>Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.
Is based Schopenhauer right again?
WTF I hate chauvinism now
Schopenhauer is always right.
Excess pride, sure, but it is equally foolish to abandon one's nation and prostrate himself in front of Aliens, assuming they'd ever see you as anything other than a foreigner
of course
>(((Schopenhauer)))
Schopenhauer was racist and sexist, but it was part of his overall misanthropy and pessimism
honestly I will like any person no matter what they do as long as it's characterized by misanthropy and pessimism
Shit, I know niggas who don't even have nationalism
to fall back on. Sad!
>Arthur "my cat is simultaneously dead and alive" Schopenhauer
Fuck him
He's right as long as this argument isn't extended towards a defense of Western civilization, which is a set of ideas and traditions. You can defend these ideas without getting treated like an ethnonationalist, which is unfortunately the case today when people (rightfully imo) argue about Islam imposing itself on the West.
That's Schrodinger you fucking moron
"Every nation ridicules every other - and all are right."
Schopenhauer had some one-liners, and the kind of system to back them up.
Though he also had some help from Gracian, among others:
"Half the world laughs at the other half - and all are fools."
>this dope
Kek it's called "shopenhower's cat" for a reason, idiot!
no shopenhower's cat is the one in the pringles commercials
everyone who likes something I don't like is merely compensating for their small penis
[seals myself in rebuttal proof chamber for 1000 years]
Nationalism is a bit complex but this behavior is 100% applicable to sports fans. I've seen poor, dumb sports fans defend some random criminal nigger who wouldn't spit on them to death, just because he plays for their favorite team.
It's basically the same thing though. It's taking credit of the accomplishments with others.
wtf I hate my motherland now
No. Its belonging to a group and sharing an idenitity with other people. Its tribalism and completely natural and healthy as long as its not extreme.
tribalism's application to a nation is a perversion of the inherent social grouping humans have. A nation is too big to be part of "in-group". Might as well consider whole of humanity at that point.
>too big
Why? As long as you share the benefits of belonging to said nation as a whole, there is no reason why you shouldn't be both proud of it and defend it.
To be associated with a certain nation has real benefits.
>Is based Schopenhauer right again?
Yes.
There is a difference between being proud of the accomplishments of family members (which can be extended to the concept of nation) and claiming those accomplishments as if directly your own.
>called Chopin hour
>doesn't listen to Chopin at any hour of The day
HE WAS CONFLATING NATIONALISM WITH TRIBALISM, SO, NO, HIS OPINION IS ERRONEOUS.
Was it autism?
Stirner gets unfairly memed but he was right when he said the only social structures that make sense are the family and an egotist association.