Arthur Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.17938936]

Was he right about everything?
https://youtu.be/v_tgqDMjT_E

[Anonymous No.17938950]

>>17938936
i wish i never learned about this bastard

[Anonymous No.17938982]

>>17938936
So what's your shill schedule? Easter weekend, shill the anti-natalist/pessimists and nihilists then during the week just ask retarded barely on topic questions?

[Anonymous No.17939110]

>>17938936
I want to say no but at the same time i know he is

[Anonymous No.17939115]

He played the flute. Invalidates his ideas.

[Anonymous No.17939117]

>>17938936
His metaphysics is interesting, his ethics is retarded

[Anonymous No.17940149]

>>17939115
Holy shit. I regular this board with people like you.

[Anonymous No.17940436]

>>17938950
The truth is a cruel mistress

[Anonymous No.17941791]

>>17939117
Shut. He solved both metaphysics and ethics.

[Anonymous No.17941852]

>>17938936
What is the nothingness of existence that Schopenhauer would always talk about?

Please don't tell me it's more just his subjective feelings than an actual idea, I would be really disappointed if so.

[Anonymous No.17941859]

>>17939117
The whole purpose of his metaphysics were his ethics.

[Anonymous No.17941869]

>>17941852
>What is the nothingness of existence that Schopenhauer would always talk about?
Post-nut clarity.

[Anonymous No.17941912]

>>17941869
Are you trying to tell me it's about the disappointment of the will?

[Anonymous No.17941924]

>>17941912
Kinda but I am just memeing
Read On the Vanity of Existence. You can read it in 15 minutes.

[Anonymous No.17941935]

>>17941924
Is this a good translation?

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Studies_in_Pessimism/The_Vanity_of_Existence

[Anonymous No.17941959]

>>17941935
Don't anon know, anon I have read it in translation of essays published by Penguin that I downloaded from libgen.

[Anonymous No.17942978]

he literally came up with my entire system, he even used the same terminology I do (most notably calling different existing things varying degrees of "objectification" of the will)
so yes he was right about everything

[Anonymous No.17944077]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.17944683]

>>17938982
lmao

[Anonymous No.17944839]

He sadly was, and we are just too afraid to admit it.
I wish i could erase him from my memory because he makes every other philosophy seem retarded.

[Anonymous No.17945029]

>>17942978
>he literally came up with my entire system, he even used the same terminology I do

[Anonymous No.17946205]

>>17938936
one of the most brilliant philosophers of all time, he was right about absolutely everything but his conclusions

[Anonymous No.17946279]

>>17939115
Based and Nietzsche pilled.

[Anonymous No.17946288]

>>17940149
He was quoting Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.17946300]

>>17938936
The philosopher that ended philosophy. Everything after is just linguistic mental masturbation.

[Anonymous No.17946465]

>>17946300
Jesus is the one that ended philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17946577]

>>17946205
What's wrong with his conclusions? Is there an alternative endpoint to his philosophy than denying the will-to-live?

[Anonymous No.17947673]

What is a good starting point for schopenhauer? Should you start with World as Will right out the gate? Interested in him from ligotti's book.

[Anonymous No.17949215]

>>17945029
my post was to signify me crying because I can never write anything now, surely you must know the feeling

[Anonymous No.17949217]

>>17946577
Nietzsche spent his whole life trying to answer that. Maybe you wil find his conclusion insightful.

[Anonymous No.17949542]

>>17946465
A cucked desert Jew who not only worshiped his people as god’s “chosen people” (lololol) but that he was god’s “son” lololololilololol and not some Roman soldier’s son his insatiable Jewish mom fucked to get some squirting orgasms. What a narcissistic self-worshipping kike

[Anonymous No.17949559]

>>17938936
I am reading The World as Will and Representation at this very moment OP. There are many things I would heavily disagree with, mainly with his idea of the Will as the thing-in-itself (and the consequences it brings such as all of his takes on aesthetics), but his ideas are pretty well constructed and it is an excellent reading.

[Anonymous No.17949587]

>>17938936
Maybe.

>Kierkegaard became acquainted with Arthur Schopenhauer's writings quite late in his life. Kierkegaard felt Schopenhauer was an important writer, but disagreed on almost every point Schopenhauer made. In several journal entries made in 1854, a year before he died, Kierkegaard spoke highly of Schopenhauer:

>In the same way that one disinfects the mouth during an epidemic so as not to be infected by breathing in the poisonous air, one might recommend students who will have to live in Denmark in an atmosphere of nonsensical Christian optimism, to take a little dose of Schopenhauer's Ethic in order to protect themselves against infection from that malodourous twaddle.

>—Søren Kierkegaard, (Journals, 1854)[6]

>However, Kierkegaard also considered him, a most dangerous sign of things to come:

>Schopenhauer is so far from being a real pessimist that at the most he represents 'the interesting': in a certain sense he makes asceticism interesting--the most dangerous thing possible for a pleasure-seeking age which will be harmed more than ever by distilling pleasure even out of asceticism… is by studying asceticism in a completely impersonal way, by assigning it a place in the system.

>—Søren Kierkegaard, (Journals, 1854)[6]

>Kierkegaard believes Schopenhauer's ethical point of view is that the individual succeeds in seeing through the wretchedness of existence and then decides to deaden or mortify the joy of life. As a result of this complete asceticism, one reaches contemplation: the individual does this out of sympathy. He sympathizes with all the misery and the misery of others, which is to exist. Kierkegaard here is probably referring to the pessimistic nature of Schopenhauer's philosophy. One of Kierkegaard's main concerns is a suspicion of his whole philosophy:

CONT

[Anonymous No.17949589]

>>17949587
>After reading through Schopenhauer's Ethic one learns—naturally he is to that extent honest—that he himself is not an ascetic. And consequently he himself has not reached contemplation through asceticism, but only a contemplation which contemplates asceticism. This is extremely suspicious, and may even conceal the most terrible and corrupting voluptuous melancholy: a profound misanthropy. In this too it is suspicious, for it is always suspicious to propound an ethic which does not exert so much power over the teacher that he himself expresses. Schopenhauer makes ethics into genius, but that is of course an unethical conception of ethics. He makes ethics into genius and although he prides himself quite enough on being a genius, it has not pleased him, or nature has not allowed him, to become a genius where asceticism and mortification are concerned.

>—Søren Kierkegaard, (Journals, 1854)[6]

>Little else is known about Kierkegaard's attitude to Schopenhauer. On Schopenhauer himself, Kierkegaard felt that Schopenhauer would have been patronizing. "Schopenhauer interests me very much, as does his fate in Germany. If I could talk to him I am sure he would shudder or laugh if I were to show him [my philosophy]." (Journals, 1854)[6]

END.

[Anonymous No.17949593]

>>17938936
His mom was.

[Anonymous No.17949608]

>>17949559
>mainly with his idea of the Will as the thing-in-itself
He basically stripped that idea directly from Kant's Critique of Practical Reason. The only difference is for Kant the Will is directly structured by the moral law rather than the will to life.

[Anonymous No.17949638]

>>17949608
When did Kant identify anything with the thing-in-itself?

[Anonymous No.17949767]

>>17949638
In the Critique of Practical Reason, he explicitly identifies the transcendental will with noumena or the "intelligible will."

[Anonymous No.17949770]

>>17949767
>"intelligible will."
Sorry, meant "intelligible world" in opposition to "sensible world."

[Anonymous No.17949772]

>>17938936
He was a fool who missed his chance of meeting Lord Byron just because he was afraid Byron would steal his girl.

[Anonymous No.17949773]

>>17949767
Bruh, why doesn't everyone just criticise Schopenhauer for this?

[Anonymous No.17949777]

>>17949770
But that's not the thing-in-itself.

[Anonymous No.17949778]

>>17949589
>may even conceal the most terrible and corrupting voluptuous melancholy: a profound misanthropy
>concealed
Seems fairly open to me.

[Anonymous No.17949783]

>>17949589
>In this too it is suspicious, for it is always suspicious to propound an ethic which does not exert so much power over the teacher that he himself expresses.
It's interesting that Schopenhauer did respond to this kind of criticism

[Anonymous No.17949794]

>>17949777
It is

[Anonymous No.17949797]

I don't care about his pessimism that much, but his metaphysics, writing style and hate for academia/Hegel are glorious. This nigga really republished his dissertation on sufficient reason 40 years later and added page long rants against Hegel

[Anonymous No.17949805]

>>17949777
If you give me a while to root out the book and the pages I'll quote the parts where he identifies it with both the noumena and thing-in-itself (which he implies are the same thing, he also says the same explicitly in Pure Reason).