Would a Schopenhauer biopic be too based for mainstream audiences?

He assumed the Thing-in-itself was real despite not ever being able to experience as part of reality.

>Human experience? Fuck that shit, we got science to do
Nah

>being an empirist
Want me to tell you how I know you're a virgin? Oh wait I just did.

Nobody who studies continental philosophy even reads Schopenhauer. At best he's an asterisk at the bottom of Post-Kantian German Idealism and only mentioned as an early influence on Nietzsche.

Why would you read this dork when you could read a chad philosopher

Attached: camus-y-casares-1948.jpg (727x768, 56K)

Imagine being born long before the year 2000 and knowing you were too old to expierence the turn of the millenium. I mean witnessing the turn of the century is one thing but missing out on the year 2000 must have sucked.

It's impossible to get a philosophy major today without having crushing student debt. Schopenhauer never worked a day in his life.

the 1800s are way more interesting than the 2000s

>Schopenhauer never worked a day in his life
Like all great philosophers. Fuck work.

it's a "faux-intellectual Yea Forums" episode

Attached: 1534900068544.jpg (300x358, 31K)

Attached: goober.jpg (685x626, 113K)

They had no comfy late 90s internet back then.

Only thing about philosophy is i find a lack of thinkers who take into account third world nations. Like they talk from the perspective of (unironically) priveleged whites. There's one thought experiment that supposes you were an immortal - every day of existence identical, every moment the same. Then you get a chance to live a human life just once; would this immortal succumb to the ennui of man and worry about the same ultimately trifling things we do? But they think about it from a priveleged perspective. What if his human life was in an African shithole in the middle of one of its ethnic cleansings? What if they were born a sub 80 iq indian street shitting peasant? Where is the existential thought involving these peoples?

The main obstacle to me in believing in anything greater and more esoteric is that humans aren't equal, we all have wildly differing circumstances, and most humans have shit lives and a good percentage live in abject poverty. They don't have choices, they can't exactly enact will to power and become some sort of self-determining nietzschean superman. What if some ape like nigger forces you to kill and eat your own mother before drafting you into their people's militia?

fuck that's literally me

Yes, poor people don't become philosophers. That doesn't make philosophy inherently biased.

Yes it does because they're not taking into account anything outside their experience. They view life as a blank slate because for those in developed nations its largely true. You don't have to have experienced those things in order to take them into account. How can you philosophise about the human condition when you completely detach yourself from it?

What is even the point here? You don't "believe in" greater concepts because most humans are apes? I'm not seeing the logic. Do you not believe in forks and knives either, seeing as most creatures don't have opposable thumbs?

>How can you philosophise about the human condition when you completely detach yourself from it?
Hannah Arendt seemed to do just fine.

>How can you philosophise about the human condition when you completely detach yourself from it?
How else can you philosophize about it?

This is a very incoherent post but I'm guessing you're making a case for a broader anthropology or ethics involving the perspectives of low-lives which usually aren't represented in academia. If you actually read Philosophy you'd know Philosophers are aware of these things. Many of the post-modern French philosophers came from Algeria, witnessing war and apartheid, for example.

Schopen was a Post-Kantian you dumb fuck, not a Continental. He despised Hegel.

Give me pringles, or give me death

Attached: 1B3C8F90-AFEB-44F6-A30A-402FE72599C6.jpg (563x744, 294K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

God, I want to beat his pretty boy face and see if he still goes around saying "just b yourself bro lel".

Why would anyone want to do that to themselves?

I can't remember who it was (maybe Deleuze?) who said that all 20th century philosophy was an attempt to deal with Hegel. The difference between continental and anglo is that anglo was an attempt to make it as though Hegel never existed. Not really on point, but anyway, Schopenhauer was Hegel's contemporary and their philosophies were wildly different and Hegel was basically a rock star. Honestly can't believe nobody's made a virgin Schopenhauer/chad Hegel image.

>everything they say is wrong
that's philosophy abridged

>God, I want to beat his pretty boy face
The car crash that killed him probably did that anyway

Jared Harris would be perfect as Schop.

>watches a jordan peterson debate once
>”man hegel is le based XD XD”
Fucking zoomers

I've never sat through more than 5 minutes of Jordan Peterson. What the fuck does that have to do with Hegel?

>Linking me articles you didn't even read and know absolutely nothing about
Top kek lad.

>The term continental philosophy, in the above sense, was first widely used by English-speaking philosophers to describe university courses in the 1970s, emerging as a collective name for the philosophies then widespread in France and Germany, such as phenomenology, existentialism, structuralism, and post-structuralism
Kant and Post-Kantians like Schopen, Leonard Nelson, Jakob Fries had nothing to do with the fields listed above. Kant seperated phenomena and thing-in-itself yes, but that has nothing to do with Hegel's phenomenology. Schopen dealt with metaphysical voluntarism, minimizing the pain by minimizing the ego (Western Buddhism) and tried to polish Kant's categorizations. Same with Nelson and Fries. Hegel was an obscurant mystic whose only contribution to phil was justifying Prussian authority. Popper already did thousands of pages of refutation of Spirit. Read him.

I'm not an analytic but analytics have almost no reason to use continental meta-philosophy. Their logical system is rigid, relies on descriptivist theory of reference whereas continentals' rely on historicism and scientism. There's absolutely no reason to take continentals seriously.

The stoics already lived in poverty. Basically all ancient philosophers were more than aware of the hardships in life.

Remember they lived in a time with no modern medicine, and plagues and disease were so common, and no electronics or transportation. Oh and slavery was even a thing for white people then.

Even a current shithole like africa gets free vaccines now.

Are you a fan of zizeks philosophy?

Attached: 8E4EE9C2-554C-4F93-B4E8-3022505C99C0.jpg (1242x1721, 85K)

>Schopenhauer never worked a day in his life
>Like all great philosophers.

Diogenes worked with his father in his early years

He's a low budget Adorno but I enjoy his pop-culture references.

>Diogenes worked with his father in his early years

Attached: Jean-Léon_Gérôme_-_Diogenes_-_Walters_37131.jpg (1800x1322, 3.32M)

What the fuck are you talking about you idiot, you are not well-versed in philosophy and everyone can tell. It's a term autistic anglo philosophers came up with to explicate a difference between their analytical pursuit of philosophy and what was happening on mainland Europe.

The article even cites German idealism as one of the traditions within continental philosophy. Now make a big fucking guess what Schopenhauer was. Did you even read Kant or Schopenhauer? He was just as influenced by Kant as Hegel. You are a pathetic faggot who has never read philosophy, stop shitposting dude.

Relies on logic and descriptivist theory of reference*

Roman Stoics absolutely didn't. Most popular ones that come to mind are Cato the Younger and Marcus Aurelius which both obviously lived quite a wealthy life. I mean one was an emperor other a member of the senate. Are you sure you aren't confusing them with Ascetics?

If you're white you have no right to complain about anything.

He was minting money with him, I would definetely count that as work

He may have but when he began philosophising he became a neet, like all true philosophers

that's a big barrel

>His finances as a young man were very "slender". His family was not rich, and, as a younger son, he had little patrimony to live on. He was therefore forced to make a living somehow
>tfw

Attached: hume.jpg (1920x1181, 315K)

>He criticized Plato, disputed his interpretation of Socrates, and sabotaged his lectures, sometimes distracting listeners by bringing food and eating during the discussions.
based

>What the fuck are you talking about you idiot
Read more
>It's a term autistic anglo philosophers came up with to explicate a difference between their analytical pursuit of philosophy and what was happening on mainland Europe.
Kant predates analytics by a century. They heavily take from his teleology as it's a reading of Aristotle's extended logic. What was "happening" in Europe at the time was mostly a continuation of Hegelian philosophy (which is post-Kantian but not really a Kantian philosophy by any means). That's what continental phil is.
>The article even cites German idealism as one of the traditions within continental philosophy.
Jesus Christ, you do realize Kant, Schopen et al rejected german idealism right? Holy shit. "The public had been forced to see (in Kant) that what is obscure is not always without meaning; what was senseless and without meaning at once took refuge in obscure exposition and language. Fichte was the first to grasp and make vigorous use of this privilege; Schelling at least equalled him in this, and a host of hungry scribblers without intellect or honesty soon surpassed them both. But the greatest effrontery in serving up sheer nonsense, in scrabbling together senseless and maddening webs of words, such as had previously been heard only in madhouses, finally appeared in Hegel. It became the instrument of the most ponderous and general mystification that has ever existed, with a result that will seem incredible to posterity, and be a lasting monument of German stupidity."

Guess whose quote this is.
>Did you even read Kant or Schopenhauer
Did you? If you did please tell me how Schopenhauer criticizes Kant's usage of Spinozian necessity of modes.

Instead of feeding your brain with nonsense e-philosophers, please actually read these guys for once.

Attached: file.png (497x60, 7K)

I went to his house today

Attached: 20190529_140549_HDR_compress43.jpg (2016x1512, 542K)

I can complain about arrogant shitskin mongrels all i want, sheeny

I've seen analytic philosophers use that quote to justify dismissing all continental philosophy including Schopenhauer.

I think it's rather obvious I've read a fair bit more than you.
What Kantian teleology? What extension of Aristotle's logic? No one applied Aristotelian logic, not even during the Kantian period. Kant's knowledge of logic stems from Wolff and Baumgarten. The analytics' understanding of logic stems from Frege. Frege kickstarted the analytical movement without realizing it. That was the whole point, having an axiomized formal logical system which then allowed ideal analysis of language.
That simply isn't what continental philosophy is you goddamn retard. It's a term that emerged with positivism in the anglo-sphere to differentiate their new way of philosophizing from what was happening in Europe. Read the article again. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy#History

Kant began what is now understood to be German idealism. He was in no position to "reject it" you lying monkey. German idealism is what Platonism and neo-Platonism are to Plato you goddamn stupid faggot.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_idealism

Kantian Idealism in Germany is German Idealism. Schopenhauer, Hegel, Fichte, Hölderlin are all German idealists. If you are a German idealists you are per definition not an analytical philosopher and thus a continental philosopher, in the eyes of the anglo positivists. Kant didn't make any use of Spinoza. And even if he did, he wouldn't have made any use of his "necessity of modes" as Kant was not a metaphysician in this sense.

Either way, Schopenhauer is a German idealist and can't be thought of without seeing him as a successor of the Kantian project. His "rejection" of anything amounts to rejecting post-Kantian idealism, not Kant himself. We see this in his attacks on Hegel's project, which again, is not Kant's project.

"My philosophy is founded on that of Kant, and therefore presupposes a thorough knowledge of it. Kant's teaching produces in the mind of everyone who has comprehended it a fundamental change which is so great that it may be regarded as an intellectual new-birth. It alone is able really to remove the inborn realism which proceeds from the original character of the intellect, which neither Berkeley nor Malebranche succeed in doing, for they remain too much in the universal, while Kant goes into the particular, and indeed in a way that is quite unexampled both before and after him, and which has quite a peculiar, and, we might say, immediate effect upon the mind in consequence of which it undergoes a complete undeception, and forthwith looks at all things in another light. Only in this way can anyone become susceptible to the more positive expositions which I have to give."

Arthur Schopenhauer. World as Will and Representation. Vol. 1, Preface of the First Edition.

To break it down for you, as you obviously are someone who doesn't know a lot about philosophy. The positivists, who later became the logical atomists, who later became the logical positivists out of whom ordinary language philosophy emerged, rejected philosophy that didn't fit the analytical scheme Frege laid out in his Begriffschrift. This includes all of German idealism because none of these philosophers adhered to the Frege's critique of the usage of language and its truth-conditionality. See this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege#Philosopher

The example Carnap notes as "senseless" philosophy is Heidegger's "Das Nichts nichtet", in English: "The nothing nothings". The whole point was that this style of philosophizing is rooted in a confusion of the internal logic of our language, the nothing can't nothing because it's not the kind of subject that can act. Schopenhauer is a metaphysician and thus also doesn't adhere to the rules laid out by Frege and co.

bump

Yea Forums doesn't recognize Schopenhauer

What would be the point? Just read his works.

Enjoy being an christfag moron

Attached: Billie-Eilish-2018-orange-hoodie.jpg (1800x1200, 622K)

The stuff she said about Eichmann and evil was pure horseshit

Must have been Heidegger's influence on her.

>62 posts

>posts some coalburner

What you know about Hegel came from that debate didn’t it? Zizek is a commie who purposely misinterprets Hegal

That's the point you moron

>Oh BBC, What art thou to thee
>merely darkness where I pee?
>midnight for thine giney?
>blacked

Attached: toyo.jpg (1080x1080, 74K)

He shared some undeniable truths

Attached: defect.jpg (666x458, 189K)

I don't think you even realize what you're replying to at this point. What the fuck do you mean no one applied Aristotelian logic? He created logic (and logical teleology) in the sheer sense. Everyone who dealt with a little bit of logic in their philosophy undoubtedly used Aristotelian logic, as Leibniz and Wolff did. It should be obvious that using undistilled Aristotelian logic would be extremely dumb as it's been expanded upon by Aquinas, Leibniz etc. What Kant took from Wolff however was his teleology. What he took from Leibniz was his logic, (particularly his theory of truth as it responds to theory of reference and his synthesis). And just because it developed out of his work doesn't mean he started German Idealism you fuck. Jesus Christ, you absolutely have no idea. plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental/#RefIde

Continental phil is Hegelian to the core. Actually read the articles you send me to read you mong.

>Kant didn't make any use of Spinoza. And even if he did, he wouldn't have made any use of his "necessity of modes" as Kant was not a metaphysician in this sense.
Kant's synthesis is in that it's conceptual aid for contextual usage of what he described as essence/substance and pinpointing it. He develops it after Leibniz who developed his theory of truth after Spinozian modes. They all heavily dealt with substance.

>Either way, Schopenhauer is a German idealist and can't be thought of without seeing him as a successor of the Kantian project. His "rejection" of anything amounts to rejecting post-Kantian idealism, not Kant himself. We see this in his attacks on Hegel's project, which again, is not Kant's project.
Woah you just contradicted yourself and said the exact thing what I've been saying from the beginning. Schopenhauer was a Kantian to the core and he rejected that of Ficthe's and Hegel's idealism (which Kant already talked in the proto sense with his criticism of Cartesian phil).

Attached: file.png (1459x50, 19K)

"...Schelling... followed in Fichte's footsteps which, however, he forsook in order to proclaim his own invention, the absolute identity of the subjective and the objective, or of the ideal and the real. This implies that everything that rare minds like Locke and Kant had separated after an incredible amount of reflection and judgement, was to be again poured into the pap of that absolute identity. For the teaching of these two thinkers may be very appropriately described as the doctrine of the absolute diversity of the ideal and the real, or of the subjective and the objective. When once incomprehensibility of speech was introduced by Fichte and the semblance of profundity was put in place of thought, the seeds were scattered which were to result in one corruption after another and finally in the complete demoralization of philosophy and thus of the whole of literature, which has arisen in our day. Schelling was followed by a philosophical ministerial creature, to wit Hegel, who for political and indeed mistaken purposes was from above dubbed a great philosopher --a commonplace, inane, loathsome, repulsive, and ignorant charlatan, who with unparalleled effrontery compiled a system of crazy nonsense that was trumpeted abroad by mercenary followers, and was actually regarded as such by blockheads, whereby such a complete chorus of admiration arose as had never before been known. [ibid. pg. 95-6] "

What are you virgins even arguing about LOL? Meta philosophy discussion is pussy repellent.

Attached: 1559154260403.gif (773x435, 3.95M)

"Now the inaccurate expression [of using the terms "thinking" and "being" in such a way as to exclude "perceiving" from epistemological concerns] borrowed by Schelling from Spinoza, was later used by that insipid and inane charlatan Hegel, who in this respect appears as Schelling's buffoon, and it was so distorted that thinking in itself in the proper sense and hence concepts were to be identical with the essence-in-itself of things. Therefore what is thought in abstracto, as such and directly, was to be identical with what is objectively present in itself, and accordingly logic was to be the true metaphysics. ...[T]his absurdity was supported by a second, namely that we did not think, but the concepts, alone and without our assistance, completed the thought process, which was, therefore, called the dialectical self-movement of the concept, and was now to be a revelation of all things in et extra naturam. [...] After the manner of Spinoza, Schelling had given the world the title of God. Hegel took this in the literal sense. Now as the word really signifies a personal being who, together with other qualities absolutely incompatible with the world, has also that of omniscience, this too was now transferred by Hegel to the world. Naturally it could not find any other place than the simple mind of man, whereupon he needed only to give free play to his thoughts (dialectical self-movement) in order to reveal all the mysteries of heaven and earth, namely in the absolute gibberish of the Hegelian dialectic. There is one art that Hegel has really understood, and that is how to lead Germans by the nose. [ibid. pg. 27-28] "

In the case of Analytics' rejection of Continentals once again, Russell et al particularly dealt with Hegelian metaphysics (which Kant rejected through Cartesian phil before Hegel as I explained) and as an extension the phenomena (by deal I mean completely putting it aside).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction

Continental philosophy != philosophy that comes from continental yurop. It refers to philosophy that derives from the Hegelian school of thought/German idealism. Schopenhauer is not part of it, nor was Wittgenstein, even though they were contemporaneous to the continentals and lived in the same region.

Attached: 1474849139997.jpg (1800x1322, 414K)

So here's what you're strawman-ing (most likely due to your lack of knowledge on Kantian phil, particularly their treatment of idealism).

I never claimed Kant had a direct infleunce on Analytics, only that he had a supplementary contribution to it with his seperation of thing-in-itself and phenomena (see the link I sent above). What I'm saying that however is they referred to what existed as Hegelian phil at the time; Continental phil and how they rejected their metaphysics. There's absolutely no logic behind thinking that what they referred to continentals as a whole are anyone of the Post-Kantian tradition (regardless of being Kantians). Frege despite rejecting Kant's predicates, used the same logic as did Russell whereas he and Moore outright rejected Hegel for being an obscurant.

nietzsche > schoppenhauer

>first resultt isnt "Desert. Hegel is a Boss in Nier: Automata. A unit formed through the linking of several multi-legged, Goliath-class machine lifeforms. "

He lead a boring life