Schopenhauer biographer R.J. Hollingdale: >"His famous

Oh look, another Schopenhauer gossip thread with zero discussion about his actual philosophy.

>>1929891

Just as well. Apparently even his biographers prefer gossip to real discussion.

>>1929863

>armchair psychologist bullshit

This shit grinds my gears so much, not just because every stupid faggot does it, but because its literally not an argument. It doesnt focus on the argument itself and instead just attacks the person who said it by trying to trace that view back to some embarrassing/tragic event in their past.

>>1929991
I know that feel.

The world would be a better place if Freud were to have been aborted.

>>1929991

Coming across this passage was surprising, because this guy's introduction to Schopenhauer's Essays and Aphorisms is otherwise an excellent summary of the problems Schopenhauer dealt with in his philosophy, and he does do an excellent job of characterizing Schopenhauer. But this bit was just completely out of place, he hardly even supplements it with any other relevant information.

>>1929996
But jung tho

So, Schopenhauer thread?

>Only that possesses true value which you have thought in the first instance for your own instruction. Thinkers can be divided into those who think in the first instance for their own instruction and those who do so for the instruction of others. The former are genuine thinkers for themselves in both senses of the word: they are the true philosophers. The latter are sophists: they want to appear as thinkers and seek their happiness in what they hope to gain thereby from others. This is what they are in earnest about.

Is there anyone alive who would admit to belonging to the latter class? How do you KNOW if you think because enjoy it, or because deep down, you want to appear as if you enjoy it?

>>1930199

thanks for your high quality post

>>1930173
If you have encountered life-destroying existential depression as the result of your analysis of the world, if you haven't turned away from this but felt compelled to continue despite the discomfort due to your commitment to knowledge above that of your own happiness, you are of the former group.

If you use ideas as pacifiers, as a drug to alleviate your own existant suffering, you are of the latter group: an an epistemological hedonist. It makes no difference whether you do this to appear to others or appear to yourself.

If you think because you enjoy it, you are certainly a sophist.

>>1930270

So putting knowledge first necessarily excludes being able to derive any sort of satisfaction from it. To speak Schopenhauer's language, genuine thinking would be the (ab)use of the intellect entirely apart or even opposite from the desires of the will, so deriving happiness from it should not be possible. But I have a hard time believing that genuine thinkers, true philosophers, should not gain any kind of satisfaction from having thought for themselves, even despite their discomfort in doing so.

>"The child receives from its father will and character, from its mother intellect."

What did he mean by this?

>>1930320
>So putting knowledge first necessarily excludes being able to derive any sort of satisfaction from it.

I am speaking of a dynamic process that must involve a lack of satisfaction as a vital part of it.

Instead of happiness (pleasure) the goal ought to seek resolution, which requires suffering to achieve. This end state of intellectual development is neutral, involving neither pleasure (happiness) or suffering, but rather stoic acceptance and contentment. It is about freeing one's self from attachment to ideas. It is the ability to consider one's deepest intellectual fears without any emotional resistance. Getting to such a state requires fighting that resistance we are all afflicted with, attachment to ideas, which involves suffering.

Another perspective is that ideas and beliefs can be drugs just as much as shopping, masturbation, TV, substances, etc. We're force-fed idea-drugs every since we are born in thousands of ways. The authentic thinker seeks to free himself from addiction, resisting what one wishes to believe, what one thinks is advantageous for them to believe, due to the deeper desire to truly know and understand. Withdrawal (disillusionment) involves a shitload of suffering.

>>1930438
>Mom is a simple normie
>Dad is an intelligent beta
Thanks schopie.

>>1929991
Nietzsche uses this heavily against Christianity, though

>>1929863
I understand that /his/ is not particularly good at the whole logical reasoning thing, but how exactly does the fact that Schopenhauer had an issue with women discredit his observations?

If Hitler said that 1 + 1 = 2 would that make the statement wrong just because Hitler said it?

Point is: Schopenhauer was spot on in his observations. Whether he got interested in the subject due to some personal issues does not discredit his findings in the slightest.

>>1930922
>Point is: Schopenhauer was spot on in his observations
I take it you mean his serious philosophy, not his venting against women.

>>1929906
>Apparently even his biographers prefer gossip to real discussion

Do you know what a biography is?

>>1930929
His venting against women too. Perhaps not all of it but a lot of it.