Thread 24705648

he is right about everything

indeed

Nah

I need a sophisticated Schop anon to prove Fichte anon wrong. I've never seen proper criticism of Schop so when I see some that looks sophisticated, doubts start to set in.

>muh life is a never ending suffering
>provides no solution whatsoever
What was the point of his philosophy?

>>24706008
He was just selling his personal diary anon, philosophy it's for the retarded

>>24705648 (OP)
Yes.
>>24706008
>>24706212
You don't read and can't recognize the difference between descriptive and prescriptive discourse. Regardless, he offered solutions.

>>24706505
Such as? Only things I remember him saying is that there are small moments of peace , but even these are proceeded by suffering, and it goes on and on. Are you referring to antinatalism as his solution?

>>24705648 (OP)
Yes.

>>24705648 (OP)
He was a brainlet who never understood Kant though.

Not tryna listen to his depressing ass, immediate disregard for this shit

>>24705648 (OP)
Yes

>>24706008
>>24706639
>>24707463
You niggers don't read
He wrote On the Wisdom of Life. In his main work he prescribed compassion, art and asceticism as solutions.

>>24707461
Kill yourself. He wrote the mot lucid introduction to Kant.

>>24705648 (OP)
He never lived to read The Hedonistic Imperative. Suffering is just chemical reactions in your brain. Genetic engineering and brain surgeries will eventually lead to the complete end of all suffering.

>>24708090
Lol

>>24707836
>In his main work he prescribed compassion, art and asceticism as solutions.
Temporary solutions, you retard, he clearly states that after that brief moment of peace, suffering returns in the form of boredom.

>>24705648 (OP)
I think he's right about everything, except for the assumption that boredom is inherently negative.
Boredom (and even pain, in a way) is what drives humans to produce science or art, in general to better ourselves (through studying, exercising body and mind, or helping others), or simply to find a partner and "make" children. As such, the cycle between suffering and boredom isn't a negative but a must and a positive for human beings.
The other side of the coin is that if one uses his boredom to jerk off or speculate about what your neighbour will eat this evening, then your existence will be wasted and pain will be unbearable.

>>24708883
Oh you stupid faggot. Asceticism is permanent solution. Only art and compassion are temporary.

>>24709019
>>Boredom (and even pain, in a way) is what drives humans to produce science or art, in general to better ourselves
It also inspires serial killers and people like that.

>>24705989
philipp batz?

>>24709166
No idea who that is. Im talking about the fichte anon on /lit/ that says Schopenhauer doesnt understand kant, and is generally stupid

>>24709117
Fuckoff niggerkikefaggot arguing against the origin of human will in bad faith, even in jest is some real gay jew shit and not in accordance with the aesthetics which I will tolerate in a thread about schopenhauer.

>>24709112
>asceticism
He clearly didn't practice any form of spiritual exercises judging by the fruits of his actions...

>>24707836
>Kill yourself. He wrote the mot lucid introduction to Kant.

His writings on Kant are all lucidly retarded. The whole Transcendental Analytic in the CPR, which holds Kant's most revolutionary insights, is way above his pay grade. He regresses back to a pre-critical standpoint, where the spontaneity of reason is denied (contra Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel). He thinks that when Kant refers to the 'understanding' or 'reason' he is referring to someone's head or the psychological makeup of a person or the brain's physiological activity. He constantly conflates what is pure with what is empirical in Kant. No wonder he thinks all concepts are empirical in origin and "rejects" the metaphysical and transcendental deductions of the categories. No surprise he is unable to engage with the German idealists, who can actually claim continuity with Kant.

This is just what I remember off the top of my head, but this is enough to disregard everything he has to say about Kant. An absolute monkey interpretation of Kant here.

>>24707836
No, he really did read Kant like a dogmatist. The smart ones were trying to reconcile Kant’s apparent dualisms, Schopenhauer digs them deeper, to the point of denying free will. Where Fichte or Schelling saw Kant as setting the stage for unity, Schopenhauer is like “unknowable thing in itself? Omg lovvvve it!” He is the Judas of German idealism.
>>24709366
Yes.

Schopenhauer has insightful thoughts at times, my brothers and sisters do too and they’re retarded. The Schopenhauerfags need to learn what is SYSTEM. The fact that Schopenhauer is readable is actually evidence of his retardation. Heidegger said intelligibility is suicide for philosophy. Check out Fichte’s Grundlage it was written for freshmen.

>>24709585
Dammit. Thats two people now that have agreed with Fichte anon

fuuuuuuuuck might actually destroy my perception of schop really is this dumb and wrong.
it doesnt necessarily validate the fact that Nietzsche went against him, but it does make it look like that, even his most ardent follower thought he was wrong.
fuck...

where do I start if I want true understanding of whatever Schopenhauer was trying to address. I dont really care about Kant per se, just a better version of the problems and ideas schop was trying to figure out and deal with...

>>24709642
>I dont really care about Kant per se, just a better version of the problems and ideas schop was trying to figure out and deal with...
Oh you mean like Kant?

>>24709710
Kant wasnt trying to prove natural suffering, nor solve it.

>>24709723
That's because Kant wasn't a whiny bitch.

>>24709604
Why does Willy Wonka always appear in these German idealist threads? What does it supposed to mean?

>>24705648 (OP)
Funny mustache man refuted him

>>24709773
Because he sings about a world of pure imagination; Fichte taught that nature is nothing but imagination.

>>24709836
despite being a pessimist schop has some of the most electrifying and poetic prose in the game

Why is Schopenhauer so stupid?

>>24710249
Born that way

>>24709604
>>24710306
>>24707461
>hurr durr if it has lots of words it must be deep.

>>24709206
First you were saying he didn't give any solutions. After proven wrong now you're back at attacking his personality. Same old retarded tactics. Schopenahuer followed the way of art and doing a little bit of meditation everyday. He was totally aware.

>>24709604
>The fact that Schopenhauer is readable is actually evidence of his retardation.
>Heidegger said intelligibility is suicide for philosophy.
Kill yourself careerist charlatan

>>24709366
>He thinks that when Kant refers to the 'understanding' or 'reason' he is referring to someone's head or the psychological makeup of a person or the brain's physiological activity.
what the fuck else did he refer by understanding?

>>24710661
Somebody answer this too
Fichte anon gets away with too much on pure confidence.

>>24710661
You have to understand that Kant's topic is neither empirical-scientific, psychological, nor physiological. His topic is strictly logical, which investigates either the general form of thought as such (general logic) or the general form of thought insofar as it contentful (transcendental logic). Whose thought? No one's in particular. The primary subject of logic is not this or that particular thinker, but the thinker as such or in general. The primary subject of logic abstracts from the given, or contingent, character of the thinker and considers him only insofar he thinks. We know nothing of the one who thinks except this: he thinks. This generic representation of the subject is therefore pure and untinged by any empirical content. A formal and empty represention that is immune to any multiplication. This justifies his generic use of the terms thought, understanding, reason, etc. without referring to any particular person.

Since the primary subject of logic is the thinker überhaupt, the knowledge that logic articulates has nothing to do with the physiognomy of people's heads, or how people do tend to think, or how their brains function. No, what logic articulates is what any thinker must think in order for his activity to count as thinking at all.

>>24709204
That is not the Will's origin

>>24705648 (OP)
Have you ever pushed a women down the stairs?

>>24710936
shut up. I'm trying to concentrate.

>>24710878
what I get out of your word salad is there's thinking outside of a man thinking (speculative) which is what kant means by understanding (doubtful) and that schopenhauer was dumb and didn't understand this but you did. and even if that was the case why would we have to agree with kant?

philosophy is a game for babblers. most valuable part of philosophy is what these retards look down upon which is the practical and straightforward information.

>>24710974
>what I get out of your word salad is there's thinking outside of a man thinking (speculative) which is what kant means by understanding (doubtful)

The thinker in general is the man thinking, but without any reference to his biological, psychological, cultural, etc., and any of his other idiosyncratic characteristics. Philosophy or logic does not concern itself with how this particular bald black bisexual woman thinks, with all her disabilities and mental illnesses. Rather, it concerns itself with thinker in general, or thought as such, without any of these extraneous references.

>and that schopenhauer was dumb and didn't understand this but you did.

There are many philosophers who understood the point. Also, Schopenhauer pretty much admits he does not get it.

>and even if that was the case why would we have to agree with kant?

So, if this is indeed Schopenhauer's position, then whatever he is doing is a species of empirical science rather than philosophy or logic since it is not concerned with pure thought or reason as such. Perhaps what he is doing is a species of psychology or neuroscience or whatever. Perhaps he is unable to differentiate philosophy or logic from these disciplines, which seems to be the case since he constantly confuses them.

>>24710936
I was accused of it once and yes I write philosophy

>>24711048
perhaps you have no idea what you're talking about. do you have any evidence to back the claim that you seem so sure of which is "pure thought"? you don't. all you can point towards is german idealism (babble), all your shit is just platonism with more words. what you take pride in because you think you understand and schopenhauer doesn't is a trivial differentiation which he would be completely justified in disregarding as baseless speculation anyway.

here's the actual iq test, have you read german idealists? if you did you're a retard.

>>24711164
>here's the actual iq test, have you read german idealists? if you did you're a retard.
Oh shit GOTTEE

>>24711164
Damn, nigga. You might be even less built for philosophy than Schoppy was. What kind of evidence do you require for you to be able to abstract and consider thought or reason per se? Such an act of abstraction is the minimal requirement to be able to inquire into what it is to think or reason, and to read or write a critique of pure reason. If this act of abstraction is not possible for you, then actual philosophy might just not be for you, which is fine.

>>24709758
True, Kant never actually suffered in his life

>>24710878
Ok, so Kant doesn't actually think the thing in itself is unknowable?

>>24709585
>Where Fichte or Schelling saw Kant as setting the stage for unity
Unity?

Anti-Schopenhauer troon need to kill himself

>>24711387
that is cringe ngl nothing chad-like about it

>>24711406
You will never be a woman

>>24711429
erm this is... transphobic? how can i report this person here for her probelmatic behavior

>>24711437
Fuck you tranny.

Fichte's I is just a metaphysical assumption in disguise. Instead of thing in itself, you now have "absolute I." Same problem, different label. His reasoning? It just has to be the case, bro!
In that sense, he is being very true to Kant, who, in the final evaluation, is completely worthless.

>>24705648 (OP)
i present to you the second person to be right about everything, bernardo kastrup, who is the only modern Schopenhauerean

Analytic idealism hits crazy

>>24711309
kill yourself retard

>>24705648 (OP)
So wtf was the will? Is it like god but more random and chaotic? Idgi. Would appreciate some help from anons

>>24711470
The Will is the thing-in-itself. It's that simple. All phenomena are caused by it.

>>24711478
the will is the thing in itself but what is the thing in itself? Like what is it actually that is causing the phenemena? Is it like god but with random volition?

>>24711453
where should i start with this faggot

>>24711490
His book Decoding Schopenhauer's Metaphysics

>>24711493
there's not like... an instructive essay of his i can read online as a lil toe dip?

>>24711485
No. Just the will. The noumena

>>24710878
I understand all this. But I dont see why a philosopher that came after Kant, couldnt posit that theres no such thing as "pure thinking" and that ones psychology, individual (has problems focusing and picking up information in 3rd grade class) and general (has Attention Deficit Disorder) Could always have some affect or relevance.

I generally am privy to the idea that Kant is fundamentally talking about a subject that can have a perspective, but not the perspective itself, or the subjectivity. But surely one can posit theres some hole in a critique of reason, if reason does not consider quirks of subjectivity?

Don't know what Schopenhauer said himself, but those are my thoughts. I understand Kant is dealing with the "pure" but one could disagree that there is a pure at all. Sort of like how Presup Christians make up all sorts of "pure", and "transcendent" concepts to rationalize God and essentially make him possess such features that he necessarily fits what they're looking for in an explanation of a universe.

I dont mean to disrespect Kant so much to liken him to those. But ive been watching Christian Presups lately, and have become privy to the idea of how much we take for granted in constructing our understanding of the world.

I dont know if id bite the bullet quite yet, but I've started to think that the concept of the Law of Non Contradiction is a fundamentally made up concept that presupposes that contradictions can even be real things in the first place. Maybe that makes sense to you, maybe not.

>>24711714
>watching
Where? When I put that into the search bar, all I get are videos dunking on the concept. I want someone to explain it

People enjoy Shopy because Hegel is too hard for them

>>24711825
It's more so that Hegel is just completely worthless, I think.

>>24710661
You need to grasp the difference between transcendental psychology and empirical psychology. The understanding is not an empirical, psychological faculty. Contd

>>24711452
No, it isn’t, Fichte didn’t believe in precritical metaphysics. The absolute I is the absolute goal for our collective ought. Anyone who believes in right and wrong “believes in” Fichte’s absolute, it’s not a thing at all.
>>24712151
Kant answered Hume by proposing that a rational being can only live in a rational world, the “understanding” is a philosophical fiction, a way of talking about how our reason would reciprocate with nature. It’s not supposed to be an empirical mechanism (who the hell thinks that Kant thought that you had some magic brain-faculty, the transcendental reproductive imagination, that ensured that blue pop tarts and blueberries tasted similar? Many unfortunately). By Kant’s own logic, the mechanism if there is any such would be unknowable to us. Also Kant’s own deduction by logic is bad, Fichte fixes all of this and provides a complete metaphysical deduction of them. I know that Kant uses mechanistic language, so does Fichte, and its eternally filtering. To read Kant is to read Kant as consistent. A theory that our brains make rocks appear to fall is grossly, risibly transcendent and dogmatic. The Kantanon is correct that Kant was an esoteric writer, he tells you this in the Architectonic. Ignavum, fucos…

>>24710974
You retards always think this is some pedantic game about reading Kant correctly lol. Most of you are beyond help by which I mean you don’t care about philosophy at all or even know what it is. For the few, try picrel, it will help you understand what Kantianism is all about.

>>24711377
Unity of thinking and being, subject and object, man and nature, duty and sensibility, etc. It’s not that these oppositions aren’t real and painful but you can’t stop with them or your system ends up all wrong. Kant is still somewhat mired in intellect but the cool kids in Jena could see what he was pointing toward.

>>24711714
You need to read more, you’re like a child playing in shallow water. I’m not going to address your points, only studying Fichte and Hegel will fix what’s wrong with you.

>>24712180
>Anyone who believes in right and wrong “believes in” Fichte’s absolute
No.
>>24712206
What does unity mean and why do you want it so much? Why do you want subject and object for example to be the same thing?

>>24712222
You can say “no” but I’m telling you the truth. I’m not saying any moral person is a Fichtean, but explaining idealist metaphysics in kid friendly terms.

Absolute opposition is nonsensical, this is how you get for example Zeno’s paradoxes, because he made infinitude and finitude absolute opposites. If you make mind and nature absolute opposites then how can we know anything? If duty and sensibility are absolute opposites, how can you ever do the right thing? Etc. It really is hopeless with you people though, you think philosophy is a bundle of opinions. In the coming Fichtean state (Socialism with Autistic Characteristics) you will be in the mines.

>>24712250
What does it mean for something to be an "absolute opposite" to something else? What does it mean for two things to be the same thing as in unity? Also, is duty an absolute opposite to grass or are they one and the same?
I'm not really going to entertain your autistic power fantasy. At least you admit that you are an autist and you will most likely never find satisfaction in life.

>>24711369
He suffered more than spoiled rich boi Schope did and wasn't a little bitch about it.

>>24712206
>the cool kids in Jena
this so much

>>24712250
I like how all continental philosophy just boils dowm to some autistic retard's fantasy for worldly power. Everything else is secondary to this delusion. The best part is when they grow old and start thinking "man, I was such a fucking retard."

>>24712281
All I hear is that Kant did not suffer enough.

>>24712265
You’re the autist for not understanding irony. Irl I’m a normal person and have even slept with a plurality of women, we’d probably even get along and drink some beer or something if we met. I’m just mean on 4chan.

Absolute opposites - take Kant’s practical philosophy. Duty is so abstract and removed from actual life that we can’t even know if we are doing right, because sensibility always corrupts.

A unity of absolutes (better abstract) opposites - take finitude and infinity. Aristotle unifies them by making infinity potential. Without this, motion is impossible. But take a big opposition like intellect and sense - these are more complex, or more primitive and implicated, that’s the kind of thing what was driving the idealists.

>>24712291
cope

>>24712216
>I’m not going to address your points, only studying Fichte and Hegel will fix what’s wrong with you.
You just mean you can't address the points. "Read a bunch of other authors" is how pseuds avoid being shown up in debate.

>>24712315
cope. you have to be on the same level to debate, otherwise it's called teaching brainlet, and I'm not getting paid to teach.

>>24712303
No one is "just mean" on 4chan.

Also, do you know what is also so abstract and removed from actual life? Fichte's absolute. You evidently do not know what is the right thing to do any better than Kant. Otherwise, ehy aren't you doing it all the time? Are you just a weak retard? Just making shit up? Or is it all contextual like "it's fine to be mean on 4chan but not irl?"
Nah, you are just following and justifying some mindless cravings.

>>24712320
And as we know, it is unethical to teach people the truth without getting paid. Fichte tells us about this and therefpre we know this and that's why we say this and not something else.

>>24712194
>Fichte ain't your steppin stone
>he ain't your steppin stone
>he ain't your steppin stone
>walking around with products from a magazine
>all he does is see in processes
>Fichte ain't no steppin stone
>he ain't no steppin stone
>he ain't no steppin stone

You stay in the natural state Fichte anon! Process to product to personalization. Full alienation is when you start thinking the good shit.

>>24712322
brainlet cope. Ideals of reason are not realizable in the kingdom of phenomena, only striving towards them. Try actually reading Kant.

>>24712334
Are you striving towards them? Do you know what specifically you are striving towards or is it just something vague enough to justify your cravings?

>>24712336
No not at all. I'm not a Kantian I'm just calling you a retard. I'm pure evil.

>>24712338
Ok, then why even bother with Fichte? Do you need Fichte to be evil?

>>24712354
Because I like reading books written by smart people. It strokes my braincock.

>>24712369
but you type like a retard tho fr fr on my momma

>>24712374
i type however tf i feel like typing

>>24712379
vibes

>>24712216
I dont know whats with the hostile response, I never pretended to be a super intelligent or knowledgeable philosopher. I was simply asking questions and inquiring to engage on a level that isnt just taking what you explained at face value because not only is that not interesting, but I also have no frame of reference to understand how valid or sensible it is without inquiry.

>>24705648 (OP)
color theory debunks her wholesale

>>24712568
>her
?

>>24712577
read On Vision and Colors to see what a joke philosophers are when they try to talk science

>>24712592
ok but why you say her?

>>24712595
he deserves no respect in that regard

>>24712592
On Vision and Colors is based af.

>>24712609
why are you being fatphobic?

>>24712615
he's blatantly wrong and spends the entire thing sucking goethe's dick

>>24712619
>blatantly

>>24712592
Fuck, man...Schopenhaeur just keeps being made to seem stupid no matter where I go on this board. Seriously, what is wrong? If its true that Schopenhaeur is stupid, where do I go? Who else answers the qualms of life directly? Not wallow in pure abstraction, but identifies life itself intellectually!

>>24712633
live laugh love bb :3

>>24712639
I want to be smarter though. I want a way to navigate the blistering raging dessert storm that forces me to shut my eyes, raise my arms to the temple of my heard, and trudge forward never certain, always asking one that cannot respond, whether I am actually moving backwards, or whether there was ever a forward at all.

>>24712647
thinking is like cringe tho
just like go through life like a leaf blowing in the wind
like a retard in a crowd
like a chatter in a stream
nah mean nigga?

>>24712648
I already lived that exact way in my younger years, that's how I know theres nothing that can be latched and held onto there. But at the very least, theres something to be said about knowing or being aware of something to latch onto and hold. But never being able to actually reach out to it. I still think it is better to have something to want to latch onto, but sometimes a creeping, crawling insidious feeling arrives out of that "nothing" before awareness. That tells you: The fact that you cannot reach out to what you think can be held, latched onto, is evidence that there was never anything there, and that you never escaped unawareness.

>>24712659
I do not know what your values are nor your history but unto Beauty alone place your heart and soul.

>>24707836
If Schoop is right then Mainländer is more right, the necessary completion of Schoopy.
Will to nothing if you have the balls.

>>24712633
Bur a rope tranny

>>24705648 (OP)
>''The Jews are the scum of the earth, but they are also great masters in lying.''
- Arthur Schopenhauer

>''The Jews live parasitically on the soil of other nations, but they are inspired with the greatest patriotism toward their own tribe. They stick firmly together. Thus, it is absurd to concede to them a share in the government or administration of any country.''
- Arthur Schopenhauer

>>24712909
First time I am agreeing with Schop Schop here

>>24712922
Because you haven't read him. And like a gullible retard believes what others are saying about him rather than personally reading him.

>>24712925
Yeah, I dont think Schop ever said such a thing about the Jews, doesnt seem like him. The only minority group he unfairly hates is women

>>24712992
when your mom cucked your dad to death and ignited the anger of her daughter as well, you know you've got a grade A hoe as a womb

>>24712992
Kill yourself tranny

>>24712992
you really need to end your life

>>24712633
Bergson

>>24712633
>>24712647
>to be a fool is the last step in covering the tracks for other defective machines

>spending too much time taking serious other opinions can only result in realization it's just an opinion

>when in doubt play dumb

If you understood schope you should know when to shut up and might want to refrain from his insults since he offered no answers that will ever extend outside your head.

If you didn't understand schope you should be aware that he isn't a shit tier philosopher but rather just a philosopher for people who aren't actual philosophers. Probably why he's really popular. He will always attract loads of idiots who want to appear philosophical. He can attract highly scientific minds though who view him as medium to discourse through philosophy. The first group just shuts up, which schope advocated. The second group usually make it to the universal or have some insight they gleaned elsewhere. This is one of the reasons you just never know with a schope.

All of the Schopenhauer troons who are shitting up board from last week need to kill themselves. This is Schopenhauer's influence just on the surface:


>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.

The two anti-Schopenhauer troons who are shitting up board from last week need to kill themselves. This is Schopenhauer's influence just on the surface:

>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.

>>24712194
do people really read this crap or is it a meme to say you did?

>>24712568
this is like saying aristotle's a retard because of his physics.

>>24711714
All these surface-level influences, yet no one extended his "system" in any meaningful sense.

>>24713412
Campare this to Kant, for example. His actual influences tried to extended his system, e.g., Maimon, Reinhold, Fichte, etc.

These shallow influences Schopen had are not impressive at all.

>>24713415
Replying to this>>24713301
My bad

So what I gather from this dudes philosophy is that life is just suffering and we should all kill ourselves. Am I missing something?

>>24713412
This basically depends on the interests of the person extending it. Schope is similar to Nietzsche in the sense his philosophy can produce a wide variety of people who draw influence from it.

>>24713429
no he doesn't see suicide as a solution but simply a reaction to unbearable suffering. his answer is just buddhism with more words which he didn't practice himself so take it with a grain of salt.

>>24713415
Kek, cope harder

>>24713429
that you strive against by creating Beauty but you wouldn't know anything about that reet

>>24713415
>Tolstoy
>Beckett
>Assis
>Borges
>Spengler
>Wagner
>Melville
>Schrödinger
>Nietzsche
>Einstein
>Freud
>Mann
>Cioran

"These shallow influences Schopen had are not impressive at all."

LMAOOOOOO

>>24713632
Based
Another giant who was influenced by Schopenhauer

>>24713614
wtf is reet?

>>24713656
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard

>>24713674
How much of a retard do have to be to not be able to spell retard?

I don't waste words with quadrupeds

SchopGod bros...

>>24713253
Actually interestibg suggestion. I will read this guy, its weird that I only hear him randomly and on occasion, but whenever I do its with big names, and he sounds interesting.

If he really was influenced by Schop that might even be better for going beyond Schop if hes so flawed

>>24713506
technically if you take out all the retarded superstitious shit it's far less words

>>24706212
>SAAAAAAAAAAAAAR

>>24712315
No you are operating under misconceptions that I can’t solve for you in a single post. For example you think that “pure thinking” (whatever you mean by that exactly) can be le refuted by empirical psychology. So for instance in Hegel reason is not the faculty of any individual, it’s like the structure of any thinking, including the rational structures of a society. But when I say that you have no idea what I mean and will raise another ignorant objection. In Fichte reason is, roughly, how duty determines reality when you set about creating a duty-first philosophy. You’d raise silly objections to that too because again you don’t really know what I mean. And they’re all Kantians, they have all read the cpr and absorbed its lessons. You think they’re precritical metaphysicians because all you know about them are Schop’s pissant criticisms. Take this kid here:
>>24712322
“Omg it’s le abstract what does this mean, like, for my life?? I can’t buy weed with my productive imagination!”

It’s not worth responding to. As I said already you guys fundamentally do not know what philosophy is about. I told you to read more, even recommended a book. But no, you want me to justify Fichte in green text, a philosopher you have never read, so that you can come up with more gotcha replies. You guys are retards, you wouldn’t be retards if you read more though.

>>24713619
Only one philosopher and it’s a philosopher who rejected him. Kek

>>24714698
>It's not worth responding to.

Yes, if Schope is filtering them then it's just a bunch of metaphysicians. Alright you rascals, time to go over how this works.

>we dun don't know nuffin

Never did, never will.

>we done know sumting

Never did, never will.

>m-muh gontology

Go see a gynecologist, no one cares.

>it do be done been dat way?

It done always been and always will be.

>m-muh hurr nothin changes hurr, what now smarty pants?

Now you're catching on, a fine metaphysician can be had of you yet. Now shut up until the next demonstration.

>m-muh meaning n sheet

I just explained it to you. Nothing I said changed.

>n-no m-muh MEANING

Oh, you mean that. Everything changes then you die. Go find something else to do or think.

>m-muh k but you be a pseud

Done did always been that way.

>m-muh huh but I didn't say that

I don't remotely care what you think about anything.

>dis here philosofaggotry done be hard n sheet

You can always go complain in the schope threads.

>we be in a schopey thread frfrfr

I done be here complaining no cap on guhawwwd frfrfr.

>>24713301
Add Gilbert Ryle to the list. He wrote an entire work only for it to be pointed out it was basically Schopenhauer. He studied Schop when he was younger but forgot and ended up re-tracing his steps.

>>24705648 (OP)
If Schopenhauer says life is suffering why didn't he advocate for suicide as a way to end the suffering? Can any smart anons here respond?

>>24714706
Keep coping

>>24713301
this

>>24714882
how about you read his essay on suicide

>>24705648 (OP)

No Diogenes was. He saw the path Plato and Aristotle were headed down and did the complete opposite. I believe he was truly a free man.

>>24714830
Which work?

>>24715788
The Concept of Mind