How do you even disprove this

[Anonymous No.21261700]

Schopenhauer is irrefutable

[Anonymous No.21261711]

>>21261700
So fucking what? Did you expect life to be a hard cock in every hole all day, every day?

[Anonymous No.21261721]

>>21261700
So fucking what? Did you expect life to be a hard cock in every hole all day, every day?

[Anonymous No.21261723]

>>21261700
Find another site to sully, you evil coward.

[Anonymous No.21261724]

>>21261700
nigger

[Anonymous No.21261729]

>>21261700
suffering is Good

also it was refuted by the tao te ching

[Anonymous No.21261730]

>>21261729
>suffering....LE GOOD

[Anonymous No.21261735]

>>21261700
His hedonic view of happiness is absolutely dog-shit. I could be happy while not in the process of pleasuring myself, such as after I'm done running a marathon.

[Anonymous No.21261737]

>>21261735
That is still dopamine being flooded into your brain.

[Anonymous No.21261738]

>>21261735
>he's not happy WHILE he's running the marathon
read the tao te ching and stop being a retard. suffering isn't real. there's just the eternal Being of God

[Anonymous No.21261741]

>To will something is to experience a lack or deficiency and thus to suffer
False. Maybe he and you suffer but I and a lot of other human beings are okay with experience lacking. In fact a case can be made for lacking the wanted being better than having it, at least, in some circunstances

[Anonymous No.21261746]

>>21261738
>read random ching chong nigga
no, there is no ''eternal being''
meds
>>21261741
That is just a cope, your brain subconsciously blocks out your visceral fear of death and the insatiable amount of desires only lead you on a journey to attain that desire and when you do it merely satisfies you momentarily until the next desire pops up.

[Anonymous No.21261751]

>I AM 99.99% SATISFIED, THIS IS LITERALLY HELL!
holy crybaby

[Anonymous No.21261759]

>>21261700
Never made his women orgasm. I'm glad he's dead.

[Anonymous No.21261764]

>>21261759
Reddit post

[Anonymous No.21261767]

>>21261759
Kek

[Anonymous No.21261768]

>>21261737
Ignoring how ridiculously anachronistic your defense of Schopenhauer is, happiness can subsist without the constant satisfying of pleasures, such as domestic life with your spouse and children despite how much they annoy and bug you (something Schopenhauer didn't do, unsurprisingly).

[Anonymous No.21261790]

>>21261700
>the will is the essence of life

There is no essence of life. Peel off the layers and you will be left with nothing.

[Anonymous No.21261805]

>>21261746
again, you must be talking about yourself

>your visceral fear of death
we don't have any of it here, go check it out in Hardman's, it's just across the street

>insatiable amount of desires
they are actually satiable. You would say 'but others arise', okey but that doesn't make the already satisfied unsatisfied all of the sudden. Moreover, some claim to have no longer desires through e.g. meditation. I don't claim they speak the truth but it shouldn't be ignored without further investigation

[Anonymous No.21261826]

>>21261729
>suffering is Good
how?

[Anonymous No.21261837]

>>21261768
You are still satisfiying your self with the serotonin associate with having children and satiating the will to life by procreating. The insatiable desire will be trying to provide your children an education.
>>21261805
>but that doesn't make the already satisfied unsatisfied all of the sudden
It does since you just had another desire, for example you satiate your hunger but then a couple hours later you suddenly feel hungry.

[Anonymous No.21261845]

>>21261700
>Copenhauer thread
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.21261876]

>>21261826
suffering only came about because we evolved to suffer. that means suffering is in accordance with out goal. It is a high-level manifestation of the will of God to eradicate non-Being.

[Anonymous No.21261880]

>>21261700
"[3]" is the only true thing there. He's refuted right from the start. Refuted centuries ago. Stop dredging this old tumor out.

[Anonymous No.21261883]

>>21261845
+1

>>21261700
>1. The will is the essence of life
True.

>2. To will something is to experience a lack or deficiency and thus to suffer
False. A being cannot live outside of itself, therefore will cannot lack.

>3. It is impossible to fully and finally satisfy the will
False. Same as 2. Will is fully effectuated at all times.
>4. To be alive is to suffer, continuously
False.

Suffering is a by-product of subjective fragmentation (representation). When representation becomes paranoiac it wants to be cistalized with the will, but it can't be because the subject is mounted over the will, as a byproduct.

This nigger were se afraid of being teared appart by what he saw when he was a child, that made his entire trauma a philosophical system. At least Nietzsche tried to show how representation can play its part in the production of the übermensh.

[Anonymous No.21261900]

>>21261700
Hmmmm would someone conscious but who didn't will for anything be not alive by definition in that case? I've considered the idea of life being defined as something that wills (something is alive if it wants something. This being what differentiates dead matter from alive matter). I suppose if you define life in this way then yes suffering forms part of life always and it's impossible to live life without suffering.

[Anonymous No.21261902]

>>21261700
You're right OP. You should just kill yourself since it's the only logical conclusion to end your continuous suffering :^)

[Anonymous No.21261905]

>>21261700
Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Descartes, etc... literally spent their whole lives trying to create world systems whilst deeply unhappy and in many cases mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.21261907]

>>21261700
how is suffering real nigga hahahahaha just meditate like just remember it's an illusion hahahaha

[Anonymous No.21261920]

>>21261883
>False. A being cannot live outside of itself, therefore will cannot lack.
Will can lack, Nietzsche just arbitrarily changed the definition of Will and its insatiable desires in relation to the motivation to the subjects will to life that manifest as desires for sustenance, reproduction, and other various forms. When you experience hunger you satisfy it momentarily until it arises once again. The will to power was already covered by Schopenhauer, it isn't a will in the same way the will to life is, it is when the intellect is emancipated from the will through the apprehension of representation, and therefore painless.
>Suffering is a by-product of subjective fragmentation (representation).
It is the product of deficiency, pain from hunger as a deficiency of food.

[Anonymous No.21261927]

>>21261759
> author makes one slight analogy to animals and nature
> reddit goes "NO, EVO PSY IS EVIL AND BAD WHY YOU GOTTA DO THE EVO PSY IT HURT SO MUCH"
Everytime.

[Anonymous No.21261931]

>>21261920
not that anon but he said "a being cannot live outside itself" and you went on some rant about Nietzsche. I don't see how it's related or how you refuted that guy. also will to life is just a kind of will to existence which Nietzsche refuted in Zarathustra. Everything already exists. The Will to Power is the only true will.

[Anonymous No.21261938]

>>21261920
>It is the product of deficiency, pain from hunger as a deficiency of food.
Yeah, so the will as the essence of existence can lack of something. I don't get how many retarded people can believe that kind of self evident contradiction. It doesn't betray asian philosophy because their concepts are poetic; but Schopenhauer's will is suposed to fund the very ground of physical reality.

[Anonymous No.21261939]

Schopenhauer sucks, his pessimism is trash

[Anonymous No.21261944]

>>21261723
Amazed this becomes a /lit/ meme five years after it went viral. I mean I still Kek when I read it but the lag time has been emence.

[Anonymous No.21261957]

>>21261700
shut up philoso-phytard.
Imagine needing a philosophical proof to prove to someone that life is suffering. Gay af. You're not much better than a tranny going to his therapist to receive the validation that his preconceived notions are correct. I.e. I AM a real woman, I don't care what you say. Pessimism IS true, I don't care what you say.

[Anonymous No.21261958]

>>21261938
The will to life as the thing-in-itself is different then it's phenomenal manifestations.
>§ 23. The will as a thing in itself is quite different from its phenomenal appearance, and entirely free from all the forms of the phenomenal, into which it first passes when it manifests itself, and which therefore only concern its objectivity, and are foreign to the will itself. Even the most universal form of all idea, that of being object for a subject, does not concern it; still less the forms which are subordinate to this and which collectively have their common expression in the principle of sufficient reason, to which we know that time and space belong, and consequently multiplicity also, which exists and is possible only through these. In this last regard I shall call time and space the principium individuationis, borrowing an expression from the old schoolmen, and I beg to draw attention to this, once for all. For it is only through the medium of time and space that what is one and the same, both according to its nature and to its concept, yet appears as different, as a multiplicity of co-existent and successive phenomena. Thus time and space are the principium individuationis, the subject of so many subtleties and disputes among the schoolmen, which may be found collected in Suarez (Disp. 5, Sect. 3). According to what has been said, the will as a thing-in-itself lies outside the province of the principle of sufficient reason in all its forms, and is consequently completely groundless, although all its manifestations are entirely subordinated to the principle of sufficient reason. Further, it is free from all multiplicity, although its manifestations in time and space are innumerable. It is itself one, though not in the sense in which an object is one, for the unity of an object can only be known in opposition to a possible multiplicity; nor yet in the sense in which a concept is one, for the unity of a concept originates only in abstraction from a multiplicity; but it is one as that which lies outside time and space, the principium individuationis, i.e., the possibility of multiplicity. Only when all this has become quite clear to us through the subsequent examination of the phenomena and different manifestations of the will, shall we fully understand the meaning of the Kantian doctrine that time, space and causality do not belong to the thing-in-itself, but are only forms of knowing.

[Anonymous No.21261962]

>>21261759
Wtf, reddit is based?

[Anonymous No.21261970]

You suffer because you want.

[Anonymous No.21261982]

>>21261700
Premise 2 is wrong. Desire is an uplifting experience. The thrill of falling in love, aspiring to be greater, or creating is what we live for. Every day, I’m grateful for the opportunity to achieve.

[Anonymous No.21261985]

>>21261711
Op here
The fact that is isn’t, is my suffering

[Anonymous No.21262020]

>>21261920
Yes, will is lack but see how this lack, e.g. hunger, also gives you knowledge and force (instinct and activity to chase your food). Lack is nothing more than the potential to overcoming itself, that is: power. Power and Emptiness go together. Schopenhauer tries the buddhist escape: which is no escape at all.

[Anonymous No.21262048]

>>21262020
>Lack is nothing more than the potential to overcoming itself
The potential to overcoming itself is inherent to the will. I could grant that Schopenhauer's conception of lack was that, but in his own words lack is reffered as the vulgar lack of subjective desire; not that of impersonal will. Also, as >>21261938 sad, Oriental concepts don't work as Occidental concept do. When he posited the form of lack ---as overcome potential--- and then filled the empty form of lack with the concrete occidentalized experience of subjective lack he destroyed his own discovery of the will as the real in itself.

[Anonymous No.21262087]

>>21261700
That's just the first noble truth.

[Anonymous No.21262100]

>>21261700
It fails at the first step, the intuition that will is the essence (the Ding an sich) of life.

[Anonymous No.21262124]

>>21261700
Schopenhauer is so intelligent he loops back to being retarded. some of his arguments are irrefutable but he loses the plot too often. I love his work though, he pulls the right triggers for me.

[Anonymous No.21262129]

>>21262100
>§ 23. The will as a thing in itself is quite different from its phenomenal appearance, and entirely free from all the forms of the phenomenal, into which it first passes when it manifests itself, and which therefore only concern its objectivity, and are foreign to the will itself. Even the most universal form of all idea, that of being object for a subject, does not concern it; still less the forms which are subordinate to this and which collectively have their common expression in the principle of sufficient reason, to which we know that time and space belong, and consequently multiplicity also, which exists and is possible only through these. In this last regard I shall call time and space the principium individuationis, borrowing an expression from the old schoolmen, and I beg to draw attention to this, once for all. For it is only through the medium of time and space that what is one and the same, both according to its nature and to its concept, yet appears as different, as a multiplicity of co-existent and successive phenomena. Thus time and space are the principium individuationis, the subject of so many subtleties and disputes among the schoolmen, which may be found collected in Suarez (Disp. 5, Sect. 3). According to what has been said, the will as a thing-in-itself lies outside the province of the principle of sufficient reason in all its forms, and is consequently completely groundless, although all its manifestations are entirely subordinated to the principle of sufficient reason. Further, it is free from all multiplicity, although its manifestations in time and space are innumerable. It is itself one, though not in the sense in which an object is one, for the unity of an object can only be known in opposition to a possible multiplicity; nor yet in the sense in which a concept is one, for the unity of a concept originates only in abstraction from a multiplicity; but it is one as that which lies outside time and space, the principium individuationis, i.e., the possibility of multiplicity. Only when all this has become quite clear to us through the subsequent examination of the phenomena and different manifestations of the will, shall we fully understand the meaning of the Kantian doctrine that time, space and causality do not belong to the thing-in-itself, but are only forms of knowing.

[Anonymous No.21262146]

>>21262129
>The will as a thing in itself is quite different from its phenomenal appearance, and entirely free from all the forms of the phenomenal,
Yet it perceived within introspective perception, that comes under the form of time, and hence is phenomenal.

[Anonymous No.21262155]

>>21261759
>author name clearly posted in title
>twenty thots ask who it is because they’re too dumb to read the title
>Schopenhauer is proven correct yet again

[Anonymous No.21262167]

>>21262129
>Only when all this has become quite clear to us through the subsequent examination of the phenomena
We only aware of will as phenomena, yet he requires, as a desiredatum, that we must take a leap of faith and speculate that will is not-pheomenal. Schopenhauer's house of cards collapses here, as was pointed out in the first reviews of his rightly disregarded work>>21262100.

[Anonymous No.21262191]

>>21262146
But the will reflected upon by the intellect is non-spatial as it resides in the consciousness, it's phenomenal manifestation is non-spatial but transient despite it recurring through the individual's life. Thus, it is manifestation of the thing-in-itself in the non-spatial realm of consciousness, but it isn't the actual thing-in-itself. It is like a coin; we know that one side is representation, and the other will, but we cannot see the full coin.

[Anonymous No.21262205]

>>21262167
The will to life is a manifestation in the non-spatial realm of consciousness, but since we are transient manifestations of the will, we can only know the part of thing-in-itself. >>21262191

[Anonymous No.21262218]

>>21262048
So Schopenhauer does not identify this lack, nothing, emptiness inherent in the ontological will, but only in the particular, subjective will? I'm not sure where your conception of eastern will comes from (buddhism?) but I'd like to hear if there is any resemblance to Boehme's conception:
>For out of nature is God a Mysterium, i.e. the Nothing; for from out of nature is the Nothing, which is an eye of eternity, a groundless eye, which stands nowhere nor sees, for it is the Ungrund and the selfsame eye is a will, i.e. a longing for manifestation, to discern the Nothing". The Ungrund thus is the Nothing, the groundless eye of eternity, yet together with this it is will, without foundation, unfathomable and indeterminate will. But this -- is a Nothing, which is an hunger to be something.

[Anonymous No.21262276]

>>21261931
>>21261883

Time and space comprise separate grounds of being. These a priori (prior to experience) forms respectively allow for an “inner,” temporal sense and an “outer,” spatial sense for the subject; subjectively, these are the forms of pure sensibility—they make sensations possible for a subject. The will as thing-in-itself is different as it's phenomenal manifestation as living things driven by insatiable will to life.

[Anonymous No.21262284]

>>21262218
>I'm not sure where your conception of eastern will comes from buddhism?
I was talking by what I've heard of contemporary scholars on Oriental Philosophy (India, China, Japan ---most of them living in China). The contemporary conjecture seems to say that the oriental concept of 'void' is closer to the occidental concept of 'abstract' than the occidental concept of 'nothing'. So lack as the vector of desire would not mean 'nothing' or a lack of something 'concrete', but a tendency to 'abstraction' (which could be called 'virtualization' to contemporary standards). I have a friend who is a Schopenhauer scholar and is studying oriental philosophy in China who also says that what was considered as a mediocre translation of oriental philosophy ---the one that was trendy on Schopenahuer's time--- didn't put enough emphasis on the symbolic nature of oriental philosophy (i.e. it was not as rational as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche ---and Maindbrainlet--- would like).

[Anonymous No.21262302]

>>21262276
The very concept of a thing in itself repels the idea of lack, you idealist mongrel. The will is suposed to be the very thing that terminates the possibility of a thing-in-itself/thing-for-us dichotomy, since it is not permeable to subjective ---ie representational--- analysis or speculation. That's why its so retarded to inject lack on the will... something ancient greeks ---Heraclitus (prolly), the stoics and the epicureans--- and even Spinoza already knew.

[Anonymous No.21262320]

>>21262302
trying to terminate the last vestige of religion in Kant's philosophy, Schopenhauer still injected the ideal ground of all religion: lack as the reality of transcendence, that's to say, that there is an object for the real (and that the real, in that movement, is incomplete).

[Anonymous No.21262332]

>>21262320
Take in consideration what Nietzsche, and then Deleuze did to the theory of the will: They considered what Schopenhauer said about the Will and Representation as true, but the part of Lack as false; ergo, Will and Representation are simultaneous, but asymetric, and the will is the very posibility of representation, but not the ground of representational desire (lack). So thinking is no more reduced to representation, but to the Idea: that which expresses the will in abstract form: the ground of the possibility of objects.

[Anonymous No.21262352]

>>21261700
I hate all of you fucking worthless retards in this shit thread. If you're not going to post a nuanced take than why post at all?

[Anonymous No.21262353]

>>21262284
But what was trendy in Schopenhauer's time was what Orientalists were divulging, that is, a lot of buddhist and vedantist texts. Would you say these schools did not recur to highly abstracted ideas? What you reference probably has something to do with the Kyoto School, which in fact diverge from classical buddhism and vedantism, maybe for heideggerian influence, I haven't studied it yet though.

[Anonymous No.21262359]

>>21261759
Seeing these replies without a hint of irony behind them makes me seriously believe in the existence of NPC's.

[Anonymous No.21262362]

>>21261826
no art without it

[Anonymous No.21262369]

>>21261700
He misses the forest for the trees. Life is but the movements of Spirt, part of the coming into being of the Absolute.

If he hadn't insisted on lecturing to a completely empty room and had instead packed into the overcrowded lecture hall across from his room to hear the speaker everyone had come to see he would have understood this.

[Anonymous No.21262389]

>>21262302
I'm trying to localize Heraclitus and Spinoza in what you said. Could you expand a bit on it? The thing-in-itself is a full expression, so to speak, so this lack of will wouldn't be ideal?

[Anonymous No.21262631]

>>21262369
Absolute Idealism is really the misuse of language trying to overcome the subject-object distinction put in place by Kant. Hegelianism presupposes language, and as Wittgenstein pointed out utterances only derive meaning in the aggregate of their uses in relation to a motivation, behavior or in other words a will.
>>21262302
>The very concept of a thing in itself repels the idea of lack
The thing-in-itself manifesting as the subject doesn't repel the idea of lack, if the will to life is the thing-in-itself we are just manifestations of it. To will (i.e., to desire) by very definition contains an object of desire which entails deficiency. The will is a primordial force, it manifests into our consciousness, not as the thing-in-itself but as a part manifestation and due to it being non-spatial it is therefore part of the thing-in-itself.
>>21262332
Desire is not representational idiot; it occurs in the consciousness and then manifests in representation.

[Anonymous No.21262695]

>>21261700
Hands down the greatest western philosopher

[Anonymous No.21262698]

Mofo looks like a ferengi.
> RoA 11. Greed is eternal
> RoA 11.1 The insatisfaction of greed is a source of suffering.
> RoA 11.2 Therefore suffering is also eternal.

[Anonymous No.21262728]

>>21262631
>The thing-in-itself manifesting as the subject doesn't repel the idea of lack
...because it, it just don't, ok?

>if the will to life is the thing-in-itself
There is no thing in itself when you make the claim about the will. The will-to-life is not the will, but a vector-defined will: vectors don't lack either. The thing is that you illiterate mongrels read philosophy as it was writen by USA brainrotten youtube-consoomer kids. It doesn't. Copenhauer must have been an incel and its whole philosophy is smeared by that (its compulsion with lack and its child trauma with suffering), but you insult is own intelligence and insight in abstract matters (which was real and undeniable).

[Anonymous No.21262766]

>>21262728
There is a thing-in-itself that lies out of space and in the noumenal realm, which is the will to life outside of space and time, and it manifests as non-spatial but temporal manifestation in men. How is that hard to conceive? We can know that the will exists, and that it is the thing-in-itself, but we can only know it as manifest in consciousness retard.
You cannot talk about the will to life as anything other than its manifestation as in the non-spatial realm of consciousness, it is outside the province of the principle of sufficient reason.

[Anonymous No.21262783]

>>21262766
the principle of sufficient reason is not the will, but the vectorial will. Will to life is the name for the sufficient reason of life, that being "a will defined as the production of life". Still, there is no lack in that. You misunderstand the intuition of will with its synthetic effects ---you mistake its empirical effects by the idea of its sufficient cause...

[Anonymous No.21262830]

>>21262783
By vector I assume you mean that the will has a magnitude and direction, that direction and magnitude being sufficient in of itself thus there is no lack. That the will to life accomplishes its aim for existence that there is no lack?

If that is the case, then to accomplish that goal of a will to life must have insatiable desires to continue existence such as the desire for sex, sustenance etc.

[Anonymous No.21262945]

>>21261700
>The will is the essence of life.
False.
Next.

[Anonymous No.21262953]

>>21262945
This.
The principle of life is autopoietic individuation.

[Anonymous No.21262957]

>>21261700
Pretty simple to refute. I is made up

[Anonymous No.21262969]

>>21261826
Well if we are to believe Schopenhauer, suffering is nothing but the shadowside will. That would make it a privation of the Good at worst.

[Anonymous No.21263203]

>>21261700
Nietzsche.

[I've got opinions on the literal presence in mass No.21263216]

>>21261700
There's this fat cunt from India something something three days meditating under a tree.

[Anonymous No.21263222]

Yes, but why is suffering supposed to be bad? Can anything thrive and grow without suffering?

[Anonymous No.21263329]

>>21261700
1 is an asspull with no grounds
3 omits the fact that it can be satisfied temporarily, which means 4 would be life is to suffer INTERMITTENTLY, which is very different than continuously.

[Anonymous No.21263351]

>>21261700
>the will is the essence of life
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.21263378]

>>21261700
Wasn’t this obvious. Life is suffering. Now, get on with it. Suicide is for pussies.

[Anonymous No.21263410]

>>21261700
>It is impossible to fully and finally satisfy the will.
A logical leap only true from an atheist materialist perspective. 1 and 2 can just as well lead to realisation of God like in Plotinus.

[Anonymous No.21263420]

>>21262359
If you NPCs aren't completely and apodictically obvious to you then you might just be one.

[Anonymous No.21263447]

>>21262353
NTA but the orientalist texts of Schopenhauer's time were awfully translated garbled versions and western understanding of the eastern, even in academic philology circles, was quite poor.

[Anonymous No.21263467]

>>21262205
Could it be said then that the Will to Life is a higher dimension object and so we, being bound by temporality, can only perceive one side (or cross-section) of it?
https://youtu.be/0ca4miMMaCE

[Anonymous No.21263475]

>>21261768
not every domestic life is a tolerable one

[Anonymous No.21263491]

>>21261700
>The Will is the essence of life.
Doubt. Why? With modern takes of consciousness, Will isn't that a special concept. Quantitative energies or motivation would be more fitting.

>To will something ... Lack.
Bro even Lacan did this much better. Yes desire might be structured around a lack, but Deleuze and onwards there's no need for everything to center around lack but around production instead. As in we are biological machines that produces. That doesn't need to center around a lack.

>impossible to satisfy the will
People will play WoW Classic and repeat safely known patterns fully content. Freud was right here the reduction of anxiety through rituals is a stronger force than "will" and its satisfaction.

>To be alive is to suffer
Only through is reductionist point of view where will is key and only is structured around lack. Like a basic biological understanding doesn't even has this negative bias and understands dopamines roles in motivation as a positive driving force etc. And even in a high-brow philosophical state of thinking, again, Lacan really did this much better.

[Anonymous No.21263510]

>>21261700
>Circular reasoning about how someone is miserable is impossible to refute
Wow how compelling here's an alternative: Schopenhauer was a clinically depressed navel gazing asshole who spent his entire life trying to make everyone around him as miserable as he was. His observations are good but they're all from the perspective of someone who should be on a steady regimen of lithium and oxytocin.

"refute", fuck you, here's a refutation, Schopenhauer didn't shoot himself. If I actually believed one word of this shit I'd kill myself immediately, but I don't because I'm not a walking periapsis of the human experience.

[Anonymous No.21263613]

>>21261735
I can tell you're a pseud by the way you use the word "hedonism"

[Anonymous No.21263636]

>>21261982
Yes, we live to suffer. None of those desires which you list have some finer end point at which the will is satisfied. What is entailed by desire, lack, is perpetual and never fulfilled. And the cessation of desire is not found in desire itself.

[Anonymous No.21263685]

>>21261837
> You are still satisfiying your self with the serotonin associate with having children and satiating the will to life by procreating. The insatiable desire will be trying to provide your children an education.

This is not a counter argument at all, on the contrary. Schopenhauer says that desiring is to suffer. The position you're trying to counter is that you can feel pleasure without satisfying desires.

> You are still satisfiying your self with the serotonin associate with having children and satiating the will to life by procreating
You won't always be high on serotonin, especially when you're trying to accomplish a long term goal. Grit is something you have or something you learn to have, and it pushes you to keep on chasing a goal EVEN if your situation is shitty. You can be fully unhappy, and still want something bad enough to keep on going through some heavy shit. Chances are that having children and satiating the will to life by procreating won't be accompanied from start to end by a constant flow of serotonin because, well, the human body doesn't fucking work like that. It's not reasonable to reduct having children and then raising them to any amount of serotonin you might get yourself high on, at any point of it happening.

So knowing that, this statement
> The insatiable desire will be trying to provide your children an education.
Is just saying that some insatiable desire might be a botomless source of hapiness. Some decisions you make and follow through with grit won't and cannot be accompanied with a constant flow of serotonin and so, therefore, the nature of the pleasure might not be as volatile as the pleasure you get solely from endocrine source. Because the body can't constantly produce serotonin and yet we still observe that one might still be motivated to accomplish difficult tasks, it is possible that one can feel great pleasure by just engaging in an accomplishment that won't conclude with a satisfying output.

[Anonymous No.21263754]

>>21262191
>>21262205
The method of identifying the will as the thing-in-itself by Schopenhaur is dogmatic, not critical or transcendental. It's pre-Kantian and invalidated by Kant. Hence the ridiculous appeals to the dogmatic scriptures of India in a supposed philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21263767]

>>21261759
Making mediocre women seethe one century and a half after he's dead, absolute chad

[Anonymous No.21263822]

Now time to move onto Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.21263830]

>>21263491
Retard

[Anonymous No.21263895]

>>21261876
>evolved
>goal
Kindly learn to read.
>>21261729
Lao Tze would say that good is not different from bad, not that suffering is good.
>>21261700
The will is not for satisfying, but for exerting. You are at your happiest walking the path, not reaching its end. Full satisfaction of the will is not required.

[Anonymous No.21263906]

>Life is but the movements of Spirt, part of the coming into being of the Absolute.

please, hegelchad... stop scaring the AI

[Anonymous No.21263944]

Once you pop... you... just... can't... stop.......

[Anonymous No.21263987]

>>21263475
Well it's entirely up to you to make it a tolerable one.

[Anonymous No.21264056]

>>21261700
Premise 2 is false

[Anonymous No.21264065]

>>21263895
>Lao Tze would say that good is not different from bad, not that suffering is good.
You can’t into logic can you? If bad and good are the same things, and suffering is bad, then suffering is good.

[Anonymous No.21264115]

>>21261700
You don't refute it, you accept it. Though I think Schopenhauer's view leaves out conflict and suffering as being possibly reframed into good things. The power of reframing I think challenges his thesis.

[Anonymous No.21264215]

>>21261700
the will I dig
but the lack is wack

[Anonymous No.21264726]

>>21261700
You can refute any syllogism by simply rejecting the premises. If your opponent objects, tell them "tough shit, faggot."

[Anonymous No.21264732]

>>21263510
You've never read Schopenhauer have you? He is unfairly characterized as being some miserable sod. Most of his writing is simply observational and much of it is rather cheerful. You are projecting your own unhappiness onto his neutral observations.

[Anonymous No.21264733]

>>21261700
He may be right, so what? Just kill yourself if you don't like suffering

[Anonymous No.21265141]

>>21264732
>Most of his writing is simply observational and much of it is rather cheerful. You are projecting your own unhappiness onto his neutral observations.
He was pretty clear that the injection of suffering in the will was originated in his contemplation of forced work. No one is saying that his entire philosophy is trash, but that the overdetermination of the will as lack is contrarian to its core feature of being the general cause of what happens.

>neutral observations
The very concept of will is the implied 'who?' in the question about the cause of actual affairs. He never said that his observations were 'neutral'...

Also, you need to be 18+

[Anonymous No.21265147]

>>21261700
These arguments never convinced me.
They all sound like semantics play.

[Anonymous No.21265828]

>>21261746
>I don't fear death
>Well sweaty, ackchyually you're so, so scared of death your brain just magically makes you think you're not.
Catch-22

[Anonymous No.21266035]

>>21265147
It's premised on the dogmatic identification of will as the "essence" or thing-in-itself. The earliest readers saw through it>>21262100

[Anonymous No.21266253]

>>21261700
> life is suffering
good, suffering is a prerequisite to joy

[Anonymous No.21266256]

>>21264733
b-but that's only for le unborn not for me! (actual pessimist cope)

[Anonymous No.21266611]

Did you fags even read him? Schopie's worldly pessimism is a justification for art, not for suicide/LDAR, as he says himself.

[Anonymous No.21266817]

>>21266611
Well, take a look at this post; Schop apologetics are but illiterate childs; and most of Schop respecters, not sharing the incel idea of lack on the will, still aknowledge him...

[Anonymous No.21266821]

>>21261700
You cant refute moronic ramblings.

[Anonymous No.21266857]

>>21261700
>It is impossible to satisfy this will

SAYS FUCKING WHO?

[Anonymous No.21266870]

>>21266821
That's true, but this thread is about Schopenhauer, not Hegel

[Anonymous No.21267303]

>>21261700
>To will something is to experience a lack or deficiency and thus to suffer.
This is wrong, to will is indeed to experience a lack or deficiency that you wish to fill, but if you can achieve what you will, then you won't necessarily suffer, you might even find more enjoyment in seeking what you will than in possessing what you will.
And if you wish for truly unattainable goals, you need to touch grass.
That being said, life is a struggle, but you can enjoy the struggle, you don't necessarily suffer from it.
There, I refuted schoppy.

[Anonymous No.21267324]

>>21261759
>Thots giving posthumous victory to schoppy in a debate in which he cannot even participate 150 years after his death
Bros this is too much

[Anonymous No.21267998]

>>21266817
Incel idea of lack lol, but genuinely asking why though? Why is the idea of lack inherent in will wrong? I think it works like a cycle through which the will “moves”.

[Anonymous No.21268841]

>>21267324
>not an incel =/= thot
meds

[Anonymous No.21268903]

>>21262631
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I don't see why "utterances only derive meaning in the aggregate of their uses in relation to a motivation, behavior or in other words a will," would undermine Absolute Idealism.

The key point of Absolute Idealism is that the noumenal/phenomenal aren't different worlds or a true dichotomy, but that both are part of a whole and are necessitated by one another.

[Anonymous No.21269182]

>>21262728
Schope was pretty much an incel. He did have some relations with improvised women (he himself inherited his wealth) but they didn't go great. This isn't really saying anything, most philosophers we're incels. Nietzsche got zero pussy outside being brought to a brothel once and contracting a (then) fatal venereal disease (lol). Kant was an incel too. They're all either incels or some sort of sex pervert, but not even the happy swinger kind.

There are rare exceptions. Socrates had sons, seemingly with a much younger woman given his age, but never wrote anything so that hardly counts. Unlike most philosophers who, if they fought in war, did medical like Nietzsche or Wittgenstein, Socrates was also a frontline soldier and fucked up the Spartans toe to toe.

Aristotle is another exception, having a good family life. Hegel is another one. Part of what drove Schope so insane about everyone fawning over Hegel while ignoring him was that Hegel was out at beer halls, having affairs, and then nabbed a teen bride when he was 40 and had a happy marriage with five sons. But the norm is inceldom.

[Anonymous No.21269272]

>>21269182
You're assuming they were celibate involuntarily, which doesn't make much sense given there used to be whores on every street corner after nightfall. More accurate statement would be that vast majority of philosophers up until early 20th century saw little value in interaction with women.

[Anonymous No.21269428]

>>21269182
Nietzsche never had syphilis.

[Anonymous No.21270038]

>>21261826
Just is. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.21270069]

>>21261700
If suffering is bad, then the best antidote to suffering is what causes one to cease suffering.
The most absolute antidote to suffering is to embrace suffering.
Therefore suffering is good.
Therefore "to be alive is to suffer continuously" is a contradiction: suffering cannot be both absolute and continuous.
Therefore suffering is inescapable for all living things, precisely because it cannot be overcome for it is not absolute.
Therefore suffering is not a negative condition, but a neutral one.

[Anonymous No.21270091]

>>21264065
Don't use western way of thought (logic) for eastern philospophy, pseud.

[Anonymous No.21270102]

>>21261700
By not reading him?

[Anonymous No.21270123]

>>21261700
Dostoevsky and Camus would argue that suffering is good and intrinsic to happiness.
Buddhism would argue that suffering stems from desire which can be eliminated.

[Anonymous No.21270151]

>>21270123
Also, life without suffering is for bitch niggas

[Anonymous No.21270238]

>>21270069
That's the premise of Nietzsche's 'Tragic Thought': suffering has nothing to do with lack, since it is just one of the outcomes of the realized will (the actual state of affairs), the other being happiness. Affirming life ---what the will implies in itself--- is affirming chance as manifested in both, happiness and suffering.

[Anonymous No.21270286]

>>21270238
Yes. Surely 'power' is the feeling of a realized will? Happiness and suffering in conjunction cease to be a dichotomy/dualism of good and evil, and become the conduit for power?
So power is 'just' if one has related the two in such and such a way that, for the subject, is equivalent to power?

[Anonymous No.21270415]

>>21261700
"Will"
"Essence"
"Life"


He should have to explain exactly what these things are, and where they come from before going to step two.

[Anonymous No.21271252]

>>21270151
>t. bitch nigga
I will cuck you and you will be happy.

[Anonymous No.21271708]

>>21269182
>incel
>18th century minor nobility
stop posting you embarrassing mentalcel

[Anonymous No.21272175]

>>21271252
Bitch niggas always tryna prove themselves

[Anonymous No.21272585]

>>21261700
Fuck you wyladcel I know this is you, or at least you are here in this thread somewhere

[Anonymous No.21272726]

>>21261759
this. so much this.

[Anonymous No.21272988]

Nobody in this thread read Schopenhauer's work as anons like >>21270415
show, why do people even discuss him here?

[Anonymous No.21273009]

>>21263767
kek, based schoppy

[Anonymous No.21273263]

>>21261700
What about the time I felt very happy, does he have an explanation for that?

[Anonymous No.21274667]

>>21261700
>Schopenhauer is irrefutable
He isn;t though.

[Anonymous No.21274874]

>>21261700
Yes he did realize the noble truth of suffering
There are three noble truths left

[Anonymous No.21275052]

>>21261729

why is it the people who never really suffer are always the ones extolling the virtues of suffering?

[Anonymous No.21276206]

>>21269182
Your post is really dumb

[Anonymous No.21276240]

>>21272988
Once you've read the philosophers concerned you'll realise no one on /lit/ reads any of 'em.

[Anonymous No.21276341]

Is it possible to refute pessimism without cope?

[Anonymous No.21276391]

>>21261700
He actually countered that with and I'm paraphrasing here "in order to quench the will one must live with as few attachments as possible and become an ascetic" if I'm not mistaken.

[Anonymous No.21276399]

>>21267324
Wait until they read Otto Weininger

[Anonymous No.21276412]

>>21276341
By refuting "cope"

[Anonymous No.21276415]

>>21261700
The essence of life is to obey God

[Anonymous No.21276418]

>>21269428
The Holodomor never happened

[Anonymous No.21276420]

>>21261700
We’ll [1] is an axiom, he doesn’t give any reasoning for it, at least none in this image. You can reject the axiom

[Anonymous No.21276437]

>>21261759
Ultimately both Schopenhauer and the Redditors are being irrational. Neither of them are using scientific studies or statistical methods of analysis to prove their point. Schopenhauer can perhaps be excused for this because he lived before the time that such things were widely available. But now we have the IQ data which shows that, in fact, the average woman is as smart as the average man — the difference being that male IQ has higher variance (ie there are more smart men than smart women but also more dumb men than dumb women, even though the average is identical). And as for lying, well, judging by the rates of conviction for fraud, men are much more likely to lie (at least criminally) that women are. Perhaps there are studies focusing on non-criminal lying that show the opposite result; I don’t know. The problem with the Schopenhaurean style of social analysis is that it’s all based on subjective impressions. It could be that the women in his life were like that, but as we can only know a few hundred people throughout our lives, our subjective experience is not going to be a representative sample. This is why it’s important to have scientific studies and statistical data.

[Anonymous No.21276483]

>>21261700
Why is he/the translator using the word "will" as both a transitive verb and a noun here? I can't follow [1]=>[2] or [2]=>[3].

[Anonymous No.21276484]

>>21276437
Anon, I...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[Anonymous No.21276506]

>>21263510
>t never even read schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.21276547]

>>21276418
There are medical documents attesting that he never had syphilis and that his illness had other causes.

[Anonymous No.21276558]

>>21276484
So because there’s a replication crisis we should just jot down our own subjective experiences and act as if they’re fact? Do you not understand how human bias works? We know very few people in our whole lifetimes. We know a handful intimately and the rest we only know as acquaintances. You cannot extrapolate from this small sample, biased by circumstance and subjective prejudice, to the whole population.
Look, just perform a thought experiment. Imagine 50% of women and 50% of men were pathological liars. Everything they ever say was a lie. And imagine a random person who knows 5 women intimately. Then the chance that person has of picking out 5 women liars is 1/32. In other words, out of every 32 people, 1 of them will randomly pick 5 women liars. If that person then extrapolated his subjective experience to the whole population, he will assume that all women are liars, because all women he knows are liars, when in fact it’s only 50%, identical to men. And also 1/32 will pick out 5 women non-liars, and such a man will conclude that no women are liars. This is just assuming that we pick our friends randomly but obviously in the massively complex structure of human society people get together in predictable ways, and our friendships are influenced by a myriad of factors.
So it makes absolutely no sense to take your subjective experience and extrapolate it out to the whole population. Scientific studies, statistical analysis, these are the rational tools to use when doing social analysis, assuming we’re interested in truth. Yes there’s a replication crisis but you can look for studies with sound methodologies whose results have been replicated over and over again. It’s not perfect, but it’s the only rational tool we have.

[Anonymous No.21276632]

>>21261759
>the original incel
These retards don't realize that involuntary celibates have existed for millions of years. The way in which these redditors use "incel" is the same way in which a normal person would use the word "misogynist".

[Anonymous No.21276656]

>>21276632
Normal person doesn't even use "misogynist", it's a term thrown around by gender studies roasties, midwit journalists and cuckolded simps.
Not to mention that Schopenhauer wasn't celibate at all - he fucked maids, actresses, dancers and even minor aristocrats in Italy.

[Anonymous No.21276949]

>>21276341
booba

[Anonymous No.21276954]

>>21276558
paragraphs, dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.21276985]

>>21270415
>He should have to explain exactly what these things are
He does. In his books you didn't read, despite posting here. Retard.

[Anonymous No.21277630]

>>21276558
I agree with this

[Anonymous No.21277641]

>>21261700
True. Although, I suppose maybe in the future we can hook up into Matrix style drug machines that will be able to keep you happy constantly, but that's too much like being in a weird kind of coma.

[Anonymous No.21277803]

>>21262020
>Schopenhauer tries the buddhist escape: which is no escape at all.
Schopenhauer seems to misunderstand the goal of buddhism and vedanta. In both it's not that the person gains freedom from "the will", but that "the will" gains freedom from the person. Although it's not really a gain, but rather the realization that it is already free. It's not really desire and lack that cause suffering, but the misidentification with an imaginary "I" which seems to experience and own that desire and lack.
He seems to have gotten close to this intellectually but didn't have any real insight into it, otherwise he would have conceptualized life and the will differently. Schope claims that life is suffering but that a rare kind of liberation is possible if the person denies the will via asceticism; but the Buddha's noble truth of suffering/dukkha is not so much merely a truth as it is a tool for discernment, which points specifically to the realization that the person you think you are isn't real. The latter doesn't require asceticism, monasticism, nor renunciation as is commonly believed.

[Anonymous No.21277832]

>>21261700
[2] is refutable. Where he sees the will as coming from a lack (a negative), you could also see it as a positive, an impulse to something.

[Anonymous No.21278790]

>>21261700
Suffering as I understand it refers to one's neurotransmitter concentrations and mental profile. As to whether or not his conception of the term "suffering" works in the scheme he produced is beyond my knowledge and I don't care because the true meaning of suffering is what I care about. All it seems like he's describing is that one does something because the current state of affairs is not optimal; people would only do nothing if everything was already perfect. That does not entail a certain set of neurotransmitter concentrations or a certain mental profile.