The world is a prison carefully concocted to produce beings capable of more and more exquisite forms of suffering. It has enticements that lure them in with promises to stay, so that they will continue to reproduce and expand the magnitude of this suffering, and so that they will combat one another over imagined difficulties and “problems.” As the fighting escalates, no matter in what direction, the creators of this world “win.” Earth is somewhere between hell and a factory farm. There’s no way out, and, true to the creator’s designs, people will meet you with either utter disbelief or outright disdain if this is suggested to them. The purpose of a world is to have a population of willing slaves who do not even know they are slaves or willing; who will do the creators’ work for them in “emitting” suffering as a smokestack belches waste.
All of this is true. That is why (if you're a man) you should pursue pleasure. Quit your job, debtmax, do lines of coke, and have a harem of young beautiful whores who you rawdog at all times. Sure, life will feel meaningless soon enough, but it is better to suffer with the fruits of the world than without them.
>>24825543Schopenhauer's cynicism and pessimism is so relatable and comforting.
>>24825543I love Schope but sometimes he sounds a little too emo when he dives too deep into the pessimism. I always felt that he weighted pessimism too much as a consequence of his philosophy. If you read the Upanishads, which were so highly influential to him, you can't but feel an irrepressible optimism and spontaneous joy that all is right with the world. I never understood how he contorted this message. Probably it has to do on some deep cultural level with his feeling of betrayal by Christianity which was all around him and the obvious perception of the hollowness of the Abrahamic tradition taken literally.
Where Schopenhauer and the Upanishads disagree is where to place the fundamental precedence of desire versus consciousness. In the Vedanta, consciousness precedes desire, and desire is seen as a distortion, eruption, or competitor to pure consciousness. In both metaphysics desire structures the subject as an individual ego, but for Schopenhauer this desire is something far beyond consciousness which merely wears consciousness as one of its many skins. This, admittedly, has some biologically plausibility, presumably the lower animals don't possess the same level of consciousness as humans, and they are more directly commanded by their impulses. Schopenhauer would drive further in drawing a connection to these same impulses and the fundamental forces of nature: laws of attraction, dissipation, and gravity are the selfsame forces of Will presumably struggling to find a way to "fit" into lifeforms. In this sense Schopenhauer clearly takes a biocentrist position: the "goal" of the universe is life, and there is ultimately no true universe until it is phenomenally represented to life. But he denies that there is every any greater end to this besides more striving towards life, which inevitably ends in the inescapable bend towards death. What I see here is an irreducible Ouroboros, whether consciousness proceeds Will or vice versa is nonsensical. Obviously some being must be present to experience desire, some datum of consciousness must accompany every volition. Otherwise it's just pure mechanism, which is indiscernable from purely physicalist causes (which both Schope and the Vedas reject)
>>24825543Yes. This is all very obviously true.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZYWOzRF1yA
>>24825733>In this sense Schopenhauer clearly takes a biocentrist position: the "goal" of the universe is life, and there is ultimately no true universe until it is phenomenally represented to lifeHere I need to autistically self-correct: Schopenhauer vehemently denies any teleology (goal-orientedness) to the Will. But here I believe he contradicts himself. The goal of the Will is to desire, self-explanatorily. The best way to do so is to conjure desirous vehicles, living beings. Obviously the bacterium does not "desire" in the same way a higher animal does, but it is nevertheless biochemically compelled and animated.Biologists would shoot this down as an example of "animism" and "vitalism", the idea that there is some mysterious "life force" behind the mechanisms of biology, but I would argue this stems from the same failure of biology to explain consciousness. Schopenhauer is inevitably biocentrist in the sense that the "yummiest" objectification of the will is a being that can experience a universe.
>>24825558This
>>24825543>Hello zer I am a German and here iz mein ide-ack
>>24825543There is a way out, but it's like winning the lottery, and even if you're one of the lucky few, what awaits you is an eternity of slavery and boredom. So I guess in a sense you're right, there's no way out.
>>24825543It's just a minority of men using their free will to encroach on the free will on other men. The creator merely "made man free". The burden of free will involves stepping outside your comfort zone in order to improve your circumstances. It's a heavy burden. Heavy enough to turn most moderately intelligent men into pessimist loser endlings who proclaim themselves unwilling slaves despite their complacence. Naive enough to complain that god doesn't come down from the skies and fix any small injustice that has been inflicted on them, like some kindergarten tard wrangler. The notion that the world is pure good or pure evil is limited and reductionist. Everything exists in the world. "Your world" consists of the things you pay the most attention to. If you focus on the small injustices inflicted onto you, then of course it will feel like you live in an evil world. Pic only vaguely related.
>>24825558And where the fuck will I get money to live?
>>24825733>In the Vedanta, consciousness precedes desire, and desire is seen as a distortion, eruption, or competitor to pure consciousness.Sounds similar to mimetic theory.
>>24825733Surely the question of which to place as having precedence is nonsensical in an eternal reality? There is no centre.
