/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21022319]

who was in the right

[Anonymous No.21022330]

remember when this was a debate?

[Anonymous No.21022364]

>>21022319
Schop mogs

[Anonymous No.21022367]

Schopenhauer: conpletes Kant's system of transcendental idealism
Hegel: not a single original idea

[Anonymous No.21022372]

Hegel never existed. He was a prank Schopenhauer invented. Don't you ever wonder how there are two men who worked at the same place at the same time but you only ever see photos of one of them, and the other is always a painting?

[Anonymous No.21022377]

>>21022319
well, hegel is on the left so clearly the answer is schop

[Anonymous No.21022380]

Schopenhauer was based. I never got into Hegel though. From the summaries I read about his works everything he wrote seems to be trivial. But his followers create this aura of mysticism around him, which looks like a huge midwit dog whistle.

[Anonymous No.21022416]

Hume

[Anonymous No.21022475]

>>21022372
Schop was a little later than hegel. Maybe Hegel was superstitious when it came to photos. I know you’re trolling but this is something that would actually be convincing to retards

[Anonymous No.21022512]

>>21022380
yeah hegel seems like bullshit until you actually try to read the phenomenology of spirit

[Anonymous No.21022528]

>>21022319
>who was in the right
remember when this was a debate?

[Anonymous No.21022548]

>>21022319
different targets probably

Hegel continues to grip the highest levels of philosophy scholarship, it may be growing or resurging right now. Schopenhauer seems to be more of an aesthetic experience.

Schopenhauer on all accounts seems like a wonderful read. But his critique of Hegel is almost certainly wrong, and likely to be personal. They worked at the same university and everyone liked Hegel more than him. Schopenhauer only got the job because Hegel muscled for it, funny enough. I'm cautious of psychologizing philosophers and reducing them to such petty motives but this might be one of those rare cases.

[Anonymous No.21022649]

>>21022548
Schop mostly criticised Hegel's idiotic theories on physics and considered it enough to discredit his entire thinking

[Anonymous No.21022780]

>>21022380
>>21022512
Yeah, the phenomenology blew my mind and has forever changed the way I think. But to get it you have to be well read in history, mysticism, religion, philosophy, politics etc

[Anonymous No.21022799]

Schopenhauer is the one on the right. Hegel is on the left:)

[Anonymous No.21022842]

Do I need to say anything else?

[Anonymous No.21023440]

>>21022377
kek

[Anonymous No.21025207]

>>21022319
Left

[Anonymous No.21025251]

>>21022319
>veins popping out of his forehead from sheer intellect

[Anonymous No.21025722]

>>21022548
>Hegel continues to grip the highest levels of philosophy scholarship,
The entire reason for this is literally just because it's difficult to read.

[Anonymous No.21025733]

>>21022319
Hegel influenced the minds of everyone that came after him
Schopenhauer influenced lonely teenagers on anime websites

[Anonymous No.21025743]

[Anonymous No.21025774]

>>21022319
Neither of them.

[Anonymous No.21025776]

>>21022319
Schopenhauer, who was exceeded by Nietzsche.

Hegel is just a cope.

[Anonymous No.21025791]

>>21022475
>calls Hegel retard
>doesn't know the earliest photo of a person was after Hegel died

[Anonymous No.21025839]

>>21022319
>Hegel:
Entire history of human thought after him is either a reaction or a continuation of what he started. Animated several of the biggest political upheavals and revolutions of the 19th century. Second in influence only to Plato, of equal influence as Kant.
>Schopenhauer:
Wrote in funny acerbic prose. Entire philosophy is an extended metaphor of middle-class ennui, trying to frame boredom from lack of want and need as some sort of heroic and ultimately tragic existential struggle. Spent ungodly amounts of thought trying (very poorly) to justify the first line of bourgeois defense against this ennui, namely art, as some sort of morally virtuous and metaphysically impactful activity, while in reality, rentiers like Schopenhauer just went to concerts because they were bored. A favorite among upper middle class artists for this exact reason, as he hides the absolute banality of their lives, where their call to do art is in fact not the religious awakening they want it to be, but rather an expression of them being bored because they are rich. Also a favorite among the global middle class today, especially the young, for similar reasons.

This essence of Schopenhauer is likewise expressed stylistically - he is extremely easy to read, does not present any arguments that require thought, the crucial premises of which remain bold-faced assertions (the thing-in-itself is will, because it JUST IS, OK? - music is an expression of the will even though the will cannot in any way be grasped - no, not taking questions).
He delivers all of it with the sort of haughty, better-than-thou arrogance that will nourish the superfluous rentier's inherent sense of superiority, that comes from the misplaced pride they take in their banal boredom - the same misplaced pride that makes them shamelessly conceive of the banal boredom as some sort of heroic and tragic struggle.

But the very shortest answer one can give as to the failings of Schopenhauer is that his fans are whiny internet fags, and that there will not be a single post ITT that is capable of defending him. They will deliver impotent insults to me. None of them will produce an original thought.

[Anonymous No.21025943]

>>21025839
I would like to hear your diatribe on Stirner next.

[Anonymous No.21026175]

>>21025839
schopenhauer influenced einstein amongst many other of the great scientists of the 20th century, who collectively have made some of the most profound discoveries of human history
hegel, on the other hand, has influenced... who exactly? some french midwits? some transgender category theorists?

[Anonymous No.21026179]

>>21022780
>But to get it you have to be well read in history, mysticism, religion, philosophy, politics etc
So you didn't get it. And based on your parameters, who has?

[Anonymous No.21026196]

>>21022319
Kunt

[Anonymous No.21026211]

>>21026175
>schopenhauer influenced einstein
Uh-huh, I read that on wikipedia too.
Tell me what this influence consisted in. How would the theory of relativity have been different if he had merely sticked to Kant (who was his favorite, because he was not a retard)?

When he called Schopenhauer "a continual consolation in the face of life’s hardships", it seems that you think that this influenced the greatest discoveries of human history, and disagree with this consolation being an expression of the fact that Schopenhauer's main impact is and was alleviating the existential ennui of the upper middle class - one can only imagine the hardship Einstein suffered when his father's company lost a contract to electrify the lighting in Munich, a profoundly upper middle class german town, because they did not have enough seed capital. Truly, that is the height of human suffering - they even had to move to Milan, that poor and wretched abyss of lost souls. Such immense hardship. Casting it in the tragic and heroic light of Schopenhauerian philosophy, why surely, the word "consolation" is very fitting here.

But this continuous consolation that Schopenhauer brought to another upper middle class fag must apparently have influenced his theory of physics, or so it seems that you think. So please, tell me how Schopenhauer influenced the most profound discoveries of human history.

>amongst many other of the great scientists
Try and name 3.
Impossible (for you) mode: don't look at wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.21026215]

>>21022319
Schopy is on the right

[Anonymous No.21026450]

>>21026179
>So you didn't get it. And based on your parameters, who has?
many people actually. It is really not an insurmountable mountain you know.
>history
do I even have to say more?
>mysticism
Hegels notion of achieving freedom mirrors the alchemical process, he even mentiones the philosophers stone in the preface to Outlines of the Philosophy of Right.
>Religion
Hegel began his studies in theology and it is widely accepted that his system has some christian overtones to it.
>philosophy
do I even have to say more?
>politics
Philosophy of right is all about that shit and how politics is foundational for the development of freedom. He also mentiones states and the french revolution in the phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.21026504]

>>21026211
Erwin Schrodinger.
>In his 1956 lecture "Mind and Matter", he said that "The world extended in space and time is but our representation."[58] This is a repetition of the first words of Schopenhauer's main work. Schopenhauer's works also introduced him to Indian philosophy, more specifically to the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta’s interpretation. He once took on a particular line of thought: "If the world is indeed created by our act of observation, there should be billions of such worlds, one for each of us. How come your world and my world are the same? If something happens in my world, does it happen in your world, too? What causes all these worlds to synchronize with each other?".

>"There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads."[59]
>ome commentators have suggested that Schrödinger was so deeply immersed in a non-dualist Vedântic-like view that it may have served as a broad framework or subliminal inspiration for much of his work including that in theoretical physics.[62] Schrödinger expressed sympathy for the idea of tat tvam asi, stating "you can throw yourself flat on the ground, stretched out upon Mother Earth, with the certain conviction that you are one with her and she with you"
Hegel is pure midwit cope for pretentious academics and don't pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous No.21026512]

>>21026211
>How would the theory of relativity have been different
It wouldn't exist, because Kant's view of subjectivity was as qualitatively different from objectivity, which Schopenhauer refuted in his thought experiment of the river-boat (coined by Kant - Schopenhauer corrected it and used it to show that all reference frames, "subjects", are equally objective). Schopenhauer is fundamentally more scientific and intellectually advanced than both Kant and Hegel, although Kant was at least on the right track.

[Anonymous No.21026523]

>>21026504
>run-of-the-mill monism is actually always Schopenhauerianism
oh god oh fuck

>>21026512
nice try, but nope.

[Anonymous No.21026526]

>>21025839
>Entire philosophy is an extended metaphor of middle-class ennu
This is a far more apt description of Hegel. It's actually what comes to mind when I read his works, Schopenhauer seems more like a guy who just likes to argue with other highly intelligent people about niche subjects, because it's the natural tendency of people with very acute minds not to be vague and overly general about things they don't really understand.
>does not present any arguments that require thought,
You haven't read him. Unlike Hegel, he actually presents arguments, not just statements which are meant to be taken on his word (which is "dialectic", ie you're never allowed to question anything because he hasn't finished talking yet).

[Anonymous No.21026529]

>>21026523
>nice try, but nope.
Interesting how easy you give up. Literally all it took was a simple and well known counterexample and you're already out.

[Anonymous No.21026622]

>>21026526
>no, all you wrote, actually applies to Hegel
At least try to make an original thought instead of just stealing mine, this is too boring.

>You haven't read him. Unlike Hegel, he actually presents arguments, not just statements which are meant to be taken on his word
OK cool, could you just rehearse his argument as to why I should accept the principle of sufficient reason as a metaphysical doctrine and how that may be used to establish that the thing-in-itself is will? And please, do try, instead of just telling me to reread the Fourfold Root and the first volume of WWR, I did, I found no compelling argument, that's why I ask.
Should be easy, yeah? He is such a compelling writer after all.

>>21026529
Because you've quite clearly misunderstood that thought experiment and that the bearing it has on the theory of relativity is already secured by Kant who also establishes the objectivity of all frames of reference.

Oh no wait, shit, I just realized, you're right! That's the exact reason why there is a period of intellectual history right in the wake of Einsteinian physics called neo-schopenhauerianism! It was because Einstein's theories were widely seen as a vindication of Schopenhauer! Of course!
Just fucking lmao.

Schopenhauer added nothing to it - although I will admit I had to read your post two times because you're sentence is half-broken. I'll humor and tutor these attempts when they're done by my clever undergraduates because I am getting paid for it, here, just nope.

[Anonymous No.21026666]

>>21026622
>I did, I found no compelling argument, that's why I ask.
I can say the same about Hegel. Why should I bother if neither one of us are going to provide concrete reasons to read one or the other? What is actually true though is the fact that Schopenhauer provides concrete argumentation (whether or not you agree with it because you're maybe not as capable of solid critical thought and grasping principles), whereas there is none to be found anywhere in Hegel's corpus. It relies entirely on the most flawed kind of intuitions which are presented as rational.
>already secured by Kant who also establishes the objectivity of all frames of reference.
Kant established a qualitative difference between subjective and objective perception in the boat example, this is completely at odds with relativity.
>Because you've quite clearly misunderstood that thought experiment
How? Explain exactly how it's been misunderstood, and then I will respond to it. The rest of your post is irrelevant drivel.
> because you're sentence is half-broken
>you're
I hope this is a joke. Perhaps your reading comprehension really is that bad and that's why you misunderstood Schopenhauer, and thought you understood Hegel (as if there is anything really to understand there).

[Anonymous No.21026843]

>>21022319
Schopenhauer is literally in the right.

[Anonymous No.21026847]

>>21025733
>Einstein was a lonely teenager on anime websites

[Anonymous No.21027935]

>>21022319
Hegel's primary project and target, being a presuppositionless logic and thus metaphysics, has been proven time and time again, by different schools of thought to be a complete impossibility, as reason is incapable of sealing itself with itself. Hegel, by refusing the notion that the universe is not rational, refuted himself immediately. Not to say however that Schopenhauer was correct given his idea of Will as the irrational force, as the thing-in-itself, as the Truth.
Both cannot see, nor could they have grasped, that the Truth is not irrational, nor rational, rather it is suprarational.