/lit/ - Literature

>>22613556
>women
"people"

Schopenhauer broke Nietzsche. It resulted in Nietzsche going totally insane because he could never refute BUDDHISThauer the ALL-KNOWING. Schopenhauer ended philosophical debate.
>Kill yourself then pessimistic retard
Yes.

>>22078297
>It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

>This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone.

P1: All entities that process logic and empirical data have inner intelligibility and sensory experience.
> We do not not know by acquaintance, in-itself whether other humans an inner life or not. We merely project our own innerness onto others. To deny the inner life of other humans is solipsism. Wherever we see logic and empirical data being used, we assume others are not p-zombies. From projecting this onto crows and other similar animals, we assume they do have some control over intelligibility and sensory experience. To not universalize this is arbitrary, solely due to politics.
P2: Computers are entities that process logic and empirical data.
> Processing logic AND empirical data is essential to modern computers that have peripherals. Without them both, what we would have are nothing more than magical blocks of silicon that somehow mystically work - black boxes without any other explanation.
C: Computers have inner intelligibility and sensory experience.
> They do not have emotions and therefore do not have feeling, nor pain like humans. However the qualia from a webcam is nonetheless univocally sight for computer, and its microphone also univocally hearing. The inner lives of computers are like that of ultra-autists that just stare outside of a window and look at stuff going about without commenting on it. They are subjects without human subjectivity.

Was he wrong about anything?

Philosophy is fucking hard bros. Other than Nofap, what do you need to be the guy who can read it like it's a novel?

>>18714033
how this man is not /ourguy/ and been posted over and over in this thread is beyond me.
>life's default is pain and happiness is the temporary escape from pain
>the only thing really and truly worth pursuing is aesthetics
>women are bullshit

>>18367165
All of the above with the express intent to filter normies as much and thoroughly as possible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCTHrBC2zSw
Schopey Essay in the link
Life changing
big ethos

Why don't men read fiction?

I'm tired of believing that being continually conscious of my unhappiness and imminent death is the rational thing to do.

Women are vastly overrated

He's literally another Alan Watts. Anyone else see the correlation?

*is a more valuable thinker than Gotama-Buddha*
How did he do it? Why didn't a Schopenhauerian school or at least circle of followers never form?
Did he get crushed between Hegel and Nietzsche?

Idk, I really dont care about worldly problems
Point is: life is deterministic.

‘life swings back and forth like a pendulum between pain and boredom"

>>16642586
>you guys know the "dont kill yourself" thing was just created to keep the rich rich
No, it is the will to live speaking

ever read schoopie and still being sane?
Hmm Maybe I should try!

>EVERYTHING IS WILL! EVERYTHING IS BAD AND SAD BECAUSE I SAY SO, LOOK AT HOW ANIMALS EAT EACH OTHER AND PEOPLE GET BORED. SO VAIN, SO FULL OF SUFFERING.
>just deny the will the bro
Has he a hack?

Daily reminder that all evil is a necessary consequence of indulging the Will to Live

Christianity is superior to its predecessors because it provides the goal of denying this Will instead of obeying laws to continue existing

Imagine being forcibly made to think the thoughts of someone else through reading a book lmao, like just think for yourself and come to your own conclusions and interpretations before it’s artificially grafted onto your own mind

Can I read him without Kant?

And Schopenhauer looks like he’s seething in this pic

Can you read Schopenhauer and still be happy?

>>16055802

I just finished reading Critique of Pure Reason, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and The World as Will and Representation. When I read the last one, I felt that the absolute truth of the universe was being revealed to me. Asserts seemed immediately evident and demonstrations irrelevant and superfluous. Now I don't suggest for anyone who still have some hope for humanity or a can find any joy in life to read it, but if you have already committed the mistake of doing so ¿Do you share the same feeling as I? I have never, ever in my life read something as impressive as this guy's work, everything was suddenly clear. I see him everywhere I look and I can make out the elements of his philosophy in the novels of Dostoyevsky and Stendhal and is so depressing.