[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-05-12: Maintenance has concluded successfully. 2022-05-12: Ghost posting is now globally disabled.
2022: Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 85 KB, 1007x834, 1619981905315.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18249001 No.18249001 [Reply] [Original]

/schlopenhauer general/

Is life really suffering?

>> No.18249012


>> No.18249021

And that's a good thing!

>> No.18249047

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.

>> No.18249054

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

>> No.18249057

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

>> No.18249073

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

>> No.18249078

why is he licking the water

>> No.18249084

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

>> No.18249088


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

>> No.18249098

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

>> No.18249104

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?

>> No.18249122

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

>> No.18249132

Let's find out!

>> No.18249140

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

>> No.18249145

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

>> No.18249156

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.

>> No.18249158

So life is suffering?

>> 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

>> No.18249173

No, it’s just in constant flux

>> No.18249184

Yes, it's in constant flux

>> No.18249216
File: 537 KB, 1352x802, BBB40371-2476-4D42-A73C-E86DA9F8E2D8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Change bad.
Oh Platonist!

>> No.18249226

Please tell me this is real

>> No.18249240

It's real

>> No.18249253

It’s a copy pasta

>> No.18249259


>> No.18249260

Yes, it constantly sux

>> No.18249267

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

>> No.18249299

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

>> No.18249318

I'm bored

>> No.18249319

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

>> No.18249357
File: 42 KB, 770x512, 5aeb4fa3d5656.r_1525445236251.0-0-1080-720.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.18249409


>> No.18249460
File: 69 KB, 640x640, D78CE9EE-B519-4642-993B-E35CE33BA500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.18249489

keked and based

>> No.18249520

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.

>> No.18249635
File: 107 KB, 640x1010, 408E4AFA-AF67-4663-AB0E-62186D32126C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.18250396

but woe litterally is me anon

>> No.18250414

Based and secretly heterosexual pilled :3

>> No.18250429


>> No.18250437

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.

>> No.18250456

>normal length
doesn exist

>> No.18250484

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

>> No.18250488

No, meaninglessness is suffering.

>> No.18250696


>> No.18251492


>> No.18251558
File: 38 KB, 544x460, B22D1CAD-D623-45C8-9FBF-E6D0E6FDBAD9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.18251562
File: 116 KB, 884x322, 481E6561-2921-46C0-9EF3-009BE89E14AF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.18251571

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

>> No.18251587
File: 1.08 MB, 905x679, Turaco_Hartlaub27s_Winfried.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.18251592
File: 206 KB, 1904x1118, ge6i50umb9n11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Liked by nobody and zero others.

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

>> No.18251889

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

>> No.18251893

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

>> No.18251897

It's real but about Wittgenstein

>> No.18251917

Stings, does it?

>> No.18252544

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

>> No.18252634

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

>> No.18252650

Only according to things that suffer.

>> No.18252992

Which is most life on Earth.

>> No.18253030

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

>> No.18253033

Reality is what you make of it.

>> No.18253045

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

>> 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/

>> No.18253215

>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.

>> No.18253225

I read him, Leechee-nuts are better.

>> No.18253237

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!

>> No.18253282

>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.

>> No.18253295

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

>> No.18253356

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.

>> No.18253827

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.

>> No.18253862

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.

>> No.18253871

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.

>> No.18253886

>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.

>> No.18253901

>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.

>> No.18253913

No, I mean exactly what I said.

>> No.18253917

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!

>> No.18253935

Sure. So you're one of them.

>> No.18253959

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.

>> No.18253985

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.

>> No.18253991

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.

>> No.18254006

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.

>> No.18254060

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.

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.

>> No.18254134

>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.

>> No.18254160

yeah let's talk about his brilliant theory of colors

>> No.18254176
File: 137 KB, 576x720, 1613153273067.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Completed it m8

>> No.18254203

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.

>> No.18254233

>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"

>> No.18254245
File: 53 KB, 1121x631, HereDatBoi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.18254282

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.

>> No.18254351

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.

>> No.18254622

>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/

>> No.18256262


Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.