What was his fucking problem?
He was skeptical of progress, contrary to all the other German thinkers of his century who saw some new and great age right beyond the horizon when their philosophy would define the world.
The Will
>>1347814
Buddhism is a helluva drug.
>>1347814
Beinh right about everything is hard on a niggas psyche.
>>1350552
He's a revisionist
He read the Upanishads and assorted Buddhist literature, and thought he found the truth.
This is not new, and happens all the time in the West, especially to rich white people living in California.
>>1347814
he looks like fucking Wolverine
>>1347814
"He habitually dined well, at a good restaurant; he had many trivial love-affairs, which were sensual but not passionate; he was exceedingly quarrelsome and unusually avaricious. ... It is hard to find in his life evidences of any virtue except kindness to animals ... In all other respects he was completely selfish. It is difficult to believe that a man who was profoundly convinced of the virtue of asceticism and resignation would never have made any attempt to embody his convictions in his practice."
he was a psued douche bag
>>1350576
Yeah, but he was a PhD, an expert in Kant, and one of the best writers to ever have graced the German language.
>>1351024
>and one of the best writers to ever have graced the German language.
>>1351019
>Taking Bertrand "The Cucklord" Russell's word for anything
>>1351074
It's seemingly more valuable than Arthur's I see
Did he achieve enlightenment /his/?
>>1351032
Bet ye can't even speak German, ye cunt.
>>1351019
>le have to follow your own philosophy maymay
He was a philosopher, not a guru. Either take his word or don't, it's up to you.
Benny Frank didn't follow his own advice, yet it's still good shit.
>>1347814
The real answer has yet to be stated in this thread. Whenever this question is asked, in any context, it is very frequently (but not always) the following.
Ahem.
HE HAD A BAD RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS MOTHER.
>tfw no gf
>>1347814
He was quite a loving person whose practice did not match his theory. He was a hypocrite and a sham. A misery; but life is miserable, and his teachings give us guidance on how to navigate it whilst accruing the least amount of it.
>>1351076
Russell literally spent his entire career proving himself and his positivist position wrong. At the end of his life, his contribution was to start something stupid, and mercifully end it.
Ol' Schope is underappreciated. The only person that really bothered to deal with his work was Nietzsche and that's just one perspective.
By the way the history of western philosophy, while a fun read, is a travesty of a history of philosophy book. It's basically Russell taking potshots at his intellectual rivals up to and including calling Nietzsche a sissy virgin.
>>1351999
Schopenhauer was around 35 and had no trouble with women when he wrote Will and Representation, funny enough.
I've always seen the objections to his philosophy based on how he personally lived as being particularly shallow though. That has nothing to do with the ideas he brought up.
Besides, near the end of his life, while maybe not the self-denying monk you would think, he deliberately distanced himself from personal contact and worldly politics, instead living a simple life that mostly consisted of walking his dogs. He never took a wife and died alone in his bed.
>>1351708
Also, his dad was found dead in a local river - probably from suicide.
But maybe these events aren't sufficient to explain his personality (and not that an individual's personality has a necessary logical connection to the tone of their philosophical creations).
>>1347814
A terrible mother.
>>1351993
>Buddhism, is a logical truth that follows from empirical observation of the world.
Buddhism is the elevation of inconclusion, Empirical study alone is insuffiencient and so to be consistent one must do away the material all together...
Mysticism like Buddhism does this and it seeks to make all that could be measurable gone, abolition of the self.
Only in Christianity is there a unity of all thought and a resolution to the inconsistencies.
>>1352132
it is, most of the times at least...
arguably, the most important part of a human's life are his first 6 years in which he's completely helpless and dependable of his kin; if they fail to protect him and above all love him (severly underrated by most parents who fuck up badly and then say "but we gave him everything we could and things we couldn't even afford in our time" to justify their lack of love and affection towards his offspring), two things will happen: he will stagnate in terms of maturity and will always be a children on the inside, having lots of trouble with relationships and overall commitment which will work like a snowball, shoving him/her away from "normal" society more and more and the more this happen the more detached he/she will become
and that's pretty much it because muh character limitation in a board about humanities
>>1351019
>It is hard to find in his life evidences of any virtue except kindness to animals
what a fucking contradiction...
you can fake all kinds of virtue and kindness towards your kind for selfish reason but you can't fake your love for animals for it's the supreme form of disinterested affection and pure love
>>1351993
>Read all of the texts about Buddhism
>Your own philosophy just "happens" to be exactly the same
>>1352070
>That has nothing to do with the ideas he brought up.
It has everything to do with it. If you can't put your philosophy into practice it's just a fantasy.
>>1352237
Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about.
>implying Christianity has a concept of the will
Jesus was fucking based but popular Christianity is kindergarten-tier
>>1352594
It is therefore just as little necessary for the saint to be a philosopher as for the philosopher to be a saint; just as it is not necessary for a perfectly beautiful person to be a great sculptor, or for a great sculptor to be himself a beautiful person. In general, it is a strange demand on a moralist that he should commend no other virtue than that which he himself possesses. To repeat abstractly, universally, and distinctly in concepts the whole inner nature of the world, and thus to deposit it as a reflected image in permanent concepts always ready for the faculty of reason, this and nothing else is philosophy.
t. arthur
>>1350552
lmao this
>>1352844
Even from beyond the grave, he's still butthurt about being overlooked in favour of a more talented philosopher.
