Anonymous
6/12/2025, 7:30:10 AM No.24460715
Nietzsche's "perspectivism" put the damper on all philosophical inquiries concerning evaluation of life. whether life is worth living, good, a gift or the worst mistake that could have happened to a person really depends in their situation. when philosophers talk about life, they all talk about it as if the experience is same for everyone. both the experiences of an ugly schizophrenic Indian midget who is suffering from a horrific genetic disease with no cure and a tall, charismatic, genius millionaire with perfect health are called a "life" as if it's the same thing. who is retarded enough to decide these two "life"s are both the same and are worthy/unworthy of living?
someone really chooses their own philosopher just as they choose a car based on the terrain of where they live. in this sense there is not one philosopher who is ultimately correct. Leibniz is entirely correct when he said this world is the best of all possible worlds, and Schopenhauer is just as right when he said it is the worst of all possible worlds. they simply uttered what their physicality experienced. when someone believes life is unbearable and wants out, chances are he is entirely justified. when someone sees life as a gift, he is too entirely justified if we were to imagine of the reasons he might have for thinking that way.
someone really chooses their own philosopher just as they choose a car based on the terrain of where they live. in this sense there is not one philosopher who is ultimately correct. Leibniz is entirely correct when he said this world is the best of all possible worlds, and Schopenhauer is just as right when he said it is the worst of all possible worlds. they simply uttered what their physicality experienced. when someone believes life is unbearable and wants out, chances are he is entirely justified. when someone sees life as a gift, he is too entirely justified if we were to imagine of the reasons he might have for thinking that way.
Replies: