Why did Nietzche really turn on based Schopenhauer in the end?
Was Schop too real for every High School freshman's favorite philosopher to handle?
> yfw you realize Schopenhauer would have btfo of Neet like he did Hegel if they had been contemporaries
Everyone eventually grows out of ol' Schope, it usually happens around the age of 18.
>implying a subhuman like yourself even got what Schopenhauer had to say
Listen, friend. I like the man a'ight! I've read the essays, all that nonsense about noise and women! I liked it alright, and I've read the world as will! I liked it a'ight! But I'm just saying it's not for me anymore its not for me, anymore yeah, slicka? ! Aigh!
>it's not for me anymore
It's not a matter of "anymore", since what Schopenhauer describes coincides with modern neuroscience.
Humans are not reasonable creatures. They're to great extends controlled by the subconscious parts of their brains.
And all he says about women is fairly close to reality as well.
I am not an atheist
But if truly God doesn't exist as a conscious entity.
IMO Schopenhauer's atheistic worldview makes the most sense of the world overall.
> That's right Spinoza you can fuck off.
I don't agree, I tend to take the Humean approach with regards to cause and effect. I disagree about the capacity for Science to tell us anything about what we ought to morally or intelligently do.
>I don't agree, I tend to take the Humean approach with regards to cause and effect. I disagree about the capacity for Science to tell us anything about what we ought to morally or intelligently do.
Uh wait wat are you trying to say here?
>I disagree about the capacity for Science to tell us anything about what we ought to morally or intelligently do.
I got that much. And I find it even more amusing that someone like you is talking about "growing up".
>no arguments provided
There is no need for an argument when your opponent says "I don't believe in science". If you don't accept the premise then any kind of reasoning is futile. I'd explain it to you but you probably don't believe in logical reasoning either.
I'm just trying to get you to explain what you're talking about, because I couldn't make head nor tails of it
I said I don't believe science can tell us about what to do morally.
Do you have dyslexia? And by the way, I don't believe in science or logic, lol!
Read 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' or Hume's Is-Ought problem.
en.wikisource.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
>I said I don't believe science can tell us about what to do morally.
In response to me saying that a lot that Schopenhauer says makes sense when interpreted within the context of modern neuroscience.
So what are you trying to say?
That you're wrong.
Modern Neuroscience is wrong.
It is all wrong.
Then what I said in fully applies.
Enjoy following something which makes no sense outside of its field. You'll change your tune once you accept the analytics then go beyond even them.
Schopenhauer was too pessimistic for him.
Science makes perfect sense outside of its field since it takes a look at phenomena that anyone can perceive if he has two functional eyes.
4umi.com
The soothsayer is Schopenhauer.
He didn't exactly "turn on him". He just dismissed him because he had different tastes. But Zarathustra admits to being a soothsayer as well.
Why don't you just fucking read what Nietzsche said on the topic instead of posting memes on Veeky Forums.
Schopenhauer is a hypocrite. He was probably one of the cruelest people to ever call theirself a philosopher and he had the gall to say that "compassion" was the basis of morality. Maybe the reason he was so pessimistic about everything is because he knew he was a total piece of shit.
Prove to me the Sun will come up tomorrow objectively without conjecture:^)
Prove to me things in the future will always act as they did in the past :^)
Prove to me that there is a reason to believe that science follows a particular method when in order to do such a thing would require knowing every observable fact :^)
Prove to me that science is in any way more objectively valid than my shit :^)
Science does not "prove". The "proof" is a concept that only exists in mathematics. Science uses puts hypotheses to the test and gathers supportive and contradictory evidence in order to decide whether something is plausible or not.
And I've already told you: if you don't accept the premise that science allows us to learn more about how the real world works and fits together then there's no need to discuss. If you want to be retarded then I can't help you.
Thanks.
I was actually leading you down a rabbit-hole. I know Science doesn't claim to prove anything, I just wanted you to admit it.
Thanks for making my point. Science is belief :^).
How is compassion not the basis of morality?
Humans are animals that live in groups and we've evolved mechanisms that aid us in that. Compassion is one of these mechanisms. And all morality is grounded in this primordial instinctual behaviour.
To me that makes a lot of sense.
If you think this was something people had to "admit" you clearly don't understand what you're talking about (not that anyone here still has doubts). Science not "proving" anything is part of the scientific method. Even mathematics only proves within its own context and under the premise of (unverified) axioms.
In the end, science is as much belief as anything else is belief.
However, it is belief that is backed by perceivable phenomena. If you have two eyes and if you would agree that your eyes allow you to perceive the real world that surrounds you, then it would be reasonable to also believe in science.
There is no such thing as the scientific method.
Stop jacking off Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn and read Feyeraband who blows them all to smithereens.
I didn't give an opinion on whether it was either way. I'm saying that Schopenhauer is bad because he fails to live up to what he says is right even in the most trivial, banal ways.
I find it immensely amusing when someone claims to not believe in science and the scientific method while posting on the internet.
The scientific method works. Science works. It produces functional results that are perceivable to us all.
I don't think Schopenhauer dishes out imperatives left and right like Kant. He does not say that you absolutely must do this or that. He's mopy and always sees negative qualities. But in-between that qualitative evaluation, there is razor sharp analysis of a man who sees the world clearer and understands it better than most others. He just looks at it through the goggles of pessimist. Personally, I agree in many things with Schopenhauer but I don't see many of them as negative at all.
Again, read Feyeraband.
I don't think Feyerabend is going to make me throw my computer away because I'm going to stop believing in its functionality.
All right Tom Cruise, time for bed.
>a proponent of Feyeraband
Straight into the trash.
>He was probably one of the cruelest people to ever call theirself a philosopher
source?
Probably he is referring to the Marquet affair
>Obit anus, abit onus
Isn't btfo of other philosophers kind of what philosophers do?
If you agreed with them, then what would be the point of publishing your own works?