This is a spiritual experience

[Anonymous No.19402790]

I wasn't prepared for THAT.

I knew he was interested in Hinduism, but didn't expect that he would describe that eastern philosophy I'm already kinda familiar with better than anybody I ever read.

[Anonymous No.19402794]

>>19402790
Have sex.
Even Schopenhauer frequented a brothel.
You have no excuse anymore.

[Anonymous No.19402798]

>>19402794
Visiting a brothel is not having sex. It's the same as using a condom, basically the same as not having sex.

[Anonymous No.19402820]

>>19402790
>Translated from the German

It should be translated from the Germans how can you take it serious when there’s a typo on the cover

[Anonymous No.19402831]

>>19402820
It should be translated by the Germans.
I'm not gonna trust some Anglo translator.

[Anonymous No.19402835]

I feel like when people say books like this "changed their life" and had a "huge effect on them" are just posturing. I read this book and many books and they're fucking shit we all already know spread out through 500 pages. Really this shit changed your life. Epicurus going (Don't do bad things do good things sometimes pleasurable things are bad things) basically the "Minimalist philosophy" is such a mindblowing fucking concept to you? Really? Stoicism changed your life? Do you live under a rock? For Schopenhauer I've read his books and it's literally the most basic life advice that everyone already knows inbetween his philosophy which isn't mindblowing at all. "The Will" moves everything in the universe. Literally everyone and their mother has thought about this concept. It's nothing original or mindblowing. How does this shit effect you guys? Am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.19402849]

>>19402820
I read in it German, just posted the English version, so monolingual Americans would know which book it is.

>>19402835
>Really this shit changed your life.
Where did I say that?

[Anonymous No.19402850]

>>19402849
>This is a spiritual experience
Maybe this isn't what you meant but I've seen thousands of posts talking about how these entire books "changed their lives" or had some "profound" effect on them and I don't understand how. If you just meant he explained it well then I have no problem

[Anonymous No.19402900]

>>19402835
You're either the smartest human ever to have lived, or an arrogant midwit. You've probably missed everything but the most obvious points. God help you.

[Anonymous No.19402902]

>>19402835
>Epicurus going (Don't do bad things do good things sometimes pleasurable things are bad things) basically the "Minimalist philosophy" is such a mindblowing fucking concept to you?
Epicurus' calculus of pleasures conforms neither to conventional Christian morality nor to unbridled hedonism. It's not that deep, but it's not that obvious either. He also embraced the not-so-obvious atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus which turned out to be (in some sense) correct according to modern science. He imagined the gods as being uninterested in human affairs, which was borderline atheism at the time and it showed his deep humility as a human being, while his contemporaries were so self-absorbed that they believed the gods had nothing better to do than worry about the affairs of Greece.
>For Schopenhauer I've read his books and it's literally the most basic life advice that everyone already knows inbetween his philosophy which isn't mindblowing at all
What you call "the most basic life advice" is routinely ignored by the vast majority of the population. And the idea that you should not marry and you should not reproduce isn't "basic" at all considering how many billions of people on this planet keep popping out children.
>"The Will" moves everything in the universe. Literally everyone and their mother has thought about this concept. It's nothing original or mindblowing
I seriously doubt that your mother (or anyone's mother, for that matter) has ever thought of the world in the same terms that Schopenhauer proposes. Many people nowadays (mainly those who follow Abrahamic religions) may believe that the "will" of God "moves" everything in the universe, but that has nothing to do with what Schopenhauer says. It's not even about "moving"; the Will "is" everything, it is not the thing that "moves" everything. Your mother (or anyone else's mother) believe she is a different being than you; she has no conception of both you and her being a manifestation of one and the same Will which multiplies itself in space and time because it wants itself and so it has to devour itself by creating multiple instances of itself who both compete and cooperate with one another.
Did you even read the book, or just the Wikipedia article?

[Anonymous No.19402926]

>>19402900
Tell me what the deep life changing truths are from Epicureanism, Stoicism, Schopenhauer etc. Please. I'd love to know

[Anonymous No.19402933]

>>19402926
How about you read a book and find out for yourself?

And not everyone agrees with every school of philosophy on Earth.

[Anonymous No.19402939]

>>19402902
My point is not whether they were original but whether they should have any effect on the modern man which you haven't shown that they should.
>is routinely ignored by the vast majority of the populat
I never said they follow that people follow the advice but every knows of the life advice. There is nothing there that if you told someone walking down the street would make their minds be blown. It's all obvious stuff that everyone has already heard or thought of.
>in space and time because it wants itself and so it has to devour itself by creating multiple instances of itself who both compete and cooperate with one another.
That's what I was saying retard and yes everyone has thought of this concept. It's literally Stoner 101 saying. If this shit blew your mind there must be something wrong with you mentally. You think because people believe one thing that they have never heard or thought of anything else. Have you had a conversation with someone?

[Anonymous No.19402941]

>>19402933
No one said anything about agreeing. It's about the knowledge. Everyone has the knowledge. Nothing said in this books will be a revelation to anyone.

[Anonymous No.19402949]

>>19402902
Just to get it on the record I'll ask again in a separate post. The philosophies brought up by Schopenhauer were revelation to you? They blew your mind? You had never thought of these things before ever? Even though Bryan Magee said the truths of Schopenhauer he thought of when he was 6 years old

[Anonymous No.19402992]

>>19402926
It's obvious to everybody here that you're just going to reply "nuh uh" to any offered example.

[Anonymous No.19403007]

>>19402992
It's obvious to anyone here that any "truth" you give is going to make you look like a retard who didn't know you weren't supposed to do bad things lol

[Anonymous No.19403046]

>>19402949
You're a literal retard. Nobody before him wrote it in that way, it was new in the 19th century. He combined Kant's thing-in-itself and Plato's theory of ideas. It's not just about
>yoo bro, we are manifestations of one will broo...pass me the spliff again
It's about his analytical and scientific descriptions, that start very basic and go deeper and deeper until he even manages to grasp enlightenment intellectually, even though every spiritual person would say that it's not possible, because it's the opposite. But he manages to put it in words, describe what really goes on.
And I doubt that you (a retarded pothead) really created the same sophisticated model as Schopenhauer. You would know how fucking wrong you are if you actually read (and understood) the book.

[Anonymous No.19403062]

>>19403046
Again not my point. My point is not that everyone is able to construct these extremely advanced philosophical systems but that anything from these that change your life either means you're retarded or your a woman. How did these grand philosophical ideas Schopenhauer invent change your life? What blew your mind exactly? I can't even imagine going beyond a "hmm interesting" at most.

[Anonymous No.19403073]

>>19402949
Not that anon, but yes. The metaphysics of Schopenhauer was a revelation to me and radically changed how I view the world.

[Anonymous No.19403075]

>>19403073
How?

[Anonymous No.19403080]

>>19403062
Still, nobody but you talked about changing lives.

It's very enlightening when you thought about these topics yourself a lot and thought you understand them quite well and then when reading him notice that there were missing puzzle pieces the whole time. It completes the picture for you.
I don't get where you got that "it changed my life" from or why you try to play the smartass, you're not impressing anybody.

[Anonymous No.19403082]

>>19402939
>My point is not whether they were original
>>19402835
>It's nothing original or mindblowing
>It's nothing original
Can we keep the goalposts in one place? Thank you.

[Anonymous No.19403086]

>>19403080
You must not come on this board a lot because there are thousands of posts how about books changed their life and had a profound effect on them. If it helped you "put puzzle pieces together" great.

[Anonymous No.19403092]

>>19402949
>Even though Bryan Magee said the truths of Schopenhauer he thought of when he was 6 years old
>Bryan Magee
Ah, yes, because every 6-year-old (even those who eat crayons all the time) is on the same intellectual level as a famous British philosopher and politician, of course. Thanks for clearing that up.
Just because one smart guy was already smart when he was 6 years old doesn't prove everybody was like him at that age.

[Anonymous No.19403096]

>>19403082
Well one it's not original as Schopenhauer will tell you but two my badly worded point was that it's not something that people haven't heard in some form or another before. You're not going to get a great reaction out of people like some of the posts seem to suggest they had. A good example of what I mean is the big bang. People might not know exactly how it works or really anything about it but the concept of the start of a universe is something everyone has thought about you. You might have more detailed theories and puzzles to put together but really everyone has thought about it before. You aren't going to blow anyones mind by bringing it up. Maybe that's more clear.

[Anonymous No.19403098]

>>19403092
Are you saying a 6 year old could solve philosophy if he is smart enough? If you actually read what he says it's basic things that everyone thinks but still fit Schopenhauers philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19403103]

>>19403096
>>19403082
Second thing to bring this is strictly about Schopenhauer right because Schopenhauer was trying to do all this fancy philosophy but you wouldn't argue this for Epicureanism and Stoicism right?

[Anonymous No.19403108]

>>19403075
Mainly by dispelling my belief in materialism and the possibility of happiness in the material world. I'm also convinced of the nondualism that he and others elaborate, and I think he does a great job of showing how platonic forms fit in such a worldview. I believe Schopenhauer opens the way for genuine spirituality, but he isn't someone to stop at. You should read more

[Anonymous No.19403109]

>>19403096
So a physicist who invented the big bang theory did nothing special, because other people before him thought about the beginning of the universe in general? No matter what their thoughts were?

[Anonymous No.19403116]

>>19403108
>and the possibility of happiness in the material world.
Go to therapy please

[Anonymous No.19403120]

>>19403116
I'm not some edgy pessimist, kek. I value contentment far more than the vague mirage of happiness. But I believe Schopenhauer's pessimism is actually conducive to a spiritual inquiry.

[Anonymous No.19403124]

>>19403109
No one is talking about the physicist the point is that if you read the physicist works and go like "holy SHIT this changed my life bro the world like had a big bang!" then like I said above you're either retarded or a woman. If you go ah this put together some puzzle pieces and now I have a better understanding of the big bang okay but it shouldn't be blowing your mind since as I said we already all already get the gist even if we don't have the advanced philosophy figured out. Walk down the street and explain someone the ideas Schopenhauer had in 30 minutes. You won't get any reaction. It's nothing mind blowing. Again though you guys picked Schopenhauer for his puzzle pieces but anyone gonna explain Epicureanism, and Stoicism what are these unique truths they had that no one in the Modern day has ever heard before?

[Anonymous No.19403125]

>>19403108
>needing Schopenhauer or any other philosopher to open you up to spirituality
Pure modern degeneracy. You could have just read Plato for that and then jumped into any holy books and got the point of religion. Philosophy is for hyllics who don't understand pure metaphysics. Schopenhauer's whole life consisted of a pure narcissism and selfpity which lead him to read and write as much philosophy he could to prove he was smarter than other people. Books by anyone with the spiritual maturity of a rock won't help you transcend anything

[Anonymous No.19403127]

>>19403096
>You're not going to get a great reaction out of people like some of the posts seem to suggest they had
A lot of smart people (including Erwin Schrodinger) were deeply impressed with Schopenhauer's philosophy and didn't find it nearly as obvious and unoriginal as you make it out to be. Your comparing Schopenhauer's ideas to the incoherent mumbling of stoners is either retardation or disingenuity. Just because you didn't manage to appreciate the depth of Schopenhauer's thought doesn't mean he was unoriginal. He wouldn't have a Wikipedia page unless his thought turned out to be very original at the time in which he lived. Maybe the fact you find Schopenhauer so obvious nowadays is because he so deeply influenced Western culture (including Nietzsche's will to power and Freud's unconscious) that today we take for granted much of what he said. The fact you find him unoriginal only goes to show your ignorance of the history of philosophy.
>A good example of what I mean is the big bang
Don't fucking go there. Cosmology is a whole separate science with lots of problems of its own, but the average person is likely to ask "what was there before the Big Bang?" and other retarded questions like that and try to make them pass as deep musings.

[Anonymous No.19403134]

>>19403125
If you read one sentence further, I said Schopenhauer isn't someone to stop at. He opens the way, but you should read more. I had read Plato andsome acred texts before reading S., but I wasn't convinced and didn't understand their importance. I reread Plato recently god much more out of it than when I did before reading Schopenhauer. Nowadays I try to read the book of my religion every night before sleep, but before Schopenhauer convinced me of nondualism I dismissed all sacred texts as archaic just as most people do.

[Anonymous No.19403137]

>>19403127
You're not understanding even though I said it 9 times. This isn't about Schopenhauer or whether he was original it's about how the modern man reacts to his work.

>were deeply impressed
Posturing is a human flaw that everyone does to some degree. Famous people of all people are usually prone to this.

>Maybe the fact you find Schopenhauer so obvious nowadays is because he so deeply influenced Western culture
This is literally my point. It's influenced Western Culture so much that for a man in the modern day to have his mindblown is not possible unless they were retarded. Can we bring it to Stoicism and Epicureanism so I can better explain it. Should people be have their mind-blown in the modern day to the "Genius" of Epicurean and Stoic philosophy?

[Anonymous No.19403138]

>>19403124
>the point is that if you read the physicist works and go like "holy SHIT this changed my life bro the world like had a big bang!" then like I said above you're either retarded or a woman
It's impossible to say if a book changed your life when you are literally reading it right now. I can only say that a few years down the line. So if someone really says that it changed his life, it's just a hyperbola to express how much he likes it. That I have to spell that out shows how much of an autist you are.
>Walk down the street and explain someone the ideas Schopenhauer had in 30 minutes. You won't get any reaction. It's nothing mind blowing.
You would get a reaction, when they really try to follow what you are saying. But of course that won't happen on the street, it's a bad setting for philosophy.
>but anyone gonna explain Epicureanism, and Stoicism what are these unique truths they had that no one in the Modern day has ever heard before?
I didn't read any of that (except Marcus Aurelius), so I can't say anything to that. But just one thing: many things we take for granted now had to be thought out by people before us. So if you read them and think you already know everything, maybe that's because they started that tradition.

[Anonymous No.19403146]

>>19403138
>That I have to spell that out shows how much of an autist you are.
That's not how the threads read. They read like it's some great work of genius that will change your life and should be daily like a Bible for the rest of your life because of how deep the book will change you. That's literally how all the fucking threads go.
> when they really try to follow what you are saying.
You're delusional. Literally no one would get a reaction out of it. Walk me through the dialogue of how their minds would be blown lol
> So if you read them and think you already know everything, maybe that's because they started that tradition.
That's my whole fucking point holy shit you guys can't read. It's not about the writer himself it's how the modern man reacts it .Every fucking thread about how Epicureanism or Stoicism changed their life is from someone posturing or maybe just brought up in a bad household or something.

[Anonymous No.19403153]

>>19403138
>>19403146
>>19403138
>You're delusional. Literally no one would get a reaction out of it. Walk me through the dialogue of how their minds would be blown lol

Also to add to this 99 out of 100 times the genius of Schopenhauer is brought up it's because of the fucking self help parts in book 3 and 4 and in his essays not because of his fucking deep philosophy

[Anonymous No.19403155]

>>19403146
We get it, you are a genius who derived all philosophies as a six years old, and on top of that your parents were philosophy professors so nothing impresses you. Now stop embarrassing yourself any further.

[Anonymous No.19403159]

>>19403155
Your inability to understand my arguments proves that you're actually a retard like I originally said or more likely you just don't want to be wrong so you're playing dumb. Notice how you are avoiding talking about Stoicism and Epicureanism because then you would have to deal with my argument

[Anonymous No.19403163]

>>19403159
I'm not the person you're arguing with. I'm the other anon who you dismissed with "go to therapy."

[Anonymous No.19403165]

>>19403137
>This is literally my point. It's influenced Western Culture so much that for a man in the modern day to have his mindblown is not possible unless they were retarded.
There is a difference between knowing something and really KNOWING something. For example you can use a computer and be known in your family as the computer guy, but it's a difference when you really dig in and learn programming and theoretical computer science and so on. It can blow your mind, even though you used that device your whole life.
Most people are just users in regards to philosophy, not developers/creators. You can have your mind blown by looking at something at a slightly different angle and thinking about all the consequences that new view introduced.

[Anonymous No.19403166]

>>19403163
Point still stands but we can go down this further. Without using philosophical language can we walk me through the before and after you read Schopenhauer. What did you learn that you didn't already know that has changed you so deeply?

[Anonymous No.19403169]

>>19403165
One that's not how these people view these works most of them see it as self help instead of them unlocking some philosophical argument which is a different thing and two you really shouldn't be that changed by it anyways. None of the puzzle piece unlocking explained here today is anything that should be changing you as a person. No one here has been able to explain WHY they were changed by this new understanding.

[Anonymous No.19403171]

>>19403137
>Posturing is a human flaw that everyone does to some degree. Famous people of all people are usually prone to this.
>Translation: "If someone is not impressed by Schopenhauer, that's their honest opinion and so I'm right; if someone is impressed by Schopenhauer, they're only posturing and they don't genuinely believe what they are saying, and so I'm right again. By the way, I know whether someone is posturing or not because I can read minds."

>This is literally my point. It's influenced Western Culture so much that for a man in the modern day to have his mindblown is not possible unless they were retarded
Getting to the nitty-gritty of his ideas beyond the mainstream vulgarization is bound to reward you at least a little unless you're an impatient, instant-gratification retard who is too ADHD-addled to digest everything Schop-chan says.
>Can we bring it to Stoicism and Epicureanism so I can better explain it. Should people be have their mind-blown in the modern day to the "Genius" of Epicurean and Stoic philosophy?
The answer is "yes" insofar as Epicurus goes; the answer is "no" for Stoicism. But that's just my own biased take. Some people will be impressed with certain philosophies and not with others. Both Epicureanism and Stoicism have their value in the history of human thought, but I always found Epicureanism more "mind-blowing" (if you really want to use that word) than Stoicism. And the reason for that is that both in past and in the present so many people are so self-centered that they look for God's signs in their life; they think God has "a plan" for them and everyone else. It was very refreshing to find out that some guy in 4th or 3rd century BC was already saying that the gods, even if they exist, don't give a shit about you. It didn't exactly blow my mind but I found it very impressive. Just as I found impressive that Lucretius was telling people not to get married and just have a sex friend at most. It wasn't a novel idea since I have always been suspicious of marriage, but it was nice to see other people supporting that idea while most men keep getting married and divorce-raped.
You seem a dimwit who won't be happy with anything unless he stumbles upon some grand revelation that he never even suspected before. Even Empedocles in some way was a precursor of Darwinism; there is nothing new under the sun, but that doesn't mean you can find some things interesting and "mind-blowing". I understand your hatred towards people who over-hype one book or another, but everyone has their own personal itinerary in life, and what appears obvious to one person may be surprising to another.

[Anonymous No.19403172]

>>19403166
I didn't use any especially obscure philosophical language though. If you have actually read Schopenhauer you should have no problem with understanding those basic words.

[Anonymous No.19403176]

>>19403138
>But of course that won't happen on the street, it's a bad setting for philosophy
>it's a bad setting for philosophy.
Say that to Socrates' face. Fucking do it right now.

[Anonymous No.19403177]

>>19403171
>It didn't exactly blow my mind but I found it very impressive.
You're proving my point just by posting this long paragraph. None of this stuff is mindblowing. It's stuff we already know written by people in the past. Nothing more than a hmm interesting. You literally made my entire argument in this post.

[Anonymous No.19403179]

>>19403169
Seriously, are you retarded. You keep saying "changing life" and "changing you as a person", even though I said a million times that I never said that. Than you just say that's what people in other thread say: fine, but not in this thread, so why are you annoying us with these strawman arguments?
Then everytime I explain something you say "that's not how they see it", even though I can only speak for myself, I'm not the spokesman of anyone – who is "they"? You make no sense at all, are you sleep deprived or something?

[Anonymous No.19403181]

>>19403172
It's not about the language it's about getting past the idea of puzzle pieces in philosophy. How did you change you beyond just helping you understand philosophy better? That's why I want you to put in your own words without any philosophical positions or conceptions needed

[Anonymous No.19403183]

>>19403179
>but not in this thread,
So why would you even fucking reply to me. That was my first post in the thread. Why respond to someone who isn't talking about you?

[Anonymous No.19403184]

>>19403153
That's because even he himself was aware that his originality lay in putting it all together and using that framework to give "self-help" advice. A Hindu guy won't be impressed by Schopenhauer because he has already been impressed by the Vedas, which Schopenhauer used as a basis.

[Anonymous No.19403197]

>>19403183
Because how can I know that someone is so retarded to talk about something that didn't happen in the thread? I just assumed that you misunderstood it.

[Anonymous No.19403200]

>>19403184
Again. The Self help advice Schopenhauer gives is obvious to the modern man. Nothing taught by Schopenhauer in self help not already obvious unless you had an absent father and grew up like a feral child raised by wolves.

[Anonymous No.19403202]

>>19403177
>None of this stuff is mindblowing. It's stuff we already know written by people in the past
Some people are less familiar with this stuff than you and me or anyone else on /lit/. When they first hear about it they're likely to over-hype it, that's all there is to it. You may be right that the hype is an exaggeration, but I do not doubt that those books will influence their life. They might not "change their life" in a revolutionary way, but they will lead them towards unexpected paths that they would not have taken if they had never read those books. This much is true, and you're dumb if you can't understand it.

[Anonymous No.19403203]

>>19403197
We went over this is the second post

>Maybe this isn't what you meant but I've seen thousands of posts talking about how these entire books "changed their lives" or had some "profound" effect on them and I don't understand how. If you just meant he explained it well then I have no problem

It should have been done here

[Anonymous No.19403207]

>>19403202
Those people are retarded though that's my point. The only way this would be mind-blowing is if you were retarded or a woman. The first 40 pages of his essays are how money doesn't bring happiness. Really. This is the mind-blowing stuff. Who hasn't heard this stuff?

[Anonymous No.19403209]

>>19403181
Schopenhauer claims to have solved "the riddle of the world," and I tend to agree. The realization that followed after pages and pages of painstaking argument and analysis that the whole world--not just other people, but animals, plants, rocks and mountains, in a word everything--is nothing but the aroused will that I see when I look inwards in myself; this is the answer to the riddle that unfolds slowly but with a certain confidence when you read Schopenhauer. You may not have been convinced (especially if you jusf read a summary and didn't follow all the arguments he presents), but if accepted and genuinely internalized, this is nothing short of a life-changing realization; in fact this is what eastern religions call "enlightenment". It has many, many philosophical, ethical, and spiritual implications.

[Anonymous No.19403211]

>>19403200
>The Self help advice Schopenhauer gives is obvious to the modern man
Yes, indeed, it is so obvious that we used to have (and still have) dozens of threads about Thomas Ligotti's "The Conspiracy Against The Human Race" and David Benatar's "Better Never To Have Been", even though much of what is recommended in those books is similar to what Schopenhauer says.
You're a retard.

[Anonymous No.19403212]

>>19403209
Would you say these some of these ideas have modernized in certain modern self help books?

[Anonymous No.19403213]

>>19403207
>The first 40 pages of his essays are how money doesn't bring happiness
>Who hasn't heard this stuff?
Jeff Bezos, for one.

[Anonymous No.19403216]

>>19403211
Notice how you didn't give any examples of advice you just brought up more titles to obfuscate. Everyone can see through you.

[Anonymous No.19403220]

>>19403213
He has heard it but he agrees with Nietzsche not Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.19403229]

>>19403216
>just brought up more titles to obfuscate
>obfuscate
I brought up two very famous books which you are likely to have read or at least should be familiar with a summary of the contents if you post on /lit/. The point of my post should be obvious to anyone who frequents this board. How much of a tourist are you?

[Anonymous No.19403237]

>>19403212
Bastardized Buddhist and Stoic ethics have been butchered and rewritten in "self-help" books time and time again. I don't see the revelance to our discussion though. Ours is a philosophical and spiritual question; the ethics follows as a consequence to these. Reading some self-help grifter parroting misunderstoond buddhist ethics does not compare with the experience that follows after reading Schopenhauer and the like.

[Anonymous No.19403238]

>>19403229
Instead of bringing up new books how about you give me some examples of advice Schopenhauer gives that is original and mindblowing to the modern day. I'd love to hear it.

[Anonymous No.19403241]

>>19403237
>I don't see the revelance to our discussion though.
It's relevant because everyone has heard this stuff even if they didn't already think it but through ideas brought on in other places. Modern self help books, conversations, movies. Buddhist ideas are well known in the west even without reading Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.19403244]

>>19403220
You're a cognisant, breathing shit-post with a keyboard in front of you. You are deliberately being unwholesome and picking fault with someone just trying to have a good time jiving over a book they like and you should feel bad for taking out your frustrations that you didn't deal with and are projecting your own insecurities on others trying to be better than yesterday.

You act like everyone is in a static perpetual state, and as if you, at your current state, are the epitome of the status quo and if anyone is not you, you get to gatekeep and name call.

Go bully your own dick, you smooth brained dopamine fiend.

[Anonymous No.19403249]

>>19403241
You ignored half of my post. I repeat, "Reading some self-help grifter parroting misunderstood buddhist ethics does not compare with the experience that follows after reading Schopenhauer and the like."

[Anonymous No.19403254]

>>19403238
>some examples of advice Schopenhauer gives that is original and mindblowing to the modern day
Here is one: stop simping after thots, it ain't worth it.
And no, it's not as obvious as you think; the very existence of OnlyFans should prove it.
The act of simping is particularly deleterious and is grounded in the idea that there is anything to sex beyond, well, sex. That's why Schop-chan fucked whores but he had no interest in romantic love. He considered getting married but only if he could get an underage wife because he probably wanted a taste of virgin cunny, which is pretty based on his part. Too bad he lost that chance.

[Anonymous No.19403263]

>>19403254
Based pic. Keked

[Anonymous No.19403267]

>>19403244
I just hate people who act like women. Sorry

[Anonymous No.19403273]

>>19403254
It's literally known by everyone including the people who pay for Onlyfans. This advice has been said from the Caveman to rappers 10 years ago. Is that really enlightening original advice? You have to be trolling. You think people who do Heroin don't know that it's bad for them? You think they haven't heard all the advice they could get?

[Anonymous No.19403279]

>>19403267
You obviously don't observe any of the philosophy you claim to read and suck from the self-reassuring tit that is Aristotle's influence on Christiandom.

Every soul is valuable, and consent is important, whether that means courting a partner or not peer pressuring your friend. By being deliberately unwholesome in a forum where you can hide from accountability shows signs that what you hate about women is merely other humans treating you the way you treat them so you resort to racism or sexism to cover for karma.

It must be that they're brown or have a vagina that they are shitty to you.

[Anonymous No.19403281]

>>19403241
>It's relevant because everyone has heard this stuff even if they didn't already think it but through ideas brought on in other places
You're retarded. Let's take yet one more example of a famous person who is deeply impressed with Schopenhauer.
Enter Michel Houellebecq.
This baguette is fairly well read and he is internationally famous for his novels. He has also been a pessimist from the get-go and he has kept being a pessimist throughout his career, so he is likely to have had many of Schopenhauer's thoughts even before reading Schop-chan for the first time at the ripe age of 25. Yet he was so impressed with Schop-chan that he eventually even decided to write a short book about him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_pr%C3%A9sence_de_Schopenhauer
But of course you will say it is yet more "posturing"; it is impossible that a book from the early 19th century can still exert such influence! And yet it does, you dimwit. Reading the ARGUMENTS in favor of a certain philosophical doctrine is much different than hearing people mention the CONCLUSIONS. It makes the difference between genuine persuasion and superficial dismissal.

[Anonymous No.19403285]

>>19403273
>It's literally known by everyone including the people who pay for Onlyfans
Then why do they pay thots on OnlyFans?
Maybe they don't "know" it; they just heard it said but they have heard no persuasive arguments, nor do they have arguments to refute the claim. They're like animals, slave to their desires and unable to justify them.

[Anonymous No.19403288]

>>19402835

I think you're judging things with an incorrect perspective. For Schopenhauer's time, his ideas were something new. Nowadays our culture is already permeated by these ideas to the point that they seem natural to us or come off as obvious, yet for Schopenhauer's time it wasn't obvious. Hegel's philosophy was much more popular back then.

[Anonymous No.19403290]

this nigger thinks reading "how to not give a f*ck" is just like reading philosophy lmao

[Anonymous No.19403293]

>>19403285
>They're like animals, slave to their desires and unable to justify them.
It's this but they know it. You think people who do Heroin don't know it's bad for them lol. You think I don't know wasting hours of my life talking to retards like you is bad but I do it anyways. We don't act on everything we know is right

[Anonymous No.19403294]

>>19403290
This nigger thinks "stop simping after thots" was invented by Schopenhauer and no one in the modern day has ever heard this before

[Anonymous No.19403297]

>79 replies
>just 9 posters
I have just realized we have been giving the resident idiot of this thread too much attention. I'm out. You guys handle the rest. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.19403298]

>>19403297
Leaving right when it was getting good. Convenient. It was going to be hard to argue that Schopenhauer invented to simp after thots lol

[Anonymous No.19403301]

>>19403294
As the anon above said, hearing and being persuaded is two different things. If someone is impressed by Schopenhauer for these advice, it's because he was persuaded by Schopenhauer's arguments. If you read philosophy, you would know the argument is just as important as the conclusion, if not more so. But it seems you never went beyond wikipedia articles, so you don't understand this.

[Anonymous No.19403306]

>>19403301
Being persuaded by something is an entirely different argument and one I can understand. Saying you never heard it before until now is just wrong

[Anonymous No.19403312]

>>19403306
There is nothing new under the sun. Most things in philosophy has been said since the presocratics. It's the new arguments and justifications that philosophers provide that impresses us.

[Anonymous No.19403314]

>>19403312
Understandable but still from now on don't overreact. Just say something persuaded you.

[Anonymous No.19403319]

>>19403314
I say whatever I wish to say and it has no bearings on you. You should stop being an unpleasant autist.

[Anonymous No.19403320]

>>19403319
You should dilate

[Anonymous No.19403776]

why is half of /lit/ wasting time trying to convince some edgy teen that philosophy has contributed anything to the sum of human wisdom? just let it go. I don't know why I even come here anymore. I was gone for a few years, then started posting again recently. But this is so fucking retarded I think I'll leave for another few years now. I'll check back in 2024, get your shit together.

[Anonymous No.19403800]

>>19402835
>effect
maybe by writing less retarde4d

[Anonymous No.19405134]

>With Vedanta we find ourselves in the realm of pure metaphysics, as we have already explained, and it is needless therefore to repeat that it is neither a philosophy nor a religion, although the orientalists seem determined to see one or the other in it, or even both at the same time, as Schopenhauer has done.

>To look at things in terms of 'optimism' or 'pessimism' requires Western sentimentality (this same mentality which led Schopenhauer to look for 'consolations' in the Upanishads), and the deep serenity that the Hindus find in pure intellectual contemplation lies far beyond those contingencies.

The wise one has spoken (pbuh), Schopenhauer's interpretation of the East can safely be disregarded.

[Anonymous No.19405596]

>>19405134
>guenontard filtered by Schopenhauer
Not surprised

[Anonymous No.19405601]

>>19402835
/lit/tards btfo

[Anonymous No.19405656]

>>19402835
>literally everyone and their mother has thought about this concept
I'd bet if there were a survey 95/100 people or more wouldn't know what the fuck "The Will" is or be able to explain it.

[Anonymous No.19405664]

>>19402790
Are there prerequisites for this? I read the beginning a while ago and dropped it when he said something like "if you haven't read Kant this book might as well be a paperweight for you" or something.

[Anonymous No.19405865]

>>19405596
>filtered by the Upanishads
read some primary texts next time kiddo

[Anonymous No.19405894]

>>19402790
>reading a book
>spiritual experience
you've never had a spiritual experience in your life, OP

[Anonymous No.19405902]

>>19405664
yeah i'd say just critique of pure reason, then you're good to go

[Anonymous No.19405929]

>>19405902
>>19405664
Just read a summary book on Kant. Schopenhauer is very clear and concise. You should be familiar with Plato as well.

[Anonymous No.19405961]

>>19402835
>potentially good thread
>obliterated by one smart-ass trollpost

[Anonymous No.19406057]

>>19405902
What about his dissertation 'On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason'? He constantly mentions it in the beginning of the WWR. I personally want to read that first, before I try the WWR again.

[Anonymous No.19406071]

>>19402820
retard

[Anonymous No.19406086]

>>19405134
based

[Anonymous No.19406089]

>>19406057
Read it, it's a must. In fact it's even more important than reading Kan.

[Anonymous No.19406095]

>>19405865
Unlike Guenon, Schopenhauer actually read the Upanishads.

[Anonymous No.19406179]

>>19406057
Yeah this. He assumes you’ve read it

[Anonymous No.19406402]

>>19406089
>>19406179
So which ones are absolutely necessary in order to understand Schopenhauer? Just the fourfold root? And the Critique of Pure Reason? And Plato?
Are we still missing any?

[Anonymous No.19406425]

>>19406402
the Upanishads

[Anonymous No.19406812]

>>19402849
>monolingual Americans
redundant

[Anonymous No.19406874]

>>19402835
Get the fuck off this board and never return. We don't want your kind on here.

[Anonymous No.19406971]

>>19406402
You can ‘understand’ him without any of them. It’s just that you will understand him better, from more angles, with more depth when you have that background. No point in reading all of kants critiques and the entire of platos corpus if you’re only interested in Schopenhauer. If that’s the case you’re better off just getting a summary text to familiarize yourself so you won’t be left in the dust. You can always go back later when your understanding of those philosophers is deeper. Schopenhauer is one of the clearest writers anyways so it applies even less to him when it pertains to reading. However, you may not I end up understanding him as deeply the first time. You can always read him more than once

[Anonymous No.19407638]

>>19406874
Fuck you, I want him and more anons like him here. I'm sick of fuckers like you
>"oh my god read this"
>"yeah but how will it help me?"
>"...YOU JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT YOU SMOOTH BRAIN!"
>"okay but in what specific ways did it help you?"
>"SHUT UP, IT JUST DID OKAY!"
>>19402933
>How about you read a book and find out for yourself?
That's always a "no"
>>19403288
good perspective

[Anonymous No.19407674]

>>19406057
honestly, his critique of kant is completely wrong. the only commendable part of it is his throwing away of most of kant's autistic tables. schopenhauer's ideas are still great even if the starting point of his philosophy and his philosophical system itself are basically worthless, lol. he appeals more to artists than philosophers for a reason.

[Anonymous No.19408321]

>>19406402
100% read the Fourfold Root. Anybody who says you can understand Schopenhauer without it hasn't read it. The man himself said he would have incorporated the Fourfold in the World as Will and Representation but he didn't want to repeat himself. It's also very short, you can read it in a day and still have time left.

[Anonymous No.19408323]

>>19407674
>his critique of kant is completely wrong
Do you have arguments for it?

[Anonymous No.19408334]

what do schopers think of this

[Alien No.19408380]

>>19408334
He never pushed her down the stairs. He just shoved her to get her out of the doorway which she responded to by throwing herself down the stairs. She was looking to get some money by suing him and she succeeded hence “Obit anus, abit onus.”

[Anonymous No.19408416]

>>19408380
so, you don't actually have any thought about what it says about his ideas

[Anonymous No.19408423]

>>19408416
It says nothing about ideas. Ideas speak for themselves.