But an examination of his life reveals a yearning for marriage frustrated by a train of rejections. In the year 1831...

>But an examination of his life reveals a yearning for marriage frustrated by a train of rejections. In the year 1831, Schopenhauer fell in love with a girl named Flora Weiss. At a boat party in Germany he made his advance by offering her a bunch of grapes. Flora’s diary records this event as follows: "I didn’t want the grapes because old Schopenhauer had touched them, so I let them slide, quite gently into the water." Apparently, she was underwhelmed.

>It-it is not that girls don't like... it j-just that I don't want to bring a baby to suffer in this world, you know?

>my life is suffering
>therefore, life is suffering

More like
>my life is suffering
>my life is not unique
>ergo, a new life is at best likely to suffer, and at worst bound to

Protip: Try arguing against this
Protip: You can't
Protip:

I GUESS YOU COULD SAY..........

THOSE WERE........

SOME

SOUR

GRAPES
G
R
A
P
E
S

Are all philosophers autistic, or is it only the European ones.

>generalizations work
Done.

heheheheh

>poor Schopes is doomed to have his epic btfoing by Flora Weiss retold, reexamined, and dissected by smirking undergraduates and precocious teenage wiki surfers until the end of time
>not suffering

>Are all philosophers autistic
All competent philosophers are.

Who /ever even tried at all/ here?

>non-European philosophers
I really, really, really, like this meme.

>normies will consider this a refutation

"Humans are better off not being born" isn't really an idea that can be "refuted" or "proven," user. It's an opinion.

Opinions aren't equal.

I never said they were, just that ideas of that variety cannot be "refuted" I'm the second way, say, the idea of tabula rasa can be refuted.

Doesn't change that he's right about pretty much everything.

>Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been - namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir; also that the moral (or immoral) intentions in every philosophy constituted the real germ of life from which the whole plant had grown.

>Indeed, if one would explain how the abstrusest metaphysical claims of a philosopher really came about, it is always well (and wise) to ask first: at what morality does all this (does he) aim? According, I do not believe that a "drive to knowledge" is the father of philosophy; but rather that another drive has, here as elsewhere employed understanding (and misunderstanding) as a mere instrument. But anyone who considers the basic drives of man to see to what extent they may have been at play just here as in inspiring spirits (or demons and kobolds) will find that all of them have done philosophy at some time - and that every single one of them would like only too well to represent just itself as the ultimate purpose of existence and the legitimate master of all the other drives. For every drive wants to be master - and it attempts to philosophize in that spirit.

Its more like a supporting argument

there is more to life than pleasure and pain

indeed, there is also mental pleasure and pain

Still better than Hegel