Who was better?

[Anonymous No.16137819]

Try to be self respecting and make your case without shit flinging or disguising your lack of reading with childishness

[Anonymous No.16137829]

>>16137819
schoppy is better because I cant fucking understand Hegel

[Anonymous No.16137847]

>>16137819
Hegel is shit
>>16137829
Good now don’t waste any time trying to

[Anonymous No.16137850]

>>16137819
Hegel was a bootlicking nigger

[Anonymous No.16137875]

>>16137819
Childhood is disregarding Hegel and admiring Schoppenhauer. Aldulthood is embracing Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.16137886]

I got filtered by Hegel's language
I disregard the view that he was writing nonsense on the grounds of it being supported by Russel but he's even more confusing than Kant
Schoppy can at least be enjoyed with a very elementary understanding of Kant

[Anonymous No.16137889]

>>16137819
Hegel was a charlatan who hid behind obscure writing.

[Anonymous No.16137901]

>>16137819
i personally appreciate Hegel more as a system maker. i think in terms of forming an epistemological system he is unrivaled. but i like Schop’s aphorisms and more intimate writing. academically i like Hegel more, but artistically, Schop.

[Anonymous No.16137902]

>>16137819
Schopenhauer wore the pants in that relationship, so him.

[Anonymous No.16137922]

>>16137819
I do love Schope but he's ultimately just bringing Western philosophy around to the conclusions reached millenia before in China and India, whereas Hegel the Based Schizo is opening up entirely new catalogs of memes and notions, so for me, yeah, I'm thinking it's Hegel

[Anonymous No.16137947]

>>16137902
lol, no he didnt. Hegel was definitely the dominant partner, seeing as he was the one to offer him a lecture space and Schop getting pissy that people liked Hegel more.

[Anonymous No.16137958]

>>16137902
Hegel was the man in the relationship. Without him, Schoppy would have never been granted a teaching position. Even after this altruistic concession, Schopenhauer still sperged out because he had fewer students than Hegel.
He truly was a spoiled child.

Also he never understood Kantian logic, which lead him to adopt the retarded notion for which the existence of things-in-themselves is contradictory. He really got filtered

[Anonymous No.16137969]

>>16137875
this is wrong, but not by much

[Anonymous No.16138023]

>>16137819
In terms of their ability to communicate their ideas clearly and effectively Schopenhauer eclipses Hegel totally. That, however, is not a sufficient condition to satisfy the question.
Hegel was more far reaching than Schopenhauer, who more or less had one idea. Both lived in the shadow of Kant, but took drastically different routes in response.

Schopenhauer's great innovation was to accord the emotive, willful, motivational aspect of consciousness its rightful role in metaphysics. He comes completely out of left field by asserting that Will is the thing in itself, that this insatiable desire to be lies at the core of existence, and that there is no contradiction between materialism and idealism, they are both sides of the same coin.

Hegel extends Kant, and is essentially logical in perspective. Everywhere he views antinomies which are viewed as part of this great process of reconciliation. He is a philosopher of history as well as ideas. He views history as this working out of inherent contradictions and the teleological convergence of opposites emerging as new realities.

Schopenhauer has the eye on the eternal. Hegel has the eye on the contingent and changeable. So who is better? It's hard to be objective here because it's not like comparing two scientists, whose theories either stood up to the evidence or not. Schopenhauer was himself a moody, willful man, whose criticisms and scorn for Hegel was more based on personal jealousy than respectable philosophic rebukes. Personally I stand with Schopenhauer for his having the most drastic influence on my thinking, although both influenced western philosophy drastically. (Schopenhauer influenced psychology with psychoanalysis being his biggest champion and Hegel political theory with marxism the most consequential effect of this thinking .)

[Anonymous No.16138028]

>He contacted his friends at universities in Heidelberg, Göttingen and Berlin and found Berlin most attractive. He scheduled his lectures to coincide with those of the famous philosopher G. W. F. Hegel, whom Schopenhauer described as a "clumsy charlatan".
>Despite their differences and the arrogant request to schedule lectures at the same time as his own, Hegel still voted to accept Schopenhauer to the university. However, only five students turned up to Schopenhauer's lectures, and he dropped out of academia. A late essay, "On University Philosophy", expressed his resentment towards the work conducted in academies.

It's not even up for discussion. Hegel created the most complete and the most complex philosophical system to ever grace this planet. People here are dismissing him because he's too complex, and are praising Schopenhauer because he's quite simple and pushed women off stairs (inb4 HURR BASED).

[Anonymous No.16138039]

>>16137819

[Anonymous No.16138056]

>>16137819
Hegel without a doubt. Schopenhauer supported the absurd primacy of will over reason.

[Anonymous No.16138065]

>>16137922
>conclusions reached millenia before in China and India
How so?

[Anonymous No.16138083]

>>16138039
Let's hear those words then.

[Anonymous No.16138110]

>>16138023
thank you for good effort post.

I also want to add that Hegel also had a massive influence on the study of history, not just politics through marx. most every modern historiographical method derives in large part from Hegels conception of history as a process (which in a way, again leads back to marx, but Hegel also influenced those who were not in the vein of historical material dialectic, but in history as a process of thought and other branches too).

his influence on psychology is lesser, but still there as well i might add.

i pretty much agree with you but Hegel is my preferred, though i respect Schop very much.

[Anonymous No.16138134]

>>16137819
Hegel was the last first man, Schopenhauer was the first last man.

[Anonymous No.16138141]

>>16138083
out is in, be is not be

[Anonymous No.16138156]

>>16138141
second part good first part not.

[Anonymous No.16138172]

>>16138110
But Hegel didn't come up with history as process
We've known since this at least book 3 of Thucydides

[Anonymous No.16138188]

>>16138065
The idea of "the world as will and representation" is hardly distinct from the notions in the Upanishads or the writings of Taoists like Laozi and Zhuangzi. Schope even included laudatory shout-outs to the then-recently-translated Upanishads in his revised editions, saying as much.

[Anonymous No.16138190]

>>16138110
I concur. Hegel is a tremendous influence on the philosophy of history and his view that there is a teleological direction to history has influenced many historical theories, although Marx engaged with Hegel probably more intimately than any other thinker. Different views, from transhumanism to marxism to fascism, owe Hegel for giving them the idea that history was an equation that was being worked out and tended to some end state. Hegel views history as one big thought trying to work itself out (world spirit, Weltgeist)
Schopenhauer in contrast thought nothing of history because the perception of time was merely one of the modes of the principle of sufficient reason whereby living beings (individual instances of the Will) are forced to interpret reality. Organisms construct their own sense of time to better service the will operating within them. This creates a blindness to history in Schopenhauer's thinking because to him everywhere every living thing is just doing the same exact thing in service to its will.

[Anonymous No.16138224]

>>16138188
Thank you

[Anonymous No.16138274]

>>16138023
>communicate their ideas clearly and effectively Schopenhauer eclipses Hegel totally
In my view Schopenhauer is one of the greatest writers of all time and certainly among the top 3 of philosophic writers, with maybe Nietzche , and a to a lesser extent Hume, who was a pellucid writer albeit stunningly boring. Schopenhauer's grasp of metaphor was nothing less than artistic in presentation.

[l'chaim !!NW31gwdgGBV No.16138276]

>>16137819
Hegel has no doubt had a wider influence on philosophy and literature, however I have to go with Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer could actually write worth a damn.

[Anonymous No.16138313]

>>16137958
>he never understood Kantian logic
Because Kantian logic is fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.16138363]

Schopy believed in ghosts and hated women so hard pass for me.

[Anonymous No.16138374]

Schopy believed in ghosts and hated women so definitely him

[Anonymous No.16138444]

early and very late Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16138446]

>>16137819
Hegel doesnt make any sense and Schoppenhauer was kinda cringe.

[Anonymous No.16138452]

>>16138446

[Anonymous No.16138537]

>>16138313
Substantiate your claim
Why is kantian logic retarded?

[Anonymous No.16138742]

>>16138537
The subject is subjective, which does not imply a transcendent thing-in-itself, but the impossibility of transcendence altogether. His transcendent thing-in-itself was a non-move, basically a moral gesture.

[Anonymous No.16138970]

>>16138742
Did you just decide to ignore my question? Lmao

[Anonymous No.16139134]

>>16138970
What do you mean? Kantian logic leads to the transcendent thing-in-itself, which as a concept makes no sense within his logic, as I just explained.

[Anonymous No.16139196]

>>16139134
>Kantian logic leads to the transcendent thing-in-itself, which as a concept makes no sense within his logic, as I just explained.
Wtf? Dude I can't read your mind, just argue and write like a human being

[Anonymous No.16139299]

>>16139196
There is nothing "logical" between Kant's knowing subject and his transcendent thing-in-itself, yet he would have us believe that there is. He insists on this thing-in-itself as if there is any aspect of it that is separate from his knowing subject. But from his very own understanding of the subject, there logically can't be, so where does this notion of the transcendent thing-in-itself come from? Not from logic. There must have been a moral desire on his part to conceive of such a notion.

[Anonymous No.16139356]

>>16139299
And now you're again back to talking about Kantian epistemology.
For the last time: what's wrong with kantian LOGIC? Earlier on you've said
>Kantian logic is fucking retarded.
Why?
Don't piggyback again to kantian epistemology please. Once we deal with the logic thing I'll give you a response to your claims regarding the knowability of the existence of the thing in itself.

[Anonymous No.16139389]

>>16139356
The problem with Kantian logic is that it believes too strongly in the illogical subject. The subjective is its origin point. It neuters itself before it even begins to take off. That's how it's retarded.

If Kantian logic was sound, it would have realized that everything is irrational all the way through. Talk of a transcendent thing-in-itself wouldn't have even appeared.

[Anonymous No.16139435]

>>16137850
>vehement support for every revolution
>bootlicker
You read philosophy of right without understanding what “actual” means in Hegel’s system, didn’t you?

[Anonymous No.16139464]

>>16137819
they both preach the same with different words, both copied Plato's who copied from Babylonian authors who copied from pre flood figured who copied from fallen angels and hybrids

[Anonymous No.16139488]

>>16137886
>being supported by Russel
that should instantantly bring the philosopher into ill repute seeing how much of a moron Russel was.

[Anonymous No.16139498]

>>16139389
Kantian logic doesn't deal with the subject... logic in general doesn't deal eith the subject... what the hell?
Do you know what's kantian logic, right? Here's Kant voluminous series of lectures
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://cdchester.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Lectures-on-Logic-The-Cambridge-Edition-of-the-Works-of-Immanuel-Kant-in-Translation-Immanuel-Kant.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwivi5eQsJ7rAhWtSBUIHW9mAYsQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0Nvi6aeRb44KO-Cu7b_GxI

[Anonymous No.16139528]

>>16139498
>Kantian logic doesn't deal with the subject
It's based on the subject. I don't care what it "deals" with.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.16139533]

Why’s it gotta be a who’s better than who? Can’t I just enjoy both of them and integrate parts of both which I agree with?

[Anonymous No.16139553]

>>16138023
>reconciliation
>convergence
you have to go back

>>16138190
>tended to some end state
In Hegel necessity is entirely contingent and only posited retroactively, there is no teleology in the traditional sense

This popular conception of Hegel is a result of generations of commentators trying to domesticate Hegel’s radical break. There is no reconciliation of opposites or grand design or march of necessity. There is reconciliation TO contradiction, not a surpassing of it, but a shift in the subjective position whereby we see how what appears antagonism is an inner contradiction of a larger structure. Absolute knowing is knowing that contradiction is intractable, immanent to every idea, not some grand synthesis of all there is.

[Anonymous No.16139569]

>>16139528
Logic only deals with the form of thought (nowadays we would say: it only deals with the logical form of valid reasoning ), it tells you nothing about the object it pertains, nor it tells you anything about the subject's faculties.
For example, when I said that Schoppy doesn't understand kantian logic, I was specifically thinking about his ignorance concerning the extension of negative judgements (namely, the fact that negative judgements do not positively determine any concept outside of the negated one).

[Anonymous No.16139663]

>>16138313
who wins, one widely celebrated genius whose work is generally considered the highest peak of western philosophy since the greeks, or some LARPing fuck on an anime imageboard?

clearly this kid

[Anonymous No.16139770]

>>16139569
>it tells you nothing about the object it pertains, nor it tells you anything about the subject's faculties.
But it does construct these things from the onset. Kant's logic was based on the subject, as in it refers to knowledge within the subjective. My argument is that Kantian logic is flawed because it already makes the error of trusting the subject before it even begins.

>>16139663
Grow up.

[Anonymous No.16139801]

>>16139770
>But it does construct these things from the onset. Kant's logic was based on the subject, as in it refers to knowledge within the subjective. My argument is that Kantian logic is flawed because it already makes the error of trusting the subject before it even begins.
I'm starting to think that not only you don't know what Kantian logic mean, you might even not know what logic means? No. Kant's logic is not based on the subject, nor it refers to any specific kind of logic, nor it is dependant on any kind of object. In fact, literally no type of logic is built on these premises.
What you're talking about is epistemology, which is not logic, not for Kant nor for anyone else

[Anonymous No.16139868]

>>16137889
troll

[Anonymous No.16139879]

>>16137819
Schope > anything

[Anonymous No.16139903]

>>16137819
>who was better
>don't disguise your lack of reading with childishness
time to off yourself

[Anonymous No.16139959]

>>16139533
>>16139903
Anyone else is just being a retard trying to academic signal their "vast knowledge and understanding".
This thread is the academic equivalent of basement dwellers arguing over wolverine beating batman or some other superhero x superhero duel. Fucking retards. Neither Hegel nor Schoppenhauer would be impressed by this display of the most base of human behaviour. More disdainful than fapping on /gif/.

[Anonymous No.16140088]

>>16139801
Where do you think logic comes from, specifically in Kant's view?

[Anonymous No.16140102]

Dialectical thinking is bugman tier.

[Anonymous No.16140171]

>>16140088
It doesn't come from anywhere, nor it is subject-dependent. You might be confusing it with trascendental schematism, which is still part of Kant's epistemology.

[Anonymous No.16140203]

>>16139553
Shut the fuck up with your obscurantist gobbledygook. The Hegelian dialectic was a general process that tends toward the Absolute. It absolutely was teleological in the sense that an idea or thought pattern followed through to dialectical completion would tend toward the subsumption of all its antecedents.

[Anonymous No.16140212]

>>16140171
>It doesn't come from anywhere
See, this makes no sense. In Kant, even time, space, and causality are subjective. But not logic? What? Something is seriously wrong here.

[Anonymous No.16140286]

>>16140212
The logical principle of non-contradiction is subjective?
Also
>In Kant, even time, space, and causality are subjective.
Logic is not bound by any form of intuition, it is simply the corpus of rules for purely logical validity. Saying that A=A is valid, regardless of wether this notion can actually be applied to phenomena. That's why the Trascendental Deduction is a big deal: it must be proven that logic can actually refer to intuitions. This is done only through the trascendental schematism, which is not to be confused with pure logic. In fact confusing it is a rational fallacy to which Kant dedicates a whole section of the CPR (Anphibolies of Pure Reason).

[Anonymous No.16140293]

>>16140286
>The logical principle of non-contradiction is subjective?
I mean isn't it obviously 'subjective' in the Kantian sense? It's a rule that takes place in the mind of the subject

[Anonymous No.16140315]

>>16137819
Hegel is a charlatan and a windbag

[Anonymous No.16140322]

>>16140293
The rule is not subject-dependent, insofar as the subject's properties do not alter it, nor they alters its validity. It is not contingent on our constitution
If I had to guess, you're probably using the subjective-objective distinction in an ontological sense, which makes no sense when talking about the rules of logic (in fact, it is an anphiboly of pure reasoning, the fallacy I was tallking about).

All in all, you're clearly very confused about the contents of Kant's philosophy. My advice is to reread the CPR, especially thr sections dedicated to the distinctions of logic, the TD, and the anphibolies.

Im going to bed now, see ya tomorrow

[Anonymous No.16140344]

>>16140286
>Logic is not bound by any form of intuition, it is simply the corpus of rules for purely logical validity.
Then everything Kant reaches an understanding on about the knowing subject is pointless if he's just going to dismiss it all at the end with something that is essentially magic to this subject. Everything is logical up until this part, in the logic itself. Everything else is conditioned by the subject, but somehow this thing isn't... and he never gives a good reason why that is. "It's just math, I ain't gotta explain shit." No Kant, no, you have to explain, you're a philosopher!

>>16140322
That was another poster, actually. Good night.

[Anonymous No.16140377]

>>16140322
>The rule is not subject-dependent,
But how could you possibly know that? Isn't it just a 'condition for the subject' in the same way as space, time, etc.?

And I'm not the other poster I was just curious.

[Anonymous No.16142034]

>>16137819
I have been reading Schopenhauer for over 10 years and he has remained my favorite author throughout. His single unifying thought is more than enough of an answer to the thousands of questions that clouded my mind.
Hegel is unreadable. I regret buying phenomenology of spirit.

[Anonymous No.16142304]

>>16139770
You grow up, you're the one calling Kant retarded. That exposes you as a child playing a game rather than someone with a remotely competent approach to philosophy. No remembered philosopher is retarded, the absolute worst of them is still many times smarter than you

[Anonymous No.16142409]

>>16139553
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.16144276]

>>16142304
>That exposes you as a child playing a game rather than someone with a remotely competent approach to philosophy.
The kingly power is a child's, pleb.

[Anonymous No.16144301]

>>16137819
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8iKFVdmjYq2N/

[Anonymous No.16144792]

>>16140203
Except (to simplify beyond recognition) the process is radically contingent, it’s teleology is entirely retroactive, and the Absolute isn’t ordinary totality, it’s total negativity. It’s like you tried to read Hegel but couldn’t hold on to how he complicates and flips the meaning of basically every important term, which is his whole thing.

[Anonymous No.16144829]

>>16137819
I like the man on the right. He looks happy.

[Anonymous No.16144860]

>>16144829
>happy
He took the Buddha pill

[Anonymous No.16144929]

>>16137819
Fichte.

[Anonymous No.16144974]

I haven't read any of them and I don't know shit about philosophy but hegel seems cool I'm for hegel

[Anonymous No.16145305]

>>16144974
Pretty much how the entire board operates. Although they usually side with Schop because he's an incel and Hegel is "book hard".

[Anonymous No.16145357]

>>16137819
haven't read either, but I feel like hegel's better

[Anonymous No.16146075]

>>16144276
Sure, but that's in reference to a different set of qualities than this bullshit

[Anonymous No.16146619]

>>16137819
what is it with germans and massive foreheads

[Anonymous No.16146875]

>>16138023
>Schopenhauer influenced psychology with psychoanalysis being his biggest champion
Can someone explain this? I've seen it said before and I guess I don't know enough about Schop or psychoanalysis or both but I don't see what the connection is.

[Anonymous No.16146943]

>>16144792
not him, but I thought for Hegel absolute totality and negativity were the same, that is where every contradiction is resolved. if history tends to that isn't that the same as it tending necessarily to absolute resolution? I admit I don't really get Hegel though.

[Anonymous No.16146960]

>>16137902
not really

[Anonymous No.16147006]

how come Hegel had more fame than Schoppy even tho his works aren´t easy to grasp?

[Anonymous No.16147010]

>>16147006
Think of critical theory today.

[Anonymous No.16147031]

how does Hegel´s view of history compares with Oswald Sprengler? doesn´t hegel look like a moron with his approach towards history compared with Sprengler?

[Anonymous No.16148082]

>>16146619
Um ihre großen Gehirne zu halten