When did you realize he was right about everything?
>dude the world is le mad and miserable because we can move our limbs
Reading his philosophy is great. The only dude that quite literally searched for the truth.
>>25292833Yes, Schope was one of the few philosophers in the strict sense of the word. A philosopher being one who loves the truth.
>>25292796my favorite romantic fr fr
>>25294016Actually it’s wisdom.
I feel like his philosophy goes as far as philosophy can possible go for those with an IQ of 110 such as Schopenhauer himself who struggled with algebra before proclaiming only stupid people can do it
>>25294090 non sequitur akin to digging through a person's reddit post history to find a problematic opinion from 2013
>>25294090>proclaiming only stupid people can do itLiterally not what he even said, but ok.
>>25292796I've been trolling you guys for so long I should say something nice about him. I really liked the way he handles death. He points out that even though we all know we are going to die nobody is concerned about it; we are just as unconscious of it as animals and this is because, on some level, we know that the will to life is what is real and our individuality is just an accident. I think this is how healthy people think about death and even religious people have a conception like this underlying their religious beliefs. You're afraid of death when it's going to happen but you aren't in the meantime; there is a sense in which you really are immortal because you're part of life and life is immortal. This is also not far off from how I read Aristotle's take on immortality although the metaphysics/theology is very different. I would also say that his critiques of the idealists, that they beg the question by their first principles, is spot on. It's just a question of which idealist has the most interesting first principle and is most astute in working out the consequences of this principle (it's Fichte).
>>25294095Is it though? Hegel talks a lot about differential calculus and it is very important to his concept of dialectical process philosophy, and Schopenhauer's primary complaint against Hegel is that, like math, he is too hard.
>>25294146Schopenhauer kicking a woman down the stairs is actually a myth.
Not only can hedgehogs relax their quills to huddle together, he spent most of his life in his room seething and positing bullshit without living life
>>25294185Why did the myth start?
>>25294193When he kicked her down the stairs
>>25292796>dude you can collapse the phenomenal/noumenal divide you just have to like...think really hard Disgusting bastardization of Kantianism. At least Hegel attempted a detailed process of historical-categorical development to cross the divide (he still failed)
>>25294016That would be philalethia, not philosophy
>>25294146
>>25294214This made me lol but I still think you're being unfair to poor Schopie. I think of it like this: if the world is merely appearance, if everything is in our brains, then what IS it, what is it an appearance of, or more simply what does it mean to be a being like this in a phenomenal world? And he never pretends to cross the divide, he says more than once that we can't know the in-itself, we just get a 'hint' of it in our own will. This is the Anstoß for intellect, which is itself a product of will, to negate the will. Schopenhauer is not like the other idealists, he's not creating some a priori theory, he's trying to make sense of what's right in front of him with some inspiration from Kant.
>>25294230>if everything is in our brainsOur brains only exist in our brains? This right here makes no sense
I dont find the argument against desire particularly convincing.
When I read On the Will in Nature
>>25294246if achieving things(persuing desire) improved your psychologic state, then people would only get happier with agein fact, most people agree that childhood is generally the best part of life, which you are often denied to do whatever you want, but also don't have any expectations about life, you are just fucking around. desire == expectations alsoplus, desire is a response to what is seen through senses, so the idea that desire is metaphysical is silly; you don't know what you want before you come into contact with it for the first time.brain literaly creates a problem for itself.peace is not the achieving, its the absence of problem, but you get dopamine by solving a problem the brain created for you, and thus you become mechanical, slave to pavlovian conditioningbe right back, gonna goon now ; )
>>25294230>And he never pretends to cross the divide, he says more than once that we can't know the in-itself, we just get a 'hint' of it in our own willDid you not read parts 3+4? He literally posits that we can, through thinking (or mediation, if you will, given the eastern influence) negate our wills and grasp the in-itself. He does think we can entirely negate the will and cross the divide and grasp the world as it really is
>>25292796He wasn't wrong about many things. The world is greater than he declares, however.
>>25294599>The world is greater than he declarehmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no.
This pseud atheist is way too overrated on here.
>>25294285Achieving things is what collapses desire we enjoy object petit a Structurally our conscious becomes divided through symbolization generating lack. This is all a feature not a problem
>>25294202Thanks for the laugh
>>25292796as soon as I started reading him desu
>>25295662the bizarre thing is that, from my experience, *most* desires go away by itself
>>25294502I have and this is not what it says.
every single day I am reminded of it unfortunately.
>>25292796When I first read him. Then I read Tolstoy's Confession and realised me, Schopy and Tolstoy are kin.
>>25297486Besides that one, what other works by Tolstoy would you recommend?
>>25294502No he doesn't.First volume only makes hints that maybe there's a way to flee will and presentation, but he never tells you how (because he didn't know since he himself never "achieved it").
>>25298983Nta but The Kreutzer Sonata, especially the epilogue.
>>25294146Buddha should be telling Schopenhauer about his ideas. Also Buddha is full of shit
>>25294133Hegel talks a lot. Period.>Electricity is the purpose of the form from which it emancipates itself, it is the form that is just about to overcome its own indifference; for, electricity is the immediate emergence, or the actuality just emerging, from the proximity of the form, and still determined by it - not yet the dissolution, however, of the form itself, but rather the more superficial process by which the differences desert the form which, however, they still retain, as their condition, having not yet grown into independence of and through them.'>Hegel, Philosophy of Nature, 1817Bonus>An example of the existent specification of gravity is furnished by the following phenomenon: when a bar of iron, evenly balanced on its fulcrum, is magnetized, it loses its equilibrium and shows itself to be heavier at one pole than at the other. Here the one part is so affected that without changing its volume it becomes heavier; the matter, without increase in its mass, has thus become specifically heavier.” §293, Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences.>The absurdity of the statement is highlighted by Schopenhauer: “ ‘If a bar supported at its centre of gravity subsequently becomes heavier on one side, then it falls to that side; but an iron bar falls to one side once it has been magnetized: therefore it has become heavier in that place.’ A worthy analogue to the inference: ‘All geese have two legs, you have two legs, therefore you are a goose.’ For, put into categorical form, the Hegelian syllogism reads: ‘Everything that becomes heavier on one side falls to that side; this magnetized bar falls to one side: therefore, it has become heavier in that place.’ That is the syllogistic reasoning of this ‘distinguished philosopher’ and reformer of logic.”
>>25299658To be fair, that spacetime and electromagnetic field are two distinct dimensions affecting movement in physical objects, is still not something definitely certain.Still plausible that gravity and electromagnetism are in essence the same thing, and therefore a magnet DOES make a thing literally more "massive'. Magnetism affects an object's potential energy which in turn increases its mass.
he has the coolest hair and coolest name, so there is that
>>25292796His psychological analysis is correctHis metaphysics is debunked or superceded by Guenonian non-dualism, in comparison with which it seems rather juvenile
