/lit/ - Literature

The intelligence of Western people is in terrible decline. It has been observed that intelligence has declined by more than a standard deviation (15 IQ points) between the 1880s and early 2000s. This data is derived from simple reaction time (sRT) measurements. This data records how quickly a subject can respond to a stimulus. This is strongly correlated with the general factor of intelligence (g). The means of measuring sRT was perfectly reliable in Victorian England. This data is specific to England, however, the same decline is occurring across the West and within the same families. This has even occurred in Iceland where there has been minimal immigration. We have now been reduced to the intelligence of about the year 1700 or perhaps even earlier.

https://archive.org/details/societas-edward-dutton-michael-a.-woodley-of-menie-yr.-at-our-wits-end-why-were-/page/n167/mode/2up

This decline is reflected in the entirety of our culture, especially the university which is now anathema to the nature of genius.

Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

>>18015164
>OP is a stupid faggot

>>17871818
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Studies_in_Pessimism/On_the_Sufferings_of_the_World

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Studies_in_Pessimism/The_Vanity_of_Existence

>>17727305
What is your favorite essay or aphorism?

What would Schopenhauer think of Nietzsche?

>Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation.

>>16424220
Not finishing a book doesn't mean you "can't" read it. I do not finish the books I am not profiting from, and I felt Hegel to be a weak thinker. My ideas were corroborated by Schopenhauer, whom I greatly respect. Therefore, I stopped reading Hegel.
When you can read books in many languages, you start paying attention to how large the canon is in comparison to the time you have available, and therefore you stop reading bad books.
If you keep reading books which you feel you are not profiting from, you are doing it out of a duty to prove yourself in some pestilent circle, such as academia or a book club. If you equate abandoning a book with not being able to understand it, this means you are a very poor reader, with very little experience among books.

>Hence, in regard to reading, it is a very important thing to be able to refrain. Skill in doing so consists in not taking into one’s hands any book merely because at the time it happens to be extensively read; such as political or religious pamphlets, novels, poetry, and the like, which make a noise, and may even attain to several editions in the first and last year of their existence. Consider, rather, that the man who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience; be careful to limit your time for reading, and devote it exclusively to the works of those great minds of all times and countries, who o’ertop the rest of humanity, those whom the voice of fame points to as such. These alone really educate and instruct. You can never read bad literature too little, nor good literature too much. Bad books are intellectual poison; they destroy the mind. Because people always read what is new instead of the best of all ages, writers remain in the narrow circle of the ideas which happen to prevail in their time; and so the period sinks deeper and deeper into its own mire

Is Schopenhauer actually taught in universities nowadays?
Can any phil. student confirm this?

Where do I start with him?

>>13306442
failure

Schopenhauer was based af. Look at his physiognomy.

>mfw some clumsy self-important charlatan bumbles his way through an exercise in sophistry known as the Theory of the Dialectic

>>10333158
You're a big guy

>Liking a charlatan

I seriously hope you guys don't do this

>>9781007
Schopenhauer might be something for you. He is said to be incredibly pessimistic, but I find his writings on life to be soothing in a strange way.

The "Aphorisms on the wisdom of life" in "Parerga and Paralipomena" is where he deals most explicitly with such topics, I think.

Is Schopenhauer underrated?

If Schopenhauer came back to life what would he say about Nietzsche's philosophy?

Was anyone here first bewitched by Schopenhauer's philosophy only to turn on him in favor of Nietzsche's philosophy but over time realize your initial judgment was correct and that Schopenhauer was the superior philosopher?

If Schopenhauer was somehow brought back to life, what would he have to say about his successors (particularly Nietzsche and Wittgenstein) and late 19th century to 21st century philosophy in general?

>>7553585
The black and white version is superior

Ok, I know it's a meme, but I'll try seriously asking this without inviting any of the aforementioned elements.
Who are the most challenging philosophers who still maintain intelligibility?
Hegel, Heidegger, Deluze, Lacan, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Gadamer, Schopenhauer, Husserl.
Who else?