Prove him wrong.
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Prove him wrong.
Prove him wrong.
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
i'm pretty happy and this is my hand QED
I don't want to waste my time.
>the pessimist will never have this
>muh family
homie, kys
Seethe. If you aren't going to have a family you might as well have a nice day rn.
Cope.
I literally can't, the arch-incel predicted the lives we lead nowadays.
These anons are obviously just jealous of Jung as well, I'd be as well, from his interviews it looks like he lived a good life.
Again Schoppie is vindicated.
Black person find a pronoun.
The only thing jung had at 85 was insanity and delusions about ghosts hanging around his house
>delusions
>he isn't -aware-
Oof.
he has 5 children
Lol how many of these do you think he even knows the names of
Lol how many of these do you think carry his haplogroup?
>ugly white people
you are a piece of fricking shit
*Exist*
The idea that the ding an sich cannot be known by reason causes a paradox since it had to be an object of reason to say it can’t be known by reason.
Well? I just refuted the 2nd greatest post-Kant philosopher in a one sentence IQfy post. Does anyone have anything to say? I’m pretty sure this makes me the greatest philosopher of the 21st century.
You didn't refute shit lmao
Not a refutation.
Continue seething in your own piss and shit.
This makes no sense. Please read what you have written again, it's a contradiction.
>since it had to be an object of reason to say it can’t be known by reason
Not necessarily, this is stupid.
It's negative knowledge. The thing in itself is more like a concept for what we ignore. However, Schopie actually forgets that, and believes it is defined by what is never known (he misunderstood Kant on that).
negative knowledge is still knowledge. Even to say that something is not something is still making it an object of reason.
nice arguments
He was an incel
So what?
I Kant
I can't
prove him right
The world as will and representation
reddit
Only the Bog remains
never trust a man whose own mother can't stand him
His platonism is outdated, but otherwise he is one of the few metaphysicians that actually shape my worldview.
the stupid wench was mad that she didn't understand what he was talking about
who cares
he is the greatest philosopher
she is known only as his mother
>Johanna was an abusive wife to his father and an abusive mother to him. She even threw Schopenhauer down a flight of stairs once when he talked back to her. Also, Schopenhauer’s father (whom he was very close with) was believed to have committed suicide when Schopenhauer was seventeen and it has always been a rumor that Johanna Schopenhauer was a contributing factor to his suicide. After her wife died, Johana left for Weimar to join the free love movement and follow her dreams of becoming a writer, leaving Schopenhauer behind. And when Schopenhauer later wanted to move to Weimar to pursue philosophy, she desperately tried to convince him not to move to Weimar, saying she couldn’t stand to be around him.
Has anybody read her books? or even Adele Schopenhauer's?
Well, at least now Schopenhauer has had an extremely large influence of philosophy and thought while Johanna Schopenhauer is known only as his mother who once wrote a rude letter to him.
>Schopenhauer has had an extremely large influence of philosophy and thought
not really
this is made up. wikipedia says nothing like this
>this is made up. wikipedia says nothing like this
>wikipedia
does nu-IQfy really?
Joking?
>after her wife died
Where the tension between them comes in, is that Johanna at the time was a semi successful author of cheap romances and thought very highly of herself. Arthur, as we know, also thought very highly of himself from an early age. What made Johanna seethe was Arthur's unwarranted confidence (bordering on arrogance) without having anything tangible to show for it. This is best seen in this interaction:
>Unfortunately, the published dissertation earned, at best, lukewarm reviews. Indeed, the most stinging might have come from the young man’s mother, who asked sarcastically whether his book [The Fourfold Roots of the Principle of Sufficient Reason] was for pharmacists. Schopenhauer retorted that his work would still find readers when not even a single copy of her writings could be found in a junk yard. Undaunted, Johanna Schopenhauer spat back, ‘Of yours the entire printing will still be available’.
One time Goethe was impressed by young Arthur's intellect, saying that by proper grooming he could become a literary genius, and she said something like "only one person in each family could be a genius" (referring to herself). She even went as far as badmouthing Arthur to Goethe, and was one of the reasons the relationship between Schopenhauer and Goethe worsened.
>Schopenhauer retorted that his work would still find readers when not even a single copy of her writings could be found in a junk yard
And he was right, Jesus, what a roast
>Arthur heaped further insult upon her by prophesying that she would be known to posterity only through him
You did it bro... You frickin did it!
Stupid b***h
Females are moronic, opinion disregarded.
fricking nuked by his mom, you can't just cope on that
haha, no wonder Nietzsche liked him
He'll keep filtering nearly everyone until enough people pick up on Kant.
>In contrast to Schopenhauerian irrationalism, the monotheism which he attacked in the Spirit of the enlightenment also has its true aspect. Schopenhauer’s metaphysics regresses to a phase, in which the genius has not yet awoken amidst what is mute. He denies the motive of freedom which, for the time being, and perhaps even in the phase of complete unfreedom, humanity remembers. Schopenhauer gets to the bottom of the illusory appearance [Scheinhafte] of individuation, but his recipe for freedom in the fourth book, the repudiation of the will to life, is just as illusory [scheinhaft]: as if what is ephemerally individualized could have the least power over its negative absolute, the will as a thing in itself, could step out of its bane otherwise than in self-deception, without the entire metaphysics of the will escaping through the breach. Total determinism is no less mythical than the totals of the Hegelian logic. Schopenhauer was an idealist malgré lui-même [French: in spite of himself], spokesperson of the bane. The totum [Latin: the whole] is the totem. The consciousness could not despair at all over what is grey, if it did not harbor the concept of a different color, whose scattered trace is not lacking in the negative whole.
Walls of text do not compensate having no idea what you're talking about
Maybe you should read it before concluding that.
That's what i did. It doesn't address anything from Schopenhauer's actual philosophy
Ok, let me try fulfilling your task using polysyllogism
>premise 1
Only one philosopher can be correct
>premise 2
Hegel is correct
>premise 3
Schopenhauer's "philosophy" is different to that of Hegel's
>conclusion
Schopenhauer is wrong
I rest my case
Not a very Hegelian approach to truth and argument.
Your argument falls apart at premise 2
>Only one philosopher can be correct
You lazy midwit.
Demonstrate how two differing opinions about fundamental reality can be true at the same time. I'll wait my fellow midwit.
reality is inherently contradicting
Then I'll ask you to prove this statement. You are implying that two contradictory observations about an object both can be true? How so?
Quantum physics.
Kant and Schopenhauer get along just fine about metaphysics. Kant is about phenomena and Schopenhauer about the noumenon. Have you read them?
The post isn't about Schop and Kant. Read it before posting about a non-related pair a philosophers.
>claims to be a hegelian
>can't even manage a basic dialectic
Typical. Where's mainlander when you need him?
Thesis: Hegel
Antithesis: Schopenhauer
Synthesis: Nietzsche
He didn't practice what he preached
Transhumanism might make it so that life doesn't suck in the future. It might be possible to re-engineer our brains and our genetics so that we are physically incapable of suffering.
Current transhumanism is just antihumanism in disguise. IMO our goal to transcend our humanity is in only so to help master it and create a prosperous human world, not to escape.
Physically altering the human form ourselves to such a pedantic degree through inhuman means will lead to nothing but the destruction of self in the worst way possible. To really succeed we must stay within our human form as we transcend.
Correlationism is false. We have access to understanding thought and being apart from the other; they're not *necessarily* correlated because there is an external reality apart from their correlation. Idealism is moronic and panpsychism is a better alternative.
Schopenhauer has the most detailed, accurate metaphysics for the atheistic world, thou since most people want and should embrace a little bit of life, I think the answers to his worldview come from Nietzche + the more pre-Socratic elements of pagan philosophers and religion.
I have a full head of hair. Checkmate.
>Prove him wrong.
neetzsche went insane trying
Why would we?
>his mother joined the free love movement and his father committed suicide
No wonder he hated women. His mother was a prostitute.
>Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art, have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.
>This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone.
>Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces.
>Individual and partial exceptions do not alter the matter; women are and remain, taken altogether, the most thorough and incurable philistines.
sex
happiness