His pessimism cannot be refuted.

[Anonymous No.20010207]

>Be Nietzsche
>Try to "embrace" suffering
>Go fucking crazy trying

Just admit suffering is bad, we're plagued by boredom and desires, and stop coping. Schopenhaurian ascetism is a true revolt. Nietzsche, camus, and all that shit is just embracing the status quo

[Anonymous No.20010240]

>>20010207
>His pessimism cannot be refuted
Yes, you cannot refute a subjective opinion, which is what atheistic proposals of how you should live your life are.
What thread are you going to open next? "My dislike for chocolate icecream over vanilla cannot be refuted"?

[Anonymous No.20010252]

>>20010240
>purely subjective opinion
Fix'd.

[Anonymous No.20010260]

>>20010207
suffering unites us

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQUkIzVqMKw

[Anonymous No.20010267]

>>20010240
Complete cope with this Nietzschean "perspectivism" bullshit. Schopenhauer wrote countless pages on why we're constantly chasing desires that can't be satisfied, between pain and boredom, how pleasure is negative in nature; IE we can feel anxiety, but not security, pain but not lack of pain etc. These aren't reducible to opinion, it's like a doctor using a microscope to show how life really is

[Anonymous No.20010304]

>>20010267
>Schopenhauer wrote countless pages on why we're constantly chasing desires that can't be satisfied
So what?
>how pleasure is negative in nature
>negative
Justify pleasure being negative in a worldview where things have no purpose/telos and objective moral statements do not exist.
>thesearen't reducible to opinion
Then justify how it's possible to have teleology and objective morality in an atheistic worldview.

[Anonymous No.20010334]

>>20010207
You fags who never opened a Schopenhauer book in your lives are really shitting up any possibility of actually discussing his philosophy on this board.
>muh pessimism
>muh coping
>muh revolt
>muh status quo
>muh Nietzsche
Go shit another board

[Anonymous No.20010341]

>>20010304
it's not about moral theories, in fact I think Schopenhauer's moral system sucks donkey balls. It's just a normative assessment on human life

[Anonymous No.20010355]

>>20010341
>Just admit suffering is bad
So, this is not a moral statement? Holy kek, anon, you can't see what's right under your nose.

[Anonymous No.20010367]

Pessimism is just stoicism for the emaciated. You should approach suffering with a Jovial attitude

[Anonymous No.20010390]

>>20010355
"badness" is not equal to "morally bad" idk why you think that this is basic shit. If I saw "man, it sucks that it's raining out" it means I desire it shouldn't be raining, not that "it's morally bad it's raining out". Clear difference

[Anonymous No.20010399]

>>20010390
You just admitted your whole position is just based on a subjective opinion.

[Anonymous No.20010404]

>>20010399
>that
Fix'd.

[Anonymous No.20010421]

>>20010399
No, I'm outlining how this is normative. The example I used is clearly subjective (my desire), but that's just to establish things can be good or bad without morality applied. I don't think it's a moral statement to say life has too much pain, so it doesn't make sense to continue it. We dislike pain by biological reactions, so if it's self evident there's more pain than pleasure it might not make sense to say life is good. If the world really was a good place, why is there so much discussion on it? Wouldn't the goodness be self-evident? The fact that pessimism can BE a subjective opinion like you think says a lot about the world

[Anonymous No.20010501]

>>20010421
>I don't think it's a moral statement to say life has too much pain
Your correct. However, saying pain is bad would be a moral statement, which can not be justified in an atheistic worldview.
>We dislike pain by biological reactions
So what? Why should our biological reactions to things dictate what actions should we take?
>If the world really was a good place, why is there so much discussion on it?
There's no objective metric for what makes something good or bad in an atheistic worldview, so the statement "the world is a bad place" is either nonsense or purely subjective opinion, acording, of course, to the atheist worldview.
>Wouldn't the goodness be self-evident?
Define goodness. Oh wait, you can't!

You see, it's all subjective. As i said here >>20010240 , there's no difference between discussing "the best flavor of icecream" and discussing "the best way to live" in an atheistic worldview: theyboth have no metric from which you can analyse which of the options is better. You can make a giant dissertation about how chocolate icecream is the best type of icecream, someone would still come and say "ehhh... I just disagree, i'll just continue eating my vanilla one"

[Anonymous No.20010549]

Or just... you know... enjoy life?

[Anonymous No.20010586]

>>20010501 I think I can define a good life in this case. One where we are never bored, always satisfied, never chasing after things. We're restless beings always in pursuit of something that can't satisfy. I don't know people can enjoy this game. If they do, I think they just haven't thought about it hard enough. I certainly did at one point, but after thinking it over it doesn't make much sense to assert life is good

[Anonymous No.20010598]

>>20010501
>atheistic worldview cannot be objective
Hmmm. Which god did you pick?

[Anonymous No.20010627]

>>20010598
I'm agnostic.

[Anonymous No.20010699]

>>20010207
>hurrdurr too smart to be happy
Misery loves company.

[Anonymous No.20010720]

>>20010699
>"I can't read"
You will fit nicely in /lit/

[Anonymous No.20010922]

>>20010267
>you can't feel security
Did Schopenhauer never cuddle with a woman in a warm bed?

[Anonymous No.20010941]

Almost done with the WWR Vol. 1 and I really don’t get a sense of pessimism from reading this man. Schopes becoming my favorite philosopher. I’ve been looking at animals with a new kind of compassion, one of real companionship and kinship and I find much more solace in myself when looking at the natural world. He’s expressed things I feel I’ve know all my life. If pessimism is this comfy I don’t want to be an optimist

[Anonymous No.20010959]

>>20010941
how do you look at animals with a new kind of compassion? i read WWR vol. 1 recently and i dont remember there being anything about animals besides saying they have lesser will than humans and can only live in the moment etc. but he didnt say anything that special about them

[Anonymous No.20010971]

>>20010207
Schopenhauer is the ultimate coper

[Anonymous No.20011097]

>>20010959
Most of what can be concluded about animals and the natural world as a whole is implicitly drawn from what he says on will but he is explicit about in a few places as I’ll quote. I don’t believe he says that anything in nature has a “lesser will” but that the will, being the inner aspect of all things and in being also One is not in any way less present anywhere in nature than it is in man. He explicitly states this actually, I’m sure of that, I’m only blanking on where exactly it is said, it is definitely in the second book though. He says on page 21 (Dover edition) that all animals have the same exact forms of understanding but it varies in terms of depth. Animals are only “less” in the sense that there is a greater, more numerous, and more complex chain of extended Ideas of Will working in man, they are only “less” in that they do not have abstract reason. But that actually doesn’t elevate man to any higher nobility or dignity as is mistakenly thought by cultural ideas cultivated in Judeo-Christian traditions (this point is stated in his Parerga, on religion and seems to be on of his primary critiques of them). Our ability to abstract from representation is actually what makes us suffer more than animals as most of our pain becomes psychic in mentally struggling with the traumatic realities of life whereas for animals it is almost, as far as we are aware, purely physical (although death rituals of some animals perhaps suggest otherwise). In specific Ideas of Will striving to reveal themselves to a maximal extent and with the Will to life feasting on its own self, the Idea of humanity ultimately manifests in the “the human race, because it subdues all the others, regard[ing] nature as manufactured for its own use.” (P. 147) The human condition is then at the same time the means by which we come to know the inner being of the world and also what allows us to rape the planet with an ever increasing magnitude of violation. I think for Schopenhauer too all beings are intimately tied in with one another in their embodiment of Will and in their perception of representation, as per page 30, “the existence of this whole world forever remains dependent on the first eye that opened, were it even that of an insect.” Again, this is my own reading, but as far as what it’s actually meant for me in my perception of the natural world is again something I have only always felt deep down, something that inclined me towards philosophy, that all that is within me is simply all that is within all other living things and that a denial of the Will in myself is an opening up of myself to the natural world in a way which fundamentally contradicts the endless striving of the Will in general. I hope that makes sense, hats off to you fellow anon.

[Anonymous No.20011109]

>>20010971
how so?

[Anonymous No.20011112]

>guilt means you have free will because...IT JUST DOES OKAY???

[Anonymous No.20011182]

Schopenhauer is a useless bag of wind.
>Suffering is the one ultimate truth of the World!
>But, however, art and music will save us all!
Incoherent moralizing garbage. You should still read him though, then consciously unlearn everything he taught you (like Nietzsche did).

[Anonymous No.20011184]

Suffering is the easy route

[Anonymous No.20011196]

>>20010207
We see the world not how it is, but by how we are.
Schopenhauer was an incel, was short and ugly, has stupid hair, looks like he smells like a wet fart, he looks dusty as hell, and he has probably never been loved in his life. A person like that would definetly view the world as inheretly pessimistic, if your entire being since birth has been pessimistic.
Loser in life sees losing as sad, whats new.

[Anonymous No.20011222]

Pain is just one of the ways tje demiurge feeds off you.

[Anonymous No.20011250]

>>20011196
Schope was a wealthy man who allegedly fucked a lot in his youth and habitually dined well. He wrote WWR in his 30's, and at the time had every expectation it would make him a household name. If anything the book was written during a period of optimism. His bitter resentment didn't come until later in life.

[Anonymous No.20011257]

>>20010207
>>20010252
>>20010240
>>20010260
>>20010267
>>20010304
>>20010334
>>20010341
>>20010355
>>20010367
>>20010390
>>20010399
>>20010404
>>20010421
>>20010501
>>20010549
>>20010586
>>20010598
>>20010627
>>20010699
Who gives a fuck what Schopenhauer or Nietzsche or any fucking retard philosophers say about life. It's the 18th century equivalent of self help section as Barnes and noble. You're wasting your life reading this garbage about how life is this or that please just go outside and live before you die. All the time you spent wasting reading Schopenhauer is gone forever. For what? For what benefit?

[Anonymous No.20011277]

>>20010240
>>20010267
Instead of having these pointless arguments you could be reading fiction.

[Anonymous No.20011286]

>>20010207
Nietzsche didn't try, he did it. His brain cancer was unrelated.

[Anonymous No.20011494]

>>20010304
>Justify pleasure being negative in a worldview where things have no purpose/telos and objective moral statements do not exist.
Wait, couldn't I say the same thing to a Theist? Justify how you know that X is really actually the telos of something. I really don't see how introducing God into the equation fundamentally changes anything here.

[Anonymous No.20011506]

>>20011222
>MUH DEMIURGE

Ah shit here we go again.

[Anonymous No.20011516]

>>20010207
He is it the same lineage of John Wayne Gacy, look at that hair.

[Anonymous No.20011522]

>>20010207
So Europe's largest nuclear power plant may now be on fire. https://www.theguardian.com/international

[Anonymous No.20011994]

>>20011522
That's because the Ukes are holing up there in hopes of generating this exact headline when the Ruskies try to flush them out.

[Anonymous No.20012037]

>>20011196
This doesn’t falsify Schopenhauer’s premise, anon..

[Anonymous No.20012173]

>>20010207
You’re a loser OP

[Anonymous No.20012227]

>>20010207
I don’t know to what extent his philosophy would apply to people who don’t live these highly unnatural lives. There is something to consciousness that is good, but the more zoo-like and divorced from nature your life becomes, the less access you have to it. He recognized the value in art and asceticism, but these things just get you a little glimpse of what being alive should be like.

[Anonymous No.20013111]

>>20011257

>:(

[Anonymous No.20013552]

>>20011257
You're not wrong but going outside is also kind of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.20014130]

>>20010207
>His pessimism cannot be refuted

I don't care; my will to succeed, to make something of this life is to great to be ruined by a petty balding philosopher.

[Anonymous No.20014781]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.20014793]

>>20010207
>dog

[Anonymous No.20014935]

>>20010207
Being perpetually discontent is an invention of civilized man, and Europeans have perfected it into an art form.

[Anonymous No.20015241]

>>20011257
because i want to, you barren-minded wastrel.

[Anonymous No.20015259]

>>20010207
Why is suffering bad? I don't see why I would give a notion the time of day when it is not even remotely rooted in reality.

[Anonymous No.20015288]

>>20014935
its only because jews have brainwashed their golems to do nothing but wageslave and jostle for attention between each other. once you turn away from their system life because almost too easy