/lit/ - Literature

>>17082465
He is a great writer. Better than Kant.

>>17082467
But is he a better philosopher?

>>17082471
Yes

>>17082465
BASED BASED BASED BASED
PESSIMIST CANON WON THE PHILOSOPHICAL WAR

>>17082471
Is he? And dunno, he had a lot influence on Nietzsche. Hard to judge things like that. As in if either didn't existed, how long would it take to someone else come up with them.

>>17082465
He used to be spoken about all the time, newfren.

>>17082495
It's only in the past few decades or so years that he has started to get more attention. I'd say he started gaining popularity after Kaufmann popularized Nietzsche again, probably due to his influence on Nietzsche. Schopenhauer didn't receive a lot of attention prior to that.

>>17082503
*past few decades or so that he has started to get more attention
And I'd say his popularity has grown even more so in the past 10 years or so due to the pessimism of the current generations.

>>17082503
fuck no
Schopenhauer's popularity has been growing in contemporary age because of him being the ancestor of philosophical pessimism.

>>17082516
plus he is also called the philosopher of artists.
everyone who read Schopenhauer's main work went on to became an artists or a philosopher.
in today's time houellebecq is a Schopenhauerian.

>>17082503
>It's only in the past few decades or so years that he has started to get more attention.
Nigger what? That sounds ridiculous, who wouldn't have heard of Schopenhauer before that?

But I meant on /lit/, Schopenhauer has been popular on /lit/ for like forever. I gathered that's what the Op was talking about as well.

>>17082533
>everyone who read Schopenhauer's main work went on to became an artists or a philosopher.
Did you?

>>17082559
>who wouldn't have heard of Schopenhauer before that?
People obviously had heard of him - he's an important figure in German Idealism - but he did not have the following that he has today

>>17082562
I-I am trying to, i guess.

>arrives at a Schopenhauerian aesthetics and philosophy through a Hegelian base before reading Schopenhauer
How did he do it?

Really the most important difference between his early philosophy and Schopenhauer's would be that he's optimistic.

>>17082620
>wagner
nigga he wrote music

>>17082582
Based. But is not the great philosopher also necessarily a great artist? Just look at Plato.

>>17082465
with who?

>>17082482
names?

wow the patron saint of incels and bastardized readings of eastern philosophy is getting popular, who would have guessed

>>17082620
Where do I start with Wagner?

>>17083661
Stupid reductionist ad-hominem.

>>17083672
cope

>>17083661
>seethes

>>17083683
Not even. Why don’t you formulate your own thoughts and opinions?

Pessimism is literally a tool to hack off gangrenous language and models that are choking your creative energy and stifling you. None of it should ideally bother you.

>>17083661
>incels
You don't even understand the basic terminology.
Pessimism and incels are two completely different things. Incels are failed normalfags who whine about not having a wife and a family. They think that if they will achieve fulfilment in the presence of these two things. They still have hopes and dreams of finding a "gf".
For pessimist there is no fulfilment, no hope, no redemption. They curse the day they were born and have a nostalgia for "time" before space and time. The only solution is rejection of the everything and acceptance of antinatalism.

>>17083736
No, you don't understand. Everyone I disagree with is an incel.

>>17083721
>improves upon Kant
>rehabilitates Plato
>creates original metaphysical system
>wikipedia-reading psueds on /lit/: pEsSiMism

>>17083736
>For pessimist there is no fulfilment, no hope, no redemption.
In that case, Schopenhauer is not a pessimist since he wrote a lot about "redemption".

>>17083742
>implying his metaphysical system wasn't the base of his pessimism

>>17082465
Does Schopenhauer assume his idealism or does he explain his reasons for it in-depth anywhere? Every time I try with World as Will and Representation, I'm not quite convinced of such an extreme idealist perspective as Schopes, so I can never follow him to any of his other conclusions.

>>17083747
And?
Mainländer also titled his book the philosophy of redemption. There were not using this word in typical religious sense.

>>17083738
hes an incel because his popularity stems from a popular mommy and long masturbatory passages on how women are demon creatures or whatever weak men invent to pacify their self-hate

>>17083759
He assumes you're an idealist like any German philosopher past Kant was.
>inb4 Feuerbach, Marx and Stirner
Not philosophers

>>17082485
minus 23 centuries

>>17083759
Based on Kant's arguments in the Transcendental Aesthetic, he creates a system of "Principle of Sufficient Reason". This serves as the basis of his idealism. Though I'm curious why you find it so extreme, since it's mostly just moderated Kantianism.

>>17082482
what a bunch of emos

>>17083767
That depends on which religion you have in mind. Sure, it's very different from vulgar abrahamism, but aligns very nicely with eastern religions or other esoteric doctrines.

>>17082620
There's a serious break from his crappy Feurbach/anarchist inspires early work and his Schopenhauer inspired later which, which is likely the greatest ever conceived by the human imagination.

>>17083769
>popular mommy
He had a lengthy correspondence with Goethe long after his crazy mother drove him away. There is considerable merit in his ideas. He also doesn’t call women demon. That’s you. Stop projecting like a retard who only parrots what you hear.

>>17083790
>>17083777
As a non-idealist, I guess it's not for me, then.
>I'm curious why you find it so extreme
Assumed or real Idealism is a rather rare perspective among modern philosophers (at least of the analytic variety; I don't really know what the Continentals are up to these days), and I don't think it's really true either. The farthest I'm willing to go with idealism is like a tiny amount of Brandom, and even then, barely.

>>17083769
Communists often use the writings of Carl Schmitt. So by your logic he is a communist now?

>>17083807
If he really believed in redemption then he would have practised it. but he didn't. in eastern doctrines there is redemption from reincarnation. there is no place for reincarnation in the metaphysical system of Schopenhauer. It's all for vanity.

>>17082465
Depressed loser who wanted to be dead. It’s obvious why he’d appeal to various kinds of cretins.

>>17082485
Nietzsche rejected his entire worldview.

>>17082516
>>17082510
Pessimism is brainrot and you need to seek help

Schopenhauer’s philosophy spoke to a world where the ideas of the enlightenment had been tried and failed painfully. I think there’s a similar feeling today.

>>17083736
>For pessimist there is no fulfilment, no hope, no redemption. They curse the day they were born and have a nostalgia for "time" before space and time. The only solution is rejection of the everything and acceptance of antinatalism

Yeah that’s called depression and it’s a mental illness you should get rid of

>>17083838
>but he didn't. in eastern doctrines there is redemption from reincarnation.

Buddhists desire to stop the cycle of reincarnation. As in they’re suicidal maniacs who hate life. Literally the only reason they don’t just blow their brains out is because they think they’ll be reincarnated as a lizard or something,

>>17083887
Let’s go back to monarchy

>>17083832
You are right about idealism being rare in contemporary philosophy, and as a convinced transcendental idealism this actually bothers me. But as I said, it's more of a moderated Kantianism and more clearheaded compared to other German idealists, so I'd think it's worth checking out. If you want to see where he justifies his idealism, you should read his "Fourfold Roots". His arguments are mostly based on the way we perceive and sense objects. Also Bryan Magee (the Schopenhauer scholar) makes some more analytic-style arguments in his Schopenhauer book.

>>17083901
Why would physicalism be more popular than idealism? It’s just as faith-based.

>>17083901
Cool, I'll check that out.

>>17083918
Early analytics saw great progress in early 20th century science, and metaphysics of the time was a stale and self-indulgent Hegelianism, so they lost hope in all idealism and went all in for science. Their main concern was making a philosophical foundation for science, and physicalism was one of their favored options. Given that science proved not as satisfying as one had hoped, I think the attitude has changed though, or at least is changing.

>>17084044
Science does literally nothing but make technology become more and more powerful and intrusive. It’s cancer.

>>17082485
hes just a western buddhist

>>17084104
Science does say important things about the world, but its importance should not be so overstated. I think technology in and of itself isn't bad (as it's just a tool, nothing more), but it's the dominant cultural, economical, and political values that are the causes of its misuse. In an ideal world, it would be used in an ideal way. In our current world though, that is not to be expected. We should not blame the tool so much as its wielders.

>>17084044
This isn't exactly true. There isn't an uncontroversial acceptance of science anywhere in modern analytic philosophy (outside of fringe positivists who work in philosophy of science). Rather, analytics tend to stress either some kind of non-positivist materialist realism or some kind of more nuanced position that still doesn't accept thought as the same or similar to reality.
I'd recommend Putnam. He was very indecisive, so at one point or another, he had basically taken every single position in analytic philosophy.

>>17084163
Buddhism is evil.

>>17084198
Yes this changed after positivism was deemed untenable, but if you notice in my post I was talking about *early* analytics, that is to say, Russell and his friends as well as the Vienna circle.

>>17084224
Ah, yes, sorry, I might have misread that.
I guess we were answering different questions; I was more answering about modern analytic (which I'm more involved with and similar to) than early analytic. Hence "contemporary."

>>17082471
Yes because he fucked a lot of women.