Who is the more based philosopher? I like Schopenhauer more, but it seems like Nietzche has the better prescription to live life. Nietzche justifies experiencing and inflicting suffering, but I also struggle to justify a world where I have to live and inflict suffering. Wat do?
There is no value in philosophies that don't affirm experience.
Why the frick do so many people on here think philosophy is fricking self help? Are people here so terminally depressed that they cannot possibly comprehend pessimistic philosophy without wanting to blow their brains out? This forced optimism you see so often seems so fricking forced.
>Forced
No need to project. I'm more Zen than Buddhists and most definitely more Zen than you will ever be no matter what you do or take.
>I'm more Zen than Buddhists and most definitely more Zen than you
I don't want to be "zen" you fricking hippy dork. Go take a shower moron.
What do you want to be then? Based and red pilled?
Myself.
Non answer.
Mommy issues incel vs simp incel
>Who is the more based philosopher?
ask me how I know you're underage
Kierkegaard
>but I also struggle to justify a world where I have to live and inflict suffering. Wat do?
stop inflicting suffering.
Nietzsche's epiphany came from trying to rescue a horse from being whipped, he was transformed by this physical act of intervening on behalf of an innocent's undeserved suffering
Let us not forget also that Schopenhauer was one of the first modern Western writers inspired by Buddhist scriptures, and thereby Nietzsche as well
I would put a better version of this painting on my wall. Dall-e?
>Nietzsche's epiphany came from trying to rescue a horse from being whipped, he was transformed by this physical act of intervening on behalf of an innocent's undeserved suffering
Brainlet take. Stop breathing
>I also struggle to justify a world where I have to live and inflict suffering. Wat do?
Become a man. Stop consuming onions products. Work out. Go hunting.
>Go hunting.
Murdering animals gets you off, eh? Prick.
Are you a vegetarian though?
yea, too few animals already die because of us, let's kill some other because otherwise you can't be a man. fricking robot npc
Wtf are these threads? Who is more based? That's what you're asking?
There is no value in philosophies that don't affirm experience.
Wagner was the perfect balance.
Nietzsche's Dionysianism comes from Wagner's disagreements with Schopenhauer.
How can anyone even consider Schopenhauer at all after reading Nietzsche? If you are a doomer who is afraid of life and jumps from one cult to the other to numb the pain then Schopenhauer does nothing but affirm and justify your struggle, good for you then, but that's not a way to live a life, in my opinion anyway.
>justifies experiencing and inflicting suffering
Why do you need justifications for that. It just happens.
Both of them hated nothing more than antisemitic nationalist chuds so they're equally based in my book.
They loved getting the D though.
>slave moralist thinks he can say anything about Nietzsche
The Will to Power, page 942:
>There is only nobility of birth, only nobility of blood. I'm not talking about the little word "von" and the Gothaische Kalender -a preoccupation for fools. Those who speak of an "aristocracy of the spirit" are generally trying to conceal something; as is well known, it is a favorite phrase used by ambitious israelites. The spirit alone does not ennoble -there must first be something that ennobles the spirit. And what is that? Blood.
Idk sounds pretty antisemitic and nationalistic to me
>sounds pretty antisemitic
Not at all.
Schopenhauer has sound reasoning and completed German idealism, but Nietzsche doesn't believe in reasoning to begin with.
>Sound reasoning
>Life bad
Thanks Schoppy, you are just repeating the same thing Socrates said, that death is preferred to life. 2000+ years of diseased philosophy and nothing changed, just wonder differently.
t. didn't start with Fourfold Root.
Then I'm sure you can write what's so great about it?
t. didn't even start at all
Are you afraid to write about it because it can be summed up in one sentence which again will show that's it's just copy of Socrates or that's it's too convoluted and just a mental masturbation word salad that says the same thing as a sentence from Socrates?
Neither of those obviously. Stop acting mad because you got filtered by Schopie, there are many such cases.
I'm so filtered I don't even know by what. Feel free to write his word salad masquerade as arguments. So I can filter you both. Afraid?
Kierkegaard
Christcuck, therefore by definition destroyed by Nietzsche.
How could someone desire to be anything other than what they are?
What "you" are would be completely different had you been born across the street. "You" are the actions and environments that you had and didn't have control of throughout life. You are you, that is certain, but how you want to be is completely something else.
>Nietzche has the better prescription to live life
It's a shame he was born too early to make sappy wall art
Schopenhauer. Nietzsche didn't have a moral leg to stand on
deep down men don't need morality to thrive
We do need morality unless you think killing other people to make your penis feel good is ok.
>Nietzsche didn't have a moral leg to stand on
t. thinks his morality isn't false
>another thread for people who haven't read N to debate people who didn't understand him about whether it is based and redpilled to agree with him or not
>I also struggle to justify a world where I have to live and inflict suffering.
You don't understand nietzsche then
Go back to your funkopops westoid subhuman this World is not for you
Make better threads to summon the schoppy scholars