This is Schopenhauer's influence just on the surface:>Those who have cited his influence include philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche[26] and Ludwig Wittgenstein,[27] scientists such as Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein,[28] psychoanalysts such as Sigmund Freud[29] and Carl Jung, writers such as Leo Tolstoy,[30] Herman Melville,[31] Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse,[32] Machado de Assis,[33] Jorge Luis Borges, Marcel Proust,[34] and Samuel Beckett[35] as well as composers such as Richard Wagner,[34] Johannes Brahms,[34] Arnold Schoenberg[34][36] and Gustav Mahler.[34]>InfluencedAnjos, Assis, Bahnsen, Beckett, Bergson, Borges, Brahms, Brouwer, Campbell, Einstein[9], Fet, Cioran, Dilthey[10], Freud, Gray[11], Hardy, Hartmann, Hesse, Horkheimer, Huysmans, Jung, Reve, Kraus[12], Ludovici[13], Ligotti, Mahler, Mainländer, Majorana[14], Mann, Maupassant, Michelstaedter, Nietzsche, Proust, Rank, Reve, Rilke, Ryle[15], Santayana, Schlick[16], Shaw, Schoenberg, Schrödinger, Solovyov, Spengler, Tolstoy[17], Vaihinge,r Volkelt, Wagner, Weininger, Wittgenstein, Zapffe, Zola.
>>24715938Name someone on the list who considered himself a "Schopenhauerean" or held to Schopenhauer's kind of idealism.
>>24715999Jane Austen, but you've never heard of that because she subscribed to esoteric Schopenhauereanism.
>>24715999These are on top of my head: Read a confession. Tolstoy:>Under the influence of Schopenhauer, Leo Tolstoy became convinced that the truth of all religions lies in self-renunciation. When he read Schopenhauer's philosophy, Tolstoy exclaimed "at present I am convinced that Schopenhauer is the greatest genius among men. ... It is the whole world in an incomparably beautiful and clear reflection."[154] He said that what he has written in War and Peace is also said by Schopenhauer in The World as Will and Representation.[155]Borges: >"At some point while in Switzerland, I began reading Schopenhauer. Today, were I to choose a single philosopher, I would choose him.">Jorge Luis Borges remarked that the reason he had never attempted to write a systematic account of his world view, despite his penchant for philosophy and metaphysics in particular, was because Schopenhauer had already written it for him.Friedrich Nietzsche:>Wrote "Schopenhauer As Educator"Wittgenstein:>I don't believe I have ever invented a line of thinking, I have always taken one over from someone else. I have simply straightaway seized on it with enthusiasm for my work of clarification. That is how Boltzmann, Hertz, Schopenhauer, Frege, Russell, Kraus, Loos, Weininger, Spengler, Sraffa have influenced me.
This is cute but it isn’t how philosophy works. The idealistanons blow you guys out of the water thread after thread with real arguments about, for instance, Schopenhauer’s dualism, or how Schopenhauer’s understanding of causality is nonsensical (le brain causes causality!), or how Schopenhauer was too retarded to so much as read the post-Kantians, and all you have is cope and seethe.
>>24716027Keep coping >“Fichte is the father of the sham philosophy, of the disingenuous method which, through ambiguity in the use of words, incomprehensible language, and sophistry, seeks to deceive, and tries, moreover, to make a deep impression by assuming an air of importance — in a word, the philosophy which seeks to bamboozle and humbug those who desire to learn. After this method had been applied by Schelling, it reached its height, as every one knows, in Hegel, in whose hands it developed into pure charlatanism. But whoever even names this Fichte seriously along with Kant shows that he has not even a dim notion of what Kant is.”-Schopenhauer
>>24716028Yes and you guys repeat the same boring arguments, which amount to “idealism is too complicated, if it’s not as easy to read as a reddit post it ain’t worth reading.” Then the idealists here even try to oblige you by explaining transcendental metaphysics in kid-friendly terms but you don’t like that either. Get off this Schopenhauer babyfood, now.
>>24716119Keep coping tranny. >“he controversy concerning the real and the ideal may also be regarded as a controversy concerning the existence of matter. For it is the reality or ideality of this that is ultimately in question. Does matter, as such, exist only in our idea, or does it also exist independently of it? In the latter case it would be the thing in itself; and whoever assumes a self-existent matter must also, consistently, be a materialist, i.e., he must make matter the principle of explanation of all things. Whoever, on the contrary, denies its existence as a thing in itself is eo ipso an idealist. Among the moderns only Locke has definitely and without ambiguity asserted the reality of matter; and therefore his teaching led, in the hands of Condillac, to the sensualism and materialism of the French. Only Berkeley directly and without modifications denies matter. The complete antithesis is thus that of idealism and materialism, represented in its extremes by Berkeley and the French materialists (Hollbach). Fichte is not to be mentioned here: he deserves no place among true philosophers; among those elect of mankind who, with deep earnestness, seek not their own things but the truth, and therefore must not be confused with those who, under this pretence, have only their personal advancement in view.”-Schopenhauer
>>24716124> Does matter, as such, exist only in our idea, or does it also exist independently of it?Right, and the correct, idealist response is that both of these propositions must be somehow true because either on its own leads to absurdities (either consciousness or the external world turns out to be inexplicable). Schopenhauer doesn’t understand this because he is entangled in intellect. So your post is a good example of how Schoppie didn’t achieve the idealistic stance.
>>24716176Idealism is your religion? Okay cool. Now fuck fuck off.
>>24716176>“On the other hand, materialism also has its warrant. It is just as true that the knower is a product of matter as that matter is merely the idea of the knower; but it is also just as one-sided. For materialism is the philosophy of the subject that forgets to take account of itself. And, accordingly, as against the assertion that I am a mere modification of matter, this must be insisted upon, that all matter exists merely in my idea; and it is no less right. A knowledge, as yet obscure, of these relations seems to have been the origin of the saying of Plato, “ὑλη αληθινον ψευδος” (materia mendacium verax).” - Schopenhauer
>>24716023The Wittgenstein influence is especially important for me, as I've always had a disposition towards Schopenhauer, so Wittgenstein's clarity (I know ironic, since Tractatus is infamously a hard read) in Philosophical Investigations basically perfectly captures language and truth (atleast in how it fundamentally manifests through our understanding) And ive been trying to find a way to escape his conclusions, but every day, something newly stupid that humans do pops up to just affirm his claim to a relief from philosophy.
>>24716027>Schopenhauer’s understanding of causality is nonsensical (le brain causes causality!)How is this retarded? Im not supremely familar with Schopenhauer, but is this not what Kant essentially implies in response to Hume?
>>24716233Read Bryan McGee's book on Schopenhauer if you want in depth study of Schopenhauer's influence on Wittgenstein.
>>24716245Maybe I will, for some reasons I have an aversion to books about philosophers rather than books by them. But It might be a good audiobook listen if I can find it.What im curious about is which Wittgenstein Schopenhauer influenced. Early Witt? Or Late?I know that Witt mentions "The Will" in Philosophical Investigations, but its so brief that its relevance, let alone his understanding of it, can barely be gleaned
>>24716249I haven't read Witt but I came across his quote in PI "Explanations come to an end somewhere." He took this quote directly from Schopenhauer's last passage of The World as Will and Representation. Wittgenstein shat on Schopenhauer which I think was utterly disgusting and dishonest on his behalf and that didn't stop him from taking shit from Schopenhauer.
>>24716278>Wittgenstein shat on SchopenhauerWhen and where?
I've noticed religiofags, occultists and transcendental metaphysicians all do the same obnoxious obscurantist "you just like, wouldn't get it, bro" coping when you dissect their sophistry. Very jewish.
>>24716240Not at all. Briefly, Kant's response to Hume is to show that the concept of causality is a pure concept as it springs from the spontaneity thought rather than experience, which includes brains and all. This is the Metaphysical Deduction. He then proceeds to show that any such pure concept is necessarily applicable to all and only objects of experience. This is the Transcendental Deduction. Finally, he supplies schemata essential for the application of each pure concept (Schematism) and provides a derivation of the body of synthetic a priori judgments that follow from all this (Analytic of Principles), which includes the Second Analogy that states that the object of experience (determined as a substance-accident composite in the First Analogy) is causally efficacious.From what I remember, Schopenhauer disregards all this, so he does not take causality as a pure a priori concept or follow the rest of Kant's story at all. He just takes it as self-evident and a priori, but I am not sure in what sense. He does seem to think it is in the brain though, but that is not Kant. Not hating on Schopenhauer here, by the way.
>>24716354>He does seem to think it is in the brain though,Isn't Will-to-Live independent of brain?
>>24716366Ion know what the "Will-to-Live" is or how that is related to causality
>>24716375Alright
>>24715938No mention of Joyce? Small time unknown author I guess
>>24716622Joyce inspired by SchopenGod? Impossible...he cant get more based
