauer completely eviscerates Hegel & Schiller. Notably, he points out assbackward scientific claims Hegel makes & Schiller's mysticism tier ideas of cause and effect coming from gravity and light.

[Anonymous No.17261785]

>>17261767
Schopenhauer liked Schiller's poetry though. He said Schiller was a "subjective" poet but I don't remember him criticizing Schiller.

[Anonymous No.17261795]

>>17261711
He got crushed between Hegel and Heidegger.
Read about the Davos debate in you are interested.

[Anonymous No.17261813]

The Schopenyana is somewhere between the Hinayana and the Mahayana.

[Anonymous No.17261816]

>>17261738
Very funny. Truely.

I am a german academic and Schopi is one of the most read thinkers today.

[Anonymous No.17261817]

>>17261795
Neither party in the "Davos debate" were Schopenhauerian. Neo-Kantians like Cassirer were all seething over Schopenhauer because of his comprehensive critique of Kant.

[Anonymous No.17261847]

>>17261816
What do you think about Schopenhauer's criticism of academic philosophy? In the U.S. at least, it seems the flaws he is criticizing still hold, though in different forms. He talks at length about the religious and political influences on philosophy, but now instead of religion we have "scientism", and in addition to politics, there is monetary affairs.

[Anonymous No.17261915]

>>17261847
>but now instead of religion we have "scientism", and in addition to politics, there is monetary affairs.

There is no such thing in Germany, we like to uphold the true search for the four questions of Kant which every german middlescholars has to learn.

Of course the lutherian ethics of academic scholarship still apply to this day: Humility before the knowledge and diligence before the people.

Otherwise there is nothing holding you back exploring the true nature of the world and it's principles.

[Anonymous No.17261949]

>>17261711
Buddha found a way out. Schopenhauer just found various copes.

[Anonymous No.17261978]

>>17261915
So there is no such thing as a predominant "critical gender/race/whatever theory" or people won't discredit you as a schizo if your philosophical arguments are rather metaphysical? Sounds like I might have to consider moving to Germany. What are the most important areas of research in philosophy there? Are you guys mostly continental?

[Anonymous No.17262005]

>>17261949
And Heidegger said that there is no cope and no escape from death.

Not even Christianity: Because life after death is a paradox.

Easily explained: If you live after your death, you are not dead thus, you have never died.

[Anonymous No.17262013]

>>17261711
Proactively refined by Mainlander, now kys brother.

[Anonymous No.17262019]

>>17261978
>What are the most important areas of research in philosophy there?
Teaching it. Also kantian thought.
Are you guys mostly continental?
I don't know that term, if you meant eurecentric than yes.

[Anonymous No.17262028]

>>17262013
>Mainlander
No german Philosopher I know has read him, why do you new worlders like him so much?

[Anonymous No.17262042]

>>17262028
You don't know Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.17262061]

>>17262042
I have read everything Nietzsche has ever written in german, you won't find a greater scholar on Nietzschean thought on this site.

[Anonymous No.17262076]

>>17262019
In the U.S. most philosophers are focused on the analytic tradition (people like Frege, Russell, etc. and areas like philosophy of language and philosophy of mind). Other sorts of philosophy that is not in the analytic style and tradition is called continental (like phenomenology or French post-structuralism). I gather your reply means analytic philosophy is not really popular in Germany?

[Anonymous No.17262079]

>>17262061
Well he read Mainlander, so there you go.

[Anonymous No.17262085]

>>17262061
From the Gay Science:
>Could one count such dilettantes and old maids as the sickeningly sentimental apostle of virginity, Mainländer, as a genuine German? After all he was probably a Jew – (all Jews become sentimental when they moralize).

[Anonymous No.17262118]

>>17262079
>>17262085
Oh no I have understood our misunderstanding! I meant no living philosopher I work with has ever read him, he is considered an Apendix of Schopenhauer (which he is).

No matter that fact I have read Die Philosophie der Erlösung. A very radical work, but still not as modern as Plato, if you catch my drift.

[Anonymous No.17262122]

>>17262005
Only refutes a Christian-like self. Only the Abrahamics argue for a you living after your death.

[Anonymous No.17262136]

>>17261711
Imo, I think Hegel must have been an amazing orator while Schopenhauer must have been a terrible one. This is the only reason I can think of as to why Hegel is more popular than Schopenhauer, because there is no way it's on the basis of merit of their work.

[Anonymous No.17262150]

>>17262136
Schopenhauer was just obscure and unknown when he scheduled the lectures.

[Anonymous No.17262161]

>>17262118
Oh I see that I did read that wrong, oops. Really I probably just like Mainlander because he justifies my desire to kms which I will get around to some day.

[Anonymous No.17262162]

>>17262122
>Christian-like self
This terminology remians clouded to my understanding.

[Anonymous No.17262169]

>>17262161
You can still kill yourself under Schopenhauer but it would have to be long and slow so that the will properly does out. Something like self-starvation.

[Anonymous No.17262182]

>>17262161
>justifies my desire to kms which I will get around to some day.
Does he though? I have read more than 100 major philosophical works in full lenght during my philosophical career, the most important realisation I have found while reading is that ethics is physiology and analitical knowledge is just an opinion.

Hard to explain I could write a thousand pages on this subject.

[Anonymous No.17262195]

>>17261736
What is the name of the remaining cult?

[Anonymous No.17262208]

>>17262182
ethics is physiology
what do you mean by this

[Anonymous No.17262210]

>>17262182
I accept that it's mostly psychological, but if adopting a view helps me avoid cognitive dissonance I'll take it. Coping is all I've got left so I'll cope as well as I can.

[Anonymous No.17262238]

>>17262182
>analitical knowledge is just an opinion.
What did he mean by this? Math and logic are just opinions?

[Anonymous No.17262244]

I too watch School of Life on youtube

[Anonymous No.17262292]

>>17262162
There is no discrete self and this Abrahamic view is nothing but mere fixation and reification of psychophysical phenomena. When you die that which is animated dies but in no way can it be said that the animating principle dies.

[Anonymous No.17262317]

>>17262208
Exactly what I have written.
>>17262238
I have use the wrong term.
An example: There is poverty on this earth, so much is true. why/where and which answers do we give to this question? Riches after death? Communism? Capitalism? Social Darwinism? Or? Or? Or? That is not a question of truth.

All of these answers are based on the truth. All these answers are representive of their physiological sympthoms. None are true, they are all equal, no scholar under 40 years could understand that...

Very hard to explain in english.

[Anonymous No.17262328]

>>17262317
okay but “ethics is physiology” doesn’t make any sense. Honestly man you should read Wittgenstein, you seem really confused

[Anonymous No.17262347]

>>17262317
>Riches after death? Communism? Capitalism? Social Darwinism?
Probably all/some of it constitute parts of the answer? So that we would have see which is the main factor and which is comparatively negligible. If you are the German anon you could write in German if you want. I can understand German.

[Anonymous No.17262352]

>>17262328
I have read Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.17262360]

>>17262352
then why are you not seeing that these truths that aren’t truths or whatever are true in their given language game and that’s as far as they can be stretched? I have a feeling you’re a larper

[Anonymous No.17262386]

>>17262347
In den vielen Antworten die es auf die viele Fragen gibt, zeichnet sich zuerst und zuallerst der der Physiologie innewohnende Wille des Indivuums ab, wie Nietzsche und Schopenhauer geschrieben haben.

Normativer Anspruch ist Politik, Politik ist; wie der Individualwille Allgemeinwille wird, Individualwille ist 70% Genetik und 10% Sozialisation, für einen guten Philosophen in den kältesten Momenten vllt. noch 15% Verstand, der Rest ist auch in den kältesten Momenten Tier.

Beweis: Der Sprung vom 10m Brett.

[Anonymous No.17262409]

>>17262360
>I have a feeling you’re a larper
You lack the ability to follow me, which could as well be attributed to my lack of skills in the english language.

You just need to try harder.

>are true in their given language game and that’s as far as they can be stretched?
That does not make sense.

[Anonymous No.17262413]

>>17262386
>the individual is 70% genetic
okay you’ve confirmed yourself to be a complete and utter bullshit artist

[Anonymous No.17262423]

>>17262409
You have not read Wittgenstein then lol

[Anonymous No.17262432]

>>17262386
Sorry, I'll spare you my broken German and answer in English. But really is the nature of the will physiological? Wasn't it supposed to be, at least under Schopenhauer, noumenal? Also, where do those exact percentages come from?
>Beweis: Der Sprung vom 10m Brett.
I'm afraid I don't see how this proves anything?

[Anonymous No.17262440]

>>17262423
The term language game tells me that you are a highschooler at best.

[Anonymous No.17262454]

>>17261767
>Schopenhauer completely eviscerates Hegel
Lol.
>>17261745
>common consensus that Schopenhauer retroactively refuted Hegel.
Lol.

Then explain to me why the most definitive thinkers of the last 3 centuries, Marx, Spengler, Illyn, Jung, Heidegger, Schmitt, Foucault, Derrida, etc. Were all familiar with Hegel, yet the same is not true for Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.17262455]

>>17262432
The will is a demon. Which posesses your spirit like hunger. Or like fear. You intellect is inheritely flawed as you are a naked ape tossed in your own fear.

NO TRUTH CAN BE FOUND THINKING.

Clearer now?

[Anonymous No.17262459]

>>17262440
Sorry you’re right, I’d better make up my own terms instead of using the ones Wittgenstein uses. Anyway, your little game has reached its end. You’ve outed yourself as a complete stooge. But a stooge that speaks German! Perfect

[Anonymous No.17262470]

>>17262455
>The will is a demon. Which posesses your spirit like hunger. Or like fear. You intellect is inheritely flawed as you are a naked ape tossed in your own fear.
Sure, as Schopenhauer said, the intellect is the servant of the Will. So far I agree. But:
>NO TRUTH CAN BE FOUND THINKING.
I don't see how this follows? If you mean absolute truths, then we knew already by Kant that finding absolute truths is impossible. But surely we can have some imperfect truths?

[Anonymous No.17262477]

>>17262454
>who are Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Wittgenstein and Einstein

[Anonymous No.17262478]

>>17262413
Why?

[Anonymous No.17262487]

>>17262477
missed that you did say Jung, still he was very much acquainted with Schopenhauer as well

[Anonymous No.17262522]

>>17262477
Nietzsche, you mean the guy who, much like Marx is inverted Hegelianism? Nietzsche despised Hegel's idea of the determinate whole, and seeing Hegel as failing to reach true wissenschaft as he tried to hard to systematize things, a CRITICISM HEGEL HIMSELF LAUNCHED AT KANT, FICHTE AND SCHELLING! In any case he was undoubtedly influenced by Hegel in the simple fact that Hegel's criticism of edification is obviously found in Nietzsche's idea of the letztermensch. Wittgenstein abandoned Schopenhauer very early on. Freud and Einstein, sure, I'll give you those, but I said the most definitive thinkers were all familiar with Hegel(which I'd amend were almost all familiar with Hegel), but the same is not true for Schopenhauer. So to reintegrate into the whole, my point is that Hegel is an immensely consequential figure in recent history, far greater than Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.17262523]

>>17262470
>I don't see how this follows? If you mean absolute truths, then we knew already by Kant that finding absolute truths is impossible. But surely we can have some imperfect truths?
There are a lot of proofs for that, I have to go to sleep soon so I will only name one (of the hundresds there are) which can be understood by anyone. A trivial but yet so clear one.

What did you think was the most interesting topic when you were 6 years old? Do you still think that now? No because the most important thing has changed, you physiology.
So there are neither perfect nor imperfect truths, I can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Anonymous No.17262531]

>>17262477
Jews?

[Anonymous No.17262537]

>>17262454
>Jung
OH look, a Hegelian as dishonest and uneducated as always! Jung was a Schopenhauerian. Both Freud and Jung heavily studied Schoppnehuaer because he was one of the first philosophers who talked about unconscious motives. Schopenhauer was also one of the first philosophers Jung read (along with Kant) and he continued to read him even late in his career, given that Schopenhauer synthesized Platonic archetypes with Kant, which was a major influence on Jung. This is from his autobiography (Memories, Dreams, and Reflections), where he relates his early impressions of Schopenhauer:

>But the great find resulting from my researches was Schopenhauer. He was the first to speak of the suffering of the world, which visibly and glaringly surrounds us, and of confusion, passion, evil — all those things which the others hardly seemed to notice and always tried to resolve into all-embracing harmony and comprehensibility. Here at last was a philosopher who had the courage to see that all was not for the best in thefundaments of the universe. He spoke neither of the all-good and all-wise providence of a Creator, nor of the harmony of the cosmos, but stated bluntly that a fundamental flaw underlay the sorrowful course of human history and the cruelty of nature: the blindness of the world-creating Will.

>Schopenhauer’s sombre picture of the world had my undivided approval,but not his solution of the problem. I felt sure that by “Will” he really meant God, the Creator, and that he was saying that God was blind. Since I knew from experience that God was not offended by any blasphemy, that on the contrary He could even encourage it because He wished to evoke not only man’s bright and positive side but also his darkness and ungodliness, Schopenhauer’s view did not distress me. I considered it a verdict justified by the facts.

[Anonymous No.17262543]

>>17262523
this is retarded

[Anonymous No.17262560]

>>17262537
Please tell me that you don't see the obvious parallel between Jung, who thought historical archetypes exert influence onto our mind which cause us to act in determinate ways; and Hegel, who thought historical geist exerts influence onto our mind which cause us to act in determinate ways. Please do so, I fucking dare you.

[Anonymous No.17262565]

>>17262560
>>17262537
Furthermore, I didn't deny that Jung was strongly influenced by Schopenhauer, he clearly was, my point was that Hegel was immensely more consequential.

[Anonymous No.17262575]

>>17262565
And again in addendum, immensely more consequential for recent history, not Jung himself.

[Anonymous No.17262578]

>>17262560
There is no such obvious influence. When Jung first introduces archetypes, he cites Schopenhauer as one of the pioneers. When he talks about the collective unconscious, he again alludes to Schopenhauer and his Cosmic Will. All historicism in Jung is merely in your mind which has been sadly corrupted by the ramblings of a wanna-be philosophical larper.

[Anonymous No.17262603]

>>17262543
Did you shit your diapers again?

[Anonymous No.17262612]

>>17261711
More like Copenhauer. There is no a priori basis for concluding that the universe is fundamentally pessimistic and that all feelings of happiness or contentment are mere falsifications, negative-inverses of states of pain and deprivation.

[Anonymous No.17262613]

>>17262522
I'm unsure if your claim about Nietzsche is true since as far as I know he only read about Hegel later in life than he formed his main ideas and at most was influenced in those ways indirectly, but regardless I was just opposing your ridiculous claim. I'm not whoever you were arguing with and don't really care what your whole point is

[Anonymous No.17262614]

>>17262603
no I’m no longer a baby so I don’t shit in diapers - physiology.

[Anonymous No.17262618]

>>17262578
Where in Schopenhauer do you find determinacy? That was, I believe, one of the criticisms Schopenhauer levied at Hegel, Hegel's proclaimed end of history with the Prussian state being the ultimate end of history. It seems pretty fucking obvious that you've never actually spent time grappling with Hegel, and just take Schopenhauer's work for it, a man who also never grappled with Hegel, and was entirely driven by resentment at being less liked than Hegel was.

[Anonymous No.17262642]

>>17262523
I grant you that our physiology changes, but as it happens, I remember what was the most interesting thing to me when I was 6 (most of my family members were always reading or writing so I had a fervent desire to go to school already and learn how to read). But even if I didn't, I don't see how this disproves altogether. Even if I did not exist, presumably there are mind independent truths that would exist without me. Even if I forgot my truths, then, it doesn't mean the truths were removed from the world.

[Anonymous No.17262644]

>>17262614
See thats the only proof you will ever need.

[Anonymous No.17262645]

>>17262613
When did he write his Genealogy of morals? Later in life, buddy. And how is it a ridiculous claim that Hegel is more popular than Schopenhauer? It's objectively true, regardless of whether you like Schopenhauer or Hegel. And on Nietzsche, read Deleuze, he makes the case of inverse Hegel much better than I can on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.17262660]

>>17262618
I won't "grapple" with Hegel's incoherent opacity because I still value my intellect. But as for your question
>Where in Schopenhauer do you find determinacy?
Schopenhauer was a determinist? Seems like you are the one who hasn't read Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.17262681]

>>17262660
That's just not true, he thought the world was determined, but we are free actors. Hegel goes beyond that and pretty clearly argues that the way we interact with reality is determined by history.

[Anonymous No.17262683]

>>17262645
Perhaps you are right about Nietzsche, but it changes nothing. He was still very influenced by and aware of Schopenhauer as were many other very important thinkers you conveniently ignored or even the ones you mentioned. I agree that Hegel is more influential even, but I don't agree with making retarded statements like that one to back up your point.

[Anonymous No.17262685]

>>17262660
Also, what a retarded fucking gotcha, pseud maneuver.

[Anonymous No.17262687]

>>17262642
>it doesn't mean the truths were removed from the world.
Yes!
But still, that disproves almost everything you think you know. And one day, when you are old and feeble you wont even know that 1+1 is 2. It could just as well be 3.

What I am triyng to tell you is that the more you read the less truth there is, as I have said I have read all my lfe and I am an 45 year old doctrate now.

I know a lot less than a high schooler. Do you understand me?

After a High schooler with 16 years of age has read Zarathustra, he has figured phylosophy out. 20 years of reading later, he has not.

[Anonymous No.17262691]

>>17262683
some of the ones*

[Anonymous No.17262709]

>>17262683
What was retarded about it? only 2 of the 5 people you cited were both influenced by Schopenhauer and not by Hegel. I mean, fucking Kissinger was far more familiar with Hegel than Schopenhauer, and that dude is probably the number one cause for the current world order.

[Anonymous No.17262712]

>>17262681
Man, how wrong you are. Schopenhauer was one of the earliest critics of free-will, coining the familiar argument "man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills." You need to read the essay "On the Freedom of the Will". In the essay he basically shows that not just him, but the previous philosophers who said they believe in free-will were also determinists without even knowing it.

[Anonymous No.17262721]

>>17262685
There is no "gotcha" involved. I proudly proclaim I have never read Hegel and most likely will never do. Unlike you, you claim you have read Schopenhauer but you are getting the basic things wrong about him.

[Anonymous No.17262723]

>>17262642
You don't remember the event accurately, your remember a memory of a memory of a memory.

[Anonymous No.17262726]

>>17262712
>>17262721

From The World as Will and Representation, Vol II, chapter XXV (Transcendent Considerations on the Will as Thing-in-Itself):

I say that every being without exception acts with strict necessity, but exists and is what it is by virtue of its freedom.

And in the next paragraph:

In short, determinism stands firm; for fifteen hundred years attempts to undermine it have been made in vain. They have been urged by certain queer ideas which we know quite well, but dare not call entirely by their name. In consequence of it, however, the world becomes a puppet show worked by wires (motives) without its even being possible to see for whose amusement. If the piece has a plan, then a fate is the director; if it has no plan, blind necessity is the director. There is no escape from this absurdity other than the knowledge that the being and essence of all things are the phenomenon of a really free will that knows itself precisely in them; for their doing and acting are not to be delivered from necessity. To save freedom from fate or chance, it had to be transferred from the action to the existence.

[Anonymous No.17262742]

>>17261738
people nowadays still worship charlatans rather than philosophers, it just proved his point

[Anonymous No.17262743]

>>17261711

[Anonymous No.17262753]

>>17262723
You are a new person every second You know nothing there is now truth you are a naked ape tossed into the world by an uncaring god that will swallow you whole.

But still: There is a lot of coon to fuck a lot of budda-budda to fuck out of the snatch hole!

Live is not to bad at all!

[Anonymous No.17262779]

>>17262721
>>17262712
Sounds far more like a compatibilist position to me. If Schopenhauer was 100% determinist a major point of his criticism of Hegel would make 0 sense. You're literally a pseud.

[Anonymous No.17262800]

>>17262726
This is one of his later essays where lays out a few speculative considerations regarding the thing-in-itself. He basically argues though the world as a representation and everything in it (including humans and their personal desires) are constituted by necessity, we might argue the Will in the noumenal sense, which is One in everything, is really free. So while you and I, the personal actors, are not free, the universal Self could be said, in a metaphysical sense, to be free. If you see this as an argument against necessity then you are a testament to Schopenhauer's claim that Hegel's writings is a mind-poison.

[Anonymous No.17262806]

>>17262779
So far as the world as representation is considered, he is a complete determinist. The freedom is supposedly metaphysical, not subject to the principle of sufficient reason. Hegel has poisoned your mind.

[Anonymous No.17262839]

>>17262687
Of course, we have all these subjective limitations, memory being chief among them. But if we so much feel the urge to knowledge, we may as well try.

[Anonymous No.17262849]

His followers are the artists.

[Anonymous No.17262858]

>>17262753
>>17262726
No idea what these two have to do with my comment but that budda budda remark made me laugh

[Anonymous No.17262877]

>>17262839
Very true, I still think I failed to make myself clear but that is okay. You will succeed in your studies, I am sure of that.

[Anonymous No.17262891]

>>17262806
>>17262800
Well the World as Will and Representation is all i've read of Schopenhauer. In any case, if he sees the universal self as free metaphysically... Then he's a compatibilist. He sees a compatability between the metaphysical freedom of the will and the determinism of the world. Hegel sees the subject itself as going into the predicate, that is, as being determined. You know, I think in the preface to Hegel's phenomenology he talks about how in order to thoroughly debunk a system you have to follow it through to its logical conclusion, not just view it from the outside and add in meaningless rebuttals. That type of skepticism is what kills off true knowledge of the topic of hand and fails to get anywhere.

[Anonymous No.17262894]

>>17262118
Mainländer is just Orphism/Osirian myth without the Rebirth.

[Anonymous No.17262922]

>>17262894
Do you care to expand your perspective?

[Anonymous No.17262926]

>>17262877
What I gathered from your posts is that given strictest standards, we could not have knowledge of truth. Seeing as how our memory is very much fallible, a true knowledge might get distorted in our head without our even knowing it; or how effects seem to have many causes while we have no means of distinguishing which of them is true (like your example of poverty). Not only our memory, but our reason itself is very fallible too, so that as you said, in old age we might even have trouble with basic arithmetic. All of these are epistemological limitations on a knowing subject; a subject, who could not even know if he has the truth, since the subjective feeling of "having figured it out" is also fallible, as your example of the Nietzsche-reading high schooler showed. Is there anything more I am missing?

[Anonymous No.17262944]

>>17262926
Yes, Hegel is a dweeb

[Anonymous No.17262957]

>>17262005
Heidegger literally never said this.

[Anonymous No.17262965]

>>17262743
That's pretty cool. What do you think Kant would be, a brainiac with telepathy?

[Anonymous No.17262974]

>>17262922
In Orphism mankind is born from the ashes and blood of the Titans who ate Dionysus, his fragmentation represents the separation of all souls; the singular torn apart into the plural.
While Osiris is the ground for all life.
Basically that in God's death life, if not the entire bodily cosmos, came to be.
Similar thing in Enuma Elish.

[Anonymous No.17262995]

>>17262891
In that sense considered, then yes Schopenhauer is a """"compatibilist"""". But given that you started off this whole tangent to say Jung was a determinist (supposedly unlike Schopenhauer), this seems absurd, because Jung was also a """"compatibilist"""" in a very similar sense:
>The ego is, by definition, subordinate to the Self and is related to it like a part to the whole. Inside the field of consciousness it has, as we say, free will. By this I do not mean anything philosophical, only the well-known psychological fact of "free choice," or rather the subjective feeling of freedom. But, just as our free will clashes with necessity in the outside world, so also it finds its limits outside the field of consciousness in the subjective inner world, where it comes into conflict with the facts of the self. And just as circumstances or outside events "happen" to us and limit our freedom, so the self acts upon the ego like an objective occurrence which free will can do very little to alter.
Jung, Aion, page 4-5.
Go away H*gelian. You have already made so many comments with such a confidence which turned out false. Isn't that enough for you to fuck off?

[Anonymous No.17263004]

>>17262926
Actually my main point. But do not worry it was my mistake in failing to making it clear.

Think of the definition for the word freedom: How would Marx define freedom, how would Nietzsche define freedom? How Augustin?

All of these definitions are based on principles that are understandable for everyone, yet the implications and answers that are given are so very much different.

Why? Because they are all true and all false at the same time, based on the biology of the author (among other factors). A real scholar, hardened by thousands of pages, should not believe anything that is not axiomatic, should not have any ideology, because that would be his own predisposition, not the truth, or even worse: reproducing another philosophers biology.

A good philosopher is like a stone drifting in the ocean for 1000 years, smooth and round, with no perceived knowledge beyond a hope for the understanding of logic.

[Anonymous No.17263013]

>>17262891
>>17262995
Or another quote:
>…the fact is that free will only exists within the limits of consciousness. Beyond those limits there is mere compulsion.
~Carl Jung; Letters Volume 1, Page 227

[Anonymous No.17263059]

>>17263004
So it's the problem of finding the right definition, just as Socrates was pestering Athenians to define their concepts. But then, wouldn't the task of the philosopher be finding the "right" definitions? You know, this is what analytic philosophy is about (as the word "analytic" suggests). They argue and argue and argue about the correct definitions of these concepts.

[Anonymous No.17263074]

>>17263004
Couldn't agree more.
I often find it very foolhardy of others to "take sides" in debates and to spend hours of their time in enormous amounts of energy attempting to refute one another when they invariably either drop the subject with no conclusion or agree to disagree.
Yet I can't help but feel to be like that is to be a person of action, there's a certain ridiculousness to putting all your eggs in one basket, but at the same time I feel it's a prerequisite to being able to achieve many things with your life.

[Anonymous No.17263111]

>>17261711
>Why didn't a Schopenhauerian school or at least circle of followers never form?
He's genuinely the closest there has been in recent centuries, or either third or fourth place after Kant, Carlyle, Hegel, Marx. The effects of his philosophy had a cult effect. Not in the sense of a religious cult, but not in the sense of a cult film either. It penetrated culture and made its way to geniuses like Tolstoy and Wagner (who himself had a minor personality cult), acclaimed writers like Jack London Mainlander, and the fashionable set like Edgar Saltus , and other philsosophers like Weininger, Nietzsche, Hartmann.

[Anonymous No.17263140]

>>17262995
>>17263013
Hold on, Schopenhauer's freedom, as far as I understand it, goes a lot further than that. I understood him as basically making the Leibniz point that our free will is self determined. But, in any case, if you've read more Schopenhauer than me, I'll defer to you on that, and my main point will still stand. I only said Jung was clearly influenced by Hegel, I mean just take the notion of the union of the opposed self. This is already bordering on Hegelianism(The concept of the whole). Even the idea of the shadow is not at all far off from the Hegelian idea of self othering. In fact, we can go and ask Jung himself who said that he saw Hegel as a forerunner to psychology. I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove, that Jung is a Schopenhaurian? Yes, I already accepted that, I only pointed out that he was clearly influenced and familiar with Hegel. That Jung has no association with Hegel? Well, we know that's not true from his own statements. That Hegel is less relevant than Schopenhauer? That's just absurd. You don't know anything about Hegel's philosophy, yet you make claims about whether or not Jung had any influence from Hegel. You just latched on to my (correctly) saying Schopenhauer's not an absolute determinist. PSEUD!

[Anonymous No.17263149]

>>17263074
>but at the same time I feel it's a prerequisite to being able to achieve many things with your life.

Exactly.

[Anonymous No.17263163]

>>17262612
Go get mauled by a tiger and see what sensation is an inversion. Pain is hard coded into the natural world.

[Anonymous No.17263273]

>>17263140
Instead of just senselessly rambling like a provoked middle-aged woman, provide your sources. I said Jung cites Schopenhauer as direct pioneer, and I can go on and find the quote but you seem to have accepted that. I have, however, not seen Jung cite Hegel as any sort of inspiration, despite your quotes. If you so much believe Jung thought of Hegel as his forefunner (a claim I deem rather absurd), then go on and show me where he said he had any associations with Hegel.

Furthermore, remember why you started this whole conversation, saying that Jung and others "Were all familiar with Hegel, yet the same is not true for Schopenhauer." (>>17262454) This was, at any rate, not true for Jung and Freud. I have not read the others so I don't remark on them. But, as the other anon said, Schopenhauer had a wide influence on almost all important artists of late 19th and 20th century (according to SEP some of the musicians: Wagner, Brahms, Dvorák, Mahler; some of the authors: Baudelaire, Beckett, Borges, Conrad, T. Hardy, Ernst Jünger, D. H. Lawrence, T. Mann, Maupassant, Melville, Musil, Poe, Proust, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Yeats, Zola) ;as well as the pioneering physicists like Einstein, Schrodinger and Pauli, and also Darwin (there is a sort of "evolutionary theory" in Schopenhauer that Darwin was inspired by and quoted); two foremost philosophers after Schopenhauer, namely Wittgenstein and Nietzsche, got interested in philosophy precisely because of their reading of Schopenhauer (not denying their later breaks). Bergson too was highly read in Schopenhauer, and in analytic philosophy there was Gilbert Ryle who revived some of Schopenhauer's arguments. Hell, fucking Hitler said he read his works during his service in WW1. Evidently he had an extremely far reaching influence, well beyond Hegel's narrow readership in contemporary continental philosophy (which, for all purposes, is regarded as a joke).

So I ask you: what is even your point?

[Anonymous No.17263558]

>>17263273

>Lecture II 27th October, 1933

"Hegel and Schelling were in reality metaphysical speculators but when you examine their writings – particularly those of Hegel – carefully, you see they are full of projected psychology.

Georg Wilhelm Hegel would be considered a psychologist today, but he was not conscious of this and called himself a philosopher, although he expressed some essential psychological ideas.


Date: May 18, 2020
Author: Mr. Purrington
Donations help support this Blog
PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online

Hegel seems to me a romantic thinker in contrast to Kant and hence a typical child of his time; and as a romantic he is already on the way to psychology. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. I, Page 194

Do you think "Were all familiar with Hegel, yet the same is not true for Schopenhauer." Means that noone knew who Schopenhauer is? Schopenhauer was required reading for schoolboys in imperial Germany. My point was that Hegel is much more important to world history than is Schopenhauer, his ideas were much more integral to the dominant ideas of our time. I already said that.

[Anonymous No.17263594]

>>17263558
>My point was that Hegel is much more important to world history than is Schopenhauer
It does not seem that way. His only influence seems to exclusive to continental philosophy (perhaps for the worse), while Schopenhauer had extensive influence on many different intellectual fields, as I showed in my last post.

[Anonymous No.17264060]

>>17261949
>Buddha found a way out
There is no greater cope to existence itself than Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17264062]

>>17263558
>Schopenhauer was required reading for schoolboys in imperial Germany
You what now? Are you joking?

[Anonymous No.17264105]

>>17261737
Wagner and his friends don't count as a "school".

[Anonymous No.17264119]

>>17261915
>Otherwise there is nothing holding you back exploring the true nature of the world and it's principles
Well, yeah, except when you do historical research that seems to contradict the official narrative of the holocaust.

[Anonymous No.17264938]

>>17264119
>Well, yeah, except when you do historical research that seems to contradict the official narrative of the holocaust.

Actual research can not do that.

[Anonymous No.17265196]

>>17261711
What will be the point of of having Schopenhauerian schools?
He preached asceticism, anti-academic attitude, isolation and antinatalism. Schopenhauer's pessimism itself is the end point of his thought.

[Anonymous No.17265203]

>>17263059
definition is a spook by rationalists to build a career and an easy life from their easy audience.

[Anonymous No.17265211]

>>17263004
Why do rationalists keep saying intellectualism leads to truth, when it was never the case in the last thousands years?

[Anonymous No.17265226]

>>17262578
>collective unconscious,
>>17262578
>introduces archetypes
fancy words by atheists to mean clichés for people who like critical thinking. No wonder women are so drawn to those mental masturbators.

[Anonymous No.17265259]

>>17261847
>instead of religion we have "scientism",
and journalism. Journalists are the gatekeepers of ''truth'' in atheism, and truth is jsut the human rights

[Anonymous No.17265275]

>>17265259
>Journalists are the gatekeepers of ''truth'' in atheism
These are the people you share your board with

[Anonymous No.17266465]

>>17263111
The truth is that Nietzsche is the number one mainstream 'philosopher' of today's times. That's still beteer than most others but I'd prefer Goethe as an author (who does not pretend to be a 'philosopher' in the first place) or Schopenhauer as an actual philosopher every time.

[Anonymous No.17267619]

>>17265275
It's weird that atheists always seethe when they hear criticisms about their life, especially given they keep saying they are the people with the most critical thinking trying to always improve their republics by analyzing they way of life.

[Anonymous No.17267675]

>>17267619
I'm not an atheist that statement was just so dumb it lowered my iq just reading it.
It's weird how retards always cry about [meme-outgroup] rather than make a coherent statement.

[Anonymous No.17267845]

>>17266465
Yes, but that only happened after the collapse of education

[Anonymous No.17267859]

>>17267845
>the collapse of education
what?

[Anonymous No.17267862]

>>17261736
>As for the Shakyamuni Buddha, Schopenhauer-Kant permanently fastened his religion in logic
Impossible, as Buddhism was logically obliterated by Shankara, your crass orientalism cannot change this

[Anonymous No.17268284]

>>17267859
I mean the collapse of a highly educated class conversant with a wide range of literature in several languages.

[Anonymous No.17268421]

>>17268284
>collapse of a highly educated class conversant with a wide range of literature in several languages.
And on what do you base this belief? By all I see this class is now bigger than ever. Not that the absence of it would be a "collapse of education"

[Anonymous No.17268547]

>>17268421
>And on what do you base this belief? By all I see this class is now bigger than ever.
How many people in your country's government read Latin?

[Anonymous No.17268598]

>>17268547
Will you ever stop moving the goalposts and abide by your own set standarts?

[Anonymous No.17268631]

more like brapenhauer

[Anonymous No.17268652]

Schopenhauer was a racist sexist eugenist bigot

[Anonymous No.17268654]

>>17268598
Again, how many people in your government, how many journalists, how writers have the knowledge of say, Oliver Wendell Holmes? Can you name even one?

[Anonymous No.17268659]

>>17268652
Based, just ordered his books. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.17268730]

>>17268654
I am not sure what you think you're achieving here but sure I can play your game. How many people in Germany journalists, politicians, writers knew about him before the "collapse of education" and when was that collapse?
Then I will look up how many know about him now.

[Anonymous No.17268758]

>>17268730
>How many people in Germany journalists, politicians, writers knew about him before the "collapse of education
99% I'd say, he was pretty common knowledge. Btw look up the biggest journalists of the day from Germany, Britain, America, and tell me there's some source of new comparable to say Wickham Steed or HL Mencken.

[Anonymous No.17268776]

>>17268758
>99% I'd say,
Wow that sounds amazing. Source on that claim?

[Anonymous No.17268835]

>>17268776
>Source on that claim

[Anonymous No.17268880]

>>17268835
Gotta admit I seem SOME evidence for the collapse of education now.

[Anonymous No.17268920]

>>17268880
>Gotta admit I seem SOME evidence for the collapse of education now.

[Anonymous No.17268940]

>>17265226
Neither I nor the author of those terms are atheists. Sounds like you have some "atheist boogeyman" in your mind to blame your failures in life on.

[Anonymous No.17269025]

tfw you realize that, if Schopenhauer's metaphysics is right, the possibility of physiognomy is one of the most certain a priori truths even trumping over most other sciences.

[Anonymous No.17269098]

Can someone explain his principle of sufficient reason to me?

[Anonymous No.17269130]

>>17269025
so that's why he was so miserable and lame