Schopenhauer influenced: >Nietzsche (greatest philosopher

You forgot Hitler

File: 1477871927578.jpg (153KB, 1500x1091px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1500x1091px

>>9100139
AND HITLER

>>9100121
>Influenced

Exacly, they knew enough not to take him completely seriously, something that /lit/ards forget to do when it comes to great thinkers.

>>9100121
You can make a case for Hegel being one of the most important people to ever live

>>9100166
can't say the same for you though lol

>>9100166
please do

>>9100121
Doesn't it worry you that Hegel has had an enormous influence on philosophy where Schopenhauer mostly only influenced cultural figures?

>>9100577
Influencing the world, the greatest cultural figures in each discipline, is obviously superior to influencing the mediocre majority of philosophers whose only purpose is to be trammelled upon by the very greatest..

>What’s attractive about looking at all philosophers in part suspiciously and in part mockingly is not that we find again and again how innocent they are — how often and how easily they make mistakes and get lost, in short, how childish and child-like they are — but that they are not honest enough in what they do, while, as a group, they make huge, virtuous noises as soon as the problem of truthfulness is touched on, even remotely. Collectively they take up a position as if they had discovered and arrived at their real opinions through the self-development of a cool, pure, god-like disinterested dialectic (in contrast to the mystics of all ranks, who are more honest than they are and more stupid with their talk of “inspiration”—), while basically they defend with reasons sought out after the fact an assumed principle, an idea, an “inspiration,” for the most part some heart-felt wish which has been abstracted and sifted. They are all advocates who do not want to call themselves that.— and very remote from the courage of conscience which would admit this, even this, to itself, very remote from that brave good taste which would concede as much, whether to warn an enemy or friend, or whether to mock themselves as an expression of their own high spirits.

>>9100634
But Schopenhauer's criticisms of Hegel were philosophical. So if you are saying that Schopenhauer was right about Hegel it has nothing to do with either of their influences. If on the other hand you are taking the position that the philosophy isn't important at all and it's just a dick measuring context for influence then you can name thousands of people more influential than Schopenhauer. You can't have it both ways. Which is it, are we talking about their philosophy (in which case Hegel is actually influential unlike Schopenhauer) or are we talking about influence (in which case why even bring up Schopenhauer philosophical dislike of Hegel)?

>>9100634
>Hegel
>Heavily influences Marx
>Not completely changing the world
Nigga please, Hegel has had a way bigger impact on the way billions of people have lived, rather than on a few writers and their readers.

>>9100634
If you're trying to assert that Schopenhauer had a larger influence on philosophical discourse downstream than Hegel that is a ridiculous claim.

>>9100121
He was hardly the main influence on most of these. Tolstoy didn't get much into Schopenhauer until the 1870's, for example.

Hegel was a more fundamental, driving force behind most of the changes that we've seen in society. The tons of people who vehemently reject Hegel and Hegelian ideas just strengthens this case, which in and of itself is an example of a Hegelian dialectic at work.

I enjoy a lot of Schopies writings, but he was emotionally half-witted and would lash out against people and things that he could not understand. His analysis of the world isn't terrible, but pessimistic conclusions from shows how much he missed the point.

>>9100870

>The tons of people who vehemently reject Hegel and Hegelian ideas just strengthens this case, which in and of itself is an example of a Hegelian dialectic at work.

Wow, it's almost as if you create a philosophical system that considers everything a confirmation of itself, then everything will confirm that philosophical system.

>>9100904
While obviously I agree with your sentiment do you not see why your critique is a caricature of Hegel's point?

If I was the first psychologist to herald the notion of implicit bias would you have the same critique? It is also found everywhere and could likely be found in anywhere who disagrees with the notion. Formally defining/describing a ubiquitous phenomenon doesn't attenuate the veracity of the description

>Wittgenstein (greatest philosopher of 20th century)
lel
this aint my main G D

>>9100870
>The tons of people who vehemently reject Hegel and Hegelian ideas just strengthens this case, which in and of itself is an example of a Hegelian dialectic at work.

>Hegelians don't even know they're talking about Fichte
>Fichte whose misreading of Kant's thing-in-itself Schopenhauer BTFO of before Hegelians started confusing the two as the same person
Hegelianism: not even once.

>>9100121
Yes, Geoffrey, it was worth it to spend 9 years getting your phd masters as an expert on Schopenhauer, print this out and give it to your mother

>>9100634
>and very remote from the courage of conscience which would admit this, even this, to itself, very remote from that brave good taste which would concede as much, whether to warn an enemy or friend, or whether to mock themselves as an expression of their own high spirits
>whether to warn an enemy or friend, or whether to mock themselves as an expression of their own high spirits

Unironically, what did he mean by this? What is he getting at?

>>9100904
>Wow, it's almost as if you create a philosophical system that considers everything a confirmation of itself, then everything will confirm that philosophical system

Wow, its almost as if the point of philosophy is to describe and explain the world and its potentials

>>9100166

"no"

>>9100870
> His analysis of the world isn't terrible, but pessimistic conclusions from shows how much he missed the point.
He's just too deep for you.

>>9100121
"I don't understand dialectic," the thread

>>9102985
Pessimism is a distraction.