[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 97 KB, 448x526, SCHOPENHAUER.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4445519 No.4445519[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I've looked in depth at 22 different philosophers ranging from Plato to Nietzsche so inb4 babby's first philosophy.

Is Schopenhauer the greatest philosopher of all?

As an arts student and musician I find I agree with him on literally everything. Everything he says is right.

>> No.4445527

>>4445519
>Everything he says is right.

Except for what he says about women, of course.

>> No.4445528

>>4445527
No, I agree on that as well.

>> No.4445529

>Everything he says is right.
You seem to be under a false impression that in the realms of philosophy there is a such thing as "being correct".

>> No.4445533

>>4445519
many consider him to be the most overrated philsopher of all time, but to each his own.

>> No.4445535

>>4445528
But he offers literally no argument to any of his claims about women while simultaneously committing one of the errors he attributes to women (ignoring historical context). I like him too, but his essay on women is one of the worst things he's written.

>> No.4445540

>>4445529
OP is an arts student -- what did you expect?

>> No.4445543

>As an arts student and musician I find I agree with him on literally everything

Well I'm convinced.

Schopenhauer is officially the greatest philosopher of all time because some college kid agrees with him.

>> No.4445544

>>4445519
>and musician

You mean guitar player or DJ, don't you?

>> No.4445548

>>4445544
No, I play the cello and piano, I play in a lot of orchestras and I'm gonna audition to conduct one so wish me luck pls.

>> No.4445549

>>4445540
I'm a damn engineering student and that shit is obvious. I'm not even what /lit/ considered to be intelligent.

>> No.4445551

omg you guys are so good at being snarky on the internet

>> No.4445554

>>4445548
Good luck, sweetheart.

>> No.4445555

I recently read his writing about women and he was wrong about nearly everything.

>> No.4445559

>>4445519
Also his dissertation of the 'brute' in his study of pessimism seems off and simplistic. It's ok for his time and he needed something to oppose humans with, but to say he is right is a little far fetched.

His insights on art is very enjoyable though and maybe his highest achievement.

>> No.4445560

>>4445551
Thanks, I actually put a lot of effort into it.

>> No.4445563

>>4445555
>le repeating numbers

Don't let that awful essay put you off. Die Welt Als Wille... is masterful.

>> No.4445564

>ITT opinions and no explanations to back these opinions

step it up fucktards.

>> No.4445573

>>4445564
The burden of proof lies on him in making claims, not on us.

>> No.4445574

>>4445535
#rekt

>> No.4445577

Kant or go home.

>> No.4445583

>>4445564
>vaguely generalizing every post in the thread

grow a pair and actually confront a poster next time, wuss.

>> No.4445585

>>4445564

welcome to /lit/

>> No.4445591

>>4445535
But the OP is more than a hundred year later and agree with what he said. What historical context?

>> No.4445602

Apophenia in its highest form. I'm pretty sure that gravity isn't the same as my desire to fuck traps. All these power-centric philosophies seem distorted, in my opinion.

>> No.4445641

>>4445591
I'm talking particularly about this passage in the essay:

>"Then again we find that young girls in their hearts regard their domestic or other affairs as secondary things, if not as a mere jest. Love, conquests, and all that these include, such as dressing, dancing, and so on, they give their serious attention."

This is obviously a post-industrial conception of girls, the result of a conditioning and yet Schopenhauer attributes this to their nature. If he looked over history, he would find that what received the "serious attention" of young girls is variable, not fixed. Hence, not inherent (or natural).

There's also plenty of other rubbish in the essay. He starts off talking about the shape of a woman, as if it implies anything considerable (though I can accept that this was more of a rhetorical flourish than a serious point). He makes points about men reaching the maturity of their faculties at 28 while a woman reaches hers at 18 with no real justification. In fact, the essay is full of similar claims with no justification to back them up. They may ring true to you, but the actual work of the essay should have been to figure out why they're common. It's just lazy and full of platitudes.

>> No.4445646

I don't understand this beautiful vs sublime shit that Kant and Schopenhauer talk about, someone help me please.

>> No.4445684

> I find I agree with him on literally everything
Well there is your problem.

>> No.4445694
File: 76 KB, 500x419, tumblr_mj5fwnjXnW1r6i24yo1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4445694

>>4445533
you friends don't count

>> No.4445964

>>4445519
Nobody has ever surpassed Epicurus in general approach to life. Schop was merely a grumpy remix of that.

>> No.4445982

>>4445519
top kek

schopenhauer is probably the most baby-tier philosopher

>> No.4446023

>>4445694
>"We all love Schopenhauer, but wasn’t he a bit of a buffoon in his day? You know, like “not a real academic”, just a ragged, misanthropic old fart with high blood pressure, scorned in the university corridors by his more “serious” contemporaries like Hegel and Schelling?"

http://bturn.com/8966/the-ultimate-guide-to-buffoon-philosophers

>> No.4446073

>>4445529
Not everything is subjective

>> No.4446076

>>4446073
deslike yer opinio breh

>> No.4446180

> I agree with him on literally everything. Everything he says is right.

This isn't an adequate justification for correctness.

>> No.4446184

Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are fun to read but really fucking stupid.
Will to Power is completely implausible.

>> No.4446219

>>4446184
>taking Nietzsche's writings after Zarathustra seriously

That's how I know you're a pleb. Nietzsche was in troll mode for the entirety of his life after Zarathustra. He also never finished The Will to Power.

>> No.4446235

>>4446219
That Ecce Homo was funny, I have to admit.

>> No.4446236

>>4446023

>non-academic = shit philosopher

it's funny because the opposite is true

In relation to the OP, I find it lamentable that most people are only acquainted with Schopenhauer through his controversial works like Of Woman.

Fourfold Root and Prize Essay are immortal works in the realm of philosophy and sufficient to cement his place for all future generations. WWR and P&P together probably have more good original ideas in them than in the entire opus of any other philosopher save Plato and Nietzsche.

Speak of Fritz: as far as I can tell, the only serious critique of Schopenhauer's metaphysics comes to us by the way of Nietzsche very early writings. He is of course indebted to Schopenhauer for the latter's conception of a dark, fundamental drive. Der wille zur Leben and Der wille zur Macht are of course entirely distinct, but that is for another discussion.

>> No.4446248

>>4446184
Nietzsche mentioned the concept of will to power one to two times as a sort of side track thought experiment in his published work. I have no idea why it's considered central to his work.

>> No.4446249

>>4446219
>Jenseits von Gut und Bose
>Zur Genealogie der Moral
>troll mode

Just cough it up and admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>> No.4446259

>>4446249

Twilight of the Idols was also tremendous

>> No.4446263

>>4446184
>Will to Power is completely implausible.

How's that?

>> No.4446268

>>4446249
What that guy probably meant is that TSZ is Nietzsche's one true positive message, afterwards he just starts burning the shit that's in the way. Which he said himself, if I'm correct.

>> No.4446283

>music the highest form of art

Get a fuckin' load of this pleb.

>> No.4446284

>>4446263
Based on how I think the body works, it doesn't make sense to me? And I don't believe in one phenomenon being the pusher of all others,

>> No.4446287

>>4446283
Yeah, that's also a load of shit, I think.
The reason was supposedly because it was non representational.

>> No.4446288
File: 66 KB, 625x626, thisisbait.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4446288

>>4446259
>>4446249

Read Ecce Homo, kiddo. He says explicitly in the second on BGE that after Zarathustra the yes saying part of his work was complete and that he rest is no-saying. Then he says something about how the writings afterword were fish hooks and if none were caught then there were no fish.

>> No.4446291

>>4446284
>Based on how I think the body works, it doesn't make sense to me?

So you've gone from a firm "implausible" to an unsure "it doesn't make sense to me?", but you've yet to elaborate anything meaningful. How does the body work according to you and where does it contradict "will to power"?

>> No.4446292

>>4446288
*second = section

You should also note the severe change in style following Zarathustra.

>> No.4446295

We should get a separate board for philosophy. I amn't a writer and I actually some what dislike fiction. All I'm here for is philosophy.

>> No.4446302

>>4446288
>>4446292
Right, but the context of that passage is referring to the search for "those related to me." Fish hooks for those "prompted by strength" to help wage his battle, etc. Not exactly trolling. Plus, the original anon was asserting that the post-TSZ work wasn't to be taken seriously.

>> No.4446313

>>4446291
Schopenhauer believed in a primordial will to live if I am not mistaken?
I'll try to articulate my idea;
The nature of living, as most humans have come to understand it is not the objective meaning of existence. Obviously I'm taking this off the tracks and you probably think I'm full of shit, which I presume is the purpose of your jabbing.
I don't think the nature of existence is to continue to live it just happens any way. Schopi believed in the universe actually striving to live but the universe continues none the less. He prescribed the nature of the strange flesh machines that he was and the things around him were on to inanimate things and not only that those facemonkeys don't necessarily have that will to live just tend to, just as they tend to have a sexual perversion with the penis and the vagina which is not neccessarily engraved in their brain.

>> No.4446316

>>4445519
Well he would probably say you are stupid and yet again he would be right.

>> No.4446318

>>4446316
lol sick dude

>> No.4446324

>>4446302

The work is all ironic or half-serious and designed to be provocative. Nietzsche's more serious views are expressed in the earlier work.

>> No.4446325

>>4445641

great response. totally agree.

>> No.4446328

>>4445519
>As an arts student and musician I find I agree with him on literally everything.
That's not strange OP, many artists have had a massive hard-on for Schoppy. He's the artist's philosopher pur sang.

>> No.4446342

>>4446295
We can just make philosophy generals.

>> No.4446344

>>4446287

i bet you think film is the highest form of art

>> No.4446346

>>4446342
Yeah, I suppose that'd be alright.

>> No.4446353
File: 75 KB, 540x960, 1389060247729.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4446353

>>4445641
He did change his opinions later on in life.

After the elderly Schopenhauer sat for a sculpture portrait by Elisabet Ney, he told Richard Wagner's friend Malwida von Meysenbug, "I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man."[49]

>> No.4446354
File: 222 KB, 180x162, 2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4446354

>>4446344
Nope.
All I like is philosophy really.
And cardcaptor sakura.
I am aware that you may think I'm some one else and rusing but I am genuinely the person you replied to. It's a fun show.

>> No.4446358

>babby's first philosophy.

Hilarious!

>> No.4446362

>>4446358
I don't get it and I doubt you do either.

>> No.4446364

>>4446353
>I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass
when will it happen?

>> No.4446366

>>4446362
Every time I see this phrase I just can't help it but giggle uncontrollably.

>> No.4446368

>>4446236
>WWR and P&P together probably have more good original ideas in them than in the entire opus of any other philosopher save Plato and Nietzsche.

So if I want to get into Schopenhauer, I don't have to do any prep reading?

>> No.4446372

>>4446364
Post feminism.
Post.
.
.
.
Feminism.

>> No.4446375

>>4446366
I don't understand it but I respect it.

>> No.4446389

Lol @ obvious insecurity in OP.

Schoppy did some interesting work, for sure, but only because he had Eastern philosophy to work on. Personally I prefer Heidegger, I find that his views on Being provide a much richer and more fruitful connection to Zen thought than Arthur's writings.

>> No.4446409

>>4446389
Eh, I can't stand the way Heidegger writes. The Being of Being's being, etc. I mean, if you're going to do that shit, at least include a commentary or something that helps us out. I don't trust Hubert Dreyfus enough to accept his interpretation of Being and Time.

>> No.4446435

>>4446409
>I don't trust Hubert Dreyfus enough to accept his interpretation of Being and Time.

pretension
also richard polt's introduction is definitive

>> No.4446447

>>4446368

Just read P&P first.

Volume one is a great introduction to philosophy in general. Skip the Essay on Spirit Seeing. Everything else is great.

Oxford edition. Eric Payne translation. Should be two ugly books, one blue and one mustard.

>> No.4446457

>>4446236
it was a joke

>> No.4446470

>>4445964
True that, son!

>> No.4446486

>>4446435
>pretension

Nah, it's just that his interpretation of Kierkegaard was a little shaky. He didn't grasp enough of the subtle irony.

>> No.4446569

>>4446372
But we already live in a postfeministic apocalypse.

>> No.4446585

>>4446569
Really?
I think we're still at feminism.
Post feminism would be equal rights among genders. Feminism is discrimination against men in favour of women, essentially, which was inevitable and if you are in to that sort of thing, morally important, but at some point will hopefully stop.

>> No.4446594

>>4446585
>Post feminism would be equal rights among genders

You mean worldwide? Because I'm pretty sure men and women do have equal rights in almost every Western country.

>> No.4446613

>>4446594
In some european countries, women need to make up at least 50 per cent or more of the governement politicians. But men don't. This means technically all the women could be running the country but in these countries the law is so that never again can more than 50 per cent of men be running the country.
Not only that, but the general discussion is towards the protection of women and the helping of women, which is of course okay right now, but in the long run may cause discrimination against the other gender.

>> No.4446631

>>4446594
get ready to drown in hats

>> No.4447058

>>4446073
Man is he measure of all things

>> No.4447120

>>4446613

feminism, like affirmative action, is really just one more jab in a long game against older conceptions of rank, nobility, and a natural meritocracy

>> No.4447166

>>4446594
>>4446613
>>4447120
here we fucking go

>> No.4447642

>from plato to nietzsche
what about the 20th century?

>> No.4447663

>>4446073
oh yeah? you like Kant then?

>> No.4447673

>>4447166
well, let's not go there. it always comes down to ressentiment anyway

>> No.4447677

>>4445641
dat post modern vibe with so much tip toeing around what he said without actually saying anything.

IN NON POST INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTION OF GIRLS, THEY WERE NOT CONDITIONED (conditioned by the evil patriarchy or something like that probably), HENCE THEY WERE NOT LIKE SCHOPY SAID.

At least you quoted schopy, at least that was worth reading.

>> No.4447683

>>4447677
Anons saying that Schoop Dawg made the common flaw of deducing from the particular of his experience of contemporary women to the universal of all women through all times. This was valid in his day and age and common for intellectuals to do. We have gotten past that now though.

>> No.4447685
File: 7 KB, 152x160, 1387914658115.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4447685

Why do you people always act like the most obnoxious hipsters of hipsters whenever you talk about anything.

>> No.4447686

Go somewhere else if you don't like it scrub.

>> No.4447695

>>4445641

>This is obviously a post-industrial conception of girls, the result of a conditioning
armchair psychoanalysis with a convenient lack of evidence; here's a tip: don't theorize about someone's psychology, attack the argument itself, we don't need your poststructualist annotations

>If he looked over history, he would find that what received the "serious attention" of young girls is variable, not fixed. Hence, not inherent (or natural).
The variance between adolescent female interests across history does not prove the lack of an inherent nature in young girls, you are repeatedly making massive leaps in logic without citing any sort of evidence, again i will ask you to attack the claim, not your self-generated psychological history of the opponent/all women throughout history

>It's just lazy and full of platitudes.
cough

>> No.4447697

>>4446470
10x dad

>> No.4447699

>>4447683

I wonder how Schopenhauer would have responded when hearing someone calling him "Schoop dawg"

>"Are you calling me a dog, sir?"

>> No.4447707

>>4447695
You are here unwittingly attacking Schoppys own method.

>> No.4447723

>>4447707
I'm not defending him, it's a terrible essay, but this response is worse.

>> No.4447735

Schopenhauer is indeed babby's first philosopher, and no, you have not "looked 22 different philosophers in depth".
Schopenhauer is unbelievably shallow and his metaphysics is, simply put, pure invention and full of falsehoods. You are an edgy teen.

>> No.4447736

>>4446248
Because it is.

>> No.4447755

>>4447723
Agreed sorry for friendly fire, but the muh patriarchy response was even more depressing.

>> No.4447756

>>4447735

You´re an unlikable dweeb, begone.

>> No.4447761

>>4445519
>As an arts student
fucking lol

>> No.4447763

>>4447683
>>4445591

>> No.4447785

>>4445519
I think you just have a fucked up definition of "in depth".

>> No.4447798

>>4447699
He would probably rub dear Atman's head, think of Diogenes and take it as a compliment.

Remember, this is the guy who called his dog a human when he did something naughty.

>> No.4448444

>>4445535
Lol, funny how people here only focus on this one thing about him when attacking him, as if the sort of reasoning that gives rise to it doesn't pervade his thought. It's almost like you have some kind of ideological agenda

>> No.4448768

remixing eastern philosophy doesn't make him the best of all time. It does however, put him above most other German and Greeks, how do these nationalities breed philosophers?

>> No.4448778

>>4447763

So you're saying that because someone else agrees with someone's particular, that it confirms universality. Think a little bit before posting, fellas.

>> No.4448786

>>4448444
He is a armchair philosopher, any flaw in his deduction flaws his argument, you can't demonstrate what he says to be true by virtue of him saying it. The critique stands. This is philosophy not opinion.

>> No.4448790

Yeah but what philosophers of value have you read? If it's all shitty existentialism and entry-level Greeks, I feel very much entitled to throw around such accusations as "babby's first philosophy".

>> No.4448793

>>4448778
The other way around deducing from the particular to the general without valid empirical demonstration or experiment is flawed reasoning. He might have been right about the women he met in his day and age was like that, that doesn't mean that he said anything valid about women in general (unless you can back it up with evidence) there's a huge difference between the world he lived in and our world.

>> No.4448813

>>4447695
>armchair psychoanalyzing
Nope, just you misunderstanding my post. I'm not saying Schopenhauer was conditioned, I'm saying that what draws the "serious attention" of young girls is the result of conditioning (their upbringing, which changes with the times). This has nothing to do with Schopenhauer's psychology, nor is it "poststructuralist" (do you even know what this term means?). If you want a little psychoanalysis, I'll give it to you: you're seeing an ideological frontline in everything in my post and it's interfering with your comprehension.

>The variance between adolescent females interests across history does not prove the lack of an inherent nature in young girls

Luckily I never said anything about an inherent nature in general, but only spoke about the attribution of a particular behavior to their nature. Stop the frothing first, read again, then post.

>you are repeatedly making massive leaps in logic

Even if you didn't misread what led you to the only two points you thought you had, you never actually demonstrated this "leap" in logic. Psychoanalytic time: it's because you suck at arguing.

>> No.4448814

>>4445577
Shit tier philosopher

>> No.4448829

>>4448793
>that doesn't mean that he said anything valid about women in general

I know, I agree with you. Did it seem like I didn't?

>>4448444
>when attacking him

But I like Schopenhauer. I'm attacking his arguments in a weak essay of his.

>> No.4448834

>>4448829
>I know, I agree with you.

I can't read. Sorry. My autism took over.

>> No.4448843

>>4445646
GET GOOD

>>4447685
Because you're terrible at criticism

>>4445519
Good Schopenhauer Books ?

>> No.4448848

>>4445519

>I agree with him on literally everything.

That pretty much means he is a shitty philosopher.

>> No.4448853

>>4448813
>nor is it "poststructuralist"

I agree that your criticism isn't poststructuralist, but historical readings are a preferred method of poststructuralists so I could see the confusion.

>> No.4448973

>>4448786
>This is philosophy not opinion.
>not knowing philosophy is opinion

It's like you haven't traversed the depths of scepsis.

>> No.4448979
File: 74 KB, 479x435, 1276928274939.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4448979

>life is immoral

only german idealism could produce such incoherent logical conclusions

>> No.4449004

>>4448979

Nah....

Im pretty sure the Russians are on that page as well. Miserable gits.

>> No.4449005

>>4448778
No that's not what im saying at all. better luck next time.

>> No.4449012

>>4448979

if its a logical conclusion than how can it be incoherent

>> No.4449017

>>4447699
>Schopi speaking in English
He would probably tell you to Leck mich im Arsch

>> No.4449021

>>4449017
Schoppy actually loved to speak in English and lived there for a while.

>> No.4449022
File: 29 KB, 279x304, 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4449022

>>4447735
>mfw I agree with anon fully and all the fiction loving plebs are getting buttmad

>> No.4449036

I really doubt OP could have studied Aristotle and Hegel in depth and still consider Schopi a better philosopher.

>> No.4449038

>>4449022
>mfw le smug anime faec

>> No.4449043

>>4444444

>> No.4449045

>>4449021
Oh, didn't know.

>> No.4449048

>>4449038
What face did you have?
Why didn't you post a face, fuccboi?

>> No.4449049

>>4445519
The teleology/intentionality involved in his concept of "will" bothers me; can't understand why he didn't accept a random underlying structure.

>> No.4449050

>>4448973
Educated opinion then, can we agree to that?

>> No.4449057
File: 43 KB, 294x371, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4449057

>>4449048

>> No.4449058

>>4449050
Sure, but Schopenhauer's opinion is educated as fuck.

>> No.4449063

>>4449057
I don't even know what face Kant is pulling there.

>> No.4449066

>>4447735
>invention and pure of falsehoods
Terrible critique. How about you actually critique his metaphysical system charitably -- like a decent fucking academic -- sans deliberately accepting the groupthink opinion of him, you ingenue .

>> No.4449068

>>4449058
He was. That doesn't effect a particular flaw in his argumentation. You know an arguments strength is relies on the validity of its premises, he wasn't infallible. Apply that scepticism.

>> No.4449071

>>4449063
That's how you look when you go to take your third watery shit of a sickly day, enter the lavatory and aren't sure if that smell is your own last shit or if your manservant had one in between.

>> No.4449075

>>4449071
Some what funny.

>> No.4449079

>>4449068
You should say things like 'armchair philosopher' and 'philosophy not opinion' then, sounds weak and grasping.

>> No.4449105

>>4449079
'Shouldn't' right? My point, that he was a armchair philosopher, was to make it perfectly clear, that his argumentation relies strictly on deduction as method.

To point out that philosophy is not the same as every other opinion, was to bring out, in the context, that it has nothing to do with ideology, it is debate about the truth-value of a claim of his.

I didn't grasp for anything.

>> No.4449117

>>4449012
the logic is incoherent

>> No.4449128

>>4449012
How can logic be real if incoherence isn't real?

>> No.4449129

>>4449128
because u cant know nutin

>> No.4449133

>>4449021
He lived in English?

>> No.4449524

>>4446364
>He did change his opinions later on in life.
>After the elderly Schopenhauer sat for a sculpture portrait by Elisabet Ney, he told Richard Wagner's friend Malwida von Meysenbug, "I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man."[49]

>mass
Clever fat joke. Hardy har har.

>> No.4449560

>>4445529
OP just means he agrees or accepts all that Schop says and you know it. Stop being anal.

>> No.4451031

op doesnt know anything

>> No.4451064

>>4445519
Schopenhauer is no Nagarjuna

>> No.4451091

>>4445641
The fact that Schopenhauer attributes an inherent nature shows his incredible weakness as a philosopher.

>> No.4452020

>>4445527

Fuck off legbeard

>> No.4452069

Why would you try to rate them in life when you can just find out who was right after death?