[ 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: 266 KB, 716x621, Laser-eyed Schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17350629 No.17350629 [Reply] [Original]

Why did Schopenhauer tell Wagner to fuck off?

>> No.17350655

Why did Shopy's mom tell him the same?

>> No.17350659
File: 1.54 MB, 1600x2434, Anon Refutes Johanna Schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17350659

>>17350655

>> No.17350667

>>17350629
Wagner was a midwit who had delusional ideas about himself. Schopenhauer was a genius of a higher order so naturally he couldn't tolerate midwittery combined with over-inflated ego. Not to mention the constant crude pandering to the masses, die Völker kek

>> No.17350769

>>17350667
>Wagner was a midwit
People are literally retarded on /lit/ aren't they. Probably the greatest artist of the 19th century, at least in music where the facts of his value can be and are more prepared to be articulated by its definitions, he was praised by all who knew anything in it. Almost every important composer of his age, and of whatever other rank, recognised him as the greatest composer of his day, and many as an equal to those greats before him such as Beethoven.-- That does not come from being a "midwit," where you should talk, just a dilettante. And music is just one of many sides of Wagner's genius, albeit completely interconnected with the rest. If we are to give into one great rejecting or disliking (an often newer) another, as the value of the man, then you'll miss out many a great mind. Goethe for example recognised Beethoven as intelligent, but didn't like his music. Almost no one agrees with Schopenhauer's statement that Wagner should have forgotten music and put more stock in trying to become a writer; and it as so often, that one is trying to do something so entirely new, that the old as great as they are, do not understand it. But now the old are pro-Wagner, and you rarely get a Schopenhauerian these days who is not also a Wagnerian.

>> No.17350777

>>17350659
outrageously based

>> No.17350786

>>17350769
ahh! here comes the wagner anon. if it's of any solace, i was just baiting you. good night my friend
>>17350777
blessed digits

>> No.17350789

>>17350769
>you rarely get a Schopenhauerian these days who is not also a Wagnerian.
fuck you and fuck Wagner. if Based Scho told him to fuck off then this is enough for us to say that he had no link Schopenhauerian philosophy other than superficial claims.

>> No.17350800

>>17350789
when you call him "scho" i get unrefined american vibes. please try to use his full name. also wagner was dangerously based

>> No.17350805

>>17350800
I am not a murikan. But fuck off back to >>>/mu/ with your spooked retard.

>> No.17350815

>>17350786
Well, if you're the same person as the Op, I have an answer for you, at least a theorising from Wagner who was quite hurt and disappointed by the fact that Schopenhauer took no interest in him.

>Of Opera and Drama, which [R.] is correcting he says: "I know what Nietzsche didn't like in it—it is the same thing which Kossak took up and which set Schopenhauer against me: what I said about words. At the time I didn't dare to say that it was music which produced drama, although inside myself I knew it."
- Cosima's diary entry from 02/11/72

As well as another very good quote from the same source:

>In the evening a letter from Prof. Nietzsche, which pleases us, for his mood had given us cause for concern. Regarding this, R. says he fears that Schopenhauer's philosophy might in the long run be a bad influence on young people of this sort, because they apply his pessimism, which is a form of thinking, contemplation, to life itself, and derive from it an active form of hopelessness. —
- This time 02/17/70

>> No.17350833

>>17350805
i don't listen to music at all so as not get tricked allures of the will (except maybe Bach's divine tones). i am merely saying as a schopenhauerian, "scho" sounds crass. refrain from using it.

>> No.17350846

>>17350833
Scho sounds cute but whatever.
Are you have an artist?

>> No.17350851
File: 81 KB, 650x867, Alexander Stoddart sculpture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17350851

>>17350789
Schopenhauerianism IS Wagnerism. Just watch the greatest neoclassicist sculptor of our time say so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FPdrLlshRA

>> No.17350854

>>17350851
>Schopenhauerianism IS Wagnerism.
Not according to Schopenhauer, Kek.

>> No.17350864

>>17350854
And?-- You are a small mind.

>> No.17350886

>>17350864
What "and"?
Are you seriously valuing the word of small little pathetic rat still stuck in past who can't think about making his own unique work over the word of Schopenhauer?

>> No.17350899

>>17350846
am i an artist? sadly no.
>>17350851
did you finally relinquish your he*gelian tendencies wagner anon? based

>> No.17350904

>>17350629
I read that this dude can be read without any backround in philosophy, except some reading up on Kant through secondary sources. Is that true?

>> No.17350915

>>17350904
no.

>> No.17350921

>>17350899
>did you finally relinquish your he*gelian tendencies wagner anon? based
Sadly no, I am unclean, but I still greatly admire Schopenhauer and recognise much of his value over Hegel.

I still believe in that burning world-spirit, in it's many forms.

>> No.17350933

>>17350899
>sadly no.
Why? If you have sold grasp over Schopenhauer's thought then you can make really good artwork.

>>17350904
You can read his essays straight away. His essays incorporate his whole main work and even go beyond it.

>> No.17350936

>>17350904
You need to be familiar with the philosophies of Plato and Kant before reading Schopenhauer.

>> No.17350984

>>17350659
Apocalyptically based

>> No.17351006

>>17350921
but my friend what is "the burning world-spirit" if not the all encompassing, always striving will? schopenhauer did it better. on the bottom perhaps h*egel was trying to describe some real, spiritual and mystical thing, but it lacks so much philosophic rigor that it fails to be philosophy at all. whereas schopenhauer works up his way through his conclusions carefully and systematically, great insight and rigor combined, the result being as Mann said that everything else looks arbitrary, uneducated, and wrong in comparision. when we spoke earlier you said you were studying plato in depth and with appreciation. how much time did he spend about warning about philosophy of alluring rhetoric but with no wisdom? was socrates not vehemently attacking the same relativism thst h*egel centuries again espoused? some problems in philosophy seem recurring. perhaps we, as platonists, should start burning the books of our rivals again.

>> No.17351020

>>17350769
Based. Wagner was a genius. Just because you like Schopenhauer doesn't mean he wasn't completely fucking wrong at times or had bad opinions. Every writer of note has some dumb take they wrote down at some point in their lives.

On a side note, it's quite comforting knowing the greatest writers were no better than shitposters. It's, however, quite discomforting knowing that many of the greatest writers would not have survived in this day and age of big tech censorship and twitter lynch mobs.

>> No.17351039

>>17350933
i don't think art works that way though. the genius of the artist doesn't depend on abstract knowledge, it depends on his perception of things other people barely notice, which he then communicates in artistic forms. i find myself more suited to philosophy.

>> No.17351046

>>17351020
>Schopenhauer
>dumb
i agree with your general point but anon please.

>> No.17351065

>>17351046
Not the anon you're replying to, but I don't see how its wrong to describe one of his takes as dumb.

>> No.17351085

>>17351065
it's sacrilege and you should be burned at the stake.

>> No.17351101

>>17350904
Somewhat true, but not to the extent in which you suggest. He's an accessible philosopher because of his writing style in conjunction with his persistent elucidation. He condemns his contemporaries and predecessors for not being able to write in a lucid manner and provide succinct argumentation, whilst also hiding behind verbosity deliberate obfuscation. If you read Schopenhauer whilst digesting his points with ease, you'll find yourself entrapped in his superb prose - however, to fully appreciate Schopenhauer, I'd suggest at the very least reading Kant's transcendental aesthetic in the Critique of pure reason, then you can begin reading Schopenhauer's On the Fourfold Root of the principle of Sufficient reason, the core of his epistemology. It was his doctoral dissertation which is in direct response to the majority of his predecessors, but in particular, Kant. In short, with a basic understanding of Kant and Plato, you'd be able to read him with relative ease.

>> No.17351110

>>17351101
this anon reads

>> No.17351113

>>17350659
Geriatrically cringe

>> No.17351119

>>17351113
femanon? have you lost your way?

>> No.17351128

>>17351119
No...it's just that Faggohauer is a terrifyingly retarded ape. His mother was right.

>> No.17351140

>>17351128
>Faggohauer
begone womann. men are conversing philosophy.

>> No.17351148

>>17351140
>anyone that doesn't agree with my autism is a woman
You will never pass.

>> No.17351151

>>17351128
Schopenhauer hated only normalfag women who are drenched in oversocialization and mass faggotory just like you.

>“I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself from above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man.”

>> No.17351155

>>17351148
nobody falls for your tricks around here little whore. we all have read "On Women". don't make me quote from it.

>> No.17351161

>>17351151
So in the end, in spite of all his posturing he's still a fucking momma's boy pussy worshipper. As i said, Faggohaeur is a dumb fuck. Spineless too.

>> No.17351162

>>17350659
I bet Tolstoy's mother actually loved him a lot

>> No.17351168

>>17351151
>17351161
lessons learned. this is why you don't make concessions to women.

>> No.17351169

>>17351161
That's very typical statement coming from a pathetic little whore. Begone dumb bitch.

>> No.17351177

>17351168
Exactly. Making "concessions" means exactly that Faggohauer never actually believed any of the bullshit he was spouting.

>> No.17351185

>>17351169
she thinks pretending to reading foucault and lacan in her undergrad english classes made her qualified to comment on philosophers. you can very well see the results.

>> No.17351192

>>17351168
Shit man this is very embarrassing. Despite being a fa boy of the Old Sage I still disagree with him on women. Most of the times I end up being disappointed whenever I try to interact when women.

>> No.17351193

>>17351006
>but my friend what is "the burning world-spirit" if not the all encompassing, always striving will?
It is not so much a strict believing in what Hegel wrote, but a moral relation to what he said, there are things innumerably great and original in Hegel which simply cannot be discounted. That is, what Hegel's world spirit focuses on and Schopenhauer's will are not always the same.

>when we spoke earlier you said you were studying plato in depth and with appreciation. how much time did he spend about warning about philosophy of alluring rhetoric but with no wisdom? was socrates not vehemently attacking the same relativism thst h*egel centuries again espoused? some problems in philosophy seem recurring. perhaps we, as platonists, should start burning the books of our rivals again.
Yes, I completely agree with you! Utterly can I only live in clarity and honesty. But it may be said, that in something like the Gorgias, it is not just the danger of casual language not conveying a truth, though there is that in it, but rhetoric and casual language in the stead of philosophy proper. In Hegel, with all the obfuscation and devilish extrapolation, there is still the truth of a high philosophy in there. It is not something wholly other to philosophy in the place of philosophy, as perhaps either ignorant or malicious it was to write like that. That is why I think Hegel is still considered a great philosopher. Whereas the sophist has (by its meaning under Plato and Socrates) nothing to say for philosophy, and is often against it, at least Hegel has something to say and at times can say it. Though there is obviously still that element of everyday virtue in Plato and Socrates, of being clear and articulate in ones life.

Speaking of clarity, I hope you understand what I mean.

>> No.17351196

>>17350769
He is basically the creator of the musical, which although entertaining, isn't a superior musical form like he thought. His lack of subtlety is revealed when stripping away orchestration and reading a piano transcription. He was influential though. For better 19th century composers, see:
Beethoven
Schubert
Brahms (PBUH)
Most Germans, some frenchies

>> No.17351201

>>17351151
Where did he make this statement? Though I know he's said it before, I still don't know where.

>> No.17351210

>>17351192
yeah youthful optimism and maybe some involvement on the part of the will also makes me doubt too, but we have to realize his opinions were a result of a long life of probably similar disappointments

>> No.17351211

>>17351201
>When the elderly Schopenhauer sat for a sculpture portrait by the Prussian sculptor Elisabet Ney in 1859, he was much impressed by the young woman's wit and independence, as well as by her skill as a visual artist.[214] After his time with Ney, he told Richard Wagner's friend Malwida von Meysenbug, "I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man."[215]

>> No.17351284
File: 23 KB, 894x773, wojak big mouth.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17351284

>>17351196
>He is basically the creator of the musical
Anon, I don't mean to be rude, but you know absolutely nothing of which you talk about in this post.

>His lack of subtlety is revealed when stripping away orchestration and reading a piano transcription.
Literally what? His work wasn't written for piano, but even when successfully transcripted such as by Liszt, do not at all show "lack of subtlety," quite the opposite. Yet it is not the same thing on a different instrument, it has been made as an emulation, which may be great in their own regard, again as in the case of Liszt. Such as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y-xxhBia0s

As for Schubert and Brahms, Wagner was no doubt the superior composer, without devaluing their unique brilliance and contributions. Brahms certainly admired Wagner, and seemed to have recognised him as the greatest composer of the era. And the argument could be made, that Wagner was an equal to Beethoven, which Schubert was not. And just look at this transcription by Liszt of Beethoven's third symphony, certainly much simpler because it is on piano, and though the main melody is still got, again, there's no such thing, especially in the case of a brilliance like Wagner or Beethoven, as the third symphony and the third symphony for piano being meaningfully the same thing. They are meaningfully different.

>> No.17351289

>>17351211
Very interesting quote anon, thank you.

>> No.17351308

>>17351196
Brahms is boring and pretentious compared to Beethoven and Schubert.

>> No.17351316

>>17350629
because he was an idiot.

>> No.17351319

>>17350629
Because he had good taste. Wagner is pompous overblown garbage.

>> No.17351322

>>17351319
Because you're deaf bro.

>> No.17351332

>>17351210
>>17351289
Don't know anons. But whenever I read On Women I always get the impression that Schopenhauer was critiquing the traditional role of women and new "liberated" free love bullshite at the same time. When you read this >>17351211 quote he literally start sounding like an anti-degenerate/mutt woke feminist in a way.
He would have appreciated poets/authors like like Li Chʻing-chao, Emily Dickinson, Virginia Woolf etc.

>> No.17351465

>>17350659
intergalactically based

>> No.17351484

>>17351193
Then I am glad we are both in agreement with Plato. Seeing as you have already changed your views a bit and come to appreciate Schopenhauer more and be more aware of Hegel's flaws, I at any rate hope the trend continues.
>>17351332
But didn't he make essentialist arguments about women's nature? For example his saying that women tend to be manipulative on the account of their being physically weaker than men, manipulation being their natural defense system, wouldn't suddenly change if we decided to "empower" them. They would still have the same natural and unconscious disregard to truth as they had before, only now they have more destructive power. But then, I agree with that quote about the sculptor too. The way I make sense of it is with a little help from Jungian psychology, which systematically describes how a few select women have the innate capacity to psychologically grow and overcome their nature and as a result perform with best of men in areas like art and philosophy where they hitherto had a natural disadvantage.

>> No.17351644

>>17351284
His style has been overly emulated in cinema music. When one analyses his music, one can find beautiful melodies and complex advanced harmony, but in no way does he have such a good sense of form as any other Romantic, specially Brahms, who achieved both a new style of form (Developing Variation) while still writing within the limits of classical form, and paying respects to the Baroque and Classical. Wagner was a talented artist, no doubt, but his musical expertise is as his literary one; good for not being a monomaniac artist, but not as good as.

>> No.17351660

>>17351308
They share a lot more than they differ. Brahms and Schubert are harder to play and teach you less by learning, in contrast of Beethoven. If you want to listen to fun Brahms check the piano quintet pieces.

>> No.17352237

>>17350659
This is incredibly based.

>> No.17352521

>>17351644
>His style has been overly emulated in cinema music.
What exactly is his 'style' here anon? Musical developments are commercialised, as Beethoven's were in operas like Meyerbeer. The music of the period bears the trademarks of its era, especially of today when there is little movement, that is evident.

>Wagner doesn't have as good a form as other Romantics
A considerable misunderstanding. And one of a mind who seems to prefer articulatable un-musical technicality to originality. Brahms on the other hand, with his symphonies, was far bellow Wagner in crafting forms on the whole, the only thing that musically matters to Brahms in his symphonies (again, not all his music) is a present moment which seems to deny itself by its own structure, almost episodically. It is very interesting how Brahms crafts his symphonies, but they could never rival that of Beethoven, or Wagner's architectonic genius. "Another, but cautious, supporter from the younger generation was Gustav Mahler who first met Brahms in 1884 and remained a close acquaintance; he rated Brahms as superior to Anton Bruckner, but more earth-bound than Wagner and Beethoven."

This "Developing Variation," is not quite the pure organisational tool you take it for. And you must be shitposting or thoroughly arrogant in your beliefs, because you quite simply know nothing about Wagner, but out of some personal sentiment I guess, want others to be his superior. "He was important for musicals," are you kidding me lmao?

>> No.17352544

>>17350659
I like it because it's a meme, but ultimately very cringe on take on the world. SAD!

If the word "based" is not replied to this with some touch of irony, then do people just say based to anything that sounds like "funny meme rant"? Unless you are all newfags who have never heard it before?

>> No.17353005

>>17351101
But to read Kant you need to read like 3 other dudes. I also read that Kant is pretty challenging.

>> No.17353043

>>17351085
t. Mainlander

>> No.17353084

>>17350629
>Why did this irrelevant "philosopher" told one of the best composers in history to fuck off?

>> No.17353103
File: 570 KB, 1199x798, 1608478948549.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17353103

>>17353084
>irrelevant

>> No.17353256

>>17350659
>Schopenhauer helped create Wagner
what the fuck is this nonsense? Wagner despised this proto-incel
>Beethoven was a social goblin
never heard of this too

>> No.17353292

>>17350659
All those girls I visibly angered with my speech in my high school English class was a victory

>> No.17353303

>>17350659
this meme makes zero sense, who cares what a worn out roastie thinks?

>> No.17353378

>>17353303
You're talking about Schopenhauer's mother here, anon.

>> No.17353507

>>17350659
Could have been good if the anon wasn't so ESL.

>> No.17353543

>wagner sent him the text of the ring operas in 1850s
>schopenhauer read it and didnt like it, some remarks left in the margins
>didnt reply

schopenhauer probably never even saw or heard wagner's music. while he wasnt enthusiastic he also didnt want to discourage him.

>> No.17353662

>>17353084
Wagner was one of Schopenhauer's biggest fanboys (Tristan and Meistersinger were a product of his epiphany after reading him). He sent Schopie the libretto to the ring and was ignored and later told that his poetry was clunky.

>> No.17353706

>>17353662
>schopie

>> No.17353768

>>17353543
He liked some parts in the text, but for the most part he disliked it. Also I'm pretty sure he must have heard some of Wagner's music, as he said to Wagner's messenger, who came to invite Schopenhauer to come to Switzerland, that he was a better writer than composer and should have focused on that.

>> No.17353778

>Everything depends on facing the truth, even if it is unpleasant. What about myself in relationship to Schopenhauer’s philosophy—when I was completely Greek, an optimist? But I made the difficult admission, and from this act of resignation emerged ten times stronger.

- Wagner