Schopenhauer explains why one should never let anyone know that you have a high IQs. Did you ever wonder why the midwits and low-IQs always get nasty when the topic comes up? Because:
> Now, there is nothing of which a man is prouder than of intellectual ability, for it is this that gives him his commanding place in the animal world.
Basically, your intelligence is the ultimate spec for a human being, and everyone perceives this intuitively. No one goes crazy if they see someone who looks better or who has a good body. So why do they get nasty in response?
> he will then thirst for vengeance, and generally look about for an opportunity of taking it by means of insult, because this is to pass from the sphere of intellect to that of will — and there, ALL ARE ON AN EQUAL FOOTING as regards the feeling of hostility.
Another absolute truth-bomb. To continue, he explains that IQ is worse even than being rich in the eyes of the masses because while being rich . High-status obliges a certain level of social standing, a high-IQ gets none of that, yet is just as evil for possessing it:
> A man may be as humble as possible in his demeanor, and yet hardly ever get people to overlook his crime in standing intellectually above them.

>>24571339 (OP)
He never mentions IQ.

>>24571351
Intellect = IQ.

>>24571357
Wrong.

>>24571339 (OP)
>No one goes crazy if they see someone who looks better or who has a good body
There are hordes of spiteful mutants that tear down physically beautiful people

>>24571339 (OP)
>nerd creates belief system where being a nerd is the most impressive thing you can be
>everyone is jealous and is trying to beat him up
is he your your messianic proto-chud?

>>24571385
this is why I don't think physiognomy is 100%

you can be good looking and be a total scumbag, in fact people will often use their good looks to fuck other people over. women are a prime example of this.

The same reason every functional otaku hides their powerlevel

dude was crazy smart but not smart enough to instinctively feel that no one likes a know it all. he had to learn from experience

>>24571339 (OP)
OP is gay :) Like so big brained he sucks 100 dicks and claims he’s kind of straight gay.

>>24571364
What kind of argument is this?

Not listening to anything schopenhowitzer has to say... #boring #sadslop

>>24571787
He literally never mentions "IQ". OP added that.

>>24571787
A low-IQ one

why do people take everything he wrote as gospel? he was just a thinker not a prophet.

>>24572044
Chuds see him as one of their own, so they worship him.

m

>>24571684
who the fuck ever said it's "100%"

>>24572044
They're retards. Ironically.

>>24572044
>>24572074
low iq ad hominem

>>24572109
Maxim 34 dictates this is how Schopes work. The most intelligent Schope realizes intelligence to be an ostracization liability. It provokes envy in the other Schopes. Men only want to associate with other men who make them feel superior in a way analogous to how women only want to associate with other women who make them feel pretty. If a Schope can't make it to a universal then slinging insults is about the only way they can make some semblance of a level playing field until a Schope does make it to a universal.

>>24572114
Who was slinging insults first? I've never taken anything he wrote as "gospel"; that logic can be applied to the appreciation of any author. And yes, you are a troglodyte.

>>24572120
I don't remotely care and it doesn't matter who started it. There are plenty of other shit fling threads on here for you by highly confused fagscists if you're looking for homosexual companionship.

At this point I don‘t know wether I am smart or retarded anymore. I will just assume I am retarded because there is nothing more cringe than a retard that thinks he is smart.

>>24572124
>I don't remotely care
then get lost

>>24571787
A nuanced one. Equating intellect with IQ without explaining anything is low IQ behavior.

>>24572131
If none of you can make it to a universal then don't feel envy for someone who does. Let go of your resentment and move on, you can always go for lookism and take the path of a woman.

>>24572049
>>24572074
>>24572109
I wasn't trying to discredit him I am just saying no matter who it is you shouldn't take everything they said to be infallibly true.

>>24572129
you know the scope of your intelligence when you see someone more intelligent than you.

>>24571364
Retard alert.

>>24572114
>Men only want to associate with other men who make them feel superior in a way analogous to how women only want to associate with other women who make them feel pretty
This is fucking feminized projection. This is how women act. Men don't want to be around other men that drag them down. They want to be around other men that support them and compete with them to reach new heights. Terrible take.

>>24572183
you're looking for friends to compete with? you sound like an insufferable person.

>>24572191
You sound like an average person, comfortable with your lot in life. Mediocre and boring. Which is fine, but men dont actively select friends in the way women do in order to soothe their insecure egos. That shit just screams fatherless behavior.

>>24572166
>more intelligent than you
That seems such a weird concept. I can easily find someone that knows more about math than me, but if I got really interested in math then I could work my way up to know as much as them too. And I might know vastly more than them in other areas, but they could acquire that knowledge too. How do I know for certain if someone is more intelligent than me? Is intelligence not knowledge itself but your capacity to understand, retain and gather knowledge? Is someone that knows a lot automatically intelligent? What about someone with autistic amounts of scientific knowledge thats incapable of understanding and navigating even the most basic social interaction? Is that truly intelligent? What about intellect? Is that more about pattern recognition in the knowledge you have access to? To categorize and arrange the moving pieces in a coherent way? I don‘t get it to be honest. It seems like everyone has a different idea of what makes someone intelligent.

>>24572196
you sound like an insufferable person. not an exception, not someone better, just annoying trash looking for a challenge. how original.

>>24572197
I am guessing you are getting at "it depends on how you define intelligence". you are emphasizing knowledge instead of intuitive understanding and being defensive about the whole thing which indicates you have a chip on your shoulder. and not willing to be objective about it even though you are making it seem like you are.

I think you're just right about your initial assumption.

>>24571339 (OP)
Vice wouldn't truly be vice if it didn't hate virtue. Stupidity wouldn't truly be stupidity if it didn't fear intelligence.

>>24572191
>>24572205
you think competition is something evil and toxic, you are definitely a woman like that anon was describing
tits or gtfo

>>24572209
it's exhausting to be competing all the time.

>>24571351
>>24571357
IQ = intelligence Quotient from German 'Intelligenzquotient'

>>24571339 (OP)
That so true. I created so much jealousy back in uni by just throwing literary and philosophical references. Some retards even started mocking me. I was naive and became super depressed. I didn't get it. I had faith in human goodness.

Never again. Just pretend to be a retard.

I made this thread to explain to other high-IQs why the midwits and low-IQs go wild with rage at the mention of having a higher-IQ. In fact they can just tell when someone is smarter than they are based on nothing more than the language and complexity of the post, but to have it directly called out is really too much for them. Intelligence is almost entirely genetic, as is attractiveness, but yet the amount of envy hatred directed towards attractive people pales in comparison to how much high-IQs are hated. The reality is, intelligence is the primary spec for the human being, because it’s out INT stat which separates us from animals. If you’re a high-IQ you have definitely felt like you are living amongst barely-sentient animals. This difference in status is so great that the lower-intelligent feel it intuitively, and because the only way they can level themselves with the higher-intelligent is to engage emotionally instead of intellectually. Because, obviously, the low-IQ CAN’T engage intellectually. Wanting to associate with even smarter people is the mindset of high-IQs only. It’s mentally enriching only to other smart people. Low-IQs will only feel small and that they don’t belong in such company, and negative envy arises.

For example, if you saw a picture of a ripped bodybuilder, how do you feel? Do you want to be like him, or do you sneer at them over steroids? I believe (can’t prove) that if you look at him positively, ie, “wow I want to be like him” you have a higher IQ than one who thinks “some California beach fag who’s going to die from steroid abuse, their nutrition and lifestyle is actually trash, most of the effect is just diuretics and oil, etc”.

>>24572363
>Intelligence is almost entirely genetic
Stopped reading here.

Have you even read Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation?

>>24572382
intelligence is almost entirely genetic, there is no way schopenhauer has opposing view.

>>24572389
Have you even read Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation?

>>24572398
no, I'm not the guy you responded though. also from not being able to respond to what you are opposing directly I understand that schopenhauer does not oppose that intelligence is inherited. so thanks.

>>24571396
“Messianic proto-chud” No one cares about your opinion you Reddit fag. Your ‘le epic jokes’ are only funny to other fat consumers.

>>24572401
>I base my opinions about the views of philosophers not by reading their books but what other retards on the internet are saying about them.
Just know that Schopenhauer hated idiots like you who don't directly read the primary sources.

>>24572408
No one should talk about philosophy unless they’ve read a full philosophy book. Retards butcher every philosopher online because they can’t follow the logic.

>>24572408
I read an essay from him that had a sentence that went like idiots are born and nothing can be done to fix it. it appears you are in that category of people. he believed in inheriting intelligence, determinism and lack of free will. how could someone who thinks like that would believe intelligence is not genetic? you're a retard. if you have anything from world as will and representation (a book you pretend to have read) about this issue I'd prefer you share that instead of stammering like a retard and further making a fool of yourself.

>>24572449
>>I read an essay from him that had a sentence that went like idiots are born and nothing can be done to fix it.
Source?

>>24572458
oh nice now you are making me do the homework. well let me make it easy for you: it was from parerga and paralipomena, can't remember which volume either. but it's in there, so end your life.

>>24572464
>>oh nice now you are making me do the homework.
You are just making shit up. Schopenhauer never said that. He made that comment about character. Now kill yourself.

>>24572467
so in your mind it makes sense that character is inherited and set in stone but intelligence isn't? are you carrying a peanut in your head my man.

>>24572469
Holy shit, yes character and intelligence are different things for Schopenhauer.

>>24572472
them being different things do not change the fact they are both inherited. I recognize of him mentioning moral character and intelligence are not to be conflated, it doesn't refute the main point that intelligence is inherited.

I mean if I didn't know this already you'd use it against me and claim I'm stupid. you are not arguing good faith so it's a real waste of time to argue with you.

>>24572480
the "inherited intelligence" here would imply that the kid will remain that his whole life his character which Schopenhauer explicitly admitted that it can't be changed. i don't remember reading anywhere in Schopenhauer's books that learning is futile and you can't transcend your mother in terms of intelligence and if your mother is stupid then you will remain stupid.

>>24572522
didn't read.

>>24572525
thank you for admitting that you're incapable of reading.

>>24571339 (OP)
>I really love that girl.
>Umm actually ''love'' is just a set of chemical reactions in your brain. You don't love her, your brain does, triggered by non sentient substances. Also God's not real.
>gets ghosted
>Heh, they just hate me for my intelligence :^)

>>24572709
schopenhauer BTFO

It's amusing how Schopenhauer's fanboys are just as ignorant, arrogant and insufferable as Schopenhauer himself. Philosophy for pseuds, by a pseud, hence its popularity.
>bro how can we know what's... REALLY there... there's something like "behind" appearances... Kant said so... I think anyway...
Schopenhauer's philosophy doesn't get beyond idealism, it's actually a retreat into the metaphysical dogmatism of the past filtered through a pathologically unpleasant personality.

>>24573131
Yeah the philosopher hailed as the greatest genius by Tolstoy, endlessly promoted by Wagner, admired by Goethe, is a pseud... No, but you are a faggot

>>24573131
You've never read him, so how would you know?

>>24572215
>>24572209
>>24572183
>>24572191
Competition may sound good in theory but if you've actually been around competitive people you realize how worthless. They care about metrics and things that do not matter or even exist. What matters is intellect and love, which operate on a totally different plane from competition. As soon as insecurity is provoked, and Schopenhauer experienced this often, then it is impossible to have any kind of productive intercourse with someone

>>24573178
And he was not popular during his lifetime, he even wrote about the greatest authors receiving posthumous fame. Does anon think Shakespeare or Dante are pseuds, for pseuds... What's the point of spouting such worthless faggotry? Schopenhauer knows where it comes from...

>>24572220
Again, he never mentions IQ. That's anachronistic.

>>24573183
>metrics
you confuse the slave with the ἀγωνιστής because you yourself are of the former
>love, which operate on a totally different plane from competition
once upon a time you had to start with the Greeks before posting

>>24573196
Yeah, IQ is pretty much idiotic from its base. Yeah, the negroes are lower and the Asians higher, who cares. Insofar as intelligence can be measured quantitatively, brain size or temperature are more worthwhile metrics

>>24573171
>the philosopher who is praised by non-philosophers, but completely ignored by actual philosophers, is a genius!
No, he wrote easy-reading works that do touch on truths of life - truths that are not hard to find, truths that your momma could probably tell you, dressed up in a patently nonsensical metaphysics and mixed with a generous dose of bullshit. There is extreme irony in someone who only reads Schopenhauer claiming to have a high IQ. A 14 year old could understand Schopenhauer. In fact, people with actually high IQs pass through their Schopenhauer phase in middle school or early high school. You will never, ever get off the Plato-Schopenhauer-Nietzsche carousel because you are too low IQ to read anyone else.

>>24572135
True.

>>24573209
Iq doesn't exist faggot
>>24573200
This is an anachronism. Unless you're Harold bloom lol

>>24573209
>A 14 year old could understand Schopenhauer
At root, that's why you hate him. The clarity and simplicity of genius endlessly offends the insecure midwit. What use is clear wisdom to someone who needs obscure esotericism to hide his intellectual shame? Go read Hegel.

>>24573220
I don't if anon read Schopenhauer he could understand him. He needs a confused mirror to synchronize the bitter chaos of his screeching mind

>>24573218
>μέγας γάρ…ὁ ἀγών, ὦ φίλε Γλαύκων, μέγας, οὐχ ὅσος δοκεῖ,
>τὸ χρηστὸν ἢ κακὸν γενέσθαι
for the struggle to be good rather than bad is important,
Glaucon, much more important than people think.
Republic 10.608b
>παρακαλῶ δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους πάντας ἀνθρώπους, καθ᾽ ὅσον
>δύναμαι, καὶ δὴ καὶ σὲ ἀντιπαρακαλῶ ἐπὶ τοῦτον τὸν βίον καὶ
>τὸν ἀγῶνα τοῦτον, ὃν ἐγώ φημι ἀντὶ πάντων τῶν ἐνθάδε
>ἀγώνων εἶναι
And I call on all other people as well, as far as I can—and you
especially I call on in response to your call—to this way of life,
this contest, that I hold to be worth all the other contests in this
life.
Gorgias 526e

>talks about "midwits" while jerking off to IQ
is this satire?

>>24573220
There is no way to express what Hegel is saying in simple language, if anything his "obscurity" is an attempt to be as clear as possible by inventing a technical vocabulary. But, again, this is an IQ thing. People with high IQs enjoy thinking or learning for its own sake, so we enjoy philosophers like Hegel because he was a deep and creative thinker. People with low IQs can only think in terms of 'this' and 'that', like a child or a woman, and accordingly they gravitate to boring but ostensibly practical philosophers who give them real life advice and direction, which they desperately need because of how dense they are. If the low IQ midwit is also an awful human being, he will fall in with Schopenhauer. This is not a baseless assertion, anyone can read the Schopenhauer posts in this very thread and make up his own mind as to just how intelligent you lot are. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some reading to do.

>>24573240
We were not discussing competition is the ideal form, which you clearly know nothing about, but how interference of petty will. That's what I mean. I obviously don't know what you mean, because you don't mean anything and are merely trying to win meaningless points in a meaningless virtual argument, because you don't love the truth and are infected by envy.

>>24573240
>including the Greek just to signal to other people that you can sort-of half-way read Greek
Extremely midwit.

>>24573247
This comment was surely not written by an intelligent person, but by someone consumed by the ugliest of thoughts. And I know you will stay to read this...

>>24573252
>>24573253
not arguments.

>>24573247
Being obsessed with IQ is a sign of low intelligence.

>>24573265
It really is. That post is completely contentless. Expending all those words to say nothing at all

>>24573269
I think it appeals to dumb people because IQ is a "metric" since they have zero original ideas of their own.

>>24573263
You've really lost now lol. If you're so enthusiastic about competition, you shouldn't absolutely suck at it. Go read Hegel in English translation, faggot

>>24573247
>There is no way to express what Hegel is saying in simple language
Nigger, everything he said with any sensible basis had already been expressed simply and elegantly by the sharper and more honest wits of philosophers and mystics that came before him. The rest was neo-kantian historicist bastardisation of a certain Italian topwit I SHAN'T be naming here.

>>24573240
I bet this is the same idiot who couldn't understand how phronesis deals with eschata in Aristotle.

>>24573131
Shut up shitgelian motherfucker


>Those who have cited his influence include philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche[26] and Ludwig Wittgenstein,[27] scientists such as Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein,[28] psychoanalysts such as Sigmund Freud[29] and Carl Jung, writers such as Leo Tolstoy,[30] Herman Melville,[31] Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse,[32] Machado de Assis,[33] Jorge Luis Borges, Marcel Proust,[34] and Samuel Beckett[35] as well as composers such as Richard Wagner,[34] Johannes Brahms,[34] Arnold Schoenberg[34][36] and Gustav Mahler.[34]

>Influenced
Anjos, Assis, Bahnsen, Beckett, Bergson, Borges, Brahms, Brouwer, Campbell, Einstein[9], Fet, Cioran, Dilthey[10], Freud, Gray[11], Hardy, Hartmann, Hesse, Horkheimer, Huysmans, Jung, Reve, Kraus[12], Ludovici[13], Ligotti, Mahler, Mainländer, Majorana[14], Mann, Maupassant, Michelstaedter, Nietzsche, Proust, Rank, Reve, Rilke, Ryle[15], Santayana, Schlick[16], Shaw, Schoenberg, Schrödinger, Solovyov, Spengler, Tolstoy[17], Vaihinge,r Volkelt, Wagner, Weininger, Wittgenstein, Zapffe, Zola.

>>24573275
Nta but all you guys have done this entire thread is boast about how much smarter you are than other people. You're really contemptible human beings and definitely not intelligent. You mention Hegel, interestingly enough he appears to have retroactively refuted Schopenhauer right here:
"Reason is the certainty of being all reality. However, this in-itself, or this reality, is still for all intents and purposes a universal, the pure abstraction of reality. It is the first positivity in which self-consciousness is in itself as it is for itself, and thus the I is only the pure essentiality of the existing, or the simple category. The category which otherwise signified the essentiality of the existing, where it was indeterminate if that meant the essentiality of what is existing, in general, or what is existing as confronting consciousness, is now the essentiality, or the simple unity of the existing only as a thinking actuality. Or, to put it differently, the category is this: Self-consciousness and being are the same essence, or the same not in comparison with each other, but rather the same in and for itself. It is only a on-sided, bad idealism which lets this unity again come on the scene as consciousness on one side and an in-itself confronting it on the other side."

I'd gloss it for you and explain how it refutes Schopenhauer, not in a superficial way but absolutely, but then I remember you have a very high IQ so it should be no problem for you.

>>24573392
“You want if possible – and there is no madder ‘if possible’ – to abolish suffering; and we? – it really does seem that we would rather increase it and make it worse than it has ever been!” - Nietzsche

"One could call Schopenhauer an altogether crude mind. I.e., he does have refinement, but at a certain level this suddenly comes to an end & he is as crude as the crudest." - Wittgenstein
>none of the rest are philosophers at all
Lol, lmao even. Very low IQ move, to go on google or chatGPT and pull up a list of people who have been 'influenced by' Schopenhauer. I'd wager you're not genuinely familiar with a single one of them.

>>24573435
You a coping hegelian nigger. all of those artists are god tier

Schopenhauer's thought is a formal and reflective idealism, a creature of finitude and the understanding, which never ascends to the intellectual intuition of the identity of identity and non-identity. It is not a philosophy at all, but the domination of mere representation apart from any speculation.

>>24573435
>"One could call Schopenhauer an altogether crude mind. I.e., he does have refinement, but at a certain level this suddenly comes to an end & he is as crude as the crudest." - Wittgenstein
Plagiarist scum.

>>24573209
Midwits really are just impressed with complexity. Make it convoluted enough for a midwit to scratch his head at it and he’ll call you a genius.

"It is not pleasant to note how ignorance mixed with formless, tasteless crudity, which is itself incapable of concentrating its thoughts on an abstract proposition and even less so on the connections among many such propositions, assures itself at one time that it is itself freedom and is tolerance of thinking, and at another time it even assures itself of its own genius. Natural philosophizing, which holds itself to be too good for the concept and which through this deficiency takes itself to be an intuitive and poetical thinking, trades in the arbitrary combinations of an imagination which is quite simply disorganized by its own thoughts."

>>24571339 (OP)
>/lit/ social skills on full display
You're meant to befriend people of similar or higher intelligence and use diversity of skill to enhance your effectiveness as a unit. You are not meant to compete or establish a hierarchy. If you believe in that stuff then you are stuck in either autist or normie hell.

>>24571339 (OP)
He's absolutely correct. I reentered the job market after grad school and every manager or boss I've had that never went to college absolutely delighted in rubbing my face in the tiniest mistakes or gaps in knowledge. People who unironcally say "I'm not book smart; I'm street smart" will look for any open opportunity to attack you if they perceive you as intellectually superior especially if they are above you in the hierarchy. I've since learned to simply not talk about university with coworkers unless I learn that they also have a degree or are completing an MA or whatever

>>24571684
just zip it with the misoginy, lil bro, I'm tired of that stupidity.

>>24573275
If you're not baiting, you are a midwit and S tier retard; if you're baiting, I salute you for being a professional.

>>24574036
>you’re supposed to suck up to people
>but hierarchies don’t exist
get a load of this retard

>>24571357
You don't know very many high-IQ people if you think this.

>>24575021
NTA but I'm so spoiled for choice in terms of jaks to greentext this that i simply couldn't make a decision :(.

>>24573509
>Natural philosophizing, which holds itself to be too good for the concept and which through this deficiency takes itself to be an intuitive and poetical thinking, trades in the arbitrary combinations of an imagination which is quite simply disorganized by its own thoughts.
Or, perhaps this is just the nihilism of the systematiser?

>>24573509
what does this mean?

>>24573404
Look. Here’s the thing. I’m a high-IQ, so I can grasp what this quote is getting at (reality is subjective), but I can also recognize the purposeful use of obfuscatory language, difficult syntax and useless complexity, etc, to see that it’s trying to run a film-flam, a con job, against midwits who will certainly not understand that the quote is ust saying “reality is subjective”. That’s you, and this is the difference between standard deviations of IQ. If he has the IQ to obfuscate the idea to that degree, he certainly has the IQ to state the idea succinctly; he doesn’t because that’s the con.

>>24575147
*shrug*. The movie Idiocracy is a parody view of high-IQ people in current society.

>>24572197
>Is intelligence not knowledge itself but your capacity to understand, retain and gather knowledge?
Yes.
>What about someone with autistic amounts of scientific knowledge thats incapable of understanding and navigating even the most basic social interaction? Is that truly intelligent?
Can a blind man be as agile and skilled as a normal one? Yes, but he has to utilize different ways of perception and, therefore, will have different experience. Will he become as agile and skilled? Depends on how much of his environment will require overly extensive training and on his willpower. Nevertheless being unable to experience visual things in proper way he still would be able no navigate in them as good as normal person would (after proper thinking through and inventing some "crutches" or learning from more experienced blind people), he just wouldn't have the reason to like it nor motivation to do it beyond the bare minimum required.

>>24572166
nothing more faggot that the multipleresponse-prone anon
just choose one you bbc-lover

>>24575703
I feel like I would be doing injustice by choosing one person over others that responded to me. if I was a bbc-lover that would precisely be my move.

Just asking, as a bbc-lover, should I be mass replying or not?

>>24571339 (OP)
>No one goes crazy if they see someone who looks better or who has a good body
Yeah, bodybuilder is just a fun word I just made up
Please, stay away from the keyboard

>>24575728
just like bbc-lover. they have common goals too.