/lit/ - Literature

2/2
There is nothing more at the bottom of all these efforts than the tireless striving to constantly try to sell words for thoughts in new ways, or to produce the appearance of intellect by using expressions, turns of phrase and combinations in a new sense, in order to substitute for the poignantly felt lack of intellect. It is amusing to see how, to this end, first one then another affectation is attempted, in order to adopt it as a mask representing the intellect, which then even fools the inexperienced for a while until it too is recognized as a dead mask, ridiculed and then traded for another. We see the writers now dithyrambic as if drunk, and now already on the next page pompous, sombre, profoundly learned to the point of the most ponderous and minutely chewed prolixity, like that of the late Christian Wolff, although in modern garb. But the mask of unintelligibility lasts longest, yet only in Germany where it was introduced by Fichte, perfected by Schelling and finally reached its highest climax in Hegel: always with the most resounding success. And yet nothing is easier than writing so that no one can understand it, just as conversely nothing is harder than to express meaningful thoughts so that everyone must understand them. Unintelligibility is related to unintelligent, and it is always infinitely more likely that it conceals a mystification rather than a g and it is always infinitely more likely that it conceals a mystification rather than a great profundity.

Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena, Fr. 283

Honestly, how was it possible that, after this, people would still take Hegel, Heidegger, Jung, Adorno, etc seriously ? My explanation is that the few who actually read them, just accept in advance some indeterminate beliefs of theirs, mainly of religious nature, without caring about the argumentation/development, but using these names as a scholastic "ipse dixit".

My boy Schopenhauer got filtered by Hegel.

>>18755063
>My boy Schopenhauer got filtered by Hegel.
always the same fucking lines.

>>18755052
>Honestly, how was it possible that, after this, people would still take Hegel, Heidegger, Jung, Adorno, etc seriously ?
You have that answered:
>There is nothing more at the bottom of all these efforts than the tireless striving to constantly try to sell words
Hegel sells. It makes people feel like they are better (more deserving) than they really are. It's intelectual bio-leninism.

>>18755049
>magnificent examples of this kind are provided by Schelling’s writings in natural philosophy);
>(Fichte in his popular writings provides abundant examples, as do a hundred wretched straw-heads unworthy of mention, in their philosophical textbooks.)
>(examples of this are provided especially by those most shameless of all mortals, the Hegelians, in their Hegel-journal, commonly known as Annuals of Scientific Literature);
Filtered.

>>18755052
>Jung
How exactly is Jung difficult to understand?

Schopenhauerians are peak brainlets.

>>18755049
>>18755052
>and this is the guy who say "will" when he really want to say god.

>>18755114
Jung is easy to understand, he belong to the allusive type of authors mentioned in schopenhauer's quote.

>>18755135
No, Will is irrational, dumb and blind. God word is a misrepresentation of it. Schopenhauer proved that world is irrational rather than rational like the systems of Hegel.

>>18755135
But he did say "Will."

>>18755226
How is he allusive if he's easy?

>>18755244
>>18755245
my point is that he make the same he criticize, he use a common word and twist it to give it another meaning, and he do it just to add pomposity to his "new" concept of "the-thing-in-itself".

>>18755135
the will is just leibniz's actuositas or spinoza's conatus. it is the opposite of a transcendent god, this is why you can revert it to noluntas. if it were "god/being" you couldn't change it through your behaviour. it is an essence of reality, not something "beyond".
>>18755244
LMAO you absolute pseud. hegel's system is deeply irrationalist and rhetoric, which he calls "dialectic". there is not a sigle logical, rational thought in his work. schopenhauer had the utmost respect for empirical sciences and proclaimed himself multiple times an aufklärer. he mocks religion every 2 pages. he was the greatest defender of the principle of sufficient reason. the "irrationality" (he never uses this term) of will consists in the contradiction between the its purposes and the purposes of the individual.
>>18755265
i'll make an example for you: "the Bear is acting in this train of thoughts as their driving force". it is easy to understand, but allusive and meaningless.

>>18755302
>it is an essence of reality, not something "beyond".
i agree. god is the essence of reality to some religions. that it was i refer.

>>18755307
no. god is not a essence / constitutive unit / etc of reality, you can't explain any representation through the concept of "god". god is the uknowable dich an sich. schopehauer's will on the other hand is perfectly knowable and individuated. there is nothing more opposed than schopenhauer's writings to the concept of "transcendence".

>>18755049
>sophistry and falsehood is bad ree
why?
>well, you know philosophy is the aspiration to tru-- look, it JUST IS you know!
Schoppie was based, but only to a certain extent. He turns into a seething moralfag now and then.

>>18755307
no. god is not a essence / constitutive unit / etc of reality, you can't explain any representation through the concept of "god". god is the uknowable ding an sich. schopehauer's will on the other hand is perfectly knowable and individuated. there is nothing more opposed than schopenhauer's writings to the concept of "transcendence". the will is not am indefinite substance beyond the phenomena, it is an "abstract" principle which grounds all phenomena and all representations.

>its another /lit/ midwit tries to find justifications to shit on authors they dont understand chapter
enjoyed the quote tho

>>18755325
its literally called "the world as will and representation". the individuated is the representation not the will.
you are so deluded by his antichristianism that you dont understand his notion of will is intrinsically transcendent.
dont say god if you want, say essence of reality, i dont care. there are way too many religions with this elusive concept anyway.

>>18755361 this was for you>>18755343

Schopenhauer was /trad/ and based

>Some traditions in Western esotericism and parapsychology interested Schopenhauer and influenced his philosophical theories. He praised animal magnetism as evidence for the reality of magic in his On the Will in Nature, and went so far as to accept the division of magic into left-hand and right-hand magic, although he doubted the existence of demons.

>Schopenhauer grounded magic in the Will and claimed all forms of magical transformation depended on the human Will, not on ritual. This theory notably parallels Aleister Crowley's system of magick and its emphasis on human will. Given the importance of the Will to Schopenhauer's overarching system, this amounts to "suggesting his whole philosophical system had magical powers." Schopenhauer rejected the theory of disenchantment and claimed philosophy should synthesize itself with magic, which he believed amount to "practical metaphysics."

>Neoplatonism, including the traditions of Plotinus and to a lesser extent Marsilio Ficino, has also been cited as an influence on Schopenhauer

>With our knowledge of the complete unalterability both of character and of mental faculties, we are led to the view that a real and thorough improvement of the human race might be reached not so much from outside as from within, not so much by theory and instruction as rather by the path of generation. Plato had something of the kind in mind when, in the fifth book of his Republic, he explained his plan for increasing and improving his warrior caste. If we could castrate all scoundrels and stick all stupid geese in a convent, and give men of noble character a whole harem, and procure men, and indeed thorough men, for all girls of intellect and understanding, then a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles
t. Schopenhauer

>>18755302
>"the Bear is acting in this train of thoughts as their driving force". it is easy to understand, but allusive and meaningless.
Except it's an unnecessarily long statement, which Jung is not. He doesn't try to extend his ideas, or write any more complex than he naturally writes. He himself said that he only wanted to give the world something useful, and this is expressed in the simplicity of his writing. He only said something when he had something to say.

It seems to me that you're merely disguising a dislike of the ideas as a dislike of style. Yet you wouldn't dare use this language of Schopenhauer's against a work is far more deserving of it than anything by Jung, Plato's Parmenides.

>>18755376
I like Schopenhauer but this fucking stupid. Don't know how the fuck he fell for kook tricks.

>>18755408
t. scoundrel

>>18755361
will > principium individuationis > representation > individuation of the will as a concept, very different form the undetermined concept of "god", as i said. schopenhauer is very clear about this, problem is you have never read it. there is a passage of his where he says that mediocre intellects obsessed with god/transcendence project their obsession over whatever pages they read like those who see ghosts of their relatives.
> antichristianism
schopenhauer was an "anti-christian", and a ferocious one, not me. and not just an "anti-christian" but an "anti-religious". even when he talks about india, he despise the vedic hymns and the brahminic rituals and talks only about the moral teachings of vedanta and buddhism.

the voluntas is not transcendent, if it were so, you couldn't reach notluntas through moral actions.

>>18755376
>>With our knowledge of the complete unalterability both of character and of mental faculties, we are led to the view that a real and thorough improvement of the human race might be reached not so much from outside as from within, not so much by theory and instruction as rather by the path of generation. Plato had something of the kind in mind when, in the fifth book of his Republic, he explained his plan for increasing and improving his warrior caste. If we could castrate all scoundrels and stick all stupid geese in a convent, and give men of noble character a whole harem, and procure men, and indeed thorough men, for all girls of intellect and understanding, then a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles
Sauce for this quote?

>>18755424
second volume of Will and Representation, page 527

>>18755413
Retard
A castrated scoundrel will have more chances of becoming an ideal ascetic which is the highest man in Schopenhauerian ethics man than a yes saying Will-to-life affirming monkey brained ego fucked warrior.

>>18755449
Refuted by Neetzsche.

>>18755452
Yeah castrated faggot showed his true colors in his letter.

No.

>>18755393
>Except it's an unnecessarily long statement
what? it's the most simple sentence in this thread. Jung employs poorly defined symbols to express his "thoughts", he associates two facts and says : this is no coincidence, without further explanation. allusion and faux-poeticism are the very basis of his style.
>>18755408
the last quote is perfectly normal and it is what happened to homo sapiens in the last 200.000 years. the other two quotes are from retard who has nothing to do with schopenhauer.

>>18755421
the problem with this is your notion of god. like i said, you can say essence of reality if you want. its the same concept of nirvana and every mystic of history and you can find it in religion and philosophy the same.
its like you dont want to admit "the will" of schopenhauer is as elusive as this concepts. and remember where i start. i just say that schopenhauer call this concept "will" just for the sake of it. it have nothing to do with human will and he promote a totally unnecesary confusion because of this. anyway this is just a literary critique.

>>18755457
>the other two quotes are from retard who has nothing to do with schopenhauer.
But he did believe in magic.

>>18755457
>he associates two facts and says : this is no coincidence, without further explanation.
Rather like Schopenhauer and prophesying.

I don't know what you've read but Jung gives a ton of evidence for his ideas, always being scientific and finding empirical proof.

>>18755482
He gave proof of flying men that he met?

>>18755487
Where exactly did Jung claim men flew?

>>18755458
the actual problem is that you are so ignorant you can't even tell the difference between "essence" and "being". essence is a determined principle, a fundamental unit, a universal, a specified concept. "being" is something that "oversteps" the essence and belongs to the "realm" of the unknowable. as you say yourself here ("his notion of will is intrinsically transcendent"), god is transcendent, while essence isn't, simple as that. im sorry if you thought that schopenhauer would have confirmed your wishful thinking that "maybe everything is possible", that "maybe there's life after death", "maybe the old priest was right in his own way", but schopenhauer is not what your are looking for.
>>18755470
it is different than /x/. some problems like magnetism weren't explained before maxwell,coulomb, etc. all he asked was that science should have treated paranormal phenomena empirically. he did an error due to an excess of trust on what was reported as empirical findings.
>>18755482
>Jung gives a ton of evidence for his ideas always being scientific and finding empirical proof.
have a good day, anon.

>>18755517
>magnetism
i mean, magnetism in 2021 is not impressive at all. but before electro-magnetism everyone would have struggled to explain the behavior of 2 magnets compared to the rest of the natural world. magnetism was the main proof of magic until mid 19th century.

>>18755457
>Jung employs poorly defined symbols to express his "thoughts",
Not the anon you're replying to, but what "symbols" would these be? I only know Jung to interpret very specific symbols in a very specific historical context, or on the more therapeutical side interpret the dreams of his patients which he never uses to express his "thoughts," but recognise patterns if any.

Surely you don't mean archetypes?

>>18755517
>magnetism
i mean, magnetism in 2021 is not impressive at all. but before the studies on electro-magnetism, anyone would have struggled to explain the behavior of 2 magnets compared to the rest of the natural world. magnetism was indeed the main proof of magic until mid 19th century.

>>18755517
>have a good day, anon.
Pre-WW2 Jung was entirely empirical though.

>>18755517
you are just playing with words. my point is that schopenhauer will is unknowable and impossible to prove. same as the mystics.

>>18755517
What do you think about Bernardo Kastrup's shilling of Schopenhauer?

>>18755558
in schopenhauer's system the will is KNOWABLE and REVERSIBLE and proved basically through empirical examples (therefore not scientific). the voluntas is not a container-word which stands for something else, it is a perfectly defined principle. it is hard to understand for plebs like you because you suddenly ask yourself "how can an abstract concept produce the whole variety of the visible world?".
>>18755563
i don't know who he is

>>18755594
>i don't know who he is
He is probably the most popular "Schopenhauerian" in contemporary philosophy. He wrote a book called "Decoding Schopenhauer’s Metaphysics: The Key to Understanding How It Solves the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics".

He is also a massive Jung fanboy.

Who knew Schopenhauer anon was a philosophaster.

>>18755605
the title sounds extremely obtuse. like a self help manual.

>>18755594
>the will is KNOWABLE and REVERSIBLE and proved basically through empirical examples
you just can prove that the "representation" is based on something, you cant give form to the will. and precisely that is where schopenahauer is like the mystics, even if he make a worthwhile effort to explain it in rational terms. .
schopenhauer call it will, kant call it the-thing-in-itself, others call it brahman and others call it tao.

>>18755639
> you just can prove that the "representation" is based on something, you cant give form to the will
that is your thought, that there is a "big something" "a matter" "a substance" which the representation is based on. not schopenhauer's. btw it is also a tautology, if you assume that an unknowable substance is necessary, then you don't even have to prove it. problem is that you make the usual dilettante's mistake, you try to translate someone else's system in your own, that is the cheap mystical dualism between a god/being and the phenomena which every child could understand. the result is the trivialization of schopenhauer, not his understanding.
there is no such thing a "the being" in schopenhauer's philosophy (or hegel's), voluntas is not just a fancy name for your collective designation of the "beyond the consciousness".
about mysticism, this is what schopenhauer himself writes:
> In agreement with all these considerations, and with what was demonstrated in the second book to be the origin of cognizance from the will, which, being subservient to its purposes, it precisely thereby mirrors in its affirmation, whereas true salvation lies in its denial, we see all religions, at their pinnacle, come to mysticism and mysteries, i.e., obscurity and concealment, which really only indicate a blind spot for cognizance, the point where all cognizance necessarily ceases; thus the latter can only be expressed for thought through negations, but for sense-perception through symbolic signs, in temples through darkness and silence, in Brahmanism even through the demand for suspension of all thinking and perceiving, for the sake of the deepest entry into one’s own self, with mental pronouncement of the mysterious Om.
1/2

>>18755775
2/2
>In the broadest sense, mysticism is any guidance toward becoming immediately aware of that which neither perception nor concept, hence no cognizance at all reaches. The mystic contrasts with the philosopher by the fact that he begins from within, while the latter begins from without. The mystic, namely, proceeds from his inner, positive, individual experience; in it, he finds himself as the eternal, sole being, etc. But nothing of this is communicable except precisely assertions, which we have to believe on his word; consequently, he is unable to convince. The philosopher to the contrary proceeds from what is common to all, from the objective phenomenon lying before all, and from the facts of self-consciousness as they are to be found in everyone. His method is therefore reflection on all this and combining the data given in it; for this reason, he is able to convince. He should therefore be wary of falling into the manner of the mystics and perhaps, by means of claiming intellectual perceptions, or supposed immediate registration of facts by way of reason,i wishing to make a pretension of positive cognizance of what, eternally inaccessible to all cognizance, can at best be expressed by way of a negation. Philosophy has its value and dignity in the fact that it scorns all ungroundable assumptions and takes up into its data only what can be securely demonstrated in the perceptually given external world, in the forms for its apprehension, constituting our intellect, and in the consciousness of one’s own self that is common to all. For this reason it must remain cosmology, and cannot become theology.

there are connection between schopenhauer and the mystics insofar schopenhauer preach a a negative, ascetic way, the refusal of the presentation (less correctly translated as representation) and will and the dissolution into nothingness.

>>18755775
>that is your thought, that there is a "big something" "a matter" "a substance" which the representation is based on. not schopenhauer's.
you are just liyng, or coping. i dont know what more to say. im genuinely astonished. why lie?, why?.

>>18755792
>i dont know what more to say.
because you just should shut up and try reading and understanding his actual philosophy instead of projecting your cheap, vulgar beliefs on the great men of the past.

>>18755800
the fact that he criticize the mystics dont make him a non-mystic. he was highly prejudiced with this. dont misunderstand me, im not criticizing the mystics or schopnehauer for being a mystic, if all, im criticizing him because he try to avoid to appear as a mystic (and people like you believe him) but the conclusions of his system are inevitably the same. thats the reason he call it will, which it was my first point. he misrepresent a word from nothing, just what he criticize in everybody, and he do it because he was perfectly aware that he was playing with mystical and misterious concepts and want to veiled it in a cheap trick like call it will and not "the essence" or something that make him appear as a cheap mystic. its all a matter of style in the end. my point is that you dont want to admit that will is basically tao just because yes and because schopp is a genius and you shouldnt dare to criticize him.

>>18755840
are you repeating this (over and over and over, like a tourette) to me or to yourself? just be more humble, drop the judgement, drop the projection and open your eyes on the text. otherwise, just drop schopenhauer and read the actual mystics, there's plenty of them.

>>18755859
i read him and more or less i am saying to you my conclusions. tell me stupid or whatever, but tell me the difference between tao and will a la schopenhauer. or better, tell me what is will in the end without representation.

>>18755883
i already wrote at least 5 posts explaining it. the will IS NOT a container-word like tao or god or being, but a pure principle, like "logos". start from this and good luck.

>>18755883
i already wrote at least 5 posts explaining it. the will IS NOT a container-word like tao or god or brahman, but a pure principle, like "logos". start from this and good luck.

>>18755915
tao is not a container word either. i think you are the one who dont understand shit and think god is a concrete thing. maybe you are the one who should try to read and understand the mystics.

>>18755943
ok

>>18755052
Sounds like an old man just bitter with youth's generational shift. The times are a changin
>in fragments, in brief, ambiguous and paradoxical utterances which seem to signify much more than they actually say
I get his point, but by participating in well respected societies it would only make sense for a lesser intellect to adopt the applied linguistics of his contemporaries.
>It is amusing to see how, to this end, first one then another affectation is attempted, in order to adopt it as a mask representing the intellect
Though by firelit night i retire to cogitate upon the profundity expressed in the ruminations of this geriatric tomb

>>18755072
It's true

>>18755052
I think that when he says that the German Idealists wrote so that they could not be understood Schopenhauer only shows that he was a poor reader when it came to this tradition (of course I wouldn't say that he was a bad reader in general). Fichte, Schelling and Hegel are perfectly intelligible to whoever has a solid education on history of philosophy, and who is willing to put some effort into it. Maybe it could be said that they could have expressed themselves more clearly, but this is very far from saying that their texts did not express definite, intelligible positions.

>>18756908
90% of what fichte, hegel and schelling wrote is completely devoid of meaning. it is exactly the same as: ants within the conclusion that creative halts in lieu of geography cause indeterminably the sophistication of the tribal impulse understood as a general concept

>>18757049
btw, isn't it curious that all idealists wrote like absolute clowns? it would be the first hint that something is off within the purpose itself of their writing

>>18757049
I literally can understand everything I've read from Hegel so far. You might disagree with their positions, but they're certainly not devoid of meaning. It's not like he is writing gibberish (in fact it is quite rigorous once you get the hang on his terminology - same for Fichte)

>>18757339
> I literally can understand everything I've read from Hegel so far
that's because you don't actually have ever experienced what "understanding" means.

>>18757546
Elaborate