/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23003116]

What influence did Schopenhauer have on your life so far?

[Anonymous No.23003124]

>>23003116
none

[Anonymous No.23003145]

Im still on the Republic and want to read him after Rosseau

[Anonymous No.23003183]

>>23003116
Antinatalism

[Andreyev No.23003311]

>>23003116

Pretty much defined my metaphysics. He convinced me on the negative value of existence, and I have yet to see a thought process that accurately dismantles Schopenhauer's and replaces it with a more logical one.

[Anonymous No.23003317]

>>23003311
Being a loser really helps understand him better

[Anonymous No.23003321]

>>23003317
cope tranny

[Anonymous No.23003323]

>>23003116
Zero. Because of /lit/ routinely quoting what are probably the worst parts of him, I've never read him.

[Anonymous No.23003327]

>>23003311
Yeah, people like you are why I have zero interest in him. You make him sound like a peak midwit. Like the Jordan Peterson of yesteryear.

[Anonymous No.23003335]

>>23003317
Unironically yes

[Anonymous No.23003342]

>>23003327
"I refuse to read this philosopher because some people make him sound like Jordan Peterson."

I agree you shouldn't read him. One generally must posses an IQ higher than 4 to read Schopenhauer. So, you've been excluded.

[Anonymous No.23003348]

>>23003321
I was being serious and I am loser myself

[Anonymous No.23003379]

>>23003348
Then why call yourself a loser? why do you care about society's standards?

[Anonymous No.23003407]

>>23003342
IQ selection at an unrealistic extreme kills the punchline then extraneous sentence beats its dead body. By your putdown composition skills I don‘t think you‘re smart enough for Schopenhauer either.

[Anonymous No.23003415]

>>23003342
I literally have a top 1% IQ. Unironically.

[Anonymous No.23003642]

>>23003415
There was no need to use the words "literally" or "unironically" in that post. Someone with a top 1% IQ would know that.

[Anonymous No.23003682]

>>23003116
I hate women

[Anonymous No.23003722]

>>23003116
A lot. And then I found Christ.

[Anonymous No.23003733]

>>23003116
Decided not to kms, because he didn't.

[Anonymous No.23003738]

>>23003682
but can you blame them? incels love to hate women as if it's their fault. maybe hate your mother, that makes a lot more sense.

[Anonymous No.23003824]

>>23003642
Like I said, I unironically am one of those people. I don't need to care about stuff like that. I just say what I want.

[Anonymous No.23003827]

>>23003738
>incels love to hate women
tbf women make it very easy

[Anonymous No.23003828]

Led me to understand nietzsche a little better, which also led me to bataille, all of them gave me tools to construct a path for myself. Stirner I'll also add.

[Anonymous No.23003924]

He was the first philosopher who I really studied, and I credit him with instilling a love of the subject in me. As for his actual philosophy, I initially agreed with everything he said, but as time went by I started to stray from him more and more. However, much of his life advice/philosophy of aesthetics I still follow to this day

[Anonymous No.23004550]

>>23003924
There is something about Schopenhauer that makes you want to investigate more than any other philosopher. I always read the foot prints of each philosopher but I never was interested enough to read their literature. but schopy is really intriguing, I still haven't read anything cuz I don't got the time, but I really need to...

I think it's because other philosophers only focus on very specific topics, Plato isn't going to tell you much about life, because all he cares about is studying the abstract, Aristotle was a retarded biologist, and Kant doesn't have much to say about life, but schopy actually makes an attempt to wrap it all up, his philosophy is complete, from metaphysics to ethics and meaning.

[Anonymous No.23004564]

>>23003116
He’s a great source of wisdom because he’s honest in his atheism. He takes the conclusions of modernity to a moral logical conclusion than anyone else. Plus, he was an excellent writer who spoke on many topics. He’s just a great teacher even if one that I disagree with almost entirely.

[Andreyev No.23004624]

>>23003116

A quote from Leonid Andreyev, for all you retards fuming that life might be bad.

"Pessimism has its fateful limit at which it passes most innocently into optimism. By denying everything you come to Faith in things. By rejecting the whole of life you appear as it's involuntary apologist. I never believe in life so much as when I read the "father" of pessimism, Schopenhauer: a man thought in this way- and lived! This means that life is powerful and invincible! Neither truth nor falsehood will conquer: it is only that which is an alliance with life itself which will conquer. There remains only that which is useful for Life; everything harmful to it will sooner or later perish- perish fatally, inevitably."

[Anonymous No.23004639]

>>23004624
This is just a celebration of willful ignorance, yes life might be "unstoppable" but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

[Andreyev No.23004821]

>>23004639

Its not a good thing. But he's celebrating the virtue of someone who refuses to give in. Who refuses to give up even despite it all. There's something great about confronting reality like that.

[Anonymous No.23004854]

>>23003311
This. You cannot refute him, it's legitimately impossible.

[Anonymous No.23004884]

The pleasure we receive from all beauty, the consolation which art affords, the enthusiasm of the artist, which enables him to forget the cares of life,—the latter an advantage of the man of genius over other men, which alone repays him for the suffering that increases in proportion to the clearness of consciousness, and for the desert loneliness among men of a different race,—all this rests on the fact that the in-itself of life, the will, existence itself, is, as we shall see farther on, a constant sorrow, partly miserable, partly terrible; while, on the contrary, as idea alone, purely contemplated, or copied by art, free from pain, it presents to us a drama full of significance. This purely knowable side of the world, and the copy of it in any art, is the element of the artist. He is chained to the contemplation of the play, the objectification of will; he remains beside it, does not get tired of contemplating it and representing it in copies; and meanwhile he bears himself the cost of the production of that play, i.e., he himself is the will which objectifies itself, and remains in constant suffering. that pure, true, and deep knowledge of the inner nature of the world becomes now for him an end in itself: he stops there. Therefore it does not become to him a quieter of the will, as, we shall see in the next book, it does in the case of the saint who has attained to resignation; it does not deliver him for ever from life, but only at moments, and is therefore not for him a path out of life, but only an occasional consolation in it, till his power, increased by this contemplation and at last tired of the play, lays hold on the real.

[Anonymous No.23004986]

>>23003824
Kill yourself faggot

[Anonymous No.23005165]

>>23003311
I mean, hes wrong in saying that every good is merely the negation of a previous lack/satisfying of a desire, since we are capable of desiring that which we already have, and this constant satisfaction is preferable to non-existence, which goes completely against his claim of how if in a land of milk and honey, where every joe got his jill, we would be left to boredom, since we dont need to be left to boredom if all our desires are fulfilled.

Also hes IMO wrong about experience being emphatically negative if we were to remove all the things that make life better and that make life worse, since then we are left to experience boredom, but rather we are left with the emphatically positive experience of being ourselves, and experiencing our identity, as a necessary aspect which helps define the positive truth of existence, instead of the negative lie of non-existence.

[Anonymous No.23005188]

>>23003116
He gave me a new appreciation for tons of artworks and music, encouraged me to contemplate even "boring" paintings in museums, such as portraits, more. Put into words why water fountains and animals are pleasing to look at. Helped with my fear of death. Showed me why materialist science can never answer fundamental questions of life. Made me laugh with his essay on women. Made me consider pro-monarchy arguments for the first time in my life.

[Anonymous No.23005206]

>>23005188
>Made me consider pro-monarchy arguments for the first time in my life.
Funny you say that, he was a gateway for me into anti-Enlightenment thinking more generally. A few years later and I've ended up a theocratic monarchist and a Christian. My biggest objection to him therefore is that Christ is the end of all true philosophy and not, as he submits, that religion is merely true philosophy dumbed down for the masses.

[Anonymous No.23005210]

>>23005188
>>23005206
>Made me laugh with his essay on women
I'd add that his notion of men's intellect needing to be clouded by the sexual urge to find women attractive and desirable has more truth than many are willing to admit.

[Anonymous No.23005221]

>>23005210
Also that men are the more aesthetic sex. Of course people call you gay if you say that. But there was a meme floating around comparing male and female animals such as lions, deer, peacocks, a wide assortment of birds, etc. And of course for all these animals everyone will readily agree that the male is the most beautiful, and it's easy to accept because of the sexual dynamics of those species. The women are choosers: the men have to compete with each other to impress them. How is mankind any different?
You have the counter-argument that man is more concerned with social status than with pure looks. Which is definitely true. But on the other hand, male beauty is so rare in homo sapiens that when it occurs, women go actually batshit crazy. Like there are a million women of Taylor Swift's beauty or whatever. There's only a handful of Brad Pitts.

[Anonymous No.23005270]

>>23005221
>But on the other hand, male beauty is so rare in homo sapiens that when it occurs, women go actually batshit crazy. Like there are a million women of Taylor Swift's beauty or whatever. There's only a handful of Brad Pitts.
That's quite true actually. You can walk down any given street during the day and you'll probably find 60-70% of women at least somewhat attractive. But then again, perhaps that's the clouded judgement speaking. Male attractiveness tends to be right-skewed.
>women go actually batshit crazy
Women have the capacity to be more sexually aggressive than men, people tend to forget that. The difference is, as you say, it's far narrower set of circumstances that will actually set them off like rabid dogs. It also ties into female hypergamy as much as that word get thrown around in Tate circles these days. It also relates to how Schop rightly observes that men are the true romantics, that we tend to operate off sentiment and lofty idealisations of the woman before us rather than engaging in any genuine reasoning.

[Anonymous No.23005279]

>>23005270
>hypergamy
I remember reading a post somewhere of a guy who was due to get married when his fiancée, the love of his life, by coincidence ran into Chris Brown in Vegas, she slept with him for the night (he took a group of women with him to his hotel suite, as these celebrities tend to do) and basically threw away her entire marriage for that moment. Even if it's not fake, I can totally believe something like that has happened. Her biology just screaming at her for the 0.00001% chance to procreate with those "valuable" genes. It's a fascinating subject for sure.
Remember Jeremy Meeks, the "hot convinct"? What an eye-opening moment. The guy married the heiress of a multimillion dollar empire.

[Anonymous No.23005781]

>>23004986
Typical seethe.

[Anonymous No.23006018]

he made me take care of my health better. I started to take no alcohol, jog every day, eat better, vitamins, get my blood checked etc. his argument that life is awful and we can do nothing to make it better, but all we can do is instead protect our health to prevent it from further getting hellish left a lasting effect.

and they call this dude a bad influence, anyone who reads him is better off.

[Anonymous No.23007147]

>>23003722
Are Schopenhauer and Christ not compatible in some way?

[Anonymous No.23007191]

>>23007147
To the extent that there is an embrace of asceticism and a skepticism of the "world", sure. Though, Schopenhauer ultimately sought a sublimation into nothing - negation. The point of the Christian life is an affirmation - to become what God is by nature via the grace He bestows upon us. The renunciation of the world has an entirely different purpose. True life and freedom is found in partaking in the life of the God-man Jesus Christ. It is also there that we found our true humanity. St Maximos the Confessor's "On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ" talks about this very topic and, for our purposes, can be read as a riposte to Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.23007205]

>>23003183
Gute Idee Klaus! Vasektomie wann?

[Anonymous No.23008193]

>>23003116
Greatly influenced my hairstyle.

[Anonymous No.23008203]

>>23003116
I'm a full blown pessimist now. Thanks I guess

[Anonymous No.23008424]

>>23003116
He taught me that I don't even need to be a "pessimist" or "anything" really. To him the game was already rigged and theres nothing you can do to stop it but simply cope with it. Even if you can make "changes" to your life that doesn't entitle you for everything to go in your own way, people need to learn and love their own conditions.

[Anonymous No.23009422]

>>23003145
Do I need to need Rosseau to understand this man's thinking? I thought Plato, Descartes, Hume and Kant were enough

[Anonymous No.23009429]

>>23003116
Okay metaphysics and ethics but falls short of overall glory

[Anonymous No.23009435]

He influenced my opinion on what does and doesn't constitute art.

[Anonymous No.23009436]

>>23005206
I started considering anti-Enlightenment thinking after trying to break bread with Marxists as a Libertarian. It made realize how hopelessly lost a lot of leftists are and how bankrupt their ideas are upon investigation

[Anonymous No.23009520]

>>23003116
I'm a pessimist and nihilist now and that is kind of freeing since I can see through most bullshit. Most things people do and believe is just cope.

[Anonymous No.23009545]

>>23009436
Where do you stand now?
>how hopelessly lost a lot of leftists are and how bankrupt their ideas are upon investigation
Standard leftist thinking is to deny reality and then pull an unjustified axiom out of your ass and theorise from that. He's lesser known, but I enjoyed reading Lescek Kołakowski's three part "Main Currents of Marxism" around the time that I got into anti-Enlightenment thinking. I also read his reflections on God, specifically "Metaphysical Horror" and "Modernity on Endless Trial". He contributed to my shift in both my political and religious thinking. Though now my politics are downstream from my religious beliefs. I also really recommend "Reflections of a Russian Statesman" by Konstantin Pobedonostsev. He was an advisor to the last few Tsars of Russia.

[Anonymous No.23009550]

>>23003116
What is Schop's most essential work?

[Anonymous No.23009563]

>>23009550
Probably Volume 1 of World as Will and Representation, but Volume 2 and both Volumes of Parerga and Paralipomena have a lot of essential material in them

[Anonymous No.23009675]

>>23009520
Some people don't really have a choice anyway, Schopenhauer didn't like putting people down, he understands why they're miserable and why they do the things they do.

[Anonymous No.23010043]

>>23003116

His ethics are stupid and wrong

His metaphysics are very important

[Anonymous No.23010219]

>>23003116
He influenced everyone's life severely. He inspired Wagner who inspired Hitler and the rest is history :)

[Anonymous No.23010665]

>>23003116
Like mud caked on my boot one balmy autumn.