>Recognizes the human will as an insatiable urging force that is the cause for all suffering.
>The phenomonal world is developed via the insatiable will.
>The only way to escape the insatiable will is through aesthetic contemplation/pleasure.
>"The more noble and perfect a thing is, the later and slower it comes to maturity. The man hardly attains the maturity of his reason and mental powers before the eight and twentieth years; the woman with the eighteenth. But it is also a reason afterwards: a barely measured. Therefore, the women remain children all their lives, always seeing the next, sticking to the present, taking the light of things for the cause and preferring little things to the most important matters. For reason, by virtue of which man, like the animal, does not live in the present, but overlooks and considers the past and the future; which then gives rise to his caution, anxiety, and frequent anxiety. The advantage, as well as the disadvantage, which this brings, is the wife, in consequence of his weaker reason, less partial: rather, it is a spiritual myops, in that his intuitive mind sees sharply in the vicinity, but has a narrow horizon, in which Removed does not fall; Therefore, everything that is absent, past, future, affects the women much more weakly than it affects us. No matter how many disadvantages this brings with it, the good thing is that the woman is absorbed more in the present than we, and therefore, when she is tolerable, she enjoys better, from which the cheerful peculiarity of the woman emerges. Which is suitable for the recovery of the caregiver."
>the physical manifestation of based
Why read anything after him?
Based Schopie.
I think he's right about the will but I don't think it was always like this. I think it was corrupted from its true nature. Will is what makes you seek food when you're hungry, water when you're thirsty, sleep when you're tired. And for humans in nature it helped them to survive. When you woke up hungry, will is what made you spend 8 hours tracking and hunting a deer.
But then we discovered farming, civilisation, industry. And it takes barely any effort from your will to get you to stand up and open the fridge. So you're left with all this excess will you don't need anymore since all your basic needs are almost instantly satisfied. So what do you do with it? Throw it at something until it sticks seems to be the answer. Movies, games, music, artistic pursuit, academic pursuit, power, money, whatever. People unconsciously spend their excess will on distractions to fill their days that used to be filled with survival.
Humanity is Atlantis, our hubris in thinking we were better than nature has destroyed us.
Exactly, the great thing about Schopenhauer is that he prescribed a medicine for people living in the industrial world. Since more and more isn't enough, we must redirect our, what you call, excess will to aesthetic pursuits. I think it has to be strictly aesthetic pursuits because, in my experience, aesthetic pleasure has been the only thing to liberate me from the insatiable will.
I agree, the only soul soothing memories and emotions I feel are from aesthetic experiences. I wonder what Schopenhauer would've thought if he spent a year of his life living in a cabin in the mountains. Being completely remote like that is an aesthetic experience too in my view.
>hunting a deer
Bad.
Killing animals for food isn't the same as kicking a dog
It should be forbidden to kill certain animals. I draw a line at most mammals and birds. Killing fish or insects are not on the level as shooting deer.
Dear meat is good man what do you mean
It should be forbidden to kill certain animals. I draw a line at most mammals and birds. Killing fish or insects are not on the level as shooting deer.
The insatiable human will in the wild will not care if it is moral or not to kill a deer given the chance, the will will urge him to anyway.
If a dog ran up to me in the forest and I was starving I wouldn't kill it. But if I see anything else I would. Dogs were bred to be companions to man, you'd have to be both a retard and a cunt to eat a dog unless you're on deaths door.
>Killing fish or insects are not on the level as shooting deer.
No, but wolves eat deer and so would I.
Only niggers think like this. It's quite humorous you are regressing back to a nigger state of mind.
Wolves lack the capacity to consider philosophical or mystical matters whereas most humans do not. Killing animals that have metacognitive awareness is wrong in my view. Most mammals and birds have metacognitive awareness, but I sincerely doubt that fish, insects, and snakes do.
>metacognitive awareness
Meaning? What're some examples of why it's wrong to kill a deer over a fly?
Alright, I'll bite: why should I be a vegan?
I'm not vegan. I am against eating all mammals or birds, but I think fish, insects, and snakes are fine sparingly.
I would have to tread metaphysical or mystical territory in order to explain why killing a deer over a fly is bad. Suffice to say, I consider metacognitive awareness special. I have arguments inspired by Mani and, perhaps, Mazdak on how the development of the spine and metacognitive awareness reflects ascension of the spirit to certain noble heights, which means they deserve special moral considerations. Devouring the flesh of such beings harms one's inner spirit.
this is jumbled with inconsistent grammar
your thinking is not consistent
tldr you can't say 'will' that many times without defining it much better
>tldr you can't say 'will' that many times without defining it much better
lmao tell that to schoppy
If you haven't read schopenhauer then why are you even in this thread idiot?
Nah, I don't want to be a vegan. Seems cool though.
I haven't been arguing for veganism though.
he says this is a prison planet and we are here only to suffer
Based of him
The will will will will.
Why did he hate women so much?
because he was intelligent, observant, and had a bad relationship with his mother
I mean like, its how you view his thoughts, suffer, hard working and loneliness are part of life
If I offered you to not experience any sensation or feeling other than happiness, would you agree?
he didn't, though.
Read Nietzsche. Schopenhaure is for losers who can't cope with life.
Nietzsche went crazy, Schop was right. Face it uberdude
Nietzsche died of an STD
Schopee was an incel
>Nietzsche died of an STD
No he didn't, retard. He died of frontotemporal dementia, which is NOT an STI.
>Schopee was an incel
No he wasn't. He had a massive sex drive; in fact, his sex drive inspired him to create his will to life philosophy. He had an extremely active sex life and many casual partners.
Nice job being completely uninformed about what you talk about.
meant for
have sex
BTFO how will he ever recover
You have not read Schoepenhauer. There cannot be an "excess of will" because will is outside time and space, so it is outside the realm of quantity.
If you knew what "will" meant, you would not make such statements.
I'm not Schopenhauers slave, I can have my own ideas pseud faggot
I'm confused, what is there to even talk about anymore?
i've turned into the person that never posts
I'm usually amused how others still come up with conversation
Your own ideas are total dogshit and logically flawed, you filthy nigger.
Exactly the opposite. Nietzsche's philosophy is the megalomaniac fantasy of a physically weak, lonely man. Schopenhauer's philosophy is the type of thinking only a chad can endure.
People who can't cope with life look towards optimistic trickery to make things bearable, the strong seek out pessimism as a challenge, to accept life in its most terrible representation.
Keep crying bitch, I don't give a fuck what you think faggot pseud
This. Schoppy eventually enjoyed his late found fame at the end of his very, very challenging life with no succes early on and died peacefully. Nietsche was an incoherent mess in the end.
*ahem*
Have sex.
Hey OP here, I actually agree with this, people should have favorite philosophers, but also reform the philosopher’s ideas into your own.
>I would rather starve than kill a deer/dog
Yes, I'm sure you would.
As Nietzsche correctly pointed out, Schopenhauer's concept of the will is too simplicistic. To say 'I want' is a half-lie, because every person has within himself a variety of different wills, all fighting among each other for supremacy, and your rank as a human being depends on which will ends up prevailing over the others.
This is basically what the Unabomber thought. I suggest that you read his manifesto if you're interested in exploring this line of thought farther.
Nietzsche was neither a pessimist nor an optimist. He fully comprehended and accepted the harshness of life, and sought to find meaning in it.
Hes the only contemporary philosopher posted here that doesnt advocate killing people.
So I think hes you know... more sane.
>your rank as a human being
Your what?
>The more noble and perfect a thing is, the later and slower it comes to maturity. The man hardly attains the maturity of his reason and mental powers before the eight and twentieth years; the woman with the eighteenth.
based
get a load of this guy
Der Wille wird willen wollen.
>He had an extremely active sex life and many casual partners
source?
Pre-BeyondG&E Nietzsche (up to and including Zarathustra).
Your last paragraph is literally the exact philosophy of Nietzsche. he accepted Schope's pessimistic view of life and instead of rejecting it advocated embracing it. He even said one of the only values he respects in people is being able to look and perceive the terrible truths of the world. I feel like you haven't read Nietzsche.
Most of these faggots here judge Schopehauer as if he was a materialist / realist but he was an idealist, that means he didn't believe in an mind independent physical outside. And thats where he derived his 'will' from.The will cannnot be seperated from representation because that is all there is in idealism.
this
Germans are such Cucklords. Absolute KrautFuckers. Thomas Paine gonna rape yawl asses. Kekyakka, Idealists are such dumbasses lol. Germans literally screwed history. Yawl Red, Yellow, and Black fucks better lick the wax off my melted candle.
>He even said one of the only values he respects in people is being able to look and perceive the terrible truths of the world
Shame he didn't follow his own advice and chose to write pat on the back fantasy delusions about humans ascending to the next stage of evolution.
>To say 'I want' is a half-lie, because every person has within himself a variety of different wills
No, they have DESIRES. They have only one will as you can make only one choice in the end. Your will is what you decide on, everything else is desires you didn't want as badly.
>Life sucks, but we MUST pretend to like it anyway!
What's the point?
I have read him, that's where I got that idea desu.
Then you're illiterate. Schopenhauer wallowed in a rejection of life attempting to be an ascetic living dead while Nietzsche embraced life in despite and because of its pain and tragedy. You basically praise schopenhauer of the very thing Nietzsche does. If you want to learn more on this topic I would read the birth of tragedy.
It's what cowards like Nietzsche do, they're just better at lying to themselves than most
>Schopenhauer wallowed in a rejection of life attempting to be an ascetic living dead while Nietzsche embraced life in despite and because of its pain and tragedy. You basically praise schopenhauer of the very thing Nietzsche does.
Schopenhauer had the more pessimistic outlook but lived well in spite of it, Nietzsche had the life affirming philosophy of strength on the page but was an embarrassing clingy dramatic suicidal drug addict irl.
Being a pessimist on the level of Schopenhauer means you must be strong. Nietzsche himself said that he could no longer afford to be a pessimist because of how weak he was, hence the "one must imagine Sisyphus happy" tier copes he came up with.
>having to pretend
T. Not Dionysians
based Apollo worship poster
Everything Schopenhauer said was already known. He had no original ideas, he just appropriated Kierkegaard and Indian philosophy and seethed about women. This is unironically true and if you disagree then you are a fedora midwit or 17 year-old.
>he just appropriated Kierkegaard and Indian philosoph
He was contemporary to Kierkegaard and made his points before reading the Upanishads.
This.
I'm as big a pessimist as Schopenhauer but I still manage to enjoy my life. Life isn't enjoyable but aesthetic immersion is.
Schop is wrong in regards to his belief that aesthetic contemplations allows for an escape of insatiable Will. Rather, contemplation allows for a mastery of the Will by the feeding of it with divinity. It’s as Lao Tzu once said, and I paraphrase, ‘the wise man does not need to seek, for he already knows how to act.’
OP here, I’ve had similar thoughts. I think that the will to aesthetic contemplation somehow lets you escape from the suffering caused by the will for a time.