Was he wrong?
>>1010234
No, he was right.
>>1010234
Yes, he was wrong.
>>1010256
Because i said so
>>1010256
Well first you need to fucking ask what he was wrong about. He said a lot of things.
>>1010256
>We're a more educated board.
>>1010266
The fluctuation of humans between boredom and suffering
>>1010256
>asks a three-worded question that degrades a complex person with many complex ideas into "Was he wrong?"
>expects reasonable answers
>>1010278
Makes sense for him to think that, because those two words pretty much defined him.
Doesn't mean they apply to all mankind.
Where were you when Family Circus made a goddamn Warhammer reference?
>>1010571
About to shitpost about Schopenhauer.
His ideas about antinatalism were pretty spooky, but that's what happens when you take the already spooky idea of morality to its logical extreme.
>>1010234
His assertion that the reduction of ego was the groundwork for all morality is most definitely useful, if not a logical extension of the Kantian moral imperative.
In general, the idea that the phenomenal world is a product of a "blind, insatiable, and malignant spirit," paired with the insistence on individual responsibility of one's actions, sets up a perpetual conflict between human will and cosmic fate, which Schopenhauer seems to reconcile by promoting the abandonment of self-interest.
What interests me is the idea that one can determine the relative malignancy of a force that is beyond their comprehension - or at least whose eventual motives are unknown. This would be why his philosophy is categorized as a form of pessimism, though.
Optimistically, we can map his premises onto a more productive framework, reconciling the apparent conflict between will and fate by reasoning that when things happen which appear to be negative, the suffering they produce is necessary for human understanding of that which caused it, and will eventually result in the transcendence of human experience as a result of the knowledge gained by said events.
His treatment of Euclid's 5th postulate is actually quite shocking, as it belies the fact that his culture was still debating whether or not it worked outside of the 2nd dimension, and it is to his credit that he reasoned it required an acceptance of the premises, after which it became self-evident.
Otherwise, he was a misogynist, thought intellect was hereditary, saw homosexuality as a vice, and generally refused to see people as an abstraction of various parts, instead imagining a galvanized "essential character" of each person, which seems to be remarkably naive.
He did have compassion for animals, though.
In short, Schopenhauer appears to be a man who, besieged by a vicious intelligence and perspicacity, fell prey to pessimism because he failed to accept the limits of human knowledge.
Didn't he kick a woman down a flight of stairs and have to pay her medical bills her entire life then write that it was the happiest day of his life when she died?
>>1010899
"'The old woman dies, the burden is lifted.'
- Statement Schopenhauer wrote in Latin into his account book, after the death of a seamstress to whom he had made court-ordered payments of 15 thalers a quarter for over twenty years, after having injured her arm; as quoted in Modern Philosophy : From Descartes to Schopenhauer and Hartmann (1877) by Francis Bowen, p. 392"
"Cooooold bloooded!" - Charlie Murphy
>>1010938
Holy shit, that's metal as fuck.
>>1010899
I thought all he did was push her down. Ol' Schop was sort of autistic about noise and the old woman and her friend would talk very loudly in the hallway of their housing complex everyday for long stretches of time. Eventually he got into a shouting match with her and it reached its natural conclusion.
