Who was in the wrong here?

Hegel was playing soccer but Schoppy was playing badminton.

Schopenhauer was fuming before his 2 or 3 students while Hegel was entirely unconscious that there even was a problem while delivering remarkably clear lectures to classes overflowing with students and interested persons from all over Europe and even the United States.

Schopenhauer > Hegel

/thread

S
>Every kind of love, however ethereal it may seem to be, springs entirely from the instinct of sex; indeed, it is absolutely this instinct, only in a more definite, specialised, and perhaps, strictly speaking, more individualised form. If, bearing this in mind, one considers the important rôle which love plays in all its phases and degrees, not only in dramas and novels, but also in the real world, where next to one’s love of life it shows itself as the strongest and most active of all motives; if one considers that it constantly occupies half the capacities and thoughts of the younger part of humanity, and is the final goal of almost every human effort; that it influences adversely the most important affairs; that it hourly disturbs the most earnest occupations; that it sometimes deranges even the greatest intellects for a time; that it is not afraid of interrupting the transactions of statesmen or the investigations of men of learning; that it knows how to leave its love-letters and locks of hair in ministerial portfolios and philosophical manuscripts; that it knows equally well how to plan the most complicated and wicked affairs, to dissolve the most important relations, to break the strongest ties; that life, health, riches, rank, and happiness are sometimes sacrificed for its sake; that it makes the otherwise honest, perfidious, and a man who has been hitherto faithful a betrayer, and, altogether, appears as a hostile demon whose object is to overthrow, confuse, and upset everything it comes across: if all this is taken into consideration one will have reason to ask —“Why is there all this noise?"

H
>Love means in general terms the consciousness of my unity with another, so that I am not in selfish isolation but win my self-consciousness only as the renunciation of my independence and through knowing myself as the unity of myself with another and of the other with me. Love, however, is feeling, i.e. ethical life in the form of something natural. In the state, feeling disappears; there we are conscious of unity as law; there the content must be rational and known to us. The first moment in love is that I do not wish to be a self-subsistent and independent person and that, if I were, then I would feel defective and incomplete. The second moment is that I find myself in another person, that I count for something in the other, while the other in turn comes to count for something in me. Love, therefore, is the most tremendous contradiction; the Understanding cannot resolve it since there is nothing more stubborn than this point (Punktualität) of self-consciousness which is negated and which nevertheless I ought to possess as affirmative. Love is at once the propounding and the resolving of this contradiction. As the resolving of it, love is unity of an ethical type.

o what a night
why'd it take so long to see the light
schopenhauer NOPE GWF was right
what a greentext what a night

based Hegel

Schopy being in conflict with Hegel is mostly an extension of his personal antipathy towards him.

yep Schopy was just mad that nobody went to his lectures and Hegel was always booked out

at least he brought us the concept of concrete negation and set the course for marx

whilst schoppi brought us the concept of negative pessimism and set the course for nietzsche

itt: people who didn't read paralipomena and parerga

LMAO!!! Absolutely bodied

yall Hegel fans are mere parerga

How do you know I haven't read it smart ass?

No doubt Schoppenhauer is a fantastic writer but although he has some good insights almost everything he says is coloured by his bitterness, narcissism and sense of alienation from the world and therefore have to reject it.

Hegel understood love because he obviously felt it at some point in his life, its unlikely that Schopenhauer ever did. So although I reject his conclusions I do sympathise with him.

Bitterness is the coward's revenge on the world for having been hurt.

Schopenhauer's legacy is basically that he's the only neo-Kantian who managed to do nothing of value with the neo-Kantian paradigm, and also encouraging Nietzsche to produce some great philosophy in the interest of showing how wrong Schopenhauer was.

And incontinence is the world's reward?

t. Nietzsche

Is THIS what he meant? I feel like most of what Hegel says is reverse-engineered Gnosis.

>niggas don't know about next-level metanoetic geometry

/thread

I was trying to dehegelize the illustration as much as possible...

The way I see Schopenhauer's legacy, to put it briskly, is that the "the-thing-in-itself" is the Will. For Arthur it is a blind striving, a compulsion that is master of reason. "We want something not because we have found reasons for it, but we find reasons for that which we want." That's why it's the world is SUFFERING- OMG! Arthur says the genius puts his intellect at use to pierce through the viel of maya to see the truth.

He gels whole philosophy starts here, with the genius, his nature, his role in history, his relationship with God and Spirit. Hegel wastes no time talking about idiots. So why does Arthur?

Reminds me of why Freud was so popular. He was essentially writing to the masses. Arthur even says "he who writes for idiots is guaranteed a large audience". What's ironic is that among pseuds its Schop and Neetchuh that are kings, and Hegel is left for a select breed. Why?

Hegel spends all his time dedicated to the work of He who embodies the World Spirit. It's for this reason he is elite even among elitist. Schoppy was trying to say "your missing out this huge chunk of shit", and was right. But I think in the same way Jung responded to Freud, Hegel does this intentionally. Freud, Neetchee and Schoppy are critical and brilliant, where as Hegel is just brilliant. It takes massive balls to say, Yes, I know I'm an idealist, fuck your reality with all its pain and suffering.

>Through consciousness spirit intervenes in the way the world is ruled. This is its infinite tool - then there are bayonets, cannon, bodies. But the banner [of philosophy] and the soul of its commander is spirit. Neither bayonets, nor money, neither this trick nor that, are the ruler. They are necessary like the cogs and wheels in a clock, but their soul is time and spirit that subordinates matter to its laws. An Iliad is not thrown together at random, neither is a great deed composed of bayonets and cannon: it is spirit that is the composer.

>Hegel wastes no time talking about idiots. So why does Arthur?
>among pseuds its SSchop and Neetchuh that are kings, and Hegel is left for a select breed. Why?
Because all the non-idiots were in Hegel's classroom, not in Schopenhauer's.

Schopenhauer was a much better writer but he was a bitter brainlet compared to the H-god.

Depends on how you perceive it honestly.
Hegel influenced THINKERS.
Schopenhauer influenced ARTISTS.

Strange way to put it but i think i get what you mean.

...

>he doesn't know that Hegel was a practicing occultist

Of course his stuff is going to sound Gnostic.

Kek

BOTH OF THEM

>soccer
>badminton

Do u have to wave your EU flag in every post

>when the austism is strong but the heart is right
Hegel is the philosopher we deserve, but not the one we need right now.

yeah. this.

sadly.

>Be influenced by Buddhism
>According to Buddhism the thing that puts Buddhism above other dhammas is insight into dependent origination
>Still try to make one thing more vital than the other anyway
You fucked it at all up Arthur. You convinced Freddy Buddhism was for defeatists and made him go on about values and how mean Christianity is while not filling the void of a God that never existed. You could have helped him recover from what he saw in Stirner. We coulda had class, instead of being a failed civilization, which is what we are, let's face it. It was you Arthur.

Schopenhauer was playing tic tac toe but Hegel was playing hopscotch.

SMASH*CRASH!
Now thats how I'm gonna be in the world. Don't you ever preach that way to me! Idealist, Dreamer, Charlatan!; Those kind of words have been on your tongue and your servants tongue just too much around here. What do you think you are? A pair of saints? Now just remember what JC said - that every Man is a child of God - and I'm the Man around here, and don't you forget it.