Has anyone in human history been more essentially right than this sad fuck?

>three unstoppable forces:
>Plato, Kant, and Buddha

We had a lecture on his Schopenhaurian economic theories today.

I'm really confused. Can someone summarize his philosophy. I can't understand his writings and I've tried researching online and every description sounds different

I don't recall Schopenhauer even touching economics.

I can't imagine he has any theories beyond "Don't let your whore mum squander the inheritance bequeathed unto you by your dad with her stupid fucking parties."

Genuinely kek'd. Thanks user.

Ontology: Representation. The world as we know it is the result of synthetic a priori concepts - space, time, and causality. The world makes sense because of its relationship to our principle of sufficient reason, which is primarily formative and law-giving. Even though this principle of sufficient reason is most of what we know there's also a metaphysical force called Will which is in everything vegetable, mineral, and animal. As a force it is blind, hungry, and unreasonable to the utmost. It's what determines our motivations, which are tied to our characters.

Ethics: Man can do what he will but can't will what he will. Your character is predetermined and the strongest motivation inside you is what guides every single action you make. Lovers gonna love, murderers gonna murder, greedy gonna greed. We don't have free will because of this simple law of determinism. We only think we have free will because we can alter the means by which we strive to get something pleasurable, however can never consciously decide what will please us or if we want it or not. We're animals because we are slaves to the blind, dumb Will.

The exception to this rule is the Saint, who denies the Will to the extent that he goes out in search of suffering and displeasure. He sees the Will for what it is, an ugly, unconscious mess, and starves it. He sees that the Will connects all things, and that each individual thing, even non-living, is a part of this universal Willing which yearns and strives. As a result of his awareness and stifling of the Will he can act without self-love and do lots of good charitable work. The ultimate Saint is the one who overcomes the body, which itself is a manifestation of Will, by starving and mortifying himself.

When people die for Schopenhauer there is no soul. Just a void. When you die you become what you were before you were born, before you were a piece of Will: nothing.

Aesthetics: Looking at art is a small consolation, a bit like a taste of Sainthood. When you look at art (besides music) you silence the Will for a very brief moment while contemplating beauty. The art has to be beautiful rather than sensual, because sexy nudes or appetizing paintings of dinner spreads can excite the Will. As something aconceptual yet enticing, music itself is pure Will, which is why it infects people with emotions so easily. The artist's duty is to use his genius to represent the Will in a true to life way, so that we can understand character and Will for what it is.

>Lovers gonna love.

fukken saved ...thanks a lot user. Made me feel better about still being in love with my bitch whore of an ex.

SCHOPENHAUER MORE LIKE NOPENHAUER LMAO!

I just found out it's actually Schumpeter and I thought the professor was saying Schopenhauer the whole time.

4 years and counting. In a relationship since January and still dreaming about her.
I know your pain my man.

Can you both elaborate? I ask because I have been extremely confused recently about my feelings towards a girl who simply does not give a shit about me. We were in a relationship and I tried my best to be the best person for her. I felt very strongly about her because she was one of the very very very few people who had decided to let me be close to them (and put up with my garbage self). I think it was my first real relationship in that the other had shown at least some sort of interest in having me around them.

However,it became very apparent to me that she didn't feel nearly as strongly about me. She began ignoring me and bluntly tells me she doesn't care the few times I've accidentally felt like talking about something related to my life instead of hers. (I tried to go with it because I felt that it's best to unconditionally love someone without any expectations. But even then she expressed contempt.)

I don't understand why I still feel so strongly about her despite her callous indifference and complete disregard for me. How can one feel so much love for a person who treats the other like a piece of disposable trash. It ends up causing so much disappointment and pain.

Maybe it's because I have no self esteem. But I don't know. I just want to find a way to stop caring so much about someone or stop caring about people and relationships. My life would be so much simpler and easy and less painful if I could figure out a way to consciously attach less value to human relationships. And if I could figure out how the fuck to move on from someone like her.

I think all the misery and pain that comes from loneliness and the need for relationships and companionship can be removed if we could consciously choose to attach lesser value to these things.

That sounds painful user. Sadly, you can't just stop caring about someone. If she keeps treating you like shit, time will do its work, but I can't tell how to do it.
We broke up four years ago. I moved for her and the relationship ended the same month. I decided to stay in town alone and met my two best friends there. The first two and a half years were hell itself. Then I started to get better and had sex with a couple of girls, some of who got attached to me and ended up hating me because I couldn't reciprocate.
This February I met my girlfriend and we began dating shortly after. She's a beautiful woman that loves me as no one has ever loved me before. All my fantasies are incarnated in her, as she does whatever I tell her to do and when I say whatever, I mean it. There's no limit. She's completely devoted to me. An intelligent and funny person too. But I can't love her as she deserves, and that's because of my ex. Is not that I'm still in love with her, because I'm not. Is just that I feel incapable of loving someone as much as I loved her again.
I don't cry for my ex anymore. This year I woke up crying only two or three times. She's happily living with her boyfriend.
Our relationship ended because we destroyed it. It was unsalvageable and I can't stop mourning the last day I saw her. On top of that, I hate myself for not loving my girlfriend as much as I'd like to.

Keep in mind that I'm 28 years old and my ex is 32. It wasn't kids' first love or anything like that.

>I don't understand why I still feel so strongly about her despite her callous indifference and complete disregard for me.
People don't fall in love with people, they fall in narratives. You are still clinging to the narrative that could have been.

>Maybe it's because I have no self esteem.
You don't need self-esteem, you need to ease into being who you are, faults included. That is the first step.

>And if I could figure out how the fuck to move on from someone like her.
Simple: find a new narrative for your life's story that fascinates you. The more you go out and meet new people, the easier this becomes.

>I think all the misery and pain that comes from loneliness and the need for relationships and companionship can be removed if we could consciously choose to attach lesser value to these things.
But would that result in a story for your life that you would like? Go out and find someone who appreciates you. You're bound to stumble into their lives sooner or later, if you just go out and meet people.

>Is just that I feel incapable of loving someone as much as I loved her again.
Bullshit. It's just a matter of inspiration. The day it comes you will eat your words here.

THE CRINGIEST SADDEST VIRGIN ON THIS ENTIRE EARTH RETURNS WITH FIRE (THE ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER RANT)

Theo the Atheist, but Schope is okay

I will not. Of course the day will come and I'll love the same or even more that I once did, but right now that's the case. I'm incapable until I can stop making her the personification and cause of all my problems and failures.

>Plato, Kant, and Buddha
>unstoppable forces

>until I can stop making her the personification and cause of all my problems and failures
Then just simply stop doing so. You're just one stupid human and she's another stupid human. You both failed, and failure is normal state of humans. Time to move on.

I lost sleep over that thought many times. I just can't feel it. But it's ok user. I'm ok. I'm working, studying and reading. That's way better than spending complete weeks in bed, right?

He is just mad because women are stronger than men.

They can live in the moment and choose not to give a fuck

unlike the brooding, constantly angry, and bitter manchildren (aka schopenhaur)

I'm not saying that he is wrong but I just can't agree with any true pessimist philosophy. I believe it just comes down to personal temperament: someone is a weak, sad fuck like Schopenhauer, someone is a strong, sad fuck like his beloved ascetics, someone is a weak, happy fuck, a hedonist, someone is a strong, happy fuck...

I like my will, I don't want to kill it nor do I see this "sainthood" as anything desirable. It seems like a choice for a weakling, who must of course be quite a strong weakling to actually pursue it.

> On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness.

Try reading something slightly cynical. I recently read, and absolutely loved, Thackeray, "Vanity Fair".

Seems like a ridiculous claim, frankly. No matter what, men have been the causers of much more injustice than women.

If women are untrustworthy and self-centered, they are that in a somewhat of a healthy way.

women are subhumans but so are most men

These "philosophers" that shit on women are akin to the modern /r9k/ dweller

in reality i prefer women over men. At least i can perv over a woman, or possibly fuck her.

Other males are just competition.

women are barely even properly self-conscious. they can't be ethical beings and conceive of justice because they're too dumb and shallow

yet they do much less harm than men

nor does rabbits or rocks, but they're still inferior to men

Shut the fuck up Davis Aurini

Scarcely, but he is often very misunderstood and doesn't take the next step after realizing the futility and transience of pleasures. He offers no sufficient solutions to the problems he posits that would affect societal change.

So he is one who gives up, and relinquishes the real will, rather than embracing it?

Forgive my uneducated plebery, but could you elaborate? That flew over my head. There are so many ideas of will between existentialists.

In Nietzschean terms: he denies life rather than affirming it?

Yes, Nietzsche hits the nail on the head, in my mind, when he says basically Schopenhauer focuses far too much on the unpleasant physical experiences of life and is just another nihilist who is rooted too far in his own misfortune.

Perhaps other than aesthetics Schopenhauers personal interpretations of metaphysics may include unwarranted ignorance in regards to the reasoning used for promoting pessimism.

well this guy actually affects your life in some minor way, the women of his time don't

God almighty, they are making me read Beauvoir and Fanon in a section on Existentialism. Kill me.

because they were stronger and had a bigger impact on life.

please write that again but in plebian, I don't speak subtle patrician irony or whatever

I'm being made to read African Marxists and Femenist Marxists in a class about 19th century German thought for the purpose of being "global". They are pants on head retarded political theorists and not existentialists like Schopenhauer.

You're retarded.

>it's an /r9k/ talks about women over and over again episode

post your feet

Post your unwanted body

I wish I could censor books

it would be wonderful to erase "On Women" from existence, it would make Schopenhauer discussions so much better

You wouldn't want that.

But user, it's his Magnum Opus.

You're right I wouldn't want that. But I'm disgustingly curious.

*ironically unwanted

>People don't fall in love with people, they fall in narratives. You are still clinging to the narrative that could have been.

That's such a bold statement and goes against a huge amount of literature that strongly proposes that people fall in love with people.

Can you care to elaborate more on this? Why do you think that it's narratives that people cling to and not people?

>Go out and find someone who appreciates you.
Easier said than done. Not many people exist who can love or appreciate someone who's a total piece of repulsive garbage.

Yes, everyone who is pessimistic without relying on some spooky idealism.

that's because they lack competence and power, not because they are virtuous

for example?
what was Schopenhauer's spooky idealism?

Hegel, Kierkegaard, Rousseau, Camus, Heidegger, Foucault. Literally anyone who isn't meme-tier. Actually, even Fedorarich Knee-chucks.

Schopenhauer is hardly meme tier.

Nietzsche is meme tier. Schopenhauer isn't widely known outside of Veeky Forums, or rather Veeky Forums if we're being generous.

>Schopenhauer isn't widely known outside of Veeky Forums
uh, which is exactly why he is meme-tier. he is given an overly big amount of attention here largely due to the "redpilled" /pol/cucks loving him and then it causing such controversy. (or maybe just because he is relatively accessible as far as philosophers go; easy for literature nuts to get into)

of course, he is nonetheless an important one and widely known among those who care about philosophy.

stirner is another relatively obscure (even more so than schop) guy who is meme-tier here

Nietzsche is incredibly well known and also misunderstood, but the attention we give to him isn't in any way disproportionate.

Hegel is a meme

If popularity, or lack thereof, is the measure with which you decide someone is meme tier, then at least 50% of the philosophers you listed would also qualify.

Does anyone know why he was so reluctant to talk about spirituality? He sounded (and looked) like a hard boiled desert prophet and most people with that kind distance from the Will/Ego tend to be very aware of...certain things.

Was he infected by the meme of Materialism? Or simply refused to confine the ineffable to hard language?

What makes you think the Saint is weak? Like you said, they seem very strong. Asceticism is very hard, and probably scary too because an ascetic must continuously have doubt injected into their mind by the pain of their practice. Their body will always be telling them that their resistance is foolish and they should give in to normal needs.

Neecha

I like to view humans as the results of their upbringings and free will doesnt exist because we make decisions based on our immediate rational and nothing more. That being said, determinism is false.

He is a sceptic at heart. His talk of will comes closer to notions of spirit, but not in the ways you seem to indicate. Neither a spiritualist or a materialist, really.

Wishful thinking.

Kierkegaard? How?

Why is it false?

Might as well not have posted

There's literally nothing wrong with being a meme. It has no bearing on a person's actually philosophy

Fuckers don't understand that a meme is not a meme because it's right or wrong, but simply because it appears continuously.

Neecheh

You must go to a GREAT college.

> he is relatively accessible as far as philosophers go; easy for literature nuts to get into

Not at all when it comes to his core principles, innovations, and influences. His later, more popularized style especially is basically literary and cultural criticism, and so you're right insofar as those writings offer an easy overlap with lit nuts - but not insofar as those writings don't discuss his deepest metaphysics and metaethics and phenomenology, and even *depart* from them in quasi-contradictory ways (as Schopenhauer admits in Aphorisms for the Wisdom of Life).

> Does anyone know why he was so reluctant to talk about spirituality?

He talked about it plenty - analyses of Abrahamic and eastern religions, explanations for the universality of spiritual curiosity and speculation among societies, feelings of divine oneness or self-abolition during meditation and the grains of truth that mysticism might contain - usually from a critical and atheistic point of view, but also reverentially in important places; he believed that several religions in their own ways had uncovered important truths about morality, such as the compassion of Christ, and the illusory quality of our bodily separation from other moral agents, which Hinduism calls the veil of Maya.

> Was he infected by the meme of Materialism?

Not significantly - he thought it was absurd to claim that matter could exist independently of minds to perceive such matter - impossible that human consciousness could *merely* be the result of cumulative physical processes and evolutions.

>They can live in the moment and choose not to give a fuck

You've never interacted with a woman, huh? You certainly have never observed a group of them. Almost all women are completely incapable of mindfulness or self-awareness outside of a very superficial concern of how others in the immediate vicinity perceive them.

This, and in particular, appears HERE constantly.

If you can't see that Schopenhauer is a meme philosopher of Veeky Forums, ur silly.

Neetsckuh

>not automatically mistrusting any woman you form a relationship with and building a wall between yourself and your partners
Doesn't mean hate her or be sexist, just realize that "love" is just a word we use to describe an unremarkable mixture of lust and friendship - one that can sever at any time. Most women cheat on their husbands. Literally more than 50%. Always remember that.

100% proof that schopenhauer was a cringey edgelord who had no special knowledge of the world around him to write about:
youtube.com/watch?v=7GpT6ycHoMA

Worst post itt