"The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians...

>"The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races; and even with many dark peoples, the ruling caste, or race, is fairer than the rest, and has, therefore, evidently immigrated, for example, the Brahmins, the Inca, and the rulers of the South Sea Islands. All this is due to the fact that necessity is the mother of invention, because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers, and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want and misery, which in their many forms, were brought about by the climate. This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature, and out of it came their high civilization."

Is he correct?

based schope is right again

>disregard the peoples that prove me wrong
>this statement is true because of that
What?

Northern climate isn't harder to survive in per se, but it does support lower population density than warm climate. I think low population density was the catalyst for the development of the white race.

Is that why eskimos are the most powerful race in the world?

there's literally no advantage to having a high IQ in Africa

Which people prove him wrong? In which civilization was the nobility darker than the peasants? Ottomans,Mongols?

population density and population size arent the same thing. I beleive that what the user is saying is that the low population density in most of europe gave rise to lots of small competing groups, evemtually those grpups were city states and firms, and this is what gave rise to the global success of western culture

Hunter-gatherers have a population density that is too low. I'm talking about European agricultural societies, contrasted with Asian and African agricultural societies.

I guess it's more comforting than "the capricious whims of fate put Western Europe on top for a while, much as previously they did with Mongolia, Iran, and a number of other countries that are now irrelevant"

what hes saying isnt true, brahmins and other high indian castes for example are not lighter then low castes, rather, due to latitude most people in northern india are light skinned in comparison to south indians, but all high caste people in south india are dark skinned, not just low caste people. South indian civilisation is also highly developed historically speaking, more so then north inidian, and is dravidian not aryan

>White immigrants are responsible for Incan civilization
Fuck no.

How the fuck would lower population density contribute to the development of a culture? Sounds like something you pulled out of your ass.

Well I don't think by means white races he means specifically Europeans, but general lighter skinned ethnicities.

High population density results in societies where large masses of peasants are dominated by a small ruling elite. Low population density results in societies where political power is local, divided and decentralized. Europeans have had more experience with governing themselves, while Asians and Africans have evolved in an environment of powerlessness and subservience, which has stultified their intellectual development. This difference manifests itself most clearly in the failure of Asians and Africans to create Western style governments.

>The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians
no

>white races

Notice he says races and not race. So the Japanese could also be one of the white races since they have light skin generally.

>it was all just an accident of history
Why do people pretend to believe this?

What do you think caused the Persians and the Mongols to become so powerful, and do you believe that the European world is different from them in some qualitative way.

now irrelevant is rhe key

Do you have anything to back this up?

Just the general observation that political entities in Asia tend to be large and centralized, while political entities in Europe tend to be small and decentralized.

Explain why China and the middle east were doing so much better than Europe in almost every aspect during the middle ages.

they werent

>darker
Well, he left out China completely. You know - the country that save for a century and half was the world's most powerful and developed nation.

Because Europeans and Asians have been repeatedly shown by dozens of studies to be the most intelligent races with the largest brains and highest IQs compared to other racial groups.

Humans who left Africa mixed with the neanderthals who had larger brains and there were a number of other favorable mutations involving intelligence that occurred and spread throughout Europe and Asia.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans are the ancestors of both much of Europe and also the Persians and the Hindus, which likely in part explains why they dominated and became advanced, they had a better genetic predisposition to intelligence then other surrounding groups.

Africa didn't receive any of these helpful genes/mutations which is why it never had any advanced black civilizations which arose on their own and developed their own unique culture independent of foreigners.

The reason the middle east was peaceful for so long was because for long periods it was united under 1 or very few large states so there was way less potential for war then in Europe with a bunch of little states, and the vast majority of the achievements of """islamic civilization""" were made by Zoroastrian Persians or were just based on earlier work done by them.

TLDR - Citing the examples of Asians does not disprove Shopenhauer because they are pretty light-skinned and are the only above-average intelligence race besides Europeans and citing the Persians don't count because they are basically a white people that migrated south instead of west to Europe.

The advanced civilizations that are Asian or descended from the Indo-Europeans are way more advanced and numerous then the ones who were not Asian or descended from the IE.

tl;dr

no

Protip everything Schopenhauer wrote that wasn't TWaWaR is complete and utter shit that is treated with credence as though a statesman wrote them but thats not the case

>apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians

Those were the go-to 'mysterious but super duper civil savage' buzzword civilisations at his time, persia and china wouldve been much more apt

Jesus christ weeaboos disgust me much more than any 'SJW' or 'anti-SJW' ever will

He's sort of right, but he loses it when he focuses on race alone as a key contributing factor to great civilizations.

What he said about early peoples who migrated north is true; a new terrain and climate forced them to be more intelligent in order to survive. From this point on, we began taking pride in our settling new lands and in our technologies. From this our different cultures developed, which is how we identified ourselves.

The African tribes, having had no challenge of a different world, did not develop these distinct cultures that Asian and European civilizations did, and instead separated themselves based on superficial appearance and territory.

Culture is a greater bond than race.

It's true.

He doesn't rule out the existence of comparable 'ruling castes' in other races. Also, it should be considered that this was written before Darwin published his work on the origin of species.

Amerindians have more Neandertal dna and they score lower on IQ tests and South Asians have the highest allele frequency of IQ or brain size SNPs

It's quite the opposite actually, at least intellectually speaking. Fat, rich greeks with nothing to do eventually invented philosophy to find something to do and started developing their culture, while africans had to deal with more serious business than philosophy and other intellectual wanking (life in da REAL hood motha afrika ain't easy yo).

I feel on the one side people are not being holistic enough, they focus on only a few specific things like environment or genetics (these dichotomies are so dated) and then are apt to be proven wrong.

On the otherhand the people with the desire to prove them wrong are weak-minded. They can't believe that such "ignorant" beliefs could be true. They almost at times accept they are true but qualify it with "it may be true but only because of [cop-out] circumstances and history". Don't cop-out. There are no alternate timelines. Reality is what it can only be. Any injustices or justices are part of reality, and denying reality is only symptomatic of a weak mind.

Are you saying his pessimism and metaphysics are good? It was the badass style and fearlessness of the Essays that Nietzsche borrowed most from.

Fuck off my board /pol/.

This.

Triggered, pussies?

Says the submissive nigger dick loving faggot.

>all _________ except the________

just another conservative philosopher covering up his contradictions

Polynesians had a decent culture especially for a people on remote islands

It's fine when people shill for Northern Indian and try to explain their success by them being Aryan like Europe despite the South being better in most possible ways.

>White
>Race