I think they’re really pessimistic about humanity or this world,and most importantly,they also have negative thoughts on foids.Which one’s thoughts do you prefer?
two major copers
I prefer ur mom
Would fuck a pussy rather than reading the work of those two shitheads
schopenhauer is based, he made a book about women natureDon't know anything about Schopenhauer.
Nietzsche sounds like some "sigma male" bullshit that would only appeal to edgy teenagers.
Read Marx instead
he defined them as a savage sex-ridden animal between childhood and adulthood
schopenhauer was no coper at all. he just accepted his manletism (5'2)
I aggree that it's outdatedToo outdated work.
I already read a more up-to-date, scientific work on female nature.
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
thanks for recommendation, nice work, let's read
Schopenhauer for sure, niesche treats reality as If there's still hope
How do they 'cope' dumbass
Neither, i prefer the original blackpiller Otto Weininger. Nietzsche was a favorite philosopher of the elites because he tried to reconcile historical time with the means odf productions and technology.
Nietchze posits the 'will to power', humans want to impose power on the world and others. Schopenhauer posits the will to life, humans and all living things want to live. The power make sense to me, people naturally want to impose their own will onto the world. But Nietchze sort of embraces suffering, as suffering is a prerequisite to meaningful pleasure (loneliness excaberates the pleasure of finding a partner). I personally disagree, it would be far better to be high 24/7 then suffer. I guess his philisophy is very idealistic, but also has a lot of truth in it.
everything is cope retard.
Nietzsche
Based escortcel Nietzsche
both are quasi-retarded, that's probably what too much drugs do to one's brain
I am not intelligent enough to understand each of them, but i know some quotes about foids which i find very based. They were both considered low-value men in the eyes of foids as i know
miss me with that dork shit
this is the crucial distinction, however it’s important to realize Nietzsche was ultimately a follower of Schopenhauer, both adhering to his metaphysics to the end (whether or not he would admit it in his published works) and lived in his shadow as a thinker even to this day
it really is a tragedy that so many people only know about Schopenhauer as a side note to the much more popular (and much more cope-oriented) Nietzsche, because Schopenhauer is easily one of the greatest minds western humanity has ever produced, singlehandedly recapitulating the ancient wisdom of the Indo-Aryan Vedanta
“There is only one inborn error, and that is the notion that we exist in order to be happy. It is inborn in us, because it coincides with our existence itself, and our whole being is only its paraphrase, indeed our body is its monogram. We are nothing more than the will-to-live, and the successive satisfaction of all our willing is what we think of through the concept of happiness.
So long as we persist in this inborn error, and indeed even become confirmed in it through optimistic dogmas, the world seems to us full of contradictions. For at every step, in great things as in small, we are bound to experience that the world and life are certainly not arranged for the purpose of containing a happy existence…
Now whoever has returned by one path or the other from that error
which is a priori inherent in us, from that ”first false step” of our existence, will soon see everything in a different light, and will find that the world is in harmony with his insight, though not with his wishes…
Life then presents itself as a process of purification, the purifying lye of which is pain. If the process is carried out, it leaves the previous immorality and wickedness behind as dross, and there appears what the Veda says; ‘Whoever beholds the highest and profoundest, has his heart's knot cut, all his doubts are resolved, and his works come to nought.’“ - WWR Volume 2
Last edited:
Nietchze was a dionesyian pessimist, and schopenhauer differs a bit from indian philisophy. Nietchze's will to power does make more sense then Schopenhauer's will to life, when we are in the context of humans. Humans naturally want to impose their will on others and the world. Human's naturally rebel against the inevitable.
He quite literally describes himself as a dionesyian pessimist... a life affirming pessimist.
Right but let’s not mince words. A “life affirming pessimist“ is an optimist (no cap). its hard to call someone who radically and eternally affirms the whole of creation a “pessimist”, although I see why Nietzsche uses his terminology at times to provoke
No he quite literally is a pessimist and he agrees with schopenhauers entire world view, the thing that seperates him and schopey is that he will see the tragedy of human existence as invigorating.
nietzsche’s Will to power is more or less identical to Schopenhauer’s Will, both posit the eternal war of natural forces in space and time over all matter, for both, this battleground of will was the basis of being
I would just disagree with this, as would most Nietzsche scholarship. Nietzsche says “yes” to life (no matter how awful it truly is), Schopenhauer says “no“.
If there is a different definition of optimism and pessimism you’d like to use feel free. Nietzsche himself is unreliable because he uses the terms in a fluid sense, and there are swaths of text where he denounces pessimism as sickly and perverse (see ToTI)
Why Marx?Don't know anything about Schopenhauer.
Nietzsche sounds like some "sigma male" bullshit that would only appeal to edgy teenagers.
Read Marx instead
Not really, the will to power is something I believe Schopenhauer would see as something happening to humans whose inteligence is disproportinete to the will to life. The will to life concerns itself with sustence and reproduction, art and science are all will to power
Nietzsche, Friedrich, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, book V.
Both
H
You literally can't that's why you're here
I am reading catch 22
Well Nietzsche had a fantastic 'tache...
But Schopenhauer had great sideburns... And because he also gives hope to Norwoodcels about what can be achieved with little hair, I'll give it to him.
But Schopenhauer had great sideburns... And because he also gives hope to Norwoodcels about what can be achieved with little hair, I'll give it to him.
Nietzsche was a normie in spirit because he shamed virgins. He would probably shame incels if he lived in our times. E.g. he shamed Philipp Mainlander.
Mainlander was a based philosopher of total sadness.
Mainlander was a based philosopher of total sadness.
B
Nietzsche can fuck off, Schopenhauer is based though
We may just be mincing words here, but I think you’re missing something crucial about Schopenhauer’s metaphysics - the Will is the substance of all Nature, from the simplest forces (like gravity), to the vegetable/animal drives, to its highest instance in man. There is no “thing” or process in the world that is not Will in itself.
For Schopenhauer, the will reaches its apex when it achieves the ability to know itself (mentation being ontologically primary), and, in line with his metaphysics/ethics, can abolish itself by denying itself, and so therein lies our salvation.
But the “Will“ both philosophers speak of is ultimately one and the same, and it is all pervading. The Will is the thing in itself, the ground, the substance of the entire universe in space and time.
So the Will to life = the Will to power = the Will itself. It’s all Will and nothing besides.
So for Nietzsche - An animal dies and decays into the soil, only to be consumed and recycled into nature and born again? The Will to power.
A stream flows forcefully around a river bend? The Will to power.
A star decays, swallowed into the crushing black nothingness of space? The Will the power
Humanity overcomes itself through self awareness and the strength of inner tension? You guessed it, the Will to power yet again
To make it even more clear, here it is is Nietzsche’s own words .
“The great and small struggle everywhere revolves around preponderance, around growth and expansion, around power and in accordance with the will to power, which is simply the will to life.” (TGS 349, emphasis mine)
Last edited:
Mainlander may be the most depressing person to read in the world. However if Schopenhauer is completely wrong, then only Mainländer‘s cosmology can be right
”for life is the true hell, and the sweet still night of absolute death is the annihilation of hell” - Mainländer, the philosophy of salvation
Well Mäinlander seems kinda mysterious to most people,if his theory is that pessimistic, I'm definitely gonna read it
No good English translations unfortunately, but I slogged through it in its current iteration
if you want the most pessimistic book ever written, dedicated in part to Mainländer iirc, read Thomas Ligotti’s “Conspiracy Against the Human Race”. state of the art contemporary pessimist text
Ah I see. Don't think Schopenhauer said that the will permeated non living things? I could be wrong.
“The most universal forces of nature exhibit themselves as the lowest grade of the will's objectification. In part they appear in all matter without exception, as gravity and impenetrability, and in part have shared out among themselves the matter generally met with.
Thus some forces rule over this piece of matter, others over that, and this constitutes their specific difference, as rigidity, fluidity, elasticity, electricity, magnetism, chemical properties, and qualities of every kind. In themselves they are immediate phenomena of the will, just as is the conduct of man; as such, they are groundless, just as is the character of man.” - WWR
Think about it like this, the universe is only an appearance, like a refraction - the reality of the universe is the Will. Therefore, when we look out upon the universe with open eyes, we see that it is nothing but a battleground of Will, an eternal war between all forces over all matter throughout space and time.
This scales all the way from the most broad forces of nature, to the highest sophistications of man.
[UWSL]I would read Schopenhauer’s World as Will and Representation, at least the first volume. For me it was a game changer, assuming you have the patience to read him carefully.[/UWSL]
It’s not really possible to fully understand Nietzsche either without this basis, and it really enhances his works. I myself read Nietzsche first (and got a lot out of it), but then I read Schopenhauer (and the Indian philosophies) and that was the real atom bomb.
Last edited:
Actually I have been reading the world as will and representation, im just revising kant's transcedental idealism. And yeah im a currycel myself, so I read a lot about bhuddism as a kid.
But yeah I agree more with Schopenhauer. I think the nature of tragedy as something invigorating is because we know the futility of human existence and the predicament we find ourselves in is inherently tragic, so we see a hero fighting against it all, we feel as if all our suffering has been transformed into a beutiful consumerisation of our misery. Can I tag you in some of my pessimism related posts?
Yeah sure man, I’m just lurking around here while I’m working but I’ll chip in if I’m around
absolutely prefer schopenhauer. he was the original blackpiller
i dont know dude i just want to ferociously pound cute prime pussy young 4'9 teen non-ape preferrably white foids in doggystyle position while squeezing her neck and fiercely grabbing her small soft painted nail female hands with my veiny masculine hands while deep sniffing her fertile feminine girly neck- armpit scent for hours until i faint
Last edited:
Mailänder was blackpilled asf and his suicide was legendary.
M
Philosophy is soy cope for why life sucks
Nietchze wasn't making fun of him being an incel (he was an incel) but a volcel
Over
schopenhauer mogs
I prefer kierkegaard to both, though. most people like him for slightly hipster reasons and focus on the somewhat overrated either/or, but I prefer his later writings where he's a fervent christian celibate. he even wrote an extensive attack on a recently-dead bishop, bitching about the eulogy. fun shit
I prefer kierkegaard to both, though. most people like him for slightly hipster reasons and focus on the somewhat overrated either/or, but I prefer his later writings where he's a fervent christian celibate. he even wrote an extensive attack on a recently-dead bishop, bitching about the eulogy. fun shit
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
