Was Schopenhauer just a reactionary?

[Anonymous No.19502479]

So I was just having a convo online earlier today and this guy mentioned that Schopenhauer was a "classical liberal", small government kind of a guy who also favored monarchy; I was confused and it honestly didn't even make sense or sound right to me so I just assumed it must have been wrong and immediately researched some stuff ready to dunk on this guy but it turns out he might not have been lying. Wikipedia says that he describe himself as a proponent of limited government and monarchy.
I also came across this little passage from Wikipedia and, I must say, it makes me fucking sick
> In 1848 Schopenhauer witnessed violent upheaval in Frankfurt after General Hans Adolf Erdmann von Auerswald and Prince Felix Lichnowsky were murdered. He became worried for his own safety and property. Even earlier in life he had had such worries and kept a sword and loaded pistols near his bed to defend himself from thieves. He gave a friendly welcome to Austrian soldiers who wanted to shoot revolutionaries from his window and as they were leaving he gave one of the officers his opera glasses to help him monitor rebels. The rebellion passed without any loss to Schopenhauer and he later praised Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Grätz for restoring order. He even modified his will, leaving a large part of his property to a Prussian fund that helped soldiers who became invalids while fighting rebellion in 1848 or the families of soldiers who died in battle. As Young Hegelians were advocating change and progress, Schopenhauer claimed that misery is natural for humans and that, even if some utopian society were established, people would still fight each other out of boredom, or would starve due to overpopulation.
I haven't read much of him yet (just his essays mostly) but was his hatred of Hegel proof that he just got filtered? and that maybe the source of his seethe was the revolutionary implications of Hegel? It honestly sounds like he's just another reactionary here and I'm honestly a bit put off.

[Anonymous No.19502485]

>>19502479
> Wikipedia says that he describe himself as a proponent of limited government and monarchy.
I'll add that they cite "The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 2, Ch. 47" for his supposed liberalism and "On Jurisprudence and Politics" for his monarchism. Does anyone have the quotes they're citing, this is honestly messing with me.

[Anonymous No.19502486]

>>19502479
>just another reactionary
Name one reason the thinking man should not be a reactionary ever since the Fr*nch R*volution

[Anonymous No.19502509]

>>19502485
In his essays and aphorisms book there is a section which talks on his politics. Which is support for a monarchy and how the state has one of the most important duties to protect it's people, I cant remember if that's its main duty but I'm near certain it is. I think you're right about small govt but I'm too lazy to confirm this as the book is in the other room

[Anonymous No.19502529]

>>19502479
Shut the fuck up commie. If you can't approach thinkers on their own terms, stay away from them.
I swear, discord commies are the biggest intellectual scourge of the internet from the last several years. At least /pol/tards don't read (and consequently disfigure) anything beyond Marcus Aurelius and a couple of other alt-right pseud baits.

[Anonymous No.19502585]

>>19502529
>If you can't approach thinkers on their own terms, stay away from them.
What the fuck does this even mean? Do you want me to agree with him completely or something before I even dare to read him? Fuck off, asshole.

[Anonymous No.19502609]

>>19502529
>muh /pol/
ywnbaw

[Anonymous No.19502640]

>>19502585
No, you absolute retard, just stop being so completely brainwashed that you come across a guy discussing metaphysics but instead you look for "reactionary" politics and such garbage that's barely relevant to what he's actually trying to do.

[Anonymous No.19502662]

>>19502479
He wasn't a political philosopher, so what does it matter? He view such narrow concerns as beneath him. He was a metaphysician first and foremost.

[Anonymous No.19502674]

>>19502662
>By his own admission, Schopenhauer did not give much thought to politics, and several times he wrote proudly of how little attention he paid "to political affairs of [his] day"

[Anonymous No.19502691]

>>19502529
Based

[Anonymous No.19502699]

>>19502640
>>19502662
>>19502674
Everything is political, dickheads. I seriously can't believe that it's the year of our lord 2021 (going on '22) and you still don't know this.
I've even framed the question so one such political impact on his metaphysical standpoint is obvious (i.e. the part about his rejection and revilement of Hegel).
>>19502662
>>19502674
He didn't talk about it but he knew what was going on and he cared, he just kept quiet is all.

[Anonymous No.19502716]

>>19502699
No, not everything is political. Get your mind out of the gutter. Don't debase yourself so humiliatingly by dirtying yourself with too much thinking about politics. Politics is a subject for disingenuous minds.

[Anonymous No.19502735]

>>19502716
Man is a political animal whether you like it or not, and all doctrines and systems of truth or knowledge are inherently based on power (i.e. politics).

[Anonymous No.19502749]

>>19502699
>Everything is political
Thats the lie they tell the plebs so that they dont notice all the occult/luciferian shit the elites do. Look a little deeper and youll see how a lot of the world elite is influenced by masonic and luciferian beliefs. Look up Marx's ties to free masonary and some of his poetry if youe curious.
But I know youll just call me a schizo chud and tell me to trust the Science.

[Anonymous No.19502756]

>>19502735
I see, youre a postmodern tranny. Dont bother with Schopenhauer than, he wont be of any use to you.

[Anonymous No.19502776]

>>19502479
Yes, and he was also a cishet white male, big yikes!

[Anonymous No.19502783]

>>19502479
Chudenhauer
Who is this and why should I care

[Anonymous No.19502784]

>>19502699
in truth, politics exists below philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19502790]

>>19502529
Le centrist

[Anonymous No.19502795]

>>19502749
Esotericism is a psyop

[Anonymous No.19502798]

>>19502529
Based
>>19502790
>if you're not with us then you're against us
you're part of the problem

[Anonymous No.19502834]

>>19502479
Based Schoppy, I like him even more now.

[Anonymous No.19502849]

>>19502735
>being this retarded

[Anonymous No.19502863]

>>19502735
You're baiting but there are people at my uni who unironically believe this.

[Anonymous No.19502888]

>>19502479
Schopenhauer was based so yes

[Anonymous No.19502905]

>>19502735
politics is the only weapon we have against the political, political being the use of power. start with the greeks pseud.

[Anonymous No.19502906]

>>19502849
>>19502863
Refute it.

[Anonymous No.19502914]

>>19502905
None of what you said even remotely contradicts what I said. You're the pseud.

[Anonymous No.19502922]

Wtf? Schudenhauer let armed militiamen protect his property during a mostly peaceful protest? Fuck him!

[Anonymous No.19502938]

>>19502735
man is a philosopical animal
other animals have politics too so its not human

[Anonymous No.19502954]

>>19502914
You said that politics is based on power, i said that politics fights against power-based truths.
learn to read dumbass

[Anonymous No.19502970]

>>19502699
>Everything is political,
Really? Then maybe you could've deduced that Schopenhauer was a "reactionary" by reading his work on metaphysics. But you didn't, you just read about what he did one day in 1848. You didn't actually make any use of the claim that everything is political in your analysis of Schopenhauer's philosophy, but you merely invoked it to reduce the topic down to the level of your politicalcompass.org-fried brain.

[Anonymous No.19502971]

>>19502906
Man is not a political animal.

[Anonymous No.19502994]

>>19502954
> Politics isn't based on power! it's simply a means for controlling the distribution of it!
Lay off the lead paint, buddy.

[Anonymous No.19503058]

>>19502970
> Really? Then maybe you could've deduced that Schopenhauer was a "reactionary" by reading his work on metaphysics.
Yeah, maybe I could have? what's you're point.
> But you didn't, you just read about what he did one day in 1848.
Does it really matter how it is that I came to suspect that he was a reactionary?
> You didn't actually make any use of the claim that everything is political in your analysis of Schopenhauer's philosophy
I haven't read enough of his philosophy to make an analysis of it, dickhead; I said as much.
> but you merely invoked it to reduce the topic down to the level of your politicalcompass.org-fried brain.
I invoked it to answer the question of how his political leanings could have possibly had any effect on his metaphysics (and I explicitly mentioned his strange hatred for Hegel and Hegelianism in general) and I see no problem with my invoking it.
If you can't contribute to the conversation or don't find the subject to be at all interesting then by all means, there are other threads you can fuck off to. Until then, seethe, cope, have sex, etc.

[Anonymous No.19503081]

>>19502994
>“The end [or goal] of politics is the best of ends; and the main concern of politics is to engender a certain character in the citizens and to make them good and disposed to perform noble actions.”
The prince and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[Anonymous No.19503224]

>>19502529
this, leftoids are not human and should be shot

[Anonymous No.19503266]

>>19502888
Checked.

[Anonymous No.19504486]

He was definitely a chud.

[Anonymous No.19504503]

>>19504486
chad*

[Anonymous No.19504605]

>>19502485
Not gonna read the comments cuz I know what I’m talking about and there’s LIKELY nothing to learn. He was a monarchist. His main reason for this is because one person, a genius, through his will, and with everything covered in expenses, and his future generations dependent on his job, will do better than 10, 30, 100 people who default to corruption. Schopenhauer also critiqued trial by jury, and it was one of his main cuts at America (he praises and cuts, so shh). But, Schopenhauer was not small government. He was independent for sure, but he praises the state heavily and as a necessity, and his closest precursor in this is Hobbes, whom he often praises. The state protects. It has its own will. We need the state to protect from one another, although, this is NOT contrary to we need to love one another and destroy our will. There are always two things running alongside each other as red and blue beams in Schopenhauer (hence the famous covers!) Open your eyes and put him in your pocket! Take him out and tickle him. He even says onanism shouldn’t need to be proven morally wrong, because it without a doubt unhealthy physically, and so a moral proof would be redundant (somewhere in his two prize essays).

[Anonymous No.19504828]

>>19504605
Small government people almost always except the need for a state in matters like protecting lives and property, keeping the peace, adjudicate, and backing up contracts with force--with the most extreme form of this being minarchism or the night-watchman state--how does this disprove that Schoppy was a liberal monarchist?

[Anonymous No.19504831]

>>19504828
>except
*accept
my bad

[Anonymous No.19504863]

>>19502529
Say hi to /pol/ cringe folder. Whining in the thread like a little bitch you are. Whatcha gonna do 'bout it, sissy boi? Yeah, that's what I thought. Now shut your sucker mouth up and retreat back in the shadows to frustrate yourself to enlightenment

[Anonymous No.19504865]

>>19504831
Sorry—I wasn’t disproving he was a liberal monarchist. He is a liberal monarchist! He is liberal because he frees. He praised the liberal arts being called humanities because they teach us to be human. He was liberal against the harsh treatment of slaves in the U.S (although he called blacks wide-nosed and garrulous! and said they were undoubtedly physically stronger and less intelligent! take what you will! Whoosh! Wish!). He was liberal because he freed minds and plugged conservative butts just as he disciplined minds and sharpened the half-lazy left-leaning mind.

[Anonymous No.19504881]

>>19502783
He's your mental tutor from now on. Go read some

[Anonymous No.19504889]

>>19504865
Why is Spanish so beautiful? Why is it so much better than every other tongue?

[Anonymous No.19504924]

>>19504865
I washed the dishes and remembered more relevant things and my focus (Latin: hearth >>19504889 my grandma is Zaragozan) reminded me of the question. He is more liberally-monarch leaning if you believe aristocrats are liberal-monarch leaning. He was aristocratic and Proust inherited this. Schopenhauer highly believed AND PROVED that whoever was gifted in nature, wealth, or inheritance, owes it to the world to GIVE. This is nobility. Thus Schopenhauer is forgiven for being rich and endowed because he shared the gift of knowledge with the world. Also, he says, that being rich isn’t the key to happiness, because plenty poor people smile, and a happy rich man is hard to find. Gotta sleep soon.

[Anonymous No.19504969]

>>19504863
that's some delightful seethe

[Anonymous No.19504978]

Its hard to find old schoppys political views, he said his philosophy deals with eternity not politics. And from certain quotes he seems to prefer monarchy to democracy

[Anonymous No.19505241]

>>19502486
>should
This thread is based on positive discourse, not normative.

[Anonymous No.19505742]

>>19502529
You will never be /lit/, back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.19505762]

>>19502699
>Everything is political, dickheads

Nice tautology, moron.

[Anonymous No.19505779]

>>19505762
How is that a tautology? and do you even know what a tautology is?
Besides, aren't you admitting that it's essentially true? these other guys don't seem to think so? and yet you're attacking me for telling them otherwise, curious...
Seethe.

[Anonymous No.19506358]

>>19504924
He wasnt fabulously rich though, just wealthy enough to lead a decent life. He was a bit of a miser but that served him well.

[Anonymous No.19506424]

>>19506358
So, he had it even better! He was the most blessed, and so the most charitable to give what he gave. Just as he realized that being famous young hinders a life, so did he realize too much money was not a blessing. One of his favorite mottos (that’s how he actually phrased it with this one) was that he was daily thankful that he didn’t manage Rome. He was a bit of a miser, but one of my favorite moments has him advancing broad Aristotle and saying that: saving money while young is a virtue, but saving money while old is a sin (not exact word here).

[Anonymous No.19506491]

I don't see what the big deal is. His political views really don't have any crossover with his life philosophy/metaphysics, so one can easily adhere to his philosophy without agreeing with his political beliefs.

[Anonymous No.19507738]

Why did he hate Hegel so much? It makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.19508164]

>>19502479
>revolution is bad
>utopianism is silly
He's right and even more based than I realized. Seems like he was mostly apolitical but his views line up with the later Italian School of Elitism and people like Pareto.

[Anonymous No.19508738]

>>19502674
>several times he wrote proudly of how little attention he paid "to political affairs of [his] day"

he´s just like me

[Anonymous No.19508891]

>>19502529
poltard here. i read jews, leftniggers, and marx

[Anonymous No.19509509]

Schopie was anti-political and that's why he's the best, he's all heart. Marxists see this as a weakness but they're wrong, and besides have you ever met a happy marxist?