/lit/ - Literature

>>16061479
he was a most beautiful optimist just made weary by the world, and thus protecting a greater truth behind mild deception.

>>16061479
>call himself a pessimist
Literally never did that. Only people who haven't read him and fell for the memes think he's in any way pessimistic.

>>16062144
oh so he wrote like a thousand pages to say how life is NOT suffering, cool gotcha

>>16062179
One can believe that life is suffering without being a pessimist, dumb dumb.

>>16061479
based.

Schopoids are assblasted and btfo. How will they ever recover?

>>16062191
How

>>16062191
you literally cant

>>16062210
>>16062213
Filtered.

>>16061479
Also exclusively owning poodles - the patrician choice

>>16062226
B&PP (based and poodle pilled)
truly man's bestest friend

>>16062404
They are aggressive, stupid and ugly. Almost as bad as pitbulls.

>>16062421
Nah, poodles are wonderful.

>>16062179
>cool gotcha
I hope you die in a brutal, mangled car accident, you redditnigger cunt

>>16061479

Never meet your heroes or whatever your favorite writers actually reference

They can be poetic and then at the core of their love is a stupid flute

>>16062421
>stupid
they're akshually one of the most intelligent breeds. highly-trainable, too. they're why they feature so prominently in dog shows
they can be aggressive, though, if not properly trained. but so can most breeds.

>>16062210
>>16062213
see masochism

>>16062221
>are you seriously asking me to explain myself? FIIIIIILTERED!

>>16063552
damn son chillax some

>>16062221
>If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood

>Marrying means to halve one's rights and double one's duties

>Marrying means, to grasp blindfolded into a sack hoping to find out an eel out of an assembly of snakes.

>Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing

>Life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom.

>Again, you may look upon life as an unprofitable episode, disturbing the blessed calm of non-existence. And, in any case, even though things have gone with you tolerably well, the longer you live the more clearly you will feel that, on the whole, life is a disappointment, nay, a cheat.

>They tell us that suicide is the greatest act of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person

Yes, it's pretty clear that Schopenhauer was an optimist

>>16063739
>cherrypicks some quotes.
Read his works fully or shut up.

>>16063757
Cope harder
Most of these quotes are from Studies in Pessimism

>>16063739
he was a realist
if reality looks like depressing then its not the observer's fault for stating the truth

He was an edgy shitposter.

>>16061557

Marry me.

He was spot on in his analysis of the nature of women

>>16065562
but i'm a grill

>>16062404
imagine naming all of your poodles Atma, what a nerd

Some verses from Bhagavad Gita:
>O best among men! The wise person who is not affected by these, and who looks upon happiness and unhappiness equally, attains the right to immortality.
>He is not disturbed by unhappiness and he is beyond desiring happiness. He has overcome attachment, fear and anger and he is known as a sage who is unwavering in his intellect.
>In everything, he has no emotion, regardless of whether something pleasant or something unpleasant has been attained. He is not pleased, nor is he dissatisfied, and in him wisdom is established.
>When there is such serenity, in him is eliminated all unhappiness. Because in the mind of someone at peace, wisdom is quickly established.
This is the way Schopenhauer's teachings are meant to be grasped. If you remain attached to the world, either you'll remain comfortably delusional, or the truth will drive you crazy. If you manage to read him impartially, you might take a glance of that truth which he and few elect ones before him were immersed in. Schopenhauer is no pessimist; he is a realist par excellence.

>>16066404
>yeah studies in pessimism isn't his book
Schopenhauerian scholars like Bryan Magee agree that he was a pessimist. Stop coping you pseud that's fucking embarrassing.

>>16066492
Anon, you do know that he never wrote a book titled Studies in Pessimism, right? That's a title given to a collection of his essays by a random publisher.

About the word itself, at this point we should ask what does it even mean? Does it refer to dispelling of some few myths about life? Or does it refer to a sort of outlook characterized by negative value-judgements? Because when Schopenhauer called himself a pessimist (I do not need to have ask Magee to know this) he clearly meant in in the former sense; but as the times have changed, so has language and the meaning of the word. If you use the word pessimist, people will take it to be the latter, which most clearly Schopenhauer is not.

If you are reading Schopenhauer and feeling "WOE IS ME THE WORLD IS SO BAD WAAAAH" you are doing it very wrong. Schopenhauer is meant to calm you, not to further agitate, you my friend.

>>16066163
Post shrunken fem cock

>>16066600
Good post. It is very annoying when anons read his Wikipedia article and see the word "pessimist" and then think his argument for philosophical pessimism moves from the premise of "I had a bad day". Read Kant and read Schop's PhD thesis to begin to understand the richness of his thought and the edifice upon which he built his philosophy. Sebastian Gardner puts it best when he says:

>Schopenhauer's argument often appears to be that the evil of the world derives from the negative hedonic balance sheet that necessarily characterizes human (and any other sentient) existence. However, in so far as its aim to establish something about the metaphysical quality of the world, this argument fails to convince, relying as it does on a phenomenologically strained reduction of the objects of desire and valuation to hedonic states: that the satisfaction of every desire is followed immediately by the formation a new one does not mean that things are not better for its having been satisfied...

>Schopenhauer's argument from the predominance of suffering is better viewed, however, not as the main point but merely as an auxiliary element in his case for pessimism, which has the following form... Schopenhauer's case for pessimism consists accordingly in showing (1) that the world as representation derives from a reality which is intrinsically and necessarily without purpose, (2) that the world as representation does not merely reflect that underlying reality or reproduce it in appearance – which would suffice only for Spinoza's conclusion of value-indifference – but reveals itself to be metaphysically defective in relation to it. Book II contains the demonstration of (1). The sections of WWR important for (2) are those in which Schopenhauer explains why, once we have achieved knowledge of Wille, the world as representation must be perceived as contradictory – an incoherent mis-expression in individuated form of a pre-categorial one, which moreover reproduces this incoherence within itself, in the form of the conflict of individuated wills with one another and within themselves.

>Since the main work in substantiating pessimism has been done as soon as it has been established the world ought not to be, the role of the the argument from suffering is limited. What it adds, through its reminder that human life does not merit our good opinion on account of its hedonic quality, is an uncommonsensical re-interpretation of hedonic experience in light of the metaphysics of will: Schopenhauer directs us to grasp pleasure and pain not phenomenologically but as manifestations of a purposeless dynamic. The painfulness and ubiquity of pain are therefore, in themselves, not what establishes the truth of pessimism: suffering is probative in the case for Schopenhauer's doctrine only on account of what it displays regarding the irrational character of reality; his detailed portrait of man's misery provides a posteriori corroboration of the metaphysical claim.

>>16067344
Exactly this. Gardner's point is the reason I always tell people *not to* start with his essays. He literally calls them supplemental left overs to his main work.

>>16067405
I agree. This is not to say that his essays do not have pertinent and piercing insights, and are not a joy to read. It is to say that his essays are discussions of the consequences or the aftershocks, if you will, of the conclusions drawn from WWR (which I personally agree with).

>>16066600
Stop ignoring the content of that book. You're acting like he never wrote those essays.

>>16069364
Not that anon. No one's denying he wrote those essays. What you are failing to grasp is that the pessimism that Schopenhauer argues for in his system is not a psychological one. See this >>16067344. Your are treating those essays in a way that likens them to the rigorous argumentation in WWR and the Fourfold Root. The better way to view those essays are the necessary consequences of these latter two works rather than self-contained arguments.

Any layman can tell you the world is kinda shitty. To say that this is the crux of Schopenhauer is severely misguided and misses the beauty of his insights. However, the treatment you are providing these works is essential doing just that. What I presume that anon was trying to articulate was a need to properly engage with Schopenhauer's ideas rather than relying upon essays that are often quoted out of context or treated with no nuance.

>>16069481
I totally agree that his pessimistic ideas are based on a proper philosophical system. And people should read his main work before dismissing him by saying bullshite "haha le incel philosopher." And I totally agree with thesis of Schopenhauer.
But my main problem is that the way people who like his philosophical ideas dismiss his conclusions in those essays. Just look the first post itt and all the pathetic attempts to justify "b-but he wasn't pessimist pessimist". It's just so fucking dishonest.

every reply ITT is off-topic

>>16069526
I see. If that is the case, then sorry for misinterpreting what you have been saying. And yes, he was certainly a philosophical pessimist. There is nothing in his whole corpus that contradicts that. I think that the author of this thread has conflated this reality with the fact that Schopenhauer did things that he enjoyed. It's frankly such a cheap criticism (if you can call it that) of his thought. I presume he enjoyed writing philosophy as well. Does that enjoyment take him out of the realm of his pessimism?

I know the criticism is meant to go towards the assumption that if someone believes what they believe, they will not derogate from that belief. All I will say in response to them to pay attention to the actions they carry out in their lives and tell me with full honesty the extent to which they were consistent with the beliefs they thought they held. Likewise, I don't think any less of Nietzsche's ideas solely because he simped for Lou Salomé.

And regardless, if we are going to deal with Schopenhauerian thought properly, his whole aesthetics is based upon artistic expression's capacity to be a temporary reprieve from the Will. Music, to Schopenhauer, is the highest form of aesthetic expression because it is the form of art least bound to representation and hence having the greatest ability to express the Platonic Ideas and in turn, closest to telling us about the inner essence of the world - Will. It makes sense for him to play an instrument.

>>16069569. See above.

>>16069364
>>16069481
>Not that anon
I'm that anon here. While I agree with all of second anon's points, my main point was that the eventual effect of Schopenhauer's philosophy on a person should not be unhappiness; it should be be detachment from happiness as well as unhappiness. Schopenhauer is a pessimist insofar as he denies the possibility of happiness altogether, as the will could never be satisfied (that much is indisputable), but his alternative, as I said, is not unhappiness at all. He is helping you rise above of both unhappiness and happiness (like the Gita quotes I posted). My problem with the term "pessimism" is that it has lost it's original meaning, and nowadays it is mostly associated with unhappiness and depression, and this is where the "sad Schopenhauer" meme comes from. The term has been associated with negativity, which is not the case with Schopenhauer. In light of this, I'm arguing that pessimism is no longer a suitable term for his philosophy, as it misleads more than it helps.

>>16069852
Good post. I'm this anon: >>16069481 and >>16069775. My use of the phrase "philosophical pessimism" was me just trying to stay true to the present descriptions of Schop's view. But you've made it quite clear why this is deficient. Interestingly, if you read his biography there were certainly extended periods of "sad Schopenhauer". This is where idiots begin to say that Schopenhauer just sought to justify his personal qualms with the world.

The original topic of this thread seems to be trying to do a similar thing. As a more general observation, I find that any philosophy that has the capacity to be viewed as "pessimistic" (for lack of a better term) tends to receive more virulent opposition. People are quick to claim that said individual as just sad or projecting their subjective (in the ordinary sense of the world) views onto the world. Assuming that this view is even remotely correct, why is the same level of scrutiny not dealt towards the projection of their own emotional states which seem to assume some telos or skew towards the triumph of justice or what have you, in the world?

>>16069852
>He is helping you rise above of both unhappiness and happiness
literally impossible
a man is a waking contradiction

>>16062144
He literally did call himself a pessimist

>>16069905
I completely agree with you. Happiness is a concept very dear to most people today. Almost everyone, in their own way, are on their quest to achieve happiness. Its influence is so overarching that you could even see the phrase "pursuit of Happiness" explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. As it happens, happiness is also a myth that Schopenhauer very clearly dispels. As a result, I surmise that even otherwise sensible people who could reason through arguments impartially would feel personally attacked (quite similar to what used to happen if you argued against the dogmatic and common version of God).

This wouldn't have been an issue if they hadn't collectively agreed to blacklist Schopenhauer from philosophical spheres. I'm convinced that if he hadn't made any of his so called "pessimistic" arguments, he would have been as well known and widely discussed as Kant and Nietzsche. At the present, though, the cultural paradigm is not too kind to him.
>>16069922
I'd argue that it is possible, but also very difficult, which is why wisdom so rare.

>>16062144
I know what you're trying to say and I agree, he offers a lot of comfort and isn't just "sad and depressing", but he did call himself a pessimist.

>>16070026
>At the present, though, the cultural paradigm is not too kind to him.
Some of the most well known contemporary philosophers are Schopenhauerians
Ray Brassier
Eugene Thacker
Thomas Ligotti
Nick Land

>>16070026
>I'd argue that it is possible,
how?

>>16070053
>Some of the most well known contemporary philosophers are Schopenhauerians
Are they worthwhile, though? I didn't know they are Schopenhauerians, but my admittedly uninformed impression of them wasn't favorable. I could be wrong of course, but the middle two seemed attracted to his "pessimistic" aspects, and the other two seemed to write in the convoluted style that Schopenhauer so much complained about. Though please correct me if I have false impressions.
>>16070058
Read his works anon.

>>16070026
>This wouldn't have been an issue if they hadn't collectively agreed to blacklist Schopenhauer from philosophical spheres
This is one of the reasons why he despised academic philosophy. It's not enough to say he was jealous of Hegel and Schelling. He probably was jealous of the attention they got, but not without good reason. His criticisms of such philosophy carry through to this day. I have seen it myself in the academics at my university.

More broadly, the Western world is in such a strange cultural state currently. On the one hand we have this perpetuation of scientism/materialism to the detriment of literature and philosophy. The view is that because science has been so successful in providing for technological progress, metaphysics and philosophy is mystical hogwash (the irony that this claim is philosophical is lost on them). Here you get philistine bugmen. On the other hand, the West has this tacit belief in Christian teleology, as we have hinted at. You hear glimmers of this in their topics of conversation and the trite truisms they like spouting as wisdom that they believe that they have arrived at independently, instead of it being internalised culturally. Yet, your average person will claim to be an atheist, ironically, without actually knowing the full implications of this statement.

Funnily, and in light of this, Schopenhauer made an extremely concerted effort to ensure that his metaphysics married up with the world of representation to the extent that he said that any future philosopher should study the natural sciences before studying philosophy. The couching of his philosophy with such empirical realities is one of the many reasons why I admire him over his contemporaries. I think that there is much to be learnt from Schopenhauer, especially given the (perhaps somewhat half-baked) view of the world I have painted above.

>>16070053
Maybe in the superficial sense that they carry not-so-conventional happy-clappy views of the world. With respect to substantive parallels, IIRC, Ligotti does not really adopt Schopenhauerian views and favours the more superficial views of Zapffe. As for Thacker, his project seems to be about the impotency of "pessimistic" philosophy. To call someone Schopenhauerian would be to say that they are either working within his system or building upon it.

>>16070100
i kinda exaggerated by calling them "Schopenhauerians" but nonetheless they are heavily inspired by Schopenhauer
i don't think that you will find them worthwhile judging by the fact that you don't like the "pessimistic" side of Schopenhauer.
but still checkout The Conspiracy Against the Human Race is only 240 pages long and Ligotti writes very clearly.

>>16070131
Zapffe used Schopenhauer's system for his thesis

>>16070150
I stand corrected then. I need to reread The Last Messiah

>>16070166
But how does he use it exactly?

>>16070118
You make a very good point. One of the greatest qualities of Schopenhauer, I believe, is equal emphasis on the subjective and objective factors of the world. The subject exists for the object, and the object for the subject. Likewise, a subject could not exist with an object, and no object without a subject. That is to say, the objective world *does* exist, but only as my representation.

As you point out, the western world has become obsessed with "objectivity", now more so than ever. They boast of their objectiveness, yet they forget their world would not have exited without their subjective mind. On the other hand, I find it very amusing that these very same objective people would be too quick to point out all values are subjective. Art is subjective, morality is subjective, and so on. We can see it most clearly in what has happened to art: Beethoven's music was so orderly that it's almost mathematical, Goethe wrote poems with perfect meter; but now every artistic creation is characterized by lack of rules and chaos that we are supposed to appreciate because beauty is supposedly subjective and in the eye of the beholder.

And so the West suffers from this schizophrenic duality. The world is at the same time too objective and too subjective. No wonder our lives are so comical. If only they knew Schopenhauer is patiently holding the key.

>>16070132
I was actually considering The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, but now that you recommend it, I'll certainly check it out. Thanks for the rec.

>>16070195
You raise some very good insights regarding the state of the arts currently. There are indeed such things as good art and bad art. Good art is what allows us to best experience those things we have intuitions of but perhaps lack the requisite vocabulary to express. In other words, good art is what reminds us of the non-rational essence of things. As we have forgotten this truth, it is no surprise that good art has fallen to wayside. And due to the state of modernity, I really doubt it will return any time soon. It's such a cliche to say, but technology really has expedited the decay that was already latent in Western society. I believe Nietzsche also foresaw such a decay, however, I'm not as familiar with him as I am with Schopenhauer just yet so I'll refrain from making any further comment.

It's strange to say but, Schopenhauer articulated the way in which I experience art in a way that I previously had no way of articulating. The sense of transcendence I feel is perhaps indeed the sensing of the Forms. And funnily enough, music is my favourite form of aesthetic experience due to how it possesses me in a way no other art form does. As with a great number of things, Schopenhauer provided me with the vocabulary to speak of things that I previously had only had nebulous intuitions of. I have consequentially found that my own writings come to me more fluidly and through far less labour. Moreover, I take extra steps to not hide behind verbose prose.

>And so the West suffers from this schizophrenic duality. The world is at the same time too objective and too subjective. No wonder our lives are so comical.
Great point. If one were to really scrutinise their daily conversations, they would begin to see the disquiet present in even the most outspoken individuals. I think this is partly due to the state of modernity but ultimately due to the sneaking suspicion within everyone that all is not right and won't be right. Of course, with the latter, there are varying degrees of consciousness of this reality and the majority of the reactions to it are misguided.

>>16070383
Exactly. Given the higher nature of the eternal truths that art wishes to communicate, and since all empirical sciences do nothing but to further describe our veil of Maya, it would be more fitting to say art is objective and science is subjective (I'm jesting though it's not far from the truth).

I apologize for the short reply. I have to go to sleep now but tomorrow I'd write a more fitting response.

Bump

>>16065856
>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 from above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man.
Based

>>16071710
Fake quote

>>16070383
I'm the anon that you replied to last night. You raise some good points about modernity. I believe the chief characteristic of modernity is the state of mind that mentioned -- the belief that the world is all objective and all subjective. Incidentally, Carl Jung talks about this; The European mind, according to him, has always been focused on what is external. While it is clear in the western obsession with objectivity, it could even be seen in their view of God as an entity outside of the person. Jung contrasts it to the eastern mind, which has prefered what is subjective. According to eastern religions, God is I, and I am God. Enlightenment to the Europeans is objective thinking free of dogma, but to Hindus and Buddhists it is a state of mind of complete subjectivity.

These different propensities would not have been a problem if they remained in equilibrium. I do not know much about the present East; but as for the West, as you point out, people put too much confidence on objectivity and empirical science, at the same time anxious belief in postmodern subjectivity is betrayed in their every word. This state of mind, I believe, is unhealthy to the point of pathology. The cure of which would be Schopenhauer's view that gives objectivity and subjectivity their due regards. Philosophical arguments could of course be constructed for almost any position, but I believe Schopenhauerian idealism is, at any rate, the healthiest.

>>16070118
You also talked about technological progress. This seems to have a correlation with Western obsession objectivity. The Eastern man might have believed his complete subjectivity will lead to enlightenment which would free him from all pain; the Western man similarly believes the technology resulting from his objectivity is his salvation. If we progress enough, they believe, there would be no lack of anything, no pain. As soon as you criticize over-objectivity, they quickly bring about technological progress, and might even call you a hypocrite for using technology and criticizing objectivity. In reality, I don't believe full reliance on each of the poles is possible. Western over-reliance on objectivity resulted in their neoliberal capitalism, wherein individuals are reduced to nothing but economic units of their wealthy overlords; Eastern over-reliance on subjectivity resulted in their lack of material wealth, which in turn forced them to renounce spirituality and turn to industry.

Both extreme ends seem to fail. If a balance is possible, I believe it would be ideal.

bump

>>16073466
>>16073606
Some good insights here again, anon. I haven't actually viewed my appreciation of Schopenhauer explicitly through that lens of a harmony of between the subject and object. I am of course aware of the importance of this distinction to his philosophy, but I never extrapolated this to our present culture. With that being said, indeed he sought to account for the totality of human experience. But another credit of Schopenhauer is that his system is not anthropocentric - On the Will in Nature is evidence for that. This then leads me to a further critique of present culture. It is highly individualistic.

Now, I do not mean this in a political sense. I mean it ontologically. I think that the emphasis on the "out there" very much contributes to this rabid individualism. Funnily, as soon as I began really scrutinising my internal behaviours and thought patterns, I was able to begin to predict the actions of others as well as understand the subtleties of their non-verbalised behaviours. This is because I saw these subtle and hard-to-define idiosyncrasies within myself. Schopenhauer has made me a more intuitive individual. Anyway, returning to the broader view, recognising the illusion of individuation is another thing that the West would benefit from. I'm hardly a mystic. Nevertheless, it is clear that this individualism is greatly contributing to the culture of narcissism, which in turn is expediting the decay and decadence of our society. Again, this isn't me leaning into any political ideology - I retain a scepticism for this similar to Schopenhauer.

As for Jung, I am not familiar enough with his works but I am aware of the influence Schopenhauer had on him. Ironically, I have read critiques that he was not empirical enough. How quaint! What would you recommend if one were to get into him?

>>16061479

Nietzsche was a pianist.

Remember friend, a pessimist is an optimist with all the facts.

>>16074685
You point out that the widespread selfishness in the world could be attributed to the over-objectivity that we discussed, and this is in fact very true. Carl Jung would have said this is the principle of compensation at work; since the objective factor is elevated in the conscious mind more than its due, the subjective factor in turn must be repressed in the unconscious. The unconscious, in turn, will compensate by emphasizing subjectivity via bombarding the ego with selfish instincts. The exact opposite of this could be seen when Schopenhauerian idealism is accepted. Since neither objecitivy nor subjectivity are elavated at the expense of the other, what proceeds here is the most ethical action in the interest of the collective Self. This is partly the reason I say this Schopenhauerian attitude is psychologically the healthiest.

As you say, anon, Schopenhauer indeed provided an all encompassing account of the world. This is a result of starting from the most fundamental principles (that is, the distinction between subject and object, which will lead to the principle of sufficient reason) and from there with painstaking rigor built his way up in such a way that almost no part of the world remains unexplained. Not only the material and phenomenal laws of nature remain are explained (let us remind ourselves he was the forerunner of modern physics and evolutionary theory, cherished by Einstein and Darwin alike), but also the metaphysical, the so called occult, the divine. Though I could praise Schopenhauer's genius all day and night, I do believe there are things I believe he overlooked. To better appreciate his merits I believe we should not shy away from his few flaws. To start, I believe, is his account of women. It is not that he is necessarily wrong; in fact, he is very much correct -- but incomplete. Jung completes this by noting that women become capable of rational thought after a certain stage of psychological growth, integrating the animus (the parallel process also applies to men and their feelings).

Another one is his account of religion. he says it is the metaphysics of the masses. Strictly speaking, this is not false; it is in fact true, though again incomplete. What I believe gives birth to religion is the same Genius that enables the artist to see past the veil. The prophet, witnessing these eternal truths, seeks to express them by the means of parables so that other people could understand him. According to this insight (first developed by Wagner, later elaborated on by Jung) we could say art is divine, and divinity is artistic. Indeed Wagner starts his essay by this sentence: "ONE might say that where Religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for Art to save the spirit of religion by recognising the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth through an ideal presentation."

>>16074685
There is also a sense of passivity and surrender in his way of dealing with the world that I believe is again incomplete. This has been particularly bothersome for me, since I do not believe I am fit for renunciation and sainthood. Nietzsche in his Schopenhauerian treatise The Birth of Tragedy gives an account of how an active life could be lived in Schopenhauer's framework. An even more complete account is given in the Hindu Gita that I am currently reading. If I may share a quote: "He whose efforts are always devoid of desire for fruit and ego, he whose actions have been burnt by the fire of knowledge, the learned call him wise. He who has given up attachment to action and its fruit is always content and without refuge. Even when he is immersed in action, he does nothing. Without attachment, controlled in mind and senses, having discarded all ownership and performing action only through the body, he does not attain the bondage of sin." Indeed, it is a central theme in the Gita that Will-less action and salvation through action is possible, if one discards all attachments to the results, and action itself is viewed as a sacrifice of the will. The path of action is as valid as the path of renunciation and knowledge. Which path an individual should take is determined by what is more suitable to their temperaments. To Schopenhauer's credit, he does mention salvation through martyrdom, though very sweepingly.

Another point I disagree with Schopenhauer is his insistence that the will is without goal. I might be confused on this point, but he himself mentions the ultimate goal: salvation, redemption, the death of the will and oneness with the world, though he does skip the intermediary steps. Jung again completes this by outlining the process of psychological growth in full. Incidentally, after familiarizing yourself with this process, you will see it in almost every religion and every substantial esoteric school; which gives me the suspicion that Schopenhauer might have shown us the path to a natural religion.

There is a fine genealogy of intellectual influence, following Schopenhauer to early Nietzsche to Wagner and to Jung. You asked where to start with Jung, I propose reading The Birth of Tragedy and Wagner's essay Religion and Art before him, as he elaborates on the ideas in those works. As for he himself, I started with the collection The Portable Jung, which is a good enough place to start.

there is too much effort posting in this thread
you're all in timeout for the next four hours

>>16076627
Based Schopenhauerians are having a high level discourse anon. Who would dare time them out?

>>16077016
es ist--mein Wille!

>>16076602
I think it is indeed important to begin to also focus on Schopenhauer’s shortfalls.

I would agree that when set aside the more (intentionally) provocative aspects of On Women, there are some astute observations being made. Nevertheless, I would presume that the nurturing of this rationality you refer to has occurred through the equal access to tertiary education for women, at least in the West. As trite as this criticism is, I still think it holds that Schopenhauer was simply not privy to the intellectual potential of women due to the hard social limits on their capacity to enter such institutions. This is not me devolving the debate into some feminist critique of him. However, with the facts that Schopenhauer was presented with at the time, it would seem a predictable conclusion for him to come to. Contemporarily, I see women who far exceed the intellect of the average man. To be charitable then, where his analysis can perhaps hold water is on a less academic and more intimate level - relational dynamics and the like.

I would also add to your insights on the possibility of passivity, that Nietzsche says in "Schopenhauer as Educator" that:
> We feel a strong loathing when we find talent without such aspiration, in the circle of the learned, or among the so-called educated; for we see that such men, with all their cleverness, are no aid but a hindrance to the beginnings of culture and the blossoming of genius, the aim of all culture.
And
>One would like to apply to society and its ends a fact that holds universally in the animal and vegetable world; where progress depends only on the higher individual types, which are rarer, yet more persistent, complex and productive. But traditional notions of what the end of society is, absolutely bar the way. We can easily understand how in the natural world, where one species passes at some point into a higher one, the aim of their evolution cannot be held to lie in the high level attained by the mass, or in the latest types developed; but rather in what seem accidental beings produced here and there by favourable circumstances.
This to me is the nascent jump off that Nietzsche would eventually have from Schopenhauer. Ultimately, the universalisation of morality is at direct odds with the necessary aristocracy latent in society to produce men of Genius like Goethe. And ironically, what Nietzsche admired most in Schopenhauer initially was his capacity to transcend the in-vogue ideas of the day and in in turn, his virulent rejection of academic philosophy and emphasis on rationality. A Schopenhauer would not have been produced in a wholly complacent and resigned society. The Genius still needs to be nurtured. And if the Genius is not nurtured, the opportunity for the more ordinary man to engage in aesthetic creation, hence silencing the Will temporarily, is greatly constrained.

>>16076602
As for clarification of Schopenhauer's asceticism I think the following from Dennis Vanden Auweele's "The Kantian Foundation of Schopenhauer's Pessimism" (a book that I highly recommend) might help:

>The saint is nothing with regard to the world, and the world is nothing to the saint. What does it mean to be ‘nothing’, and how does one attain such a state? Our past exploration of the figure of the ‘genius’ might be helpful here. The saintly and ascetic nothing has, like the genius, first and foremost a surplus of sensibility to a certain type of knowledge. While the genius has an awareness of the Platonic ideas through rational intuition, the saint is more directly aware of the illusory nature of the principium individuationis and immediately perceives the in itself of reality, not just the archetypes of the will. In the terms used in chapter two, the genius has surplus sensitivity to immediate, representational knowledge (of the Platonic Ideas) and the saint has surplus sensitivity to immediate, non-representational knowledge (of reality in itself). As such, the saint is an even more exceptional individual than the genius because she or he is capable of comprehensively and intuitively sensing reality in itself.

>This immediate, intuitive knowledge then becomes the very force or incentive that makes the saint disinterested in the natural affirmation of the will to life. The awareness of the in itself silences the individual will’s self-expression. But if all of reality is will, then whenever the self-expression of the will in the individual is silenced, there remains only ‘nothing’. The spe- cific content of the knowledge of the saint is, on the one hand, Schopenhau- er’s will-driven, naturalistic and deterministic metaphysics (chapter three) and, on the other hand, his existential philosophy of suffering (chapter four). In a nutshell, saints use the twofold awareness of their bodies so as to assume that the whole of reality is similar to their innermost core, namely voracious self-expressing will. From this, it follows that all of existence is caught in a spiral of suffering and boredom that is never substantially relieved by satis- faction. This bit of knowledge is absorbed in such a powerful and immediate manner that knowledge quiets down the will. Some agents are intuitively aware of these things, and these might be called natural saints—much like some agents are naturally prone to compassion. Others might acquire this knowledge throughout their lives by means of abstract reflection, if this abstract knowledge becomes so powerful that it becomes intuitive (i.e., exerts powerful, emotional force). This abstract reflection most powerfully happens upon the individual when going through profound suffering.

>>16077727
I believe that to say Schopenhauer was restricted by social limits of his time on the subject of women while the same person came up with the precursor of relativity theory (far ahead, too inconceivable in his time) is rather absurd. I indeed acknowledge the great intellect of some women I have interacted with, but the Jungian growth I speak of could not be achieved by taking some arbitrary college courses on critical theory or some such topics. It is a great spiritual hurdle, which is all the more a testament to the excellence of the women who have overcome it, and it wouldn't have been so great if it were commonplace. Jungian view of gender is an especially nuanced one, but I believe it successfully addresses all the confusion that comes from the topic of gender.

About morality and aristocracy, I simply refer you to ancient India. The caste system, developed by a culture most focused on compassion than any one else, acknowledges the importance of the Genius, while at the same time emphasizing the necessary morality. Compassion, I believe, need not be egalitarian. A leader could be loving and compassionate towards his followers while acknowledging without his lead his followers would dissolve into chaos. This could be applied to the wider scope of society and class, wherein the aristocratic class acknowledges its own importance all the while treating the lower classes with due kindness and regard. There is no contradiction here. Similarly, Nietzsche need not have separated himself fully from Schopenhauer to acknowledge the problem of passivity. As I pointed out, various schools of Hinduism acknowledge action as a valid path to salvation.

>>16077831
I am indeed familiar with the topic the author is introducing, though I fail to see how it relates to the present discussion. One could still acknowledge the illusoriness of the world while at the same time keep an active role and without exciting the will, as the Gita quote I posted indicates.

>>16077877
I see. Apologies for misinterpreting what you said then. Upon reflection, Schopenhauer was indeed speaking to a more metaphysical distinction between men and women. Like I said before, I have not immersed myself in Jung as much as I probably should have considering my admiration for Schopenhauer. I'm curious though, you referenced the man his feelings. What does this look like in the Jungian sense?

Nietzsche ultimately acknowledged that Schopenhauer would always stand as his philosophical antithesis and the system that this thought had to overcome. Reading excerpts from Nietzsche tells me that he began fully recognising the difficulties in doing so towards the end of his life. I am sceptical about the extent to which Nietzschean thought was ever really a full repudiation of Schopenhauer.

>>16065245
That concept does not make sense when applied to value.

>>16077935
>I am sceptical about the extent to which Nietzschean thought was ever really a full repudiation of Schopenhauer
It was a complete destruction of Schopenhauers thought. Schopenhauer was already completely dispensed with by his break with Wagner. There was never any hesitation past that at any point in his life, especially near the end, where he was referred to as the philosopher of decadence who misunderstood everything (his words, not mine).

>>16077935
>What does this look like in the Jungian sense?
As I understand, the equivalent in men is the emotional side that is usually repressed in favor of the rational. As men integrate the anima, they learn more about the emotional state of themselves and the others. Jung aptly contrasts this aspect of the two genders in this quote: "Indeed, it seems a natural state of affairs for men to have irrational moods and women irrational opinions." When the respective figures are integrated, this hurdle is overcome.

>>16077935
>>16077974
Regardless of these sentiments, I still believe the purely ethical side of Nietzsche is fully compatible with Schopenhauer's framework. He partly integrates it himself in The Birth of Tragedy, and then Jung systematizes other aspects of it in his concept of Shadow. I believe there is a possibility of even more harmony between the two due to their being foreshadowed in the Karma Yoga (path of action) of Hinduism.

I agree with the thesis of Schopenhauer but when you get sick with the disease know as Death anxiety nothing makes sense anymore. No art, no music and nothing could makes you keep on living your life.
The more I think about it more I agree with thesis of Philip Mainländer.

>There is an Eastern fable, told long ago, of a traveller overtaken on a plain by an enraged beast. Escaping from the beast he gets into a dry well, but sees at the bottom of the well a dragon that has opened its jaws to swallow him. And the unfortunate man, not daring to climb out lest he should be destroyed by the enraged beast, and not daring to leap to the bottom of the well lest he should be eaten by the dragon, seizes s twig growing in a crack in the well and clings to it. His hands are growing weaker and he feels he will soon have to resign himself to the destruction that awaits him above or below, but still he clings on. Then he sees that two mice, a black one and a white one, go regularly round and round the stem of the twig to which he is clinging and gnaw at it. And soon the twig itself will snap and he will fall into the dragon's jaws. The traveller sees this and knows that he will inevitably perish; but while still hanging he looks around, sees some drops of honey on the leaves of the twig, reaches them with his tongue and licks them. So I too clung to the twig of life, knowing that the dragon of death was inevitably awaiting me, ready to tear me to pieces; and I could not understand why I had fallen into such torment. I tried to lick the honey which formerly consoled me, but the honey no longer gave me pleasure, and the white and black mice of day and night gnawed at the branch by which I hung. I saw the dragon clearly and the honey no longer tasted sweet. I only saw the unescapable dragon and mice, and I could not tear my gaze from them. and this is not a fable but the real unanswerable truth intelligible to all. The deception of the joys of life which formerly allayed my terror of the dragon now no longer deceived me. No matter how often I may be told, "You cannot understand the meaning of life so do not think about it, but live," I can no longer do it: I have already done it too long. I cannot now help seeing day and night going round and bringing me to death. That is all I see, for that alone is true. All else is false. The two drops of honey which diverted my eyes from the cruel truth longer than the rest: my love of family, and of writing -- art as I called it -- were no longer sweet to me. "Family"... said I to myself. But my family -- wife and children -- are also human. They are placed just as I am: they must either live in a lie or see the terrible truth. Why should they live? Why should I love them, guard them, bring them up, or watch them? That they may come to the despair that I feel, or else be stupid? Loving them, I cannot hide the truth from them: each step in knowledge leads them to the truth. And the truth is death.
Leo Tolstoy, A Confession

Bump

>>16062179
Actually yeah that's exactly what he did do... How is it you have an opinion on something you didn't read? You inherited this opinion or formed it based on someone else's mistake. That should be worrying to you. It's safe to assume you do this with other opinions.

>>16062404
I imagine his black.

>>16063739
What do these have to do with optimism?

He BTFOd not only stoicism but also materialism. What would a materialists response to his argument be?

>>16078624
Fuck off incel

pipe go tooooooooot
hehehe

>>16081727
My post has nothing to do with being an incel

>>16061479
Who said that? Nietzche?

Threads like these are worth paying for... I feel unworthy to be posting on the same thread as the sages present...

>>16066404
Jesus christ you literally can not try harder than this post. This is as hard as you can physically try.

>>16083494
P.S. I have literally read the E.F.J. Payne translations and the Aquila and Carus translations of Will and Representation and the Parerga and Paralipomena, calling this guy a realist is not only an immature middle school cynicism response I'd expect to come out of Rick Sanchez's mouth its completely ignorant of any literary or philosophical movement that ever used the name "Realist".

Nothing this nigga wrote is realistic.

>>16078071
We seem to be venturing into areas that I am more unfamiliar with such as the Hinduism and Jung. Nevertheless, it seems that further my appreciation of Schopenhauer and fill in the places where he fell short, it is necessary to constructively engage with these ideas as well. My critiques of Schopenhauer are also of the more academic and structural kind. Perhaps that is a consequence of the manner in which I have engaged with philosophy in the past. However, I should indeed move away from structural critiques and focus upon the kernels of wisdom notwithstanding my desire for internal consistency in the philosophies I accept. Indeed, we are only human, and should and it is a much easier task to criticise than to create. Schopenhauer was right when he said:
>Any stupid boy can crush a beetle. But all professors in the world cannot make one.

Insofar as the criticisms I have been grappling with recently, I would refer again to Sebastian Gardner. Consider the below:
>The problem is straightforward. So long as some element of explanation is involved in
itself 'is to be explained solely from the will whose objectivity it is, and not through causality'.
referring the phenomenal world to Wille – and Schopenhauer speaks readily of metaphysical Erklärung – some employment of the categories of ground and consequent, as Kant would put it,must be present. The explanation may be non-causal, but it must nonetheless incorporate a 'because' relation. Without it, we are simply left with (at most) sub-propositional, non-conceptual awareness of the world as awash with a certain all-pervasive mental quality, the quality possessed by acts of will; and although this might provide the cue for some such metaphorical thought as that the world 'insists itself' or 'exerts pressure', obviously it will not provide Schopenhauer with a sufficient basis for any of the determinate discursive conclusions that he wants to extract from his grounding of phenomena on Wille.
I would concede that is perhaps not necessary to resolve this issue and still come away and accept Schopenhauer's insights. Nevertheless, there's something within me that demands that this issue needs to be resolved. In short, I find I must be content with both the macro and micro view of the philosophy I read.

>>16078071
We seem to be venturing into areas that I am more unfamiliar with such as the Hinduism and Jung. Nevertheless, it seems that further my appreciation of Schopenhauer and fill in the places where he fell short, it is necessary to constructively engage with these ideas as well. My critiques of Schopenhauer are also of the more academic and structural kind. Perhaps that is a consequence of the manner in which I have engaged with philosophy in the past. However, I should indeed move away from structural critiques and focus upon the kernels of wisdom notwithstanding my desire for internal consistency in the philosophies I accept. Indeed, we are only human, and should and it is a much easier task to criticise than to create. Schopenhauer was right when he said:
>Any stupid boy can crush a beetle. But all professors in the world cannot make one.

Insofar as the criticisms I have been grappling with recently, I would refer again to Sebastian Gardner. Consider the below:
>The problem is straightforward. So long as some element of explanation is involved in itself 'is to be explained solely from the will whose objectivity it is, and not through causality'. Referring the phenomenal world to Wille – and Schopenhauer speaks readily of metaphysical Erklärung – some employment of the categories of ground and consequent, as Kant would put it,must be present. The explanation may be non-causal, but it must nonetheless incorporate a 'because' relation. Without it, we are simply left with (at most) sub-propositional, non conceptual awareness of the world as awash with a certain all-pervasive mental quality, the quality possessed by acts of will; and although this might provide the cue for some such metaphorical thought as that the world 'insists itself' or 'exerts pressure', obviously it will not provide
Schopenhauer with a sufficient basis for any of the determinate discursive conclusions that he wants to extract from his grounding of phenomena on Wille.
I would concede that is perhaps not necessary to resolve this issue and still come away and accept Schopenhauer's insights. Nevertheless, there's something within me that demands that this issue needs to be resolved. In short, I find I must be content with both the macro and micro view of the philosophy I read.

I am curious as well, how does Jung reconcile the insights in BT with his notion of the Shadow?

>>16083863
I am the same anon you have been speaking with over the past few days for reference.

>>16083863
What I gather from the quote you posted is that it is referring to the Kantian problem of the relation between the phenomena and the noumenon; is that correct? I acknowledge I haven't grappled with these epistemological issues very much and I have not yet read the relevant academic literature, but my own interpretation was that we reach an account of the noumenon and the phenomena from different routes. On the one side we examine the phenomena and we see that it is to a great part a construct of the a priori features of a cognizng subject, leading us to believe it could never amount to anything more than a representation, i.e, the experience of a thing could never be the thing itself. This leads us to conceptually imagine the noumenon, that which is the pure thing itself, not being polluted by a priori features of a cognizing subject. In this way, the Will and the Representation are the same thing considered differently; there is no "because" relation, since both are one and the same thing: one is experienced, the other is not experienced. Is there a problem with this interpretation?

About Jung and Nietzsche, I did not mean to say Jung was using Nietzsche's insights in BT to synthesize it with Schopenhauer -- Nietzsche himself did that, as I said BT is a treatise committed to Schopenhauerian conclusions. What I meant to say is that the concept of Shadow relates to Nietzsche's critiques of morality, and integrates it in to the broader Schopenhauerian-Jungian framework. Nietzsche points out the dogmatic and arbitrary nature of the common moralities, and that these moral frameworks are used to benefit certain groups at the expense of another, that one group has to repress his natural capabilities so that the other group benefits from it. In this way, there is nothing truly good or bad in these values, despite what dogmatic followers and teachers might say. Now, from my last post you might remember that I said Jung outlines the process of psychological/spiritual growth, which ends salvation or redemption (or whatever word you to refer to the return to the oneness with the world; Jung himself calls it integrating the Self). One of the first steps in this process, according to Jung, is recognizing the arbitrary nature of these moralities, and accordingly unrepressing those repressed qualities. This is known as integrating the Shadow. It is a difficult thing to do because since childhood the arbitrary morality has been constantly taught to the individual as absolute truth, but it is a necessary step towards recognizing the true nature of the world. But then, as I said, during the last stages of the process, when the individual is getting close to the truth of oneness of the world, and as Schopenhauer describes, the individual then involuntary adopts the sort of compassion morality Schopenhauer talked about. In this way, I believe Jung successfully integrates moral insights of Nietzsche within the broader Schopenhauerian framework.

>>16062404
Until they're possessed by a demon

>That accursed piping

>>16061479

>>16084829
This kills the soibeard

>>16084470
Yes, you would be correct in saying that it refers to precise relationship between phenomena and noumena. Your interpretation of Schopenhauer aligns closely to mine. I would add however, that Schopenhauer says that access to the noumena is not necessarily through conceptual awareness but rather a more immediate awareness of one's existence in their own body (I may have misinterpreted what you meant by conceptual awareness here). This immediate awareness, to Schopenhauer, is not bound by a priori intuitions, hence being devoid of what keeps us in the world of sufficient reason, thus giving us access to something beyond rationality (which is a construct of the mind).

The issue being presented here goes towards the manner in which Schopenhauer contracts the Principle of Sufficient Reason in order to create for the possibility of non-rational knowledge of the world and in turn, his pessimism. To Gardner, Schopenhauer is still making a "because" claim. Even if we are willing to accept that some non-representational awareness is possible, the content thereof must still be abstracted into thought. I see this argument of "being thought" perhaps arising due to immediate awareness still needing to be temporally bound for the subject to make use of this awareness. And to Gardner, this implies some form of intellectual intuition still occurring hence giving rise to a "because". Schopenhauer has not fully left the realm of the PSR and hence cannot fully commit to non-rational awareness. I'm yet to have a response for this, but my intuition is that he is not fully considered or at least misinterpreted what Schopenhauer meant by knowledge through non-rational means. Gardner is maybe implicitly reading in rational knowledge as necessary for the because claim. Again, this is admittedly half-baked.

I also appreciate your clarification of your view of the relationship between BT and the Jungian project. It would seem that Nietzsche would eventually relegate Schopenhaurian compassion compassion to those very "dogmatic and arbitrary... common moralities" in his subsequent works. Nevertheless, and excuse my ignorance, but it would also seem that compassion, in light of the Jungian development, takes a far more nuanced form than a mere replication of the Christian conception of it. That is to say that it actually is possible to formulate the necessity for compassion beyond a master-slave dialectic. Moreover compassion should not be seen as some moral imperative given from high but the manifestation of eternal truth. The core difficulty then seems to become to disassociate compassion from goodness. Broader society will of course view in that sense because of the nascent Christian morality that seems to ironically permeate in a society that claims to be atheistic and physicalist - as we discussed earlier.

>>16084470
As a side note, this is the best discussion I have ever had on this silly board and I am glad there are people who are willing to engage in ideas beyond the Wikipedia level. I must thank you for having both time and patience to engage at this level.

>>16085174
bless you anons, this made all the hours dumpe on lit worth it.

>>16085167
Regarding Gardner's point, I think there are three different arguments at play here, and Gardner is confusing them. The first argument is Kant's proof of transcendental idealism; i.e., that phenomena and noumenon are not exactly the same. This is the one I outlined in my last post, and with this, the conceptual existence of the noumenon is established, although it is just an unknown factor, an X. Jacobi famously criticized this argument on the ground of the impossible causal relation between phenomena and the noumenon, and although as I understand the debate still continoues to the present day, I think the particular interpretation of Schopenhauer that I mentioned largely avoids this criticism, since there is no causal relation between the two in this interpretation.

The second argument is Schopenhauer's argument about the nature of the noumenon. Schopenhauer first notes that we, as human beings, are conscious of ourselves in two different ways: When looked externally and objectively, we are material objects just like any other object in the universe; When looked internally and psychologically, we are striving and willing agents. According to this insight then, it is possible that every other object in the universe too are the same; that is, we can look at them and see objects, but if we were able to see within them we would have seen the same sort of willing and striving. This is at least a possiblity at this point. Schopenhauer then notes (in a proto-psychoanalytic fit) that we ourselves for the most part are unaware of our motives and willing; that we might in fact will something, but rationalize it consciously to ourselves in another way. Accordingly, in humans then, we know unconscious willing exists. In this light, we extend this to everything else and infer that within everything in the universe, conscious or not, alive or therwise, unconscious willing is present as well. Since "within objects" is equivalent to the thing itself, and the thing itself according to Kantian arguments is uniform and one, then Schopenhauer establishes that the nature of the noumenon is the Will; that is, unconscious striving. This is Schopenhauer's central argument regarding the noumenon, and as we see it is based inference, a probable possibility. This is due to the fact that the Kantian argument regarding noumenon/phenomena and the PSR cuts off our direct access to the noumenon, so the best we could hope for is this inference. It is clear that in this argument, Schopenhauer does not violate the PSR.

cont.

>>16085167
>>16085174
The third point is Schopenhauer's remark that since our willing shares its nature with the noumenonal Will, then we have a sort of "direct knowledge" of the Will by our experience of our own striving. This is not to be regarded as Schopenhauer's chief argument regarding the noumenon, but only as a corollary, and this indeed is not subject to the PSR because our second argument used inference to go past PSR. So as I understand, Gardner is reusing Jacobi's argument against transcendental idealism, this time against Schopenhauer's noumenal Will. This is, I believe, not possible because as I said Schopenhauer's third point is based on Kant's first argument and Schopenhauer's second inference, both of which avoid a "because" or a causal relation, between the noumenon and the phenomena.


Regarding Nietzsche and compassion morality, I believe this sort of morality does avoid Nietzsche's criticism precisely because of the reason you mentioned. Schopenhauer's ethics was already very naturalistic and for the most part descriptive (although he might have at times engaged in some moralizing which irritated Nietzsche). If we then remove all sorts of prescriptions, then what we have is a purely descriptive ethics that avoids the so called "is-ought" gap. Another point that exempts it from Nietzsche's wrath is that it does not hinder the development of the Higher Men. Quite the opposite, it defines morality as the will of the higher men, which I think Nietzsche would have loved. Indeed, compassion based ethics is not always so compassionate; In the Gita we have a story of a warrior who wishes to refrain fighting his enemies because he thinks this the compassionate choice. But then surprisingly, the all compassionate lord Krishna, the embodiment of the eternal One in flesh, bids him to fight and kill his enemies without hesitation, for they are overcome by greed and other vices. Fighting them in this case is, ironically, the compassionate choice.

I should also thank you for participating in this conversation. I can confirm in the few years that I have visited this board discussions of this scale rarely happen, but when they do it is in the interest of everyone involved. In case you'd like to have future discussions after this thread, I made a temporary email to exchange contact: drfghstsdfg@protonmail.com

bump