Thread 24839086

How is this guy not even relevant ? His Metaphysical and Epistemological arguments about Will-to-live being the Will-To-death and that Death is not a phenomenon of the Will-to-Live but the true halt to life and the will to death strives to die because the Universe is the corpse of a suicidal god.

Seriously how the fuck these genius is not popular it's literally the best argument

>>24839086 (OP)
>the Universe is the corpse of a suicidal god
What definition of God would conceive of Him as willing to die let alone being suicidal? I've heard this strain of thinking comes from statistical mechanics. Who do you think is even maintaining the laws of the universe as it is if God is apparently dead?

All this seems more like emotion and poetry rather than thought and philosophy

>>24839127
>All this seems more like emotion and poetry rather than thought and philosophy
>Who do you think is even maintaining the laws of the universe as it is if God is apparently dead?

This tells me you haven't read philosophy or probably didn't really understand it

>Who do you think is even maintaining the laws
There is no laws, How could there be any laws in the universe and what could even possibly make them conceivable, And even if they exist how can the individual even conceive this laws if he's gonna die and they'll disappear, The Individual is not bound by any laws or any concepts, Universal laws are not a priori they're only a posteriori knowledge from causality, Space, time and causality are the only a priori knowledge

>Emotions
Everything is emotional and poetical and subjective nothing is truly objective but the more emotionally resonant it is the most it touches on an objective matter that is relatable, Logic and reason does not dictate the state of being

>>24839178
>There is no laws, How could there be any laws in the universe and what could even possibly make them conceivable
I do not surely know the "how", but anyone can observe the very fact that the particles in your body do not just decide to 'forget' about the forces that hold them together or just phase through your apartment floor.

The earliest philosophers looked at the stars, how they moved in their spheres predictably and without failure. They reasoned that there exist unbreaking laws which governed every physical thing, which they eventually described through mathematics. These "profane" investigations inadvertantly pointed metaphysicians towards "truths", even ones which undermine the very principles we started with at the beginning of our investigations. Nihilism is a chief example.

A truly lawless world is one without coherent form. A metaphysician might say it is the mind which gives order and coherence. But the mind itself must exist within order (whether that be physical or metaphysical according to your preference) to impose order towards the outside world. To imply the opposite would almost be to equate the mind with God, when Mainländer himself says God has died.

>Everything is emotional and poetical and subjective
I agree. But a person shouldn't confuse domains of experience. Newton was someone who understood well that cultivating different "modes of thinking" while keeping them seperate makes it possible for them to inform each other

>>24839086 (OP)
Because it's, like most forms of existentialism, just a bunch of baseless assertions, no different from any religious fanatic. In fact, it won't surprise me if we end up very soon with Mainländerist versions of Christianity or Islam, since they too hate life itself, and you'll probably be able to convince them that Yahweh/God/Allah has killed himself, in response to all the sinning taking place, and left this world, and that all believers have a religious duty to do the exact same

>>24839241
>but anyone can observe the very fact that the particles in your body do not just decide to 'forget' about the forces that hold them together or just phase through your apartment floor.
>They reasoned that there exist unbreaking laws which governed every physical thing, which they eventually described through mathematics
Spinoza is a chief example that explained all of this through his geometry but that itself was insufficient because again assuming that there exists an unknown meaning that you could decipher is purely subjective and never coherent, The only absolute logical truly existent A priori's are space, time and causality which move every particle including those that make everything stable and also remember that the "universe" is supposedly has existed since long ago therefore every particle is preconstructed to act according to how it is supposed to exist, A table doesn't follow any universal laws but follows the sufficient reason in which accounts for its own plurality as a table (The Idea) and not as its small particles that account for its own phenomena (wood structure which also account for the small particles and ad infinitum), but then again if you think Reasoning itself by Greek philosophers who had illogical ideals and Aristotle who thought that Logic could concur life's meaning then that's not a good example, A human's idea is as conceived as its person is alive and well to represent that Idea, When he dies that Idea loses its basis so that goes for any existing idea except how they could be patient to causality, space and time thus we have Table and wheels, So Where table and wheels go ? They die inevitably to be replaced by other Table and wheels as such as humans, So basically death is our return

>Newton was someone who understood well that cultivating different "modes of thinking" while keeping them seperate makes it possible for them to inform each other

This is only fundamental in humane identities to differ between them but in reality nothing is different it's death that differs us

>>24839278
Isn't all Philosophy a form of religious theodicy ? They all preach that there is an unknown motive that moves life without naming it, But atleast Mainlander was lucid about suicide and life's tragedy, It's not another form of existensialism but it's a lucid reality that life is relative and never stabilizes on one idea

>>24839086 (OP)
>atheist anthropomorphizes god (which he really means nature) to stand for entropy
>this is le genius according to said atheists

Left-handed philosophers are generally not worth taking seriously. Schopenhauer before him was a far more serious thinker.

>freaky reptilian humanoid advocates for a return to nihilistic Sumerian cosmology
Say it ain't so.

>>24839930
Isn’t it more Pangu cosmology

>>24839930
And Prajapati.

The main point is that Mainlander was not very original with "his" ideas.

>>24839961
No one was ever original with his idea, I believe Spinoza came close but again his whole system is a copy of Euclid

>>24839127

>What definition of God would conceive of Him as willing to die let alone being suicidal?
One that makes far more intuitive sense and carries far greater explanatory power for why the world is the way it is than any of the arbitrary historical garbage we have saddled ourselves with over the centuries (I say "we have saddled ourselves with', because we ourselves are always the ones who make up religions, their content of course never issues "from without", from any other sort of real higher power), that's what. Any worldview that posits—for whatever reason—that god is absent, manifestly constitutes a step forward in the accurate apprehension of reality.

>>24840154
>Any worldview that posits—for whatever reason—that god is absent, manifestly constitutes a step forward in the accurate apprehension of reality.
>accurate
Our senses can be deceiving and it takes a certain level of hubris to think we know anything beyond our immediate understanding.

>>24840154
this post is riddled with assumptions or maybe holes in the thought process that i, the reader, am supposed to fill in myself. the things you declare rather than reason are not obvious to me. why should they be?

>>24839086 (OP)
Because it sounds like the ramblings of someone that was clearly mentally unwell trying to justify his depression and eventual suicide.

>>24840503
>Mentally unwell
Define mental stability

>>24839086 (OP)
I'm going to commit suicide soon but first I wanna read his work in its entirety and internalize it so I can die more peacefully and less afraid like him.

>>24840547
Read Schopenhauer's World as Will first and you'll enjoy it more profoundly

>>24840551
But Schopenhauer's philosophy doesn't conclude in suicide and calls it foolish for some reason

>>24840516
Someone that doesn’t kill themselves.

>>24840560
Schopenhauer believed in a kind of reincarnation, and taught that suicide leads to further reincarnation rather than to true salvation. Because suicide is really an act of will, not of renunciation.

>>24840560
That's where Mainlander comes and proves him wrong because Death is not a phenomena of the will it's a full halt to the will's objectivization, It is literally what stops the will from keeping its objectivization
>>24840722
That's where Schopenhauer becomes filtered near the end of Book 4 although the whole world as will is masterpiece but the end is coward garbage

>>24841240
The will to death is no better than the will to life. The Buddhists already recognized this 2500 years ago.

Thanks OP, you resolved any doubts I had in my mind of whether or not Mainlander is actually a retard.

>>24841240
>That's where Mainlander comes and proves him wrong because Death is not a phenomena of the will it's a full halt to the will's objectivization, It is literally what stops the will from keeping its objectivization
how does he proves this? through a logical argument or through assertions that beg the question?

>>24839086 (OP)
He was pretty ballsy for actually hanging himself

>>24840722
Except in Schopenhauer’s own metaphysics there is no true salvation because the Will will keep striving even if you as an individual objectification of the Will do everything to deny it. His secular rationalist metaphysics shares the idea of reincarnation with eastern religions but it doesn’t share the idea of Nirvana as actual salvation, you cannot escape the Will.

>>24839582
Isn't god literally nature anthropomorphized for theists?

>>24842921
No. That's a concept Spinoza popularized later on with his neutral monist pantheistic metaphysics, which is basically just crypto-atheism anyways.

>>24839086 (OP)
why does he look Filipino

>>24843095
Hapsburg ancestry.

>>24840560
>>24839086 (OP)
Schopenhauer is actually more pessimistic than Mainlander, to the point where he goes full circle and refutes arguments supporting suicide.

me when my entire philosophy is a justification for why i have treatment-resistant major depressive disorder

>>24842887
He explicitly teaches that there is a salvation. I recommend checking out his book The World as Will and Representation

>>24839086 (OP)
>how is this guy not even relevant
Afaik proper english translations of his main work haven't been available until 2024, released under the title "The Philosophy of Redemption", trans. Christian Romuss

Zizek cited him in an article earlier this year and that's how I first met Mainlander, his work does sound interesting.
I found one of his books in a warez site earlier this month so i downloaded it and put it on my to read pile, really want to get into his stuff but my pile has a long waiting time.

I said something about him here >>24842260

>>24843250
They are still not "proper" in so far as they haven't still translated the "Critique" part, the genius part of his, but only the "Exposition". Literally every single English-only reader here is filtered, and in a very intense way, if they haven't read the very informal translation of both parts by one YuYuHunter. You can find a symbioid of it. Just google "Symbioid YuYuHunter The Immanent Philosophy of Mainlander".

>>24843119
True but regardless I believe his ascetic argument is bullshit

You can always tell when someone’s “favorite philosopher” is just the one who validates how they already feel.

OP, why specifically is mainlander "the most correct", besides because he's pessimistic like you?

>>24839086 (OP)
because Stirner redpilled too many people

>>24844000
Cioran and Mainlander

Because they see through life's bullshit and its redundancy and how same patterns repeat themselves yet you can do nothing

>>24844398
You should read Zapffe bro I found it even more pessimistic

This guy was mentally ill and his philosophy is just a projection of his mental illness, he would have trooned out if he were alive today

>>24845429
Already

>>24843220
He explicitly states that there is no escaping from the Will, you as an individual can deny it but you go back to the indistinct Will when you die, snarky retard. There is no “salvation” in the sense that there is salvation in Christianity, Buddhism or whatever other religion, he was an atheist. So according to your reading, what are you saving yourself from?

>>24843220
Salvation implies a teleology, there is none in Schopenhauer’s metaphysics.

>>24839086 (OP)
That's harry styles

>>24845978
I guess I should throw away my copy of WWR where he discusses the negation of the will to life and specifically discusses Nirvana in the context of his view of redemption. My copy of volume 2 also has a chapter titled “The Way to Salvation.” I think it must be defective. Can you link me the YouTube videos you used to learn about Schopenhauer’s philosophy? I want to get a fresh start learning from the proper sources.

>>24845978
>>24846123

“But for one who has reached complete denial of the will, the world, which is so real to the rest, no longer exists. It vanishes with the will, and this is the Pralaya of the Indians, the dissolution of the world.”

“When the will has completely denied itself, nothing remains for cognition, for there is no will any more whose phenomenon it should be. As the last trace of the will disappears, so does the whole world as its mirror.”

“To those in whom the will has turned and denied itself, this very real world of ours, with all its suns and galaxies, is — nothing.“

Faggots

>>24847270
nta but these quotes are saying that the phenomenal world vanishes not the will