I’ve read some of his essays on pessimism and now I’m reading Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (in English). He seems to make a lot of sense, is very pyschological, and has an easy reading and romantic air about his style.
He seems to have been overshadowed by Hegel and is a lost gold mine. lol I read somewhere that he scheduled his lectures the same time as Hegel’s and no one came.
What do you think of Schopenhauer?
You should read his book of essays; they’re fun.
Schopenhauer was a genius. A crankypants to be sure, but brilliant nonetheless.
Possibly one of the better “Stylist” in philosophy.
“fourfold root of sufficient reason” is pretty dam
boring, but the rest is decent.
Although I prefer Kierkegaard as writer.
Kropotkin
What language did you read him in, Pete? Is it his writing or the translators you’re critiquing?
Arh yes brother, I hear you. The man is a genius!
He did in fact schedule his lectures at the same time as Hegel. Schopenhauer despised him, he fired shots at him quite often. For example, I just finished reading “On the Basis of Morality” which is an essay he wrote for a competition for the Danish Academy, and in the ‘preface to the first edition’ there is page after page of venom being spewed towards Hegel. I’ve never read anything like it from a philosopher, it makes Nietzsche’s attacks on philosophers seem quite sedate.
I recently posted an essay on called “A Genealogy of Schopenhauer’s Pessimism” in the “Essays and Theses” thread if you want to read it.
His beautiful articulation on how all happiness is an illusion will never leave my mind. In a word, perfection!
I’ve read the fourfold root and Die Welt als, and I’d certainly agree that he writes very well and keeps the reader interested. My favourite “book” was the third one, which has influenced my thinking on the arts quite a lot, and I liked the first two books too. I think he went off the rails with the fourth book though (this is mainly coz I’m not convinced by his principium individuationis), which has unfortunately got some howlers in wrt modern science.
I must get round to reading his essays.
The guy wrote a lot about women, and I imagine that he made many observations that were true based on his time period. I believe that any man that knows women will see some truth to what he says, but it’s not the whole truth. It certainly could have been back then though.
Also, he, as far as I can see, created the theory of evolution. The basics of it at least, and was exploring the reasons why women are in the form that they are. What is its function he asked.
I believe that a man like that is cranky because his thought process is so vastly different than the people of his time that he simply has no one to relate to.
Can anyone relate to that?
Nothingness,
Though I could stand corrected, he’s the only modern/post-modern philosopher that really embraced the ‘phenomenology’ associated with music and Being. He acquiesced to saying no philosopher really understood the origins/effect or otherwise ‘essence’ of that [music] impact/feeling it has on us.
His thoughts about the phenomenology viz. what is the essence of our Will as an existential ‘thing’ (existing/inherent to our consciousness) , are insiteful too. For instance, his writings and thoughts about the so-called tension of existence (aka: our ordinary life of striving) that permeates our daily stream of consciousness, are parts of his great works I think. The Will.
Like a lot of them from his time, I’d ignore all the pessimism stuff… .
Also the basic concept of his work The World As Will and Idea is that the world is based on perception. That idea set the tone for many ideas in psychology, cognitive science, and philosophy.
He was amazing.
Very much in line with the following:
“O ye who believe! When ye contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writing … And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember.” (Quran -2:282)
Phaedrus: What language did you read him in, Pete? Is it his writing or the translators you’re critiquing?"
K:I read him in English although I have a modest, and emphasize
the word modest, understanding of german, having taken german
in JC.
Kropotkin
Here’s another thing that can be “awesomeâ€:
Overcoming the despair Schopenhauer exemplified - embracing life instead of denying it.
Yes, by accepting certain subtle truths that we aren’t so perfect as we believe ourselves to be…
One embraced imperfection when one embraces life.
One’s own imperfections become motives to act and overcome.
What’s the point of not practising what one preaches?
One should practice more and preach less.
But sometimes the sermon reveals things the individual wants to avoid practicing so preaching is all that’s left for him to practice.
In other words, that reveals another very grave human weakness. Back to point zero. Argument becomes circular.
Efficiency dictates that man can only act on speculation and generality.
If man were to learn by his own errors alone or from his own actions alone, then he would be a buffoon.
Man learns from studying patterns. Other people’s actions and experiences become part of these patterns.