/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18249001]

/schlopenhauer general/

Is life really suffering?

[Anonymous No.18249012]

>>18249001
Yes.

[Anonymous No.18249021]

>>18249012
And that's a good thing!

[Anonymous No.18249047]

>>18249001
Schopenhauer was a doomer incel which is why so many of the faggots here are so attracted to him.

I await my incoming (You)s.

[Anonymous No.18249054]

>>18249047
People who are satisfied with their life/society don't become philosophers. Every philosopher is/was an incel.

[Anonymous No.18249057]

>>18249001
I have yet to see a good refutation of the idea that life is suffering.

[Anonymous No.18249073]

>>18249001
No, it is just mostly really bland and dull, and people around you are usually pretty fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.18249078]

>>18249001
why is he licking the water

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18249084]

>>18249001
Life is always in flux. This infuriates a certain type of person. The dumb sort.

[Anonymous No.18249088]

>>18249078

How do you drink water without licking it, in some way?

[Anonymous No.18249098]

>>18249054
And truly great philosophers don't come out of their endeavors being the same brooding "woe is me" faggots like the average /lit/ poster.

[Anonymous No.18249104]

>>18249088
Do you define licking as water touching the tongue, or a concerted movement of the tongue muscle to manipulate the water into one's mouth?

[Anonymous No.18249122]

>>18249104
'Without a tongue can you still drink?', would be a better question.

[Anonymous No.18249132]

>>18249122
Let's find out!

[Anonymous No.18249140]

>>18249088
what i meant to ask was whether the image was based off a true story or something. i get that he was probably thirsty when this was taken and that is why he is licking the water

[Anonymous No.18249145]

>>18249132
I just cut my tongue out; the answer is yes, although painfully

[Anonymous No.18249156]

>>18249104
Hum.. I think the essence of licking comes from the friction of the tongue to another surface, regardless of which object causes the movement leading to friction... Obviously we use the term as an active verb, so we associate a conscious act to it psychologically.

[Anonymous No.18249158]

>>18249145
So life is suffering?

[Anonymous No.18249167]

"Many of the long conversation I had with him [Schopenhauer] would inevitably diverge into the most erratic instances of scandal. One time after dinner, when my wife walked into the room with the tray of confectioneries and coffee, he stated to her point blank: "Milk is for the pussy." My wife and I both wavered with mouths agape but his eyes remained resolutely fixed upon my wife's. "Don't you agree?" he inquired. He would grow more and more agitated until my wife at last agreed. Then, as became perfect habit for him, he would take a saucer of milk and put it upon the floor, insisting that my wife lift her dress and sit in it. He could never be dissuaded from his demands and my wife would always, terror-stricken and face watered with tears, submit to the humiliating circumstance that our esteemed friend demanded. "Yes, Yes!" he would shout as my wife squatted tearfully upon the saucer, "Milk is for the pussy! Absolutely so!" " -Norman Malcolm, in Arthur Schopenhauer: A Memoir (1966), p. 118

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18249173]

>>18249158
No, it’s just in constant flux

[Anonymous No.18249184]

>>18249158
Yes, it's in constant flux

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18249216]

>>18249184
>Change bad.
Oh Platonist!

[Anonymous No.18249226]

>>18249167
Please tell me this is real

[Anonymous No.18249240]

>>18249226
It's real

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18249253]

>>18249226
It’s a copy pasta

[Anonymous No.18249259]

>>18249216
Dilate

[Anonymous No.18249260]

>>18249158
Yes, it constantly sux

[Anonymous No.18249267]

>>18249253
>>18249226
Don't listen to butters. She's just a Schlopenhauer apologist, and is trying to keep up his good image. Schlopenhauer really did request his good friend's wife to perform milk-to-genital exercises

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18249299]

>>18249259
Your Platonism allows for that kind of delusions. Materialists don’t buy into it for its spiritualist background.

[Anonymous No.18249318]

>>18249299
I'm bored

[Anonymous No.18249319]

>>18249299
Not him, but you need to clarify the point you are making here.

[Anonymous No.18249357]

>>18249299
> Hasn't read Husserl
> Hasn't accepted the truth of phenomenological idealism
> Is still an Ontarian lesbian

[Anonymous No.18249409]

>>18249357
based

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18249460]

>>18249319
Sorry. I’m just tired of the topic coming up.
Trans people believe they’re born with female brains or even spirits and they were just mixed up. One would suppose it’s misfiling accident made in heaven or some such thing. It’s rooted in Christianity and Platonist “forms”.
A knowledgeable and honest materialist isn’t fooled by that guff. To them, even the mania that causes trans-xirs has material causes.

[Anonymous No.18249489]

>>18249357
keked and based

[Anonymous No.18249520]

>>18249460
I can see the point you are making here now; and I agree with you. I suppose in the context of Schopenhauer here one would have to bring up Nietzsche's schism with his work and general rejection of Platonism.

[Anonymous No.18249635]

>>18249140
Schloppenhauer

[Anonymous No.18250396]

>>18249098
but woe litterally is me anon

[Anonymous No.18250414]

>>18249460
Based and secretly heterosexual pilled :3

[Anonymous No.18250429]

>>18249054
>Camus

[Anonymous No.18250437]

>>18250429
He was convinced he would die young like his hero Kierkegaard was also convinced he would die young and would indeed die young, and this belief came true.

Some people are just born with an innate sense that they're not going to live a normal length.

[Anonymous No.18250456]

>>18250437
>normal length
doesn exist

[Anonymous No.18250484]

>>18249001
You could read him to find out.
It is pretty clear if you just picked up one of his books

[SAGE No.18250488]

>>18249001
No, meaninglessness is suffering.

[Anonymous No.18250696]

>>18249078
Schlopenhauer

[Anonymous No.18251492]

>>18249001
yes

[Anonymous No.18251558]

>>18249054

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18251562]

>>18251558

[Anonymous No.18251571]

His essays might be the best source of philosophical thought I own. Completely relevant today and a joy to read

[Anonymous No.18251587]

>>18249001
only if you're going to continue being this much of a fag

[Anonymous No.18251592]

>>18251562
>Liked by nobody and zero others.

Osho is made for meaningless though clever-seeming Instagram pop philosophy memes.

[Anonymous No.18251889]

>>18249267
>Schopenhauer's friend
I have to admit, until I read that I was buying it.

[Anonymous No.18251893]

>>18250437
I've always thought since the age of 7 that I'd die young; God, I hope I was right.

[Anonymous No.18251897]

>>18249226
It's real but about Wittgenstein

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18251917]

>>18251592
Stings, does it?

[Anonymous No.18252544]

>>18249001
>Is life really suffering?
Life is the struggle to overcome suffering

[Anonymous No.18252634]

>>18249054
It's possible to be dissatisfied with life and not be an incel.
Incels just hate people. Other philosopher love people but hate society.

[Anonymous No.18252650]

>>18249001
Only according to things that suffer.

[Anonymous No.18252992]

>>18252650
Which is most life on Earth.

[Anonymous No.18253030]

>>18252992
Speak for yourself old boy, personally I'm having a marvelous time of it.

[Anonymous No.18253033]

>>18253030
Reality is what you make of it.

[Anonymous No.18253045]

>>18253033
Bliss at every morning, unsolicited repose at every night—you're right, it's a joy!

[Anonymous No.18253164]

>make Schopenhauer thread
>only ever talk about his pessimism
>ignore every other aspect of his philosophy besides "Life bad"
>probably never read him and just know about him through Nietzsche or YT videos
classic /lit/

[Anonymous No.18253215]

>>18253030
>I said "Most life on Earth suffers" which can easily be true even if you are living the best life possible. This isn't even a contradiction, let alone an actual argument.

[Anonymous No.18253225]

>>18253164
I read him, Leechee-nuts are better.

[Anonymous No.18253237]

>>18253215
You're implying that I don't, in my person, possess a majority of the worlds life; this is a crass and presumptuous statement—how could you know that? I can attest to the very TRUE fact that within my intestines write untold trillions of life forms, each enjoying themselves to an infinite extent, as they slowly and tortuously devour every morsel of nutrition that I consume.

I would ask you next time to check your gut-flora-privilege and don't assume things about people, their happiness, or in fact, the happiness of the various parasites that live of them.

Good day sir!

[Anonymous No.18253282]

>>18253237
>You're implying that I don't, in my person, possess a majority of the worlds life
Yes. I also implied that I'm speaking to someone concious and that you aren't a philosophical zombie or AI. I have no reason to assume you're conscious which also makes it a crass and presumptious statement.
>I can attest to the very TRUE fact that within my intestines write untold trillions of life forms, each enjoying themselves to an infinite extent, as they slowly and tortuously devour every morsel of nutrition that I consume.
So does everyone else except no one would make the bizarre claim that they are experiencing anything let alone enjoying themselves. I'm also skeptical about the existence of "infinite" happiness/suffering.

[Anonymous No.18253295]

>>18252634
I'm not completely either way on this one but what is there inherently to like about "people". Some people are charismatic, fun to talk to and overall genuinely interesting. Many others are unnecessarily rude, unhygienic and disturbingly unintelligent. Just saying

[Anonymous No.18253356]

>>18249054
Socrates had multiple wives, messed around, and had Alcibiades' twink hole.

Aristotle was married.

Boehme was married with kids. Maimonides had two wives we know of.

Philosophers the to be incels more often than regular people but plenty, including most of the top tier, got married. Abelard, the best kind of Medieval Christendom got his dong chopped off for messing around.

Weirdly, Muslim and Christian theologians/philosophers (used to be almost the same) were almost always unmarried. This at least makes some sense for Catholics, although plenty of priests had sex. Meanwhile, Jewish philosophers had tons of kids.

[Anonymous No.18253827]

>>18253356
I don't think that anon was using the term 'incel' as in involuntary celibate. Moreso, the sort of mindset commonly associated with those people.

[Anonymous No.18253862]

>>18253282
That would be, my dear friend, the concept of the material: 'hedonium'. If we're talking in purely vulgar numerical terms, I fail to see why my gut-fauna are in anyway inferior to mankind's suffering; if, we are, talking in matters of pure utilitarianism—the only valid moral system that leads to a complete repugnance of life.

[Anonymous No.18253871]

>>18253356
>Alchibiades
God that Dialogue was so adorable. I hope that if I one day—infernal Gods grant me strength!—amass sufficient power to terrorize a state into submission, they too shall, in their attempts to mock and discredit me, depict me as a ravishing young men whom all wish to fuck senseless.

[Anonymous No.18253886]

>>18253862
>I fail to see why my gut-fauna are in anyway inferior to mankind's suffering
If they aren't actually suffering, then they don't compare to a human's suffering.

[Anonymous No.18253901]

>>18253827
>Moreso, the sort of mindset commonly associated with those people.
I think you mean the mindset projected onto incels by people who have never knowingly interacted with them.

[Anonymous No.18253913]

>>18253901
No, I mean exactly what I said.

[Anonymous No.18253917]

>>18253886
Sensation must necessarily be linked with suffering/pleasure, no? If so then they feel almost innumerable sufferings almost continually, constantly churning, as they are, throughout one's gut in the unceasing search for a 'just a bit better' spot to sap even more energy from the host.

Either you must admit the necessary link of intelligence—>suffering; admit yourself to be a Human supremacist (that's racist anon!); or acknowledge the humble nematode as the most pained sufferers from this wretched joke of an existence we call Earth!

[Anonymous No.18253935]

>>18253913
Sure. So you're one of them.

[Anonymous No.18253959]

>>18253935
If you had more than 2 brain cells rocking about in the hollow-earth like cavity contained within your head, you would see very clearly that the term 'association' used in my initial point does not preclude the projection of certain ideas onto the incel. That is simply one method of association, whether associated fairly or not.

[Anonymous No.18253985]

>>18253917
I know you're baiting me but I would argue consciousness is also required, otherwise it's purely a mechanistic process. There are also degrees to suffering.
>Either you must admit the necessary link of intelligence—>suffering
I don't believe intelligence is required to be happy/suffer (consciousness is different), but I do believe that the life we are currently aware of, intelligence and suffering do tend to correlate.
>admit yourself to be a Human supremacist (that's racist anon!)
Yes but I'm also probably the only one out of us who is vegan. I believe because humans are more intelligent, we have more potential to suffer from mental illness and things like depression, but I don't believe there's any significant difference for physical pain.

[Anonymous No.18253991]

>>18253959
I just wanted to let you know anon: I'm a woman and you will never have sex, you will never be a sex-haver. I can literally smell the virgin in you.

Have sex incel.

[Anonymous No.18254006]

>>18253959
I unironically thought that but you insisted on being difficult and just said "No, I mean exactly what I said" without any further explanation This led me to a different conclusion.

[Anonymous No.18254060]

>>18253985
>consciousness
Sorry, I didn't really understand you here, you see I wasn't paying attention, to busy torturing this ugly little child, a mere babe really, wretched thing that it is! I began with the nail pullers before moving onto the—but wait, I see I'm boring you, what is to care for in the pain of something that's unconscious?

>intelligence and suffering
Is it intelligence? or knowledge? Were the early saints—men far more intelligent than either of us I can assure you—worse off than we? more miserable? more pathetic in their ignobly divine grovelling? Are we so wretched in our intelligence? or in our knowing the things that other's intelligence has won for us? If so then our sufferings are being dictated by what we don't know, that is, the things that have yet to be learned; you are taking in a small parcel of the available information, and from this spinning conclusions that are far, far removed from their premises.

>vegan
I personally sit well knowing the sufferings my appetites place upon those whom are weaker than myself, each bite is more pleasant than the last, delectable! Your division of suffering into 'mental' and 'physical' are wrong, they are both purely mechanistic phenomena—as indeed Schopenhauer believed. What you are really angling at is the human capacity to act with time as much as space; quite contrary to vulgar animals. No, human suffering is due predominantly because our plots and hatreds are time sensitive affairs: how many men have inveigled themselves into a political structure, years of plotting, murder and lies, all to finally strike a single blow against the man at the top. Animals? they live in the moment; a swipe here , a thrash there and the job's done, much simpler, much more charming, much more–well inhuman.

[Anonymous No.18254134]

>>18254060
>I personally sit well knowing the sufferings my appetites place upon those whom are weaker than myself
Again, I know this is bait but this argument is extremely common. Torturing things because they are weaker than you still is immoral. Children are stupider and weaker than adults but causing them to suffer is still immoral.
>Your division of suffering into 'mental' and 'physical' are wrong, they are both purely mechanistic phenomena.
Not "purely" mechanistic because in the realm of direct conscious experience there is no mechanistic process for suffering or happiness. But to get back to the point, there's a difference between a mechanistic process such as a ball rolling down a hill and a mechanistic process that results in a conscious being. You need to be able to differentiate between those two things. When I'm talking about morality, I'm talking about the latter.

[Anonymous No.18254160]

>>18253164
yeah let's talk about his brilliant theory of colors

[Anonymous No.18254176]

>>18249001
>suffering?

Completed it m8

[Anonymous No.18254203]

>>18254134
Why? If they're not conscious then they don't suffer as conscious beings do. Thus, in aggregate , their suffering is less, ergo: you're arguing for the destruction of consciousness, the end of sapience. Is that what you want?

Can you differentiate the two? If so, please, enlighten me, you shall not only be making me more knowledgeable but shall have cracked one of the great questions of life. Schopenhauer would certainly lament your turn from him, he couldn't draw a distinction, merely placed the greater sufferings of man on his perception of time: memory.

[Anonymous No.18254233]

>>18254176
>The rest of the body is an organic spacesuit worn by this creature to live on this particular rock revolving around a star
Why do people feel the need to constantly practice reductionism?
>This nervous system is us
No the nervous system isn't "us" because we have no more control over the atoms in our nervous system than we do for any other atoms. We are just as much a part of the other side of the universe as we are to the biological bodies that we seem to be possessing. The idea that we possess a body is the product of an illusion.
>In be4 "Your practicing reductionism"

[Anonymous No.18254245]

>>18254233

[Anonymous No.18254282]

>>18254203
The idea that other humans are conscious but other species aren't conscious is completely baseless.
>ergo: you're arguing for the destruction of consciousness, the end of sapience. Is that what you want?
I am an antinatalist because of asymmetry of suffering. So yes I do have the overall goal of ending all possible consciousness.
>Can you differentiate the two?
Well for the mechanistic process of a ball rolling down a hill there's nothing to suffer from that because there's no consciousness. As far as we are aware, consciousness appears to result from a certain pattern and structure of mechanistic processes (but we don't know for certain). If this is true, these mechanistic processes affect morality because they have an effect on consciousness and therefore have an effect of wellbeing. This is why they're different. Not all mechanistic processes result in suffering.

[Anonymous No.18254351]

>>18254282
You still don't get what I'm saying. Your problem is you inability to coherently state your view on consciousness (no, the problem does not have to be solved to posses one) as it relates to suffering, which you've stated to be the primary ethical adjudicator.

If I say that something uses its sense organs to identify things it finds most pleasing, namely, food, and also uses those very same organs to avoid things it doesn't desire, namely, hostile and unpleasant stimuli, then this is the distinction between pleasure and suffering, no? Or is consciousness necessary for suffering? or does it only increase suffering in those cursed to posses it? (then one could mitigate suffering through accurate lobotomies, excising those parts of the brain that, presumable on your view, bestow consciousness?) Either suffering only exists for those sapient, or it doesn't. Either you possess a morality entirely defined by pleasure/pain which, in lieu of a more accurate summation of your thoughts than you've given me, cannot in my mind be differentiated from the suffering of non-conscious creatures, who, in their sheer mass, must outweigh human suffering, or, you don't.

Your positions as they stand are illogical; your categorical statements on easily measured sufferings nonsensical and biased towards a pathetically human viewpoint; you are as my sister, someone who pretends to a trans-human morality, yet, in the end, falls towards granting an arbitrary preference to animals you find cute. Isolate where the suffering is, define it to the best of your ability, and then use these to properly define you ethics. Also: personally I disagree that the rock doesn't suffer.

[Anonymous No.18254622]

>>18253827
>I don't think that anon was using the term 'incel' as in involuntary celibate.
I'm pretty sure Anon is fucking retarded then and should get the fuck off of /lit/

[Anonymous No.18256262]

>>18249012
no