Hegel was infinitely smarter than Schopes, and also the actually original thinker instead of a Hinduism shill with Western philosophical vocabulary.
S. was the better writer and polemicist tho
To some extent his vitriol against H was the narcissism of small differences, they're not as different as it seems, or rather S is a dialectical opposite to a supposedly Hegelian position which Hegel already sublated within his own work, if you actually study it.

I feel bad for schop. Just because he didnt have the arrogance to make an elaborate dysfunctional incomplete self referencing system, hes considered a basic bitch of philosophy

retarded failed scientist

>>24513045 (OP)
Schope seething will ever be funny

>>24513045 (OP)
Its not a contest. Some thinkers synthesized both. Check out picrel for further details.

>schopenhauer could write the finest prose of German ever written
>could convey his ideas clearly
>hegel
>ekaasdladl;a;ll; ,s\;the walls are closgjnsa
dsd

>>24514361
Imagine reading an American book about German philosophy

>>24514810
Kek.

>>24513045 (OP)
hey that's my post from the other thread. Appreciate it I guess

You can be extremely smart an extremely wrong at the same time. Hegel's theory of history and the Absolute is bullshit, a remastered and secular version of christian schatology.

>>24514827
hes using it for bait you fucking retard, do you have no shame?

>>24514832
Christianity is right.

>>24514832
>a remastered and secular version of christian schatology.
I know i will semi be memed for this but...how is this never mentioned? ESPECIALLY in this modern day? How the fuck are their so many hegel fanatics when his entire philosophy is a blatant rationalization of christianity through philosophy? Even if its wrong to dismiss a religion on basis of it rationalizing religion (its not) i feel like he should have less fans and widespread respect. He should be Aquinas tier.

>>24514970
Hegel is a Christian thinker.

>>24514970
Hegel justifies the ever growing macro State from which academics take all their salaries. When leftists give up Marx because they are aware that it is blatant economic illiteracy and that they lack the necessary knowledge to at least debate keynesians, austrians, neoclassics etcetera, they cling to Hegel, and that way they don't feel the urge to justify the State because it justifies itself by growing throughout history. A prime example of this kind of leftist is Zizek when he said "I'm more of a helegian than a marxist", which left Peterson mute because he is a pseud himself but that doesn't mean what I said isn't true.

>>24514960
and...?

>>24514989
socialism in itself cannot exist without bureaucracy, either by the people or from above. Alasdair McIntyre was correct when asserted that despite Karl Marx's spectre hanging over the entire thing, once the institution hardens as per Berger's second stage of social construction become essentially Weberian.

>>24514970
Hegel would be lucky in 500 years to be Aquinas tier.

sure why not. you can believe men can be women nowadays, anything goes.

>>24515290
Funnily enough I just read an essay that argued Hegel should be for Protestants what Aquinas is for Catholics.

>>24514970
People often misunderstand the Absolute in this way. For Hegel the Absolute is merely the recognition of the impossibility of escaping contradiction. Or, in other words, the Absolute is the recognition of the inescapability of the dialectic form. It’s actually the exact opposite of Christian eschatology: instead of dreaming of a world without contradiction, which is the parallel version a la Hegelianism of the Christian ideal of a world without sin, he realizes that the dream of escape is in itself a way that contradiction keeps us imprisoned. The thing which always marks the end of each dialectical step is man thinking he finally has it all figured out. Attempts at escape from confusion are the motor of the dialectical process. There can be no end to contradiction because it feeds on that desire for an end to exist in the first place. Really, it’s Hegel’s most esoteric (in the sense of traditional Greek philosophical schools) concept: even his own philosophy doesn’t escape it. You cannot seek to fully explain because to fully explain would pose more questions.

>>24515497
What if I reject the concept of dialectics?

>>24515508
Yes, this is possible: in many ways this is the essence of postmodernism itself. Adorno’s Negative Dialectics is a good reference here. In short, the whole idea of Hegelianism was that Plato and Aristotle got it wrong by trying to arrange metaphysics as a series of positive statements about the world. Hegel comes along and realizes that it’s much easier to construct a more convincing argument for the metaphysical arrangement of the world (which is suspiciously parallel with Aristotle) out of negative extrapolations from the idea of being itself, this being the Phenomenology. The negation is understood as bearing a positive statement in itself which must be teased out through the process of dialectics. Postmodernism though abandons the idea of negation as an implicit positive statement and deals with it as pure difference. I mention Adorno because he’s really the first guy in the western tradition to do this after Hegel. Deleuze is the king of this pattern of thought though. Negation is stripped of its positive qualities and viewed through its inherent otherness. Think of memes of people dying in factories or such. The reason you’re able to laugh at it is because you view it as a pure otherness. If if was your mother dying in the same way it wouldn’t be so funny because she has a positive essence for you.

Early Hegel on faith in the Differenzschrift: "Faith... is a relation of reflection to the Absolute, and one in which reflection is certainly Reason. But though it nullifies itself as something that sunders and is sundered, and also nullifies its product too - an individual consciousness - it still preserves the form of sundering. The immediate certainty of faith... is nothing but the identity itself, Reason, which, however, does not recognize itself, and is accompanied by the consciousness of opposition. Speculation, however, lifts the identity of which sound sense is not conscious into consciousness; and this synthesis of what is sundered in faith is an abomination to faith." lol.

Imagine a dying soldier, "well at least I died for my country", and then Hegel says "don't you see that you can only speak of this “for” and this “country” from a position of reflective limitation? For you and your country to be terms of a proposition, you have to be equal to your country, and opposed to it, at the same time, and this logical antimony must be suspended in an immediate intuition of the whole identity of identity and non-identity of you and your country both! If only you were a speculative wizard like me.”

Schelling’s identity philosophy is the worst of idealism. He’s reifying a simple truth of logic, using it to defend romantic hippy bullshit, and hiding it in the idealist argot. Hegel was a dummy to fall for it.

>>24513709
He’s a basic bitch for believing that the ding an sich was ever anything but the empty form of opposition. It’s a 15 year old’s reading of Kant.

>>24515655
....................

>>24515661
If you think Kant thought the thing in itself literally caused appearances you got filtered. You remember the dogmatist sounding passages but the properly transcendental ones (like in the deduction, or in the “Ground of Distinction”) go in one ear and out the other. When Kant speaks of things in themselves as objective causes he’s speaking in terms of empirical realism; or he’s being polemical (against Berkeley); or he’s expressing the givenness of representations. Or often enough all 3 at once. Simple as

can someone give me 1 (one) applicable advice from hegel that's applicable and not something a 12 year old come up with on his/her own

can someone give me 1 (one) advice from hegel that's applicable and not something a 12 year old can come up with on his/her own

>>24515675
WOWZA! KANT SURE IS AN AUTHORITY ON REALIT! SORTA LIKE A GOD! THIS SCHOPENHAEUR GUY SURE IT DUMB!

>>24515686
You can’t understand how this misreading of Kant affects Schopenhauer’s broader thought? Really? Think about it a tiny bit. Shouldn’t be a big ask for someone who is supposed to be into philosophy. It’s not just about misreading Kant, it’s that he thinks there’s some ultimate reality standing behind this one.

>>24515684
That’s not what philosophy is for, especially not mega-speculatives like Hegel. So, no.

>>24515730
sounds like a waste of fucking time bro.

>>24513045 (OP)
a lizard is infinitely smarter than an ant

>>24514817
Beiser is actually a well respected historian of German philosophy.

have you ever happened to know a topic very well and you assumed it to be very simple so people would understand it immediately but when it comes up you get surprised by how people incessantly get it wrong and that they are very stubborn to change their minds and many in number so when you try to argue with them they quickly overwhelm you?

>>24516071
All the time. This board is dominated by opinionated pseuds. I’ve got an entire cadre of tradcaths on my back who think Aristotle was a realist about universals.

>>24515573
show me a meme of people dying in factories lol

Guys...is schopenhaeur really le stupid like le thread le says...

>>24516425
he thinks you could say anything meaningful about a noumenal object (like calling it "will"), what do you think?

>>24516434
why am i supposed to think that is necessarily a bad or wrong thing. i dont care what kant said like a bible, tell me what is the exact logical contradiction. you can reference kant of course, but not site him like the holy gospel.

>>24516082
you still haven't explained how universals existing in particulars themselves doesn't count as realism btw.

>>24513045 (OP)
>Hegel was infinitely smarter than Schopes, and also the actually original thinker instead of a Hinduism shill with Western philosophical vocabulary.
Take that back. Schope is one of the greatest minds in any intellectual tradition and who will ultimately be vindicated as the most "correct" metaphysician. That said I don't belive Hegel's teleology is fundamentally incompatible with Schopenhauer's Will. It might make sense that the the will evolves towards higher states of consciousness and becomes less brutal and divided over time. See Teilhard de Chardin's "Omega Point" theory

>>24516536
Basically: the universe begins in a state of primal unconsciousness (der WIlle) and evolves towards greater unity and logical subsumption

>>24516538
>>24516536
>The Wille is subsumable by Absolute Spirit
Did I just ack myself? Maybe so. Maybe so. In any case Schopenhauer was the more cogent and forceful thinker than Hegel, and one of the greatest writers of all time from a literary perspective, which says a lot for a philosopher. In terms of their art Hegel's self-indulgence cannot be excused. Both Schopenhauer and Hegel's prose, at their best, match their philosophies, Schopenhauer's prose is direct and palpable, Hegel's prose is confused and removed.

Here's a good exaple of Schope dropping bombs:

>Thus the will-to-live appears just as much in this suicide (Shiva) as in the ease and comfort of self-preservation (Vishnu), and the sensual pleasure of procreation (Brahma). This is the inner meaning of the unity of the Trimurti which every human being entirely is, although in time it raises now one, now another of its three heads. As the individual thing is related to the Idea, so is suicide to the denial of the will. The suicide denies merely the individual, not the species. We have already found that, since life is always certain to the will-to-live, and suffering is essential to life, suicide, or the arbitrary destruction of an individual phenomenon, is a quite futile and foolish act, for the thing-in-itself remains unaffected by it, just as the rainbow remains unmoved, however rapidly the drops may change which sustain it for the moment. But in addition to this, it is also the masterpiece of Maya as the most blatant expression of the contradiction of the will-to-live with itself. Just as we have recognized this contradiction in the lowest phenomena of the will in the constant struggle of all the manifestations of natural forces and of all organic individuals for matter, time, and space, and as we saw that conflict stand out more and more with terrible distinctness on the ascending grades of the will’s objectification; so at last at the highest stage, the Idea of man, it reaches that degree where not only the individuals exhibiting the same Idea exterminate one another, but even the one individual declares war on itself. The vehemence with which it wills life and revolts against what hinders it, namely suffering, brings it to the point of destroying itself, so that the individual will by an act of will eliminates the body that is merely the will’s own becoming visible, rather than that suffering should break the will. Just because the suicide cannot cease willing, he ceases to live; and the will affirms itself here even through the cessation of its own phenomenon, because it can no longer affirm itself otherwise.

Here is Schope killing it describing the phenomenal relevance of will (useful or relatable information is something far beyond Hegel)
>rom the first appearance of consciousness, a man finds himself a willing being, and as a rule, his knowledge remains in constant relation to his will. He first seeks to know thoroughly the objects of his desire, and then the means of attaining them. Now he knows what he has to do, and, as a rule, he does not strive after other knowledge. He moves and acts; his consciousness keeps him always working directly and actively towards the aims of his will; his thought is concerned with the choice of motives. Such is life for almost all men; they wish, they know what they wish, and they strive after it, with sufficient success to keep them from despair, and sufficient failure to keep them from ennui and its consequences. From this proceeds a certain serenity, or at least indifference, which cannot be affected by wealth or poverty; for the rich and the poor do not enjoy what they have, for this, as we have shown, acts in a purely negative way, but what they hope to attain to by their efforts. They press forward with much earnestness, and indeed with an air of importance; thus children also pursue their play. It is always an exception if such a life suffers interruption from the fact that either the æsthetic demand for contemplation or the ethical demand for renunciation proceed from a knowledge which is independent of the service of the will, and directed to the nature of the world in general. Most men are pursued by want all through life, without ever being allowed to come to their senses. On the other hand, the will is often inflamed to a degree that far transcends the assertion of the [pg 423]body, and then violent emotions and powerful passions show themselves, in which the individual not only asserts his own existence, but denies and seeks to suppress that of others when it stands in his way.

Here's an example of Schope absolutely shattering it and reaching levels of transcendental poetry:
>We have considered the great multiplicity and diversity of the phenomena in which the will objectifies itself, and we have seen their endless and implacable strife with each other. Yet, according to the whole discussion up to this point, the will itself, as thing-in-itself, is by no means included in that multiplicity and change. The diversity of the (Platonic) Ideas, i.e., grades of objectification, the multitude of individuals in which each of these expresses itself, the struggle of forms for matter,—all this does not concern it, but is only the manner of its objectification, and only through this has an indirect relation to it, by virtue of which it belongs to the expression of the nature of will for the idea. As the magic-lantern shows many different pictures, which [pg 200]are all made visible by one and the same light, so in all the multifarious phenomena which fill the world together or throng after each other as events, only one will manifests itself, of which everything is the visibility, the objectivity, and which remains unmoved in the midst of this change; it alone is thing-in-itself; all objects are manifestations, or, to speak the language of Kant, phenomena. Although in man, as (Platonic) Idea, the will finds its clearest and fullest objectification, yet man alone could not express its being. In order to manifest the full significance of the will, the Idea of man would need to appear, not alone and sundered from everything else, but accompanied by the whole series of grades, down through all the forms of animals, through the vegetable kingdom to unorganised nature. All these supplement each other in the complete objectification of will; they are as much presupposed by the Idea of man as the blossoms of a tree presuppose leaves, branches, stem, and root; they form a pyramid, of which man is the apex. If fond of similes, one might also say that their manifestations accompany that of man as necessarily as the full daylight is accompanied by all the gradations of twilight, through which, little by little, it loses itself in darkness; or one might call them the echo of man, and say: Animal and plant are the descending fifth and third of man, the inorganic kingdom is the lower octave. The full truth of this last comparison will only become clear to us when, in the following book, we attempt to fathom the deep significance of music, and see how a connected, progressive melody, made up of high, quick notes, may be regarded as in some sense expressing the life and efforts of man connected by reflection, while the unconnected complemental notes and the slow bass, which make up the harmony necessary to perfect the music, represent the rest of the animal kingdom and the whole of nature that is without knowledge.

>>24516561
>>24516570
So that guy saying Schop is dumb cuz Kant was dumb and didn't finish his shitty system was just retarded and wrong

i am sick of janny refusing to do anything about this spam. every day there are 30-40 threads about these irrelevant german assholes and it's obviously someone doing it for a reason. what is your angle op? i know what it is but i want to hear your side

>>24516573
In so many words, yeah.

>>24516576
thanks for the bump

>>24516503
Because universals don’t exist at all, the particular is prior on being. Universals are prior by nature. But you don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about. “Prior by nature but it doesn’t exist? What is he talking about?” You don’t know what realism is and you don’t know Aristotle, yet you’re hyper opinionated on this issue. As usual with you pseuds you’re fixated on arguing about the meanings of words. You think Aristotle thinks there’s some “thing”, horseness, which is somehow “in” particulars and causes them to be what they are.

>>24516572
>>24516570
>>24516561
>muh no perfect knowledge

Descartes and Hume.

>muh can't know and want to be left alone

Descartes and Hume.

>muh will doesn't exist and have trouble with the external world

Descartes and Hume.

>muh I'll have to keep muh being to myself

Descartes and Hume.

Yeah Descartes and Hume really did solve the whole thing. You know what that means.

>>24516983
>posterior in being means it doesn't exist
This is like thinking that a materialist and an atomist doesn't believe that human beings exist because atoms are prior in being to human beings. You've done literally nothing to refute the argument on its own two feet (which structurally mimics the problem of potency).

Don't think I haven't noticed you. You like to play around with Aristotle's equivocal terms (which are not so equivocal in context, especially since he explains them in many places like Metaphysics Delta) to trap pseuds into wordgames. But I see right through you, and one day, I'm going to skullfuck you for your insolence.

>>24517008
You think that to think that, say, “equinity” is real, ie that we can make true, universal judgments about horses, means that equinity is something that *exists* (somehow) apart from horses, that makes horses what they are, and that is metaphysically prior to actual horses. You’re actually too ignorant to understand the distinction Aristotle and I are making, you think if something is “real” in any sense of the word, it is a true hypostasis. Please read the Metaphysics, you are the one who *conflates* equivocal terms. Distinguishing these senses is the very spirit of Aristotle, what you think is a “word game” is actually a solution to retarded word games. It’s the main tool in Aristotle’s kit. Just like pseuds can’t understand Kant’s thing in itself, hypostasizing it, so you can’t understand Aristotle’s “essence”, hypostasizing it in the same exact way. One of the main theses of the Metaphysics is that universals do not exist. And yet here you are, “but… I can make universal judgments… so they do exist! What is this autism? What are they talking about??” You are not smart enough for philosophy.

>>24516561
>Thus the will-to-live appears just as much in this suicide (Shiva) as in the ease and comfort of self-preservation (Vishnu), and the sensual pleasure of procreation (Brahma).
dog this guy would have been the first weeb had he found japanese buddhism instead of indian.

>>24517030
>*exists* (somehow) ___apart___
And there it is, you've changed the goalposts. What did that other anon claim, again? You might want to scroll up again.

Here's the problem. You spend way too much time feeling smug about what you've written and way too little time carefully reading what other people have read. It's like you tapped out of your supply of attentive reading for life after reading Metaphysics for the first time. It gets old reading your self-congratulatory autism over and over again.

>>24515497
>>24515508
>>24515573
It's also worth pointing out that there is no such thing as Pure Otherness, at least if you accept a univocity of Being on some level (and acknowledge that the so-called Other at least exists). Nothing can be so different that they do not at least exist. So this so-called Difference turns out to be the implied Identity, and Identity turns out to be the implied Difference, and Deleuze's attempt to both critique Plato and break out of the Hegelian straitjacket falls flat on its face.

>>24517008
>>24517094
He's been crashing out lately

https://warosu.org/lit/thread/24510956#p24512825

https://warosu.org/lit/thread/24515531#p24516171

>>24517139
do people feel pride after discharging gobbledygook like this? I am asking because I really don't see the point of writing like this. it doesn't mean anything, person writing it must know it and he should also assume the people who are going to read it also know it. so what's the point?

>>24513045 (OP)
>smart
>can't access God
hard pass

>>24517280
Nobody can apparently. Metaphysics is just about finding a shitbox to squat when you piss. You keep searching metaphysician.

>>24515944
Ill join that other anon in saying, no, no American or anglo professor is ever suited to speak on German philosophy.

>>24517139
I had the exact same thought about your post when I read it. But I haven't read any postmodernists so I can't contribute anything. Unlike all too many here, I don't post about things I don't know anything about. Still from a purely logical standpoint "pure otherness" is obviously nonsensical.
>>24517191
You guys think the medieval problem of universals = "Are our thoughts real, or are they junk we make up?" You think Aristotelian nominalists deny the intelligibility of the world (nope), or that they deny essence and make "potency prior to actuality" (I have heard this from one of you pseuds, it's risible bullshit). You're out of your element and you don't understand the parameters of the debate. Like a child or a woman, you can only think in terms of 'this' and 'that'. Please find something else to do with your finite time on this earth besides philosophy because you are not meant for it. What would Fichte say?

"Would that they would abandon a science which they have abundantly tortured themselves to grasp [that's pretty generous in your case lol], and for which they have discovered that they are not made. Let them turn to some other useful occupation—grinding glasses, making verses, writing novels, and studying agriculture or game-keeping; let them take service in the detective police, study medicine, raise cattle, or write devotional reflections on death for every day in the year,—and no one will refuse them his esteem."

I know I can't actually reach you, I'm mostly trying to reach lurkers etc. You guys are both extremely ignorant (you hardly ever even cite Aristotle; at most you namedrop scholars like Gerson), and unbelievably arrogant. You will never make any progress. As I said, you don't even understand what we're arguing about or what I'm saying.
>>24517214
It's completely intelligible, you just have to read more. If you think philosophy should or can be written in ordinary non-technical language you simply don't know anything about philosophy.

>>24517345
Plato and Aristotle wrote that way. in fact every thinker of antiquity did. I guess you know better than them though.

>>24517345
Kek, you're making >>24517094 look more and more right, I haven't said anything else in this thread or anything at all about Aristotle and here you are blowing up like some jilted lover "IT'S JUST LIKE YOU TO DO THIS SHIT" lmao

Schopenhauer had like 200 IQ. Hegel didn't understand basic physics. this comparison is ridiculous.

>>24517435
>Hegel didn't understand basic physics.
kek is this true?

>>24516135
chinese rekt gifs

I want to like his theory complex, but for the life of me I can't see the objective spirit as anything than cope. Hegel doesn't want Kant's untouchable noumena and for it makes up a whole framework, to make them knowable (at least by something, not even individuals).
I inquiries, but I can not conclude if we gain anything, explain anything that actually needs explaining, by the objective spirit.
Even if we'd conceded (I have no issue with it, but it's also up to debate) that morals and laws are more than practically based, evolution-based and circumstantial, i.e. even if those things have a true and right way about what they should be, then this still doesn't mean we need to bundle them up into a "spirit". Who said we need to philosophically explain institutions, also?
I wish it wasn't so cope'y, that there's be more to it, but it's as far as I can see a pointless conception of something that's there anyway.

>>24517441
yeah he didn't understand magnetism he thought if you put a magnet to one side of a balanced iron rod the reason it tips to that side is because it becomes heavier.

I think he mentions this in a book called logic of science or whatever, jokes write themselves.

>>24514832
It's definitely something that couldn't have existed without Christianity, but it's hardly remastered Christian eschatology. As Zizek notes somewhere, Hegel famously said that the comprehension of something in thought means that it's finished.

So he likely saw his own project as marking the conclusion of something, leading us to spiral out into some bright new frontier of the ever advancing dialectic.

Christianity is very idealistic (though not idealist) and thought forward in that the ideas and the endgame are all determined in advance. Christ WILL come, He WILL hold the sinners in judgment and reward the blessed.

There are no surprises left. Whereas Hegel is all about change and transformation.

That, to my mind, in fact, is the essence of his error. He confuses becoming for being. To make becoming the absolute is crazy talk, because becoming is a thing (a being), and as such depends on being to exist.

So he does get a lot of mileage out of the analysis of becoming, but you can't posit it as an absolute. I mean, you can, but you're ultimately wrong.

>>24514832
It's definitely something that couldn't have existed without Christianity, but it's hardly remastered Christian eschatology. As Zizek notes somewhere, Hegel famously said that the comprehension of something in thought means that it's finished.

So he likely saw his own project as marking the conclusion of something, leading us to spiral out into some bright new frontier of the ever advancing dialectic.

Christianity is very idealistic (though not idealist) and thought forward in that the ideas and the endgame are all determined in advance. Christ WILL come, He WILL hold the sinners in judgment and reward the blessed.

There are no surprises left. Whereas Hegel is all about change and transformation.

That, to my mind, in fact, is the essence of his error. He confuses becoming for being. To make becoming the absolute is crazy talk, because becoming is a thing (a being), and as such depends on being to exist.

So he does get a lot of mileage out of the analysis of becoming, but you can't posit it as an absolute. I mean, you can, but you're ultimately wrong.

>>24514975
Just because he calls himself Christian? He doesn't believe in God, in the divinity of Christ, the validity of the Church, etc...

>>24517491
That's not what he says, Schopy misconstrued it completely.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/na/nature2.htm

>>24515684
In his political philosophy he asserts very interestingly that we are all already reconciled, social alienation has been overcome in modernity (through democracy, modern technology, etc.), it's up to us to take it in hand and realize it, come to consciousness of our own reconciliation which already exists.

Very fascinating point of view and definitely opposed to the majority of philosophers, who usually merely bitch and moan about the order of things as they are.

Also arguably it underlies Nietzsche's later idea of Amor Fati. Instead of moping and griping about life, make the most of what exists.

I'd even go so far as to say that he really hits on something about modernity. We are in very many ways so much freer than any of our medieval or modern ancestors. Very valuable thing to realize this and apprehend it in thought.

That said, the guy who explained this point to me (in an essay) noted that this is probably only actually true, if at all, of rich people in developed countries. Or rather, it's not at all true of the global poor, who are and remain alienated.

So maybe Hegel gets something right, but he also tees things up for Marx's critique, which is so explosive that it almost destroyed the world. Breathtaking that philosophy could have such an impact on things.

But you're a self help borderline illiterate faggot who asks for "one advice," so you don't give a fuck about ideas. Fuck you.

>>24516425
He's not at all stupid. Personally I think his essays are genius and he's SUCH a clear writer, it's incredibly refreshing. Plus he has a very rare gift for metaphor, which I think Aristotle said was the true mark of genius. I think his philosophy is generally wrong, but it's at least expressed in a clear and simple manner, and it's a deep sort of wrongness such as attaches to ancient primeval human religions...

>>24517541
You must have some eternal truth. You go right ahead and let us all know.

>>24517550
literally none of this means anything except the last statement which is false.

>>24517541
Before I forget, if you're the bitch who takes a whole day to respond then don't bother. I know you're a bitch. Seek F Gardner for initiation, everything you knew about sucking dick is wrong and you'll get it right eventually.

bump

>>24517191
kek I forgot about that haecceity comment I left, I forgot to check if it even worked. he's too easy.

sad thing is, I like talking about Aristotle with him, and I don't even care if he's a nominalist or if he's right or whatever. I just don't care for his method of argumentation nor his attitude.

>>24517550
Alienation is a meaningless concept that has no existence. "Making the best out of life" always just boils down to mindless or sophisticated hedonism for you world worshippers. It displays your complete lack of awareness.

Hegelians are the most obnoxiously awful posters.

>>24517476
Those aren't memes.

>>24517552
Hinduism is not that ancient

>>24517214
It actually makes a lot of sense, and I know the kind of thing that you're critiquing (aka it looks like Byung-Chul Han crap), but the difference between him and I is that I'm condensing the insights of like 8 Platonic dialogues into three sentences, and he's cribbing off a culmination of one of many impressionistic Continental writing styles.

You could have at least asked a question, like asked what did I mean by one term, or why do I think difference implies identity, or whatever the fuck. But you didn't even bother.

>>24517345
Are you the same person as the Fichte guy?

>>24516983
>>24517008
>>24517030
>>24517094
>>24517191
Thank you for reminding me why I still use this board

>>24517335
Must be nice to not think for yourself. Very German mentality. I bet you got triple boosted and want to have sex with your government.

>>24520028
I perceived ding an sich: I fucked your "Mother" last night with the master signifier in her pussy, cunt, arsehole and cock. I put myself in the place of the Name of the Father. I put your mother on a cross without joinery, using nails, and I fucked her in the slit in her side.

I shit in your father's mouth cunt. If you doubt it, bring him forward, he will kneel.

>>24520064
>Very German mentality.
cope

>>24520076
>

>>24520150
Your choice of Stirner or Marx for Reagan. Or Ronald for that matter.

just realized something, Schopenhauer's main rival was Hegel and Marx's main rival was Proudhon. Both their rivals had major issues with women. neither are particularly upheld by academia. academia is a very feminine field nowadays.

hmmm. big think.

>>24515684
if change(/progress/process/evolution/theosis/organism) isn't a part of the Absolute itself then Spinozist nihilism follows.

>>24517345
>I had the exact same thought about your post when I read it. But I haven't read any postmodernists so I can't contribute anything. Unlike all too many here, I don't post about things I don't know anything about. Still from a purely logical standpoint "pure otherness" is obviously nonsensical.
Personally, I don't know why anybody didn't nail Deleuze harder on this. It seems like another exercise in creative writing masquerading as metaphysics. And unfortunately I have yet to meet somebody deeply familiar with both French Continental philosophy and classical metaphysics who could salvage something from Deleuze's work.

>>24517318
Saints can.
That's why they are called Saints/"Holy"; they are piped into God/Know God. Not some BS like the akashic records, but actually God and His Will.
Philosophy without Theology is for midwits/pseuds like Hegel and his cult.

>>24520924
Hegel was a saint.

>>24520924
>Not some BS like the akashic records, but actually God and His Will.
>t. doesn't know

>>24520924
A traditional Catholic response would be to view Hegel as an antithesis.

>agreement confirmed for Descartes

Hegel was interested in Catholic writings but not for any primarily 'Catholic' purposes. I'm not interested in re-enacting Hegel's digging up of the coffin Descartes buried just to add another nail and etch Christianity into it. There are too many denominations and all any of them can ever tell me is that the bible is the book but they needed another denomination over muh ontological reasons muh. This only reinforces the complete lack of eternal truth and the use of metaphysics as a shitbox so you can squat when you piss. Return to thy shitbox valiant metaphysician. At least Catholicism offered significant contributions to western philosophy.

The abuses of religious meddlers will still be met with Zengel. Zen is the only source of eternal truth every single person on the planet can be made to know.

Real wisdom doesn't want to be original, it wants to be wise, and the wise learn from the wise. Schopenhauer being so grounded in earlier traditions speaks to his rigor and even humility if anything, not his stupidity. Lower men crave constant novelty.

A lot of people criticize Schopenhauer for being narcissistic and obnoxious, and he definitely has these traits. But when you keep reading his writing it's hard not to get the sense that he has an actual compassion for living creatures that all the moral jargon of Kant or Hegel will never quite get at, and that, I think, points to his wisdom, more than his venial flaws.