Optimism/Pessimism: Schopenhauer vs Nietzsche

thought?

Buddha is better than both

The trouble with Nietzsche's argument against pessimism, that we can't objectively/impartially judge life and existence from 'without', is that it can equally be applied to optimism/life-affirmation.

The fact is that both are legitimate positions to take, which works in the absurdist's favour.

>>8368268
>Buddha is better than both

Alliteration?

>>8368457

Buddha bis better bhan both.

>>8368268
I personally love the Buddha's philosophy even though I disagree with the religon as a whole.

>>8368291
Alright we get it, you dont need to keep repeating it

>>8369298

it's a copy pasta?

>>8367831
reddit.com/r/philosophy

you're welcome

Implying Nietzsche was an optimist. He didn't think people could actually change.

>>8370375

He thought humanity could tho

>>8367831
Sounds like drivel put forth by a weak man.

There is no argument with Nietzsche, he has outlined exactly who his readers are meant to be. And he's right. The people that are meant to read him, the people that really agree with him, are people who still possess an expression of vitality towards things in life. Schopenhauer's philosophy is the expression of a spirit in decline. He's not more right than Nietzsche is, unless you too are a person in spiritual decline — then maybe you will see as many problems in life as Schopenhauer saw. Maybe you will share his pessimistic sentiment. That's fine, but you're just in spiritual decline too.

How does Nietzsche "prove" that a person like Schopenhauer is in spiritual decline? By understanding the nature of things better than he did. Nietzsche's notion of will is a step over Schopenhauer's.

Schopenhauer saw in all things the will to live, and propounded that the way to alleviate your suffering is to DENY this will. It is precisely the will to live, life itself, that causes suffering. Life is suffering to Schopenhauer.

1. He is straight up denying life. How this isn't a sign of spiritual decline to you, since he IS life, making this a bizarre form of self-denial, I don't fucking know, unless you share his sentiment wholeheartedly and your way of thinking is characteristic of his.

2. He made an error. The will to life is not in all things. It is not in things that already live in comfort — why would life, that owns itself already, continue striving towards itself? Nietzsche saw this, and dove into the bigger picture because of it. The will in all things is will to power.

So, if will to power is in all things... well, Schopenhauer's denial of life is itself an expression of this. But what kind of person, psychologically, would find denying life a source of power?

A person in decline, that suffers life. A miserable person that hates life, and ultimately, hates himself.

File: 880.jpg (20KB, 474x528px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 474x528px

>>8371865
I love how Nietzsche's philosophy is just ideological bullying and this can be seen just by engaging with any nietzsche fag. If someone calls you an untermensch or the last man or accuses you of having ressentiment they might just as well call you a "neckbeard" "manchild" "loser" or "faggot". These are essentially all just insults. When you look at Nietzsche's philosophy its all life-apologetics and calls on you to affirm your most petty and selfish emotions (envy, anger, selfhood). It really is the philosophy of being "enlightened by your own intelligence".

>>8371865
Are you quite sure that Schop. talks about will to live, and not instead a more general metaphysical will. That is why offing yourself wasn't an option to schop, since that too is giving in to that will. It,s not will to life, specifically/exclusively i think, so that error you mentioned may be false?

>>8367831
>He is the best because muh feels.
Noetzsche would be proud.