I fundamentally disagree with Schopenhauer, beauty isn't the illusion, suffering is.
I fundamentally disagree with Schopenhauer, beauty isn't the illusion, suffering is.
I fundamentally disagree with Schopenhauer, beauty isn't the illusion, suffering is.
woah, anon, you're such a deep thinker for just saying the opposite of what someone else said! also, it's so smart that you're too shallow to suffer! are you a woman, by any chance? keep being subhuman, OP! i hope you learn the meaning of suffering 🙂
Shut the frick up b***h
>t. Schopenhauer
He's right, you know.
pwned
have you suffered, anon?
both are illusions.
There only is energy and matter (which is just condensed energy)
Found the P-zombie
The p-zombie argument is stupid. You cannot know that such a thing can actually exists which behaves perfectly like a human but doesn't have human self or experience(or atleast the illusion of it)
Yep. It is basicaly one of criticism towards it. It works only if you assume phenomenal does not supervine on physical. Yet it does.. we know for a fact that if you lack sensory organ such as an eye and system that process the data behinde it, you wont have phenomenal experiance corncerned with visual qualia.
It all boils down to what is your ontological assumption of a thing. If you see it distinct from physical things, zombie argument is valid. If you dont then its not.
Are you one of the anon's from the metaphysics general? How lost am I if epiphenomenalism is starting to sound good?
How is either suffering or beauty illusory? I doesn't make sense to say 'I feel like I'm suffering, but I don't know if I'm *really* suffering,' and it equally doesn't make sense to say 'This looks beautiful, but I don't know if it's *really* beautiful.' The experiences themselves constitute suffering and beauty.
Don't get into german philosophy, buddy, you already figured everything out
Schopenhauer explains that those things that seem nice and pleasant only exist to distract us from the fact that life is a factory that only wants us to grow and reproduce so it can throw our bodies into the meat grinder, and if we were aware of it, we would just opt out.
Suffering is the Devil speaking to you.
Beauty is God speaking to you.
Both speak from within you.
You decide whom to follow.
>"Dude, take a look at this sunset!"
>"I just cracked a disc in my back though."
>"stfu, I'm trying to take-in all the purples!"
>"I-I'm in so much pain. I think I just vomited shit... "
Zapffe said it best. Nobody enjoys the view when hypoxic. Suffering is way more real than aesthetics.
You privilege the sufferer's experience at the expense of the aesthete's primarily by turning the aesthete into a dolt
Aesthetes are dolts by definition, or at least ignorant.
Kek
And sufferers are utterly self absorbed in actual fact
Keats wasn't writing poems when he was choking on bloody mucus when he was dying from TB. He was begging for death.
No poet will ever be as beautiful as Keats yet he suffered and beauty that illusory prostitute left him in the most difficult hours.
A thing of beauty is a joy forever.
That's bullshit. Beauty left Keats alone when death was standing next to him.
Beauty is a deceptive prostitute.
The beauty of Keats remains with us.
Then kys so you escape suffering. Why don't you? Because you're not willing to abandon the joy of beauty just yet.
Or because self-termination isn't easy. But it really gets me that "optimists" betray a cruel streak in cajoling people to kill themselves. And not only that, they inadvertently convey the message that suicide is the optimal choice if life has negative value. Not even Schoppy says that and he has compassion for the suffering in all his grumpiness. This why I don' frick wit y'all homies.
>betray a cruel streak in cajoling people to kill themselves.
It's a hypothetical to establish that there is something positive that binds you to life. If there wasn't you'd have done it already, irrespective of what "optimists" say.
>the message that suicide is the optimal choice if life has negative value.
True almost by definition, it implies going up from negative to zero.
>compassion for the suffering
Fixating on how suffering is the overwhelming feature of life will only increase suffering (apart from the cases where it serves as catharsis for a short while). Anyway, Schopenhauer certainly had his pleasures that made life worth living for him, the foremost being ranting about how (the superior gigachad) Hegel is a moron.
>Ignore the point that self-termination isn’t easy
>Just ignore your survival instinct bro just stop being afraid
Well I cannot understand how one can genuinely convince oneself that life is not worth living while retaining a fear of dying.
Countless people who aren't pessimists overcome the survival instinct to do extremely risky things. If you're a real pessimist, it should be a piece of cake. Don't do it though, because pessimism is wrong fren.
>Countless people who aren't pessimists overcome the survival instinct to do extremely risky things.
It’s genetics, these people didn’t convince themselves watch this for instance https://youtube.com/watch?v=tDR9lMDPA30
You're bound to life by an innate desire to live, not out of love of life's little pleasures. You don't choose to want to life no matter how awful living actually is. That desire to live is not necessarily a good, and "reasons to live" aren't necessarily a good if, like hope, they ultimately just prolong suffering. But because even if you do override your programming and self-terminate, Schopenhauer says it's understandable but misguided, because the suicidee only commits the act because of unfortunate circumstances and would live if that were not the case. Suicide ironically affirms life, according to him anyway. It would have better to not have been born in the first place but, having been born in the world, his solution is to live mitigating the desire.
>True almost by definition, it implies going up from negative to zero.
Not necessarily. It's more like going from a negative to NaN. It still is a net negative, but still better than non existence.
>Or because self-termination isn't easy. But it really gets me that "optimists" betray a cruel streak in cajoling people to kill themselves
That anon is right though.
If life truly is suffering and suffering is so terrible, there's a fairly easy way out.
Or are you saying that non-existence is more terrible than suffering?
Or perhaps we're driven by nature to survive, but if so, then the ultimate form of will is to cheat nature of that which it drives you the most to do.
Either way, one thing is for certain. Either God exists, or all of this is utterly meaningless. And meaninglessness is a special kind of hell, far worse than any other suffering.
>If life truly is suffering and suffering is so terrible, there's a fairly easy way out.
It isn't easy, it means going against your programming. It is considered a form of insanity to self-terminate for a reason. Every instinct screams against it, a form of torture in itself. But even in succeeding, the takeaway is that you can't handle life, not that life is incorrigibly terrible. It's a (You) problem, not universal and built into reality. Which is why it's so easy for you to just tell people to "quit".
>are you saying that non-existence is more terrible than suffering?
You will go eventually back to non-existence without any effort on your part. Being told to "just" commit self-murder because you think the negative far outweighs the positives is pretty fricked up, no?
>But it really gets me that "optimists" betray a cruel streak in cajoling people to kill themselves.
Its not a cruel streak and its not cajoling. It is simply following the premises of pessimists arguments to their logical conclusion. Pessimists talk about how much they believe life is suffering and not worth living, yet their actions never reflect this """""belief"""""".
I presume they do believe it and why the condescendence
Is how they thoughts look are expressed and well the clash with reality is palpable
>simply following the premises of pessimists arguments to their logical conclusion
You worked out the logic of the arguments? Can we see your work?
Life is not worth living. Therefore don't live it. QED
Yeah, must be the beauty and not preponderance of unknowable horrors conspiring to keep the victim clinging to what he must necessarily lose. Why don't you just leave the hostage scenario? You must deep down love the gunman!
Try an argument built from consideration and you might accidentally say something convincing.
Now that's truly weird, am I to understand that you're of anti-natalist persuasion yet believe that death takes you to some fantasy hell world where devils stick tridents in your ass? Instead of mere non-existence?
It's hard to make out because you seem to have written it in a very tense emotional state.
Are you autistic? You don’t seem to understand simple emotions
Maybe. Explain what
>preponderance of unknowable [?] horrors conspiring to keep the victim clinging to what he must necessarily lose
is supposed to mean.
He can't because he's not me and no, I won't explain it for the thousandth time. You're right, suicide is merely jumping the candle. No baggage required. Someday I hope to be like you.
Ok we'll see how long you keep saying that as I press a white hot poker to your scrotum, yes?
>it's all illusion, and what is endlessly manufacturing the illusion is the will to power, and this too is illusion, but one that is greater than yours
Arthur was a whiny fricking homosexual lol. He deserved the shitty life he lived. If he was in the same school as me, I'd bully that weak b***h everyday. I'd make the crybaby an hero
Arthur was shoot crazy tbh, he would unironically beat the shit out of your anime protagonist syndrome ass.
>Arthur beating anyone up
He was an ugly balding manlet lmao. He'd get his ass beat by even women and troons.
Such a whiny homosexual that not even his c**t of a mother could stand him.
Also got rejected and humiliated by a dicky because the ugly balding ageing manlet forgot his place.
Not to mention the LITERAL prostitute he fell in love with.
Funnily enough, not even THE prostitute PICKED HIM hahahaha. It's so fricking over for whiny homosexuals.
Tell that to the b***h he hospitalized. None of that is anything like some delusional 4chud manchild antagonizing someone because he thinks he won't be mauled.
He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep the pain we cannot forget, falls drop by drop on the heart and in our own despair, against our will, wisdom comes to us by the awful grace of God.
Aeschylus
Reread the Basket Bearers yesterday, Aeschylus is truly the best poet of ancient greece
CRAAAWWWWLLLLLIIIINNNNGGGG INNN MY SKIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNN THESE WOOUUUUUUNNNDDDSSS THEY WILLLLL NOT HEEEAAAAAALLLLLLLL
Everything that subjective is illusory in the same sense that rocks don't feel pain or pleasure when smashed. The sense of either depends on the existence of organisms and their vicissitudes. Why deny that? Of course I agree with the both the Stoics and Epicureans that one can make far too much of what are more in the line of social anxieties than physical agonies--that is to say 1st world problems almost as much of the ancient world as of the modern one. Of course I can't persuade certain members of my family to this point-of-view, since they fear the future too much, and enjoy the present too little, aren't particularly insouciant by nature. This is also to say that the family curse of paranoia and depression doesn't run that much in me, and I'm a lot better at calculating risks even when not in the best of physical health or circumstantial advantage. This is also to say I'm predominantly comic in outlook.
Any aesthetic judgement is an illusion you create over your raw sensory experience.
I love Schopenhauer and the first three books in the world as will and representation are basically the only philosophy I agree with.
As soon as he gets to the denial of the will to live he loses me. He just spent 500 pages autistically proving the primacy of the will, and now we are supposed to deny it? Makes no sense to me.
anon do you have a sense of self? while schopenhauer is obviously known for being a mopey general failure in life he was also apparently really happy near the end. and this was from following his own advice and detaching from the will
so i think schopenhauer agrees with you outside the context of the self. when you're looking for beauty and have to compare it to some specific standard (the self), it eventually always goes or contradicts it, therefore illusion. but when that isn't there it's all just beauty
as someone who hasn't taken this unselfing path i think beauty is temporary and pain giving from my world perspective but i'm aware this is just my gaze. i don't really care either way it's just something that happens. but it would be really interesting to find out where you or someone else comes from when they're talking about this
I’ve never really solved the illusion/real contradiction. How am I supposed to know what makes something real and another fake? I experience dreams as very real in the moment but when I wake up I know that I was just dreaming. The only difference I can find between them is the intensity and duration in which I feel pain - reality being much harsher in this respect.
Seems like you fundamentally misunderstand Schopenhauer. Well done.
t. I didn't read Schopenhauer and just want to shit post.
You still believe people on IQfy actually read, don't you?
No, but I watched Uberboyo's video.
How exactly is prolonged exposure to physical pain not suffering?
I mean i get the psychological part (We often suffer more in our imagination then in reallity). But not all suffering is psyche based.
I’m so confused.