Schopenhauer thread

[Anonymous No.16275023]

Have you renounced the world yet? I’m thinking about getting on autismbux and becoming a mage/hermit.

[Anonymous No.16275024]

>>16275023
Define Will

[Anonymous No.16275028]

>>16275024
The thing-in-itself

[Anonymous No.16275031]

>>16275023
It's more like the world renounced me really

[Anonymous No.16275040]

>>16275024
a short version of the name William

[Anonymous No.16275048]

>I’ve dedicated my life to becoming a civil servant

[Anonymous No.16275058]

>>16275023
Started him yesterday. In his On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason he has already said both that he hates Hegel and that Judaism is responsible for blocking the adoption of idealism in Europe.

[Anonymous No.16275068]

>>16275023
why did russell accuse him of not practicing what he preached? didn't he live somewhat ascetically and have a very strict schedule like kant?

[Anonymous No.16275071]

>>16275058
sauce?

[Anonymous No.16275110]

>>16275058
Wasn’t it because Judaism conceived man as brought of of nothing?

[Anonymous No.16275132]

>>16275023
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16275145]

>>16275071
Hegel bashing is throughout. Regarding Judaism,
>"In India idealism is the doctrine even of popular religion, not merely of Brahmanism, but also of Buddhism; only in Europe is it paradoxical in consequence of the essentially and inevitably realistic fundamental view of Judaism."
The dominance of realism in Europe would make sense given the aniconism of the Bible, but Europeans never fully embraced that commandment of YHWH the way Semitic peoples did, e.g. the Israelites and Islamicized Arabs. Another contributor is biblical emphasis on creation and covenants, which suggests the world god made for us is real, not an illusion created by our consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16275156]

>>16275110
It's a point made in passing in that particular work, not highly developed. But I do think there could be support given for it if one wanted to dig into a comparative study of Indian and Western theologies, which Schopenhauer merely hints at

[Anonymous No.16275666]

bump

[Anonymous No.16275701]

>>16275023
>Have you renounced the world yet?
I did the opposite and affirmed life instead, amor fati.

[Anonymous No.16275788]

>>16275701
You love an illusion, but I guess we all cope in different ways. What did Nietzsche think about the distinction between phenomenon and the thing-in-itself? Was he an idealist, or did he think that material objects had an independent existence outside of mind?

[Anonymous No.16275838]

>wife pissing me off
>put on "On Women" on the surround sound at full volume

[Anonymous No.16275842]

>>16275788
Not that guy, but Nietzsche is basically a synthesis of Schopenhauer and Hegel. The world is a representation of will, and will can be strong or weak, and when it is weak (like in the case of Schopenhauer) it portrays a destitute world.

[Anonymous No.16275878]

>>16275842
Not that anon, but if you'd read about Schopenhauer's life, you would know he was the definition of a "strong will". In everything he did, he was very forceful and passionate.

[Anonymous No.16275928]

>>16275842
Interesting. Nietzsche always struck me as a materialist, but then again I’ve never read any of his works - I’ve only seen certain quotes of his that put idealism and metaphysics in a bad light. Did he believe in the immortality of the true nature (i.e. the will)?

[Anonymous No.16276905]

>>16275928
Another anon here. I believe he thought the ''Will to power'' to be the force underlying all reality, but there are different interpretations.

[Anonymous No.16277002]

Why didn't he just will a world without Hegel?

[Anonymous No.16277088]

>>16275023
Live in a tree and be a vegetarian like the Pythagorists and Wagner.

[Anonymous No.16277308]

>>16275878
That's not how Nietzsche understands strength, however. For Nietzsche, power is growth, and strength of will has to do with how much the will is capable of enduring and persisting its growth through, even things which may be contradictory and harmful to it. Schopenhauer renounced the will, so for Nietzsche, this meant he was not strong enough for it.

[Anonymous No.16277551]

I had a dream where I met Schopenhauer on public transportation once
I can't remember what he told me

[Anonymous No.16277690]

>>16277551
I recently had a dream with him too. I saw him in a literary salon or something. He mostly ignored me.

[Anonymous No.16277698]

>Schoppy bloppy floppy gloppy
There, I just summed up this board's discourse on Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.16277968]

>>16275023
What are the bare minimum requirements before reading Schopenhauer? I know he says read kant, but who do I need to read before I start kant?

[Anonymous No.16278044]

>>16277968
The very bare minimum: some familiarity with Plato and Locke, then Hume's first enquiry, then the Transcendental Aesthetic part of Kant's CPR.

[Anonymous No.16278162]

>>16278044
danke