Is there really any benefit to being a Schopenhauer level pessimist?

motivation for suicide

>>7609982
he's fucking based. absolutely BTFO women

>>7609989
Which one of his books does he talk about women?

>>7609982

You haven't actually read anything by Schopenhauer, have you?

>>7609989
>mfw people can only talk about one of my favorite philosophers in reference to his views on women

Just fuck off already memekiddies

If you're a figure like Schopenhauer, you'll easily be able to tell who actually gives a fuck about your thinking and who just namedrops you because "lol fuck bitches".

define benefit.

ignorance may be bliss

>>7609982
No, but reading him if you are one in the first place is really exciting. He's a better thinker than he is a self-help writer.

>>7610043
im quite fond of his self-help aphorisms

i'll try and translate one; "keep your spirits high for stones thrown in swamp make no rings"

Social ones. Some people will see you as a wise human being.

>>7610004
Enlighten us, Mr. Patrician man. I'd love to hear your subversive thesis about how Schopenhaeur was secretly an optimist all along. If only your retrograde professors could understand.

>>7610078
He's saying its a lot more nuanced than hurr pessimism vs optimism you sip. Schopenhauer was one of trendiest opponents of Hinduism and Buddhism in the west and considered the upanishads one of his favorite works

>>7610097
First proponents* fuck

>>7610078

The most obvious benefit is reducing the possibility for pain. This is not only a 'benefit' but actually the entire point in Schopenhauer's pessimism.

This why I doubt you've read any Schopenhauer.

>>7610005
on women is the least interesting of any of his writings.

File: schopenhauer.png (194KB, 300x358px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 300x358px

>>7609982
Depends on your character, I guess. A pessimistic approach to life makes me happier than an optimistic one since I don't have to cope with perpetual disappointment.

>>7610215
It's more interesting than any of his ethical work.

>>7610097
Hinduism and Buddhism is for literal idiots. Buddhist philosophy only appeals to the intellectually dead. Easy way to spot a wanna-be-old-world-intellectual.

>>7610238
Nice arguments, bruv.

>>7610002
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html

this essay

>>7610238
(You)

>>7610245
desu this reads like he just got dumped or something

>>7610240
>rid yourself of desire
>motivation for this is the desire to achieve moksha
>you can only become enlightened by sitting on your lazy ass and wiping your mind of thought
It's all about disassociating yourself with pain. It's about curling into a ball and convincing yourself that only the present moment matters, and in fact you are an illusion. Yeah, it's pretty easy to detach yourself from reality when you live around a bunch of lazy monks who don't want to have any conflict or work in life. If everybody did that, there would be nobody to donate food to those problem-avoiders and everyone would die. If you meditate, no knowledge will come to you, but it will help you be on the cutting edge of pretentiousness.

>>7610328
extinction is their secret agenda ese

give up and sit down to die

this is not about benefits, this is about life

How is suffering and pessimism that is mitigated by art, literature, philosophy not /lit/. Mother fucker was a life-affirming pessimist. I swear these Reddit-baby's doesn't even know what pessimism means.

>>7610328
>It's all about disassociating yourself with pain
It isn't.

> It's about curling into a ball and convincing yourself that only the present moment matters, and in fact you are an illusion.
Your notion of self is an idea, a concept, i don't see what's so controversial about that.

>Yeah, it's pretty easy to detach yourself from reality when you live around a bunch of lazy monks who don't want to have any conflict or work in life
Doing away with conceptual noise is the opposite of detaching yourself from reality. Monks generally live pretty hard and austere lives and do plenty of work, by the way.

>If everybody did that, there would be nobody to donate food to those problem-avoiders and everyone would die.
If everyone was a plumber we would all starve to death as well. What's your point?

>If you meditate, no knowledge will come to you, but it will help you be on the cutting edge of pretentiousness.
What's your meditation practice like?

Uh... So... I never read him... I'm kind of interested now. Can you guys tell me where should I start on him?

>>7610392
>It isn't.
"Life is the game of avoiding pain" -Buddhaboi

>>7610397
for a taste? essays and aphorisms.

first steps of a systematic approach? start with the indians and kant

>>7610402
You're confusing pain and suffering, with suffering itself being a bad translation of dukkha.

Read more, family.

>>7610392
You're being deliberately facetious with the plumber point. The goal of Buddhism is to achieve nirvana, for everyone, regardless of what your profession is. One can achieve this through mindfulness etc but the point is that becoming a Monk is unnecessary. Meditation while doing things is the alternative.

>>7610402
>>7610412
Avoiding, no. Thats Benthamite utilitarianism. Dealing with suffering and learning how to accept it and "convert" it into something more useful is a more realistic and accurate practice.

>>7610412
>If everyone was a plumber we would all starve to death as well. What's your point?
so everyone wouldn't be welcome to join in on the fun i take it, slaves are required

please make the distinction between "pain" and "suffering" for me wise one

>>7610431
there is no alternative to acceptance, this is obvious to everyone except children

>>7610424
Depends on the type of Buddhism. Not all types of Buddhism adhere to the notion that enlightenment within this lifetime is achievable for everyone through simply mindfulness exercises. That's mostly a Westernised secularised Mahayana thing. Even if being a monk is unnecessary though, that doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. Things can be both unessential and beneficial.

>>7610433
>so everyone wouldn't be welcome to join in on the fun i take it, slaves are required
Not all monks are mendicants and not all people want to live monastic lives.

>please make the distinction between "pain" and "suffering" for me wise one
Suffering encompasses more than pain in the narrow sense, and pain can be endured without suffering.

>>7610433
Pain is a physical response to negative stimuli. Suffering is an existential state brought about by wanting stupid shit.

>>7610478
>Not all monks are mendicants
yes, because the can't
>and not all people want to live monastic lives.
they should want to, amirite?
>Suffering encompasses more than pain in the narrow sense
provide the wider sense
>and pain can be endured without suffering.
to endure the pain of "reality" without suffering is complete detachment
>>7610486
>Pain is a physical response to negative stimuli. Suffering is an existential state brought about by wanting stupid shit.
please point out the distinction between physical and non-physical
>wanting no pain and suffering is stupid shit

>>7610546
>yes, because the can't
Or because they don't want to or have to, or are even actively opposed to it. Things differ widely between orders, just like in Western monasticism.

>they should want to, amirite?
No they don't, just like in Christianity there's no expectation that everyone has that calling.

>provide the wider sense
Dukkha.

>to endure the pain of "reality" without suffering is complete detachment
If anything it's detachment from unwarranted notions of self. Detachment from illusion is not a bad thing.

File: 1453239365860.jpg (778KB, 1563x2500px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 1563x2500px

>>7610478
I agree with you, mostly, though I would say the cenobitic aspects of eastern practice take it as a religion and social construction rather than a "philosophy", the western practice is thoroughly retarded tho. Only in rare cases is the focus on enlightenment in the East, mostly it's just something to do

>>7610568
>Or because they don't want to or have to, or are even actively opposed to it. Things differ widely between orders, just like in Western monasticism.
not wanting it, being actively opposed to the most dedicated practitioners of ones theistic beliefs is in perfect alignment with it's system
>No they don't, just like in Christianity there's no expectation that everyone has that calling.
dedicated practice is not considered a favourable or superior "occupation"
>Dukkha.
"Dukkha (Pāli; Sanskrit: duḥkha; Tibetan: སྡུག་བསྔལ་ sdug bsngal, pr. "duk-ngel") is a Buddhist term commonly translated as "suffering", "anxiety", "stress", or "unsatisfactoriness"."
the wider sense of suffering is suffering? not very wide at all wise one
>If anything it's detachment from unwarranted notions of self. Detachment from illusion is not a bad thing.
so you have found that there is no distinction between physical and non-physical, please provide these findings

>>7610078
professors teach Schopenhauer? you mean like college professors?

>>7610769
Only good post in the thread to be truthful relative

Shout-out to my nigga up there defending Buddhism though, the pseuds really have taken this board over

>>7610923
yours consists of "downvote"

>>7610923
>spending actual time trying to educate a memekid who isn't even here to educate himself

Yeah I'm gonna pass brosef

>>7610616
>not wanting it, being actively opposed to the most dedicated practitioners of ones theistic beliefs is in perfect alignment with it's system
You have too simplistic an idea of Buddhism if you think Japanese Rinzai monks are hypocrites for not living in accordance with the Thai Forest Tradition or something like that. It's like saying protestants ministers can't have wives because the Catholic Church won't allow it. Things aren't that simple and Buddhist practises and ideals differ widely depending on schools and regions. You seem to have a hard time articulating your thoughts by the way, mate.

>dedicated practice is not considered a favourable or superior "occupation"
Not sure if this is a statement, a rhetorical question without punctuation or something else.

>the wider sense of suffering is suffering? not very wide at all wise one
You should read past the first line of a Wikipedia article on one of the main concepts of Buddhism if you want to keep having opinions on the religion as a whole.

>so you have found that there is no distinction between physical and non-physical, please provide these findings
I have to disprove dualism in order to prove anatman? You're all over the place.

>>7610930
no, stated the post made no contribution other than an "upvote"

you cry about pseuds taking over while shitposting without substance, contradictory m8

>>7610950
>You have too simplistic an idea of Buddhism if you think Japanese Rinzai monks are hypocrites for not living in accordance with the Thai Forest Tradition or something like that. Buddhist practises and ideals differ widely depending on schools and regions.
yes, your religion has many affiliated sects and you have to seperate them accordingly.*
>It's like saying protestants ministers can't have wives because the Catholic Church won't allow it.
it's exactly like that but you argue that, to use your own metaphor, catholics don't consider the protestant practice to be wrong*
>You should read past the first line of a Wikipedia article on one of the main concepts of Buddhism if you want to keep having opinions on the religion as a whole.
i asked you to elaborate further than a single term. how can you fail to elaborate on one of the main concepts of your religion?*
>I have to disprove dualism in order to prove anatman? You're all over the place.
that would argue for your position on the self being an illusion with regards to our physiological interaction with matter*

*insert ad hominem

>>7611067
>yes, your religion has many affiliated sects and you have to seperate them accordingly.*
I don't have a religion.

>it's exactly like that but you argue that, to use your own metaphor, catholics don't consider the protestant practice to be wrong*
No, I argue that it's silly to take one sect and consider it the correct one and judge the other sects by it. Protestantism isn't inconsistent because it doesn't agree with Catholicism. In the same way, Rinzai isn't inconsistent because it doesn't agree with fundamentalist Theravada.

>i asked you to elaborate further than a single term. how can you fail to elaborate on one of the main concepts of your religion?*
By not feeling like walking you through the basics, of course.

>that would argue for your position on the self being an illusion with regards to our physiological interaction with matter*
The burden of proof lies with the person claiming the self exists.

>>7611110
>I don't have a religion.
i'd say you do
>No, I argue that it's silly to take one sect and consider it the correct one and judge the other sects by it.
how is the subject otherwise to be discussed with a general approach?
>Protestantism isn't inconsistent because it doesn't agree with Catholicism.
according to catholicism, yes it is
>The burden of proof lies with the person claiming the self exists.
i didn't claim anything, you are the one with claims without proof and im simply asking for it. "prove that im wrong" is what you're are saying here

>>7610245
What a fuckin pig! I'm glad he is dead!

>>7612332
Upvoted!!! Xd

>>7611127
>i'd say you do
Alright.

>how is the subject otherwise to be discussed with a general approach?
You can have a general approach without an overgeneralised approach.

>according to catholicism, yes it is
Which is not necessarily the final authority on Christianity.

>i didn't claim anything, you are the one with claims without proof and im simply asking for it. "prove that im wrong" is what you're are saying here
No, 'proof that im wrong' is what you are saying. I'm not claiming the self exists. You're erroneously thinking that the self is a given and its non-existence needs proof. I'm not accepting the existence of the self until I have reasons to do so.

I've never seen a self in my life to be honest.

schopenhauer pessimism is the result of realism

>>7613415
>having this hard of a time wrapping your mind around no-self, even intellectually

Marone who let the reddit out

The benefit?
Being right
all the time

>>7609982
No not really

>>7613430
>you stopid
>downvotexD

>>7609985
"In my chief work I have explained the only valid reason existing against suicide on the score of morality. It is this: that suicide thwarts the attainment of the highest moral aim by the fact that, for a real release from this world of misery, it substitutes one that is merely apparent." - Schopenhauer

He isn't making a consequentialist argument, so why should his work be evaluated by a consequentialist rubric?

>>7610377
>Schopenhauer was life-affirming
I thought the whole point is that he's life-denying (I mostly have heard of his ideas through Nietzsche).

>>7613415
>i havent claimed either presence or absence of self, you are the one with the grandiose claims with fuck all to show for it
Your very sentiment that questioning the self is a grandiose claim shows your implied ideological allegiance, bruv.

>>7613851
>Your very sentiment that questioning the self is a grandiose claim shows your implied ideological allegiance, bruv.
he is not questioning it, he explicitly denies it's existence

pure ideology, mein gott

File: shopenhauerweb.jpg (95KB, 580x576px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 580x576px

http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/05/22/ep94-schopenhauer/