Schopenhauer

[Pollux V]

I read that Tolstoy, whom I am starting to idolize, had a major thing for Schopenhauer. I know nothing about the man or his philosophies. Has anyone read him? Can anyone recommend his books, give me the lay down of his ideas? How does he compare to Plato or Nietzsche (I've read those two and know at least a little about them...)?

Thanks!

[EvilPoet]

Here is a link to some info about him and
recommended books. Hope it helps. :)

Arthur Schopenhauer (http://www.erraticimpact.com/~19thcentury/html/schopenhauer.htm)

[Xev]

Shopenhaur in a sentance:

Life is worthless, kill yourself.

(In fact, you don't even get to kill yourself, because the will to die is a will, thus you should simply contemplate beautiful works of art until you croak.)

Shopenhaufer was heavily influenced by the Vedas, as many European philosophers of his day were (Eastern metaphysical texts were just beginning to be translated into German). He took the Buddhist philosophy of desire being suffering, and wrote this monstrosity of a four-book work called "The World as Will and Idea". Basically, everything has a basic "will to life" (the Will, which some would identify as the Id) and strives to live and reproduce (extend life). Because we Will, we desire, and desire can never be satisfied. Thus, desire causes suffering, and the negation of desire is the way we negate suffering.

How do we negate suffering? By destroying our Will and "merging" with the world of Ideas (Plato's Forms, more or less).

Depressing asshole with total woman issues. Brilliant though - Nietzsche was greatly influenced by him, although he also slammed the whole "negation of the will" thing - and with a real sense of aestetics. His ethics is also interesting.

[Pollux V]

All right, thanks!

[fredx]

Xev has said interesting things here. I took a class while I was an undergrad and it was completely on The World as Will and Representation Volumes I and II. I made it all the way through volume I and halfway through volume two when I finally had enough and got the point.

He's a genius and I don't remember Nietsche ever actually condemning him, at least not in the way that he ended up condemning Wagner and not without good cause. Schopenhauer is seen as a pessimist but I think that is mostly because they don't understand him or the world for that matter. If he is a pessimist than he is still right. For example, life is at essense misery, pain, misfortune, tragedy, depression and death. Joy and happiness come seldomly which is why we celebrate them so much.

The world is will and idea or the world as will and representation simply means that everything is either a creation of man or god. In other words, we have an idea or a representation of an idea and we harnass our will to make that idea come to life and that is basically why the imagination is so useful.

It is as simple as that. We imagine what an alien would look like were they to exist and we draw it. The word is a drawing, a painting, a blueprint come to life. I think that aside from this man's genius he took too long to come to this conclusion.

As for him having woman issues, I think that is because he thinks about things too much like most men of thought. Woman are going to rouse trouble whether its there fault or not, i.e. other guys are going to ask them out, they are going to nag you, they are going to try and get on your nerves. Its annoying but its a fact of life and thats something that philosophers sometimes don't have the time to deal with especially when they write giant books that say the same thing on every page.

[Xev]

fredx:
The world is will and idea or the world as will and representation simply means that everything is either a creation of man or god. In other words, we have an idea or a representation of an idea and we harass our will to make that idea come to life and that is basically why the imagination is so useful.

Really? How do you get this from World as Will? I'll admit that I skimmed heavily, but I don't see him as claiming this.

He's a genius and I don't remember Nietsche ever actually condemning him,

Well, Friedrich doesn't explicitly say

"Schopenhaur was a 'tard"

But he does attack Artie's philosophy quite well.

If he is a pessimist than he is still right. For example, life is at essense misery, pain, misfortune, tragedy, depression and death. Joy and happiness come seldomly which is why we celebrate them so much.

Not really.

don't have the time to deal with especially when they write giant books that say the same thing on every page.

Or books that say nothing on every page. Really, I suspect that Arthur just wasn't very cute (he was, but not in a sexy way). Contrast him with Nietzsche or Camus (utter babes). See what I mean? Your hatred of the opposite sex is usually directly proportional to your ability to attract them.

Then again, I hate everybody and I'm not particularly unattractive...but hating everybody isn't bigotry, just good sense. :)

[Pollux V]

Not really.

Don't kill me for asking you this Xev, but how so? How is fredx wrong? I'm going to get my hands on these books as soon as I can, however I won't have read them before this thread is long dead, unfortunately. So for the time being I'll have to be content with other people debating on subjects that I can only speculate at. For the time being...what a lovely phrase.

Then again, I hate everybody and I'm not particularly unattractive

You don't hate everybody. At least, according to this post you're into not only yourself, but Nietszche and Camus!

If he is a pessimist than he is still right. For example, life is at essense misery, pain, misfortune, tragedy, depression and death. Joy and happiness come seldomly which is why we celebrate them so much.

Everyone has a rough time here and there. Some suffer more than others. But for me, at least, I don't think this is the case. While my short life has not been perfect, it has by no means been like what you have just described. If I died tomorrow I would prove the fellow [according to fredx] incorrect.

Hmm...the english language is so limiting when it comes to discussing philosophy...gets me every time.

[Xev]

Pollux Five:
Don't kill me for asking you this Xev, but how so? How is fredx wrong? I'm going to get my hands on these books as soon as I can, however I won't have read them before this thread is long dead, unfortunately. So for the time being I'll have to be content with other people debating on subjects that I can only speculate at. For the time being...what a lovely phrase.

"Not really" was directed to Fredx's "For example, life is at essense misery, pain, misfortune, tragedy, depression and death. Joy and happiness come seldomly which is why we celebrate them so much."

I don't think this is the case at all - how can you say that life is "at essence" anything?

[Pollux V]

I don't think this is the case at all - how can you say that life is "at essence" anything?

Hmm..okay, I see your point:)

[fredx]

Ms. Xev, its been a real long time since I climbed the mountain that is "The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1 and II". Its been about 5 or 6 years. Since I don't have the books on hand, I will have to offer you evidence from memory.

With Schopenhauer as with anyone you have to read between the lines. He is not going to come out and say what is obvious like Nietzsche would, which I think is why you like Nietzsche more. The will quite basically in any philosophy is a force, something which exerts a push or pull. It is that thing in us that causes us to act upon something. I believe there is a passage in Schopenhauer where he talks about how inspiration causes the artist to make a painting and how that inspiration is nothing more than an expression of the will. The will is the force that we have inside us that compels us to do something and there are many wills in the world, in fact many competing wills, which makes the world more interesting. Hannah Arendt holds the view that the "truth has a compelling quality" but it only does because we have a will or else truth would be as ineffectual as anything else.
I hope that makes things clearer. Or if not think of Nietzsche's "will to power" which in practical terms is ambition.

I see the gift of feeling as the means of knowing essences, essences are anti-logical which is why you have a problem with them, they have to be felt before they can be understood, you go at everything with a scientific lense.

You have hit upon something quite original here Xev., there is a relation between "will" and "essence".

[Redoubtable]

Schopenhauer was a German adherent to doom and gloom, a grim and acerbic pessimist who felt life's sparse few raptures didn't grant an adequate return on the precarious investment of getting oneself born.
To ole Artie, life's irksome woes and lugubrious tryings were just too preponderant, too irreparable, to be alleviated by those rare moments of zest, succor, or revelry.

Had he lived to see the inception and manufacture of nuclear weaponry, such abominable and pernicious arsenals might've received his praise.
For after all, if life's so dour, why not brighten it up with a few . . . fireworks?

Neitzche, the outre lunatic he was, once thought himself the Antichrist.
Ole Artie, whom Fred had adulated, got to be his impious "voice crying in the wilderness," his "Elijah," his "John the Baptist."

[gendanken]

Contrast him with Nietzsche or Camus (utter babes). See what I mean? Your hatred of the opposite sex is usually directly proportional to your ability to attract them.


Don't you mean indirectly proportional?

Like in the way Machieveli was the only midly misanthropic among collegues to realize what fucking brutes men were, and his being an apple-checked cutie?

If so I agree.

As for Shopenhaur, a quack is what he was and revivalism of Kantism is all it will ever be. There's no reason to suppose a nihilist also an asthete, and furthermore the arts offer nothing to the man in search for truth save pretty pictures and a colorful headache.

[fredx]

gendanken, I think his works have value but they may take more effort than is worth putting in to them. That does not mean however that reading him is worthless.

[gendanken]

Originally posted by fredx
gendanken, I think his works have value but they may take more effort than is worth putting in to them. That does not mean however that reading him is worthless.


Agreed, if only the rule that you don't go out and write a 4 volumed megabeast to waste my damn time still applies.

Its the same thing with Neal Walsh and his God conversations.

I'd gone out to see what Walsh had to say, suprisinlgy finding his theism interisting. I even thawed a bit, really. But only a day later did I find out his series had sprung from him being homeless and taking up the Upanishads and Vedas like old Schopy did that I'd just as soon pee on him.

The same with Jesus. His *famous* parables date back to ancient China- Confucionism, Homism and the Taoists. Its all stolen.

And when you steal things, you waste the world's time and as long as I'm in it you'll have hell to pay for it.