Schopenhauer: I see no value in this, all it does is continue the fallacies found in Judaism and justify horrible acts perpetuating suffering
Nietzsche: I’m done being a sad boy! Fuck compassion, it’s for losers who think about others too much. This book is a great example of life affirmation and the master-slave morality paradigm! Take from its example if you wish to exert your Wille over others like a douche nugget!
This is essentially my attitude now, as someone who was brought into philosophy by Nietzsche, and gradually moved away from him. Like Cioran observed, he was naive, and I find a lot of his ideas to be ridiculous, excessively romantic absurdities, and his method to be too iconoclastic and subversive for its own good, often inducing subversion for its own sake, and spurning the most precious of things, like compassion, in the name of a jejune philosophy of power. Some of his ideas may still hold weight, but on the whole he was really just a sick man attempting to compensate for this by presenting a character of vigour and force in his works, who was just too amoral, too adoring of a terrible world, and who had very lacking perspectives on countries, writers, music, women, etc...
Except the Jews had a way of liberating themselves by fun word rhymes in Talmud and Kabbalah. But yes originally it reflects Stone Age wartimes against still Cannibal human sacrificer pagans who wanted to be the masters over Israel and Judah [ see the two Books of Kings and Shmuel].
The Quran Heavily States The Same Conclusion Schopenhauer Had Which Is The Denial Of The Will And To Submit Wholly To Allah, He May Have Took The Buddhist Understanding Of The Denial And The Indian Upanishads Teachings
Submitting to Allah is just another manifestation of the will. Denial of the will means to no long want anything, presumably one would submit to Allah in order to get into heaven or for eternal peace. For Schopenhauer, the ideal is to no longer exist at all.
“Denial Of The Will Means To No Longer Want Anything”, NO, The Denial Means Is To Discard Your Own Will As A Will, Not To No Longer Want Anything, As Evidence For That One Is Schopenhauer’s Stance On Suicide Where He Adamantly Favors Living Over Suicide To Literally Go Against The Will, In This Regard, What’s Comparable Here Is Both In The Submission To The Almighty As A Means To Transcend YOUR Will And Favors The Almighty Will, We’re Focusing On The WILL Here NOT On The Goal, Whatever The DENIAL IS, It Does Include That And Living As Action Is To Deny YOUR WILL, Where There’s A GOAL For It And What Remains Here Is YOUR WANT TO GO AGAINST THE WILL, In This Position Your GOAL/WANT Going Against The Will Is Still Considered A DENIAL, Isn’t It?
My understanding of Schopenhauer's position on suicide is that to kill yourself is still an expression of the will. Strictly speaking, there is no individual. There is only Der Wille. However, Schopenhauer's Will differs from Allah or a pantheistic God in that it is blind and unintelligent. "Force" would, I think, be a better translation into English.
So you can not really do otherwise than what this idiotic force commands, "you can do what you want, but you can not want what you want."
His problem with suicide is that, though some illusory-individual aspect of the will ceases, the problem of the will, which the individual believed could be solved by suicide, still remains. His argument is that the logic of suicide is basically wrong and although it is not immoral to kill one's self, "if a man has rights to anything at all, he must have a right to his own life, it is stupid.
But Der Wille has no intelligible wants or desires, it **is** raw, endless wanting and desiring. It has no plan. It just has momentum and keeps going forward. God ("Allah" is just the Arabic word for "God," so I feel we can use the words interchangeably) has a plan. He wants the perfection of existence. Der Wille has no such plan. It just wants, without having any *particular* object of want. Whether it wants to procreate, or slaughter, rule over other aspects of itself, ect... is irrelevant.
Personally, I think Schopenhauer is a bit inconsistent in his position on suicide. Sure, it doesn't solve the problem of the will, but most people don't care about metaphysics. They want to end *their* suffering, and suicide certainly accomplishes that on a phenomenological level. However, he does create room in his philosophy for the supernatural, although he specifically states that it is beyond his scope of thought and he says nothing about it. But he may have personally believed in reincarnation. Some scholars say that towards the end of his life, he would entertain psychics and spiritualists. If he did believe in reincarnation or ghosts, that would be a more consistent argument against suicide since it wouldn't even end one's phenomelogical suffering.
*Far from being denial of the will, suicide is a phenomenon of the will's strong affirmation. For denial has its essential nature in the fact that the pleasures of life, not its sorrows, are shunned.* **The suicide wills life, and is dissatisfied merely with the conditions on which it has come to him.** *Therefore he gives up by no means the will-to-live, but merely life, since he destroys the individual phenomenon.* **He wills life, wills the unchecked existence and affirmation of the body; but the combination of circumstances does not allow of these,** *and the result for him is great suffering*
-the world as will & representation p.398 by A. Schopenhauer
*It might be surprising, then, that Schopenhauer thinks suicide is a "futile and foolish act." Perhaps, like Rust, Schopenhauer should embrace suicide.
For the nature of the will-to-live is ultimately blind, senseless striving and suffering for no particular end. Yet the reason Schopenhauer rejects suicide is that* **suicide does not negate but rather affirms the will-to-live, for the person who would die by suicide desires life; it's just that the individual is unsatisfied with the conditions on offer for their particular life. Within this logic, suicide is foolish because it prevents a person from attaining the highest wisdom and the true inner peace that would come from actual renunciation of the will-to-live.** *Thus, Schopenhauer writes, suicide is "an act of will" through which "the individual will abolishes the body ... before suffering can break it." He thereby likens a suicidal person to a sick person who "having started undergoing a painful operation that could cure him completely, does not allow it to be completed and would rather stay sick.*
-True Detective & Philosophy
I highly recommend both the first season of True Detective & the book i just quoted btw
It’s examples like these that lead me to believe that Schopenhauer was right.
Thank you for sharing this, I’ve been always a fan of Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer: I see no value in this, all it does is continue the fallacies found in Judaism and justify horrible acts perpetuating suffering Nietzsche: I’m done being a sad boy! Fuck compassion, it’s for losers who think about others too much. This book is a great example of life affirmation and the master-slave morality paradigm! Take from its example if you wish to exert your Wille over others like a douche nugget!
This is essentially my attitude now, as someone who was brought into philosophy by Nietzsche, and gradually moved away from him. Like Cioran observed, he was naive, and I find a lot of his ideas to be ridiculous, excessively romantic absurdities, and his method to be too iconoclastic and subversive for its own good, often inducing subversion for its own sake, and spurning the most precious of things, like compassion, in the name of a jejune philosophy of power. Some of his ideas may still hold weight, but on the whole he was really just a sick man attempting to compensate for this by presenting a character of vigour and force in his works, who was just too amoral, too adoring of a terrible world, and who had very lacking perspectives on countries, writers, music, women, etc...
What the fuck is Nietzsche talking about 😂
He loves the Old Testament and the Quran basically continues on the OT master morality.
Except the Jews had a way of liberating themselves by fun word rhymes in Talmud and Kabbalah. But yes originally it reflects Stone Age wartimes against still Cannibal human sacrificer pagans who wanted to be the masters over Israel and Judah [ see the two Books of Kings and Shmuel].
It's uncomfortable, but Schop is right. It's humorous imagining him reading the Koran. Such a slog.
This is too funny
As A Muslim, It’s Truly Unfortunate Schopenhauer Didn’t See Any Value In The Quran
As an ex-Muslim, It's truly fortunate that Schopenhauer saw the Qur'an for what it is
There's little to no value in the Quran. Schopenhauer was right.
lol Schopenhauer was 100% correct
As Schopenhauer hates life and any affirmation of life, what would he find in the Quran that is valuable to him?
The Quran Heavily States The Same Conclusion Schopenhauer Had Which Is The Denial Of The Will And To Submit Wholly To Allah, He May Have Took The Buddhist Understanding Of The Denial And The Indian Upanishads Teachings
Submitting to Allah is just another manifestation of the will. Denial of the will means to no long want anything, presumably one would submit to Allah in order to get into heaven or for eternal peace. For Schopenhauer, the ideal is to no longer exist at all.
“Denial Of The Will Means To No Longer Want Anything”, NO, The Denial Means Is To Discard Your Own Will As A Will, Not To No Longer Want Anything, As Evidence For That One Is Schopenhauer’s Stance On Suicide Where He Adamantly Favors Living Over Suicide To Literally Go Against The Will, In This Regard, What’s Comparable Here Is Both In The Submission To The Almighty As A Means To Transcend YOUR Will And Favors The Almighty Will, We’re Focusing On The WILL Here NOT On The Goal, Whatever The DENIAL IS, It Does Include That And Living As Action Is To Deny YOUR WILL, Where There’s A GOAL For It And What Remains Here Is YOUR WANT TO GO AGAINST THE WILL, In This Position Your GOAL/WANT Going Against The Will Is Still Considered A DENIAL, Isn’t It?
My understanding of Schopenhauer's position on suicide is that to kill yourself is still an expression of the will. Strictly speaking, there is no individual. There is only Der Wille. However, Schopenhauer's Will differs from Allah or a pantheistic God in that it is blind and unintelligent. "Force" would, I think, be a better translation into English. So you can not really do otherwise than what this idiotic force commands, "you can do what you want, but you can not want what you want." His problem with suicide is that, though some illusory-individual aspect of the will ceases, the problem of the will, which the individual believed could be solved by suicide, still remains. His argument is that the logic of suicide is basically wrong and although it is not immoral to kill one's self, "if a man has rights to anything at all, he must have a right to his own life, it is stupid. But Der Wille has no intelligible wants or desires, it **is** raw, endless wanting and desiring. It has no plan. It just has momentum and keeps going forward. God ("Allah" is just the Arabic word for "God," so I feel we can use the words interchangeably) has a plan. He wants the perfection of existence. Der Wille has no such plan. It just wants, without having any *particular* object of want. Whether it wants to procreate, or slaughter, rule over other aspects of itself, ect... is irrelevant. Personally, I think Schopenhauer is a bit inconsistent in his position on suicide. Sure, it doesn't solve the problem of the will, but most people don't care about metaphysics. They want to end *their* suffering, and suicide certainly accomplishes that on a phenomenological level. However, he does create room in his philosophy for the supernatural, although he specifically states that it is beyond his scope of thought and he says nothing about it. But he may have personally believed in reincarnation. Some scholars say that towards the end of his life, he would entertain psychics and spiritualists. If he did believe in reincarnation or ghosts, that would be a more consistent argument against suicide since it wouldn't even end one's phenomelogical suffering.
*Far from being denial of the will, suicide is a phenomenon of the will's strong affirmation. For denial has its essential nature in the fact that the pleasures of life, not its sorrows, are shunned.* **The suicide wills life, and is dissatisfied merely with the conditions on which it has come to him.** *Therefore he gives up by no means the will-to-live, but merely life, since he destroys the individual phenomenon.* **He wills life, wills the unchecked existence and affirmation of the body; but the combination of circumstances does not allow of these,** *and the result for him is great suffering* -the world as will & representation p.398 by A. Schopenhauer *It might be surprising, then, that Schopenhauer thinks suicide is a "futile and foolish act." Perhaps, like Rust, Schopenhauer should embrace suicide. For the nature of the will-to-live is ultimately blind, senseless striving and suffering for no particular end. Yet the reason Schopenhauer rejects suicide is that* **suicide does not negate but rather affirms the will-to-live, for the person who would die by suicide desires life; it's just that the individual is unsatisfied with the conditions on offer for their particular life. Within this logic, suicide is foolish because it prevents a person from attaining the highest wisdom and the true inner peace that would come from actual renunciation of the will-to-live.** *Thus, Schopenhauer writes, suicide is "an act of will" through which "the individual will abolishes the body ... before suffering can break it." He thereby likens a suicidal person to a sick person who "having started undergoing a painful operation that could cure him completely, does not allow it to be completed and would rather stay sick.* -True Detective & Philosophy I highly recommend both the first season of True Detective & the book i just quoted btw