/lit/ - Literature

poor guy just had depression. Just think if they had antidepressants back then, he might have had a completely different outlook on life.

Jung was right. All of philosophy is just ugly, neurotic queers coping with being ugly and stupid. If Nietzsche or Schopenhauer looked like Francisco Lachowski and were actually brilliant (invented something useful) they wouldn't be such mopey losers.

Depression and pessimism is a sign of low IQ and ugliness. In fact bad genes comes in packages. If you're ugly you're most likely short, weak and stupid, evil and depressed

How do i overcome the will?

Was Schoppy a Parmenidean? It seems to me with his principium individuationis and his interpretation of unity in the will. As opposed to Hegel who was more Heraclitean. Was Hegel vs. Schop just a repeat of Heraclitus vs. Parmenides?

Did this "Weltgeist" guy successfully condense Schopie's philosophy in 45 minutes video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-djIdl8WO4&t=743s

https://www.bard.edu/library/arendt/pdfs/Schopenhauer_Arthur_Essay-on-the-freedom-of-the-will.pdf

>If freedom of the will were presupposed, every human action would be an inexplicable miracle—an effect without a cause.

>Everything acts according to its nature, and its acts as they respond to causes make this nature known. Every man acts according to what he is, and the action, which is accordingly necessary in each case, is determined solely by the motives in the individual case.

>The consciousness of self-determination and originality which undeniably accompanies all our acts, and by virtue of which they are our acts, is therefore not deceptive, in spite of their dependence on motives. But its true content reaches further than the acts and begins higher up. In truth it includes our being and essence itself, from which all acts proceed necessarily when
motives arise.

>In a word: man does at all times only what he wills, and
yet he does this necessarily. But this is due to the fact that he already is what he wills. For from that which he is, there follows of necessity everything that he, at any time, does. If we consider his behavior objectively, i.e., from the outside, we shall be bound to recognize that, like the behavior of every natural being, it must be subject to the law of causality in all its severity. Subjectively, however, everyone feels that he always does only what he wills. But this merely means that his activity is a pure expression of his very own being. Every natural being, even the lowest, would feel the same, if it could feel.

>Consequently, my exposition does not eliminate freedom.
It merely moves it out, namely, out of the area of simple
actions, where it demonstrably cannot be found, up to a
region which lies higher, but is not so easily accessible to our
knowledge. In other words, freedom is transcendental.

>>18163122
Take, for instance, batrachia: they
are as heavy, clumsy, and slow in their movements as they are
unintelligent, and at the same time extremely tenacious of life. This is
explained by the fact that with a little brain they have a very thick
spine and nerves. But gait and movement of the arms are for the most
part functions of the brain; because the limbs receive their motion, and
even the slightest modification of it, from the brain through the medium
of the spinal nerves; and this is precisely why voluntary movements tire
us. This feeling of fatigue, like that of pain, has its seat in the
brain, and not as we suppose in the limbs, hence motion promotes sleep;
on the other hand, those motions that are not excited by the brain, that
is to say, the involuntary motions of organic life, of the heart and
lungs, go on without causing fatigue: and as thought as well as motion
is a function of the brain, the character of its activity is denoted in
both, according to the nature of the individual. Stupid people move like
lay figures, while every joint of intellectual people speaks for itself.
Intellectual qualities are much better discerned, however, in the face
than in gestures and movements, in the shape and size of the forehead,
in the contraction and movement of the features, and especially in the
eye; from the little, dull, sleepy-looking eye of the pig, through all
gradations, to the brilliant sparkling eye of the genius. The look of
wisdom, even of the best kind, is different from that of genius,
since it bears the stamp of serving the will; while that of the latter
is free from it. Therefore the anecdote which Squarzafichi relates in
his life of Petrarch, and has taken from Joseph Brivius, a contemporary,
is quite credible--namely, that when Petrarch was at the court of
Visconti, and among many men and titled people, Galeazzo Visconti asked
his son, who was still a boy in years and was afterwards the first Duke
of Milan, to pick out the wisest man of those present. The boy looked
at every one for a while, when he seized Petrarch's hand and led him to
his father, to the great admiration of all present. For nature imprints
her stamp of dignity so distinctly on the distinguished among mankind
that a child can perceive it. Therefore I should advise my sagacious
countrymen, if they ever again wish to trumpet a commonplace person as a
genius for the period of thirty years, not to choose for that end such
an inn-keeper's physiognomy as was possessed by Hegel, upon whose face
nature had written in her clearest handwriting the familiar title,
commonplace person.

>>18040513
This handsome young man

>>18024123
>To read all kinds of expositions of the doctrines of philosophers, or generally the history of philosophy instead of their own original works, is as if we wanted to have our food masticated by someone else. Would anyone read the history of the world if he were free to behold with his own eyes the interesting events of ancient times ? Now as regards the history of philosophy, such an autopsy of its subject is actually accessible to him, thus in the original writings of philosophers wherein he may still limit himself, for the sake of brevity, to the main and well-chosen chapters, the more so as they all teem with repetitions which he can spare himself. In this way, he will become acquainted with the essentials of their doctrines in an authentic and unadulterated form, whereas from the half-dozen histories of philosophy that appear annually he obtains merely what has entered the head of a professor of philosophy, and indeed in the form in which it there appears.

t. Arthur Schopenhauer

> Later, at forty-three, Schopenhauer thought once again of getting married. He turned his attentions to Flora Weiss, a beautiful, spirited girl who had just turned seventeen. During a boating party, in an attempt to charm her, he smiled and offered her a bunch of white grapes. Flora later confided in her diary, “I didn’t want them. I felt revolted because old Schopenhauer had touched them, and so I let them slide, quite gently, into the water behind me.” Schopenhauer left Berlin in a hurry, concluding “Life has no genuine intrinsic worth, but is kept in motion merely by want and illusion.”

Just fucking lol at the bluepill of Shop. Neitz was bluepill too. They seemed to be shocked that prime pussy was rejecting them when they were in their 40s.


I much prefer the work of Camus considering he was a ladies man so his quarrel wasn’t something as pthetic as ‘hurr durrrr muh no pussy’ ‘hurr durrrrrrrr muh virginity

The truth is, if Nietz and Shoppy were waking up to a loving blow job from their young 17 year old lovers, they would have written love philosophy and how life is so great etc

So Schopi was told to focus on plato and kant, but that can't have been all he read to produce his works, are you telling me he understood kant with just plato beforehand? Wut?

Has anyone made a chart of required readings to understand Schopenhauer?

>There are, first of all, two kinds of authors: those who write for the subject's sake, and those who write for writing's sake. While the one have had thoughts or experiences which seem to them worth communicating, the others want money; and so they write, for money. Their thinking is part of the business of writing. They may be recognized by the way in which they spin out their thoughts to the greatest possible length; then, too, by the very nature of their thoughts, which are only half-true, perverse, forced, vacillating; again, by the aversion they generally show to saying anything straight out, so that they may seem other than they are. Hence their writing is deficient in clearness and definiteness, and it is not long before they betray that their only object in writing at all is to cover paper. This sometimes happens with the best authors; now and then, for example, with Lessing in his Dramaturgie, and even in many of Jean Paul's romances. As soon as the reader perceives this, let him throw the book away; for time is precious. The truth is that when an author begins to write for the sake of covering paper, he is cheating the reader; because he writes under the pretext that he has something to say.
Does he fail to see the irony here?

ITT: Your favorite philosopher between the ages of 7 and 12

>The abolition of Latin as the universal language of learned men, together with the rise of that provincialism which attaches to national literatures, has been a real misfortune for the cause of knowledge in Europe. For it was chiefly through the medium of the Latin language that a learned public existed in Europe at all -- a public to which every book as it came out directly appealed. The number of minds in the whole of Europe that are capable of thinking and judging is small, as it is; but when the audience is broken up and severed by differences of language, the good these minds can do is very much weakened. This is a great disadvantage; but a second and worse one will follow, namely, that the ancient languages will cease to be taught at all. The neglect of them is rapidly gaining ground in France and Germany.

>If it should really come to this, then farewell, humanity! Farewell, noble taste and high thinking! The age of barbarism will return, in spite of railways, telegraphs and balloons. We shall thus in the end lose one more advantage possessed by all our ancestors. For Latin is not only a key to the knowledge of Roman antiquity; it also directly opens up to us the Middle Age in every country in Europe, and modern times as well, down to about the year 1750. Erigena, for example, in the ninth century, Raimond Lully in the thirteenth, with a hundred others, speak straight to us in the very language that they naturally adopted in thinking of learned matters. They thus come quite close to us even at this distance of time: we are in direct contact with them, and really come to know them. How would it have been if every one of them spoke in the language that was peculiar to his time and country? We should not understand even the half of what they said. A real intellectual contact with them would be impossible. We should see them like shadows on the farthest horizon, or, may be, through the translator's telescope.

>It was with an eye to the advantage of writing in Latin that Bacon, as he himself expressly states, proceeded to translate his Essays into that language, under the title Sermones fideles; at which work Hobbes assisted him

Start with the Romans

Is he right? I mean in terms of us perpetuating the cycle of the endless suffering. Is it really our duty to end the cycle?

This is shit I'm dealing with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXRuR12VVR0

fuck this guy wish I didn't inquire about him, it's like I have a bug in my mind now

Was he just a coping incel?

>our guy Schopenhauer predicted the survival of Christian ethics after the fall of the Christian religion, which is founded in inferior Jewish dogma, 200 years ago.

On the relation between Christianity and Judaism

>The sublime founder of Christianity had necessarily to adapt and accommodate himself, partly consciously, partly, it may be, unconsciously, to this doctrine(Judaism); and so Christianity is composed of two very heterogeneous elements. Of these I should like to call the purely ethical element preferably, indeed exclusively, the Christian, and to distinguish it from the Jewish dogmatism within which it was founded. If, as has often been feared, and especially at the present time, that excellent and salutary religion should completely decline, then I would look for the reason for this simply in the fact that it does not consist of one simple element, but of two originally heterogeneous elements, brought into combination only by means of world events. In such a case, dissolution would necessarily result through the break-up of these elements, which arises from their different relationship and reaction to the advanced spirit of the times. Yet after this dissolution, the purely ethical part would still be bound always to remain intact, because it is indestructible.

based

All he did was rip off the sages of India

I'm an insecurefag when it comes to philosophy because it always seems that you have to have an overwhelming amount of things previously read to be able to understand anything. How do I into Schopenhauer?

Ahem