Does Schopenhauer's philosophy only apply to middle class life?
>>24829813why would any of the epistemological claims made within the book "only apply to middle class life"? You are too retarded to be reading philosophy.
>>24830090If the OP (who I am not) had the answer to your second, distinct question, then he probably would not have formulated his original question in the first place. And he did ask first. In principle, it is very easy to imagine that a particular worldview or "system" is only useful, meaningul or relevant for a particular social class. You proceed from the false premise that all philosophers are attempting to articulate some sort of universal, systematic truth which applies uniformly to all people. If Schopenhauer was one of these, then explain why in a simple line or two. Otherwise the OP's spicy, particularistic prompt remains unsatisfactorily answered. Even if the OP's suggestion is plainly false for one who is familiar with Schopenhauer, it still has an intelligence about it because it subverts the above "universal truth" thing and introduces the idea that the truth or usefulness of certain views is a function of social class. That this idea, in itself, has scandalized you bodes ill for you. I repeat that I am not the OP, so don't bother with that retort.
>>24829813>>24830105his most famous acolyte wasn't middle class so in practical terms, no
>>24830105TLDR. Learn how to get to the point, psued
>>24829813Are you peasant, OP?
>>24830105>tldrYou're a pseud.
>>24829813Bold of you to assume that Schopenhauer's worldview would apply to any Social class, But most preferably I believe it would be the poor class and the lower middle class
>>24830173Its really not that long anon.
>>24829813It's meant as a universal metaphysical truth, not a sociological observation. The will operates through all beings, from the poorest animal to the richest man.>>24832984Wrong. The poor don't have the leisure to philosophize about the futility of desire; they're too busy surviving. Schopenhauer himself explicitly said that philosophy begins only after the necessities of life are secured. If anything, his worldview reflects an aristocratic class or contemplative temperament.
>>24832994I don't even think that one could unify a whole class into thought, A poor person could gain avid self awareness and see the futility of desire, it's not necessary to for the necessities to be met, Only if you're a human with the lowest grade of the will to live then yeah we could say that but in this modern age the poor class (atleast the lows of the middle class) have outclassed the rich class by indulging into Literature which the Rich stopped doing, But if we're gonna measure intellect by classes then that's absolutely retarded.And also there are many poor philosophers who grew without any necessities yet made groundbreaking philosophy.
>>24829813It applies to the entire universe. No such thing as a particular philosophy.
>>24829813It applies to all humans.
