So he’s basically right, isn’t he?
>>25401575define right.
People keep a dog and are ruled by this dog, and even Schopenhauer was ruled in the end not by his head, but by his dog. This fact is more depressing than any other. Fundamentally it was not Schopenhauer’s head that determined his thought, but Schopenhauer’s dog. It was not the head that hated Schopenhauer’s world, but Schopenhauer’s dog. I don’t have to be demented to assert that Schopenhauer had a dog on his shoulders and not a head. People love animals because they are incapable even of loving themselves. Those with the very basest of souls keep dogs, allowing themselves to be tyrannized and finally ruined by their dogs.
>>25401579you are brown.
>>25401580My name is Thomas.
>>25401576The world being representational. His whole epistemological account is very convincing to me.
>>25401590>His whole epistemological account is very convincing to me.it's literally just solipsism but with kantian buzzwords
>>25401589your name is Toby.
>>25401595Are Kant and Fichte solipsistic too?
>>25401579If anything this is more true with cats. Their meowing can be manipulative and the cat can purposely spike the owner’s cortisol with them. Also their flippant nature causes the owner to walk on eggshells with them. All this culminates to people who “joke” around saying their cat owns their house and they’re just the cat’s servant. Dogs on the other hand respect hierarchy and look to their owner as the pack leader, which is a much healthier human-animal relationship imo.
>>25401709I think he was talking about Schopenhauer’s penis>>25401630Kant literally has a chapter in his book called refutation of idealism where he proves the existence of the external world. Why do people not get this?
about everything.
>>25401589Thomas the Faggot.
Yeah he's right. Been thinking about becoming a monk to deny the will. I'm tired of samsara
>>25401575In the sense it's just a freebie for metaphysicians to feel unique about themselves, yes. As a geometer, no. For anything probability related, no. For scientists to chill and vibe out, sure. For antinatalists and pessimists to complain, absolutely. For psychology that can't stomach Nietzsche, yes. For realizing you still meet equity with Hegel on everything is a paradox? Priceless.
there's so much filler in this guy's books it's insane
>>25403418But it’s explained pretty clear and entertaining, which is a big plus for philosophy
>>25401575upanishads dub algorithm
>>25401920>For realizing you still meet equity with Hegel on everything is a paradox? Priceless.What do you mean by this, could you elaborate?
>>25403801This reeks of metaphysician. You must be a guenonian or something. You attempted to use a circle and triangle and wound up getting stuck. You are not a geometer. Return to your metaphysical inquiries on iniquity lest ye be taken captive by philosophy or whatever gibberish the guenonian method delineated in this circumstance. It was probably getting initiated in non-esoterotica. That might be a good course of action for you, go forth and seek out a religion that caters to metaphysicians or something.
>>25403917I don't know what you're talking about either way
>>25401575ps2 rock band guitar hero algorithm
>>25401575No
