Was he wrong about the will?

>>9141963
You mean free will? I don't think so.

>>9141963
>>9143085
What's more iimportant is weather he was right on women.

And he absolutely was. What did you guys think about 'On Women'? Personally, it changed my life

he wasn;t wrong about women that's for sure
He might be the most red pilled philosopher to ever live.

>>9141963
It was good enough for Einstein, it's good enough for me.

>>9143097
What is it about these guys that trigger women so much that they shitpost and derail threads about them forever

>>9141963
What he meant by 'will' Freud renamed 'desire' so yes and no. FWIW for S 'will' was no decision-making construct.

>>9144051

no his will is the thing-in-itself, what anything "is" independent of representation. desire is only part of it. their concepts of repression are basically exactly the same. Schopenhauer is kind of an extremely overlooked explorer of the human unconscious.

>>9141963
Identifying that you lack free will is meaningless. It's like a fish understanding it lives in water. Changes nothing, informs nothing.

>>9144062
I don't think he's been overlooked by the many who've used him, darkly. Also dark is the 'thing itself' in the S (claiming to follow Kant- ha, ha) sense. Call it your 'vital force,' or what 'moves' you: your 'desire'-

>>9144085
You are the smart one here.