Schopenhauer's philosophy.

(1/4) > >>

Mahler Symphony:
here it is:

"Every epic and dramatic poem can only represent a struggle, an effort, a fight for happiness: never enduring and complete happiness itself. It conducts its heroes through a thousand dangers and difficulties to the goal: as soon as this is reached it hastens to let the curtain fall; for now there would remain nothing for it to do but to show that the glittering goal in which the hero expected to find happiness had only disappointed him, and that after its attainment he was no better off than before".

I got this from the chapter which discusses Schopenhauer in "The story of Philosophy" by Will Durant- Highly recommended.

Schopenhauer chapter, section five- The World as Evil

But if the world is will, it must be a world of suffering. And first, because will itself indicates want, and its grasp is always greater than its reach. For every wish that is satisfied there remain ten that are denied. Desire is infinite, fulfillment is limited- "It is like the alms thrown to a beggar, that keeps him alive today in order that his misery may be prolonged tommorow....As long as our consciousness is filled by our will, so long as we are given up to the throng with their constant hopes and fears, so long as we are subject to willing, we can never have lasting happiness or peace". And fullfilment never satisfies; nothing is so fatal to an ideal as its realization. -"The satisfied passion oftener leads to unhappiness than to happiness. For its demands often conflict so much with the personal welfare of him who is concerned that they undermine it." Each individual bears within himself a disruptive contradiction; the realized desire develops a new desire, and so on endlessly. -"At bottom this results from the fact that the will must live on itself, for there exists nothing besides it, and it is a hungry will"

"In every individual the measure of the pain essential to him was determined once and for all by his nature; a measure which could neither remain empty, nor be more than filled... If a great and pressing care is lifted from our breast,... another immediately replaces it, the whole material of which was already there before, but could not come into consciousness as care because there was no capacity left for it... but now that there is room for this it comes forward and occupies the throne".

Life is evil because "as soon as want and suffering permit rest to a man, boredom is at once so near that he necessarily requires diversion" i.e. more suffering. Even if the socialist Utopia were attained, innumerable evils would be left, because some of them -like strife- are essential to life; and if every evil were removed, and strife altogether ended, boredom would become as intolerable as pain. So life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom...After man had transformed all pains and torments into the conception of hell, there remained nothing for heaven except boredom.

Life is evil because the higher the organism the greater the suffering. Even memory and foresight add to human misery; for most of our suffering lies in retrospect or anticipation; pain itself is brief. How much more suffering is caused by the thought of death than by death itself!

To be happy, one must be as ignorant as youth. Youths think that willing and striving are joys; it has not yet discovered the weary insatiableness of desire, and the fruitlessness of fulfillment; it does not yet see the inevitableness of defeat. --

"The cheerfulness and vivacity of youth are partly due to the fact that when we are ascending the hill of life, death is not visible; it lies down at the bottom of the other side...Towards the close of life, every day we see gives us the same kind of sensation as the criminal experiences at every step on his way to the gallows. To see how short life is, one must have lived long.

Finally, and above all, life is evil because life is war. Everywhere in nature we see strife, competition, conflict, and a suicidal alternation of victory and defeat. Every species "fights for the matter, space, and time of others"--

"Yunghahn relates that he saw in Java a plain, as far as the eye could reach, entirely covered with skeletons, and took it for a battle-field; they were, however, merely the skeletons of large turtles,...which come this way out of the sea to lay their eggs, and are then attacked by wild dogs who with their united strength lay them on their backs, strip off the small shell from the stomach, and devour them alive. But often then a tiger pounces upon the dogs...For this the turtles are born...Thus the will to live everywhere preys upon itself, and in different forms is its own nourishment, till finally the human race, because it subdues all the others, regards nature as a manufactory for its own use. Yet even the human race...reveals in itself with most terrible distinctiveness this conflict, this varience of the will with itself; and we find homo homini lupus.

The total picture of life is almost too painful for contemplation; life depends on our not knowing it too well.

"If we should bring clearly to a man's sight the terrible sufferings and miseries to which his life is constantly exposed, he would be seized with horror; and if we were to conduct the confirmed optimist through the hopitals, infirmaries, and surgical operating rooms, through the prisons, torture chambers, and slave kennels, over battle-fields and places of execution; if we were to open to him all the dark abodes of misery, where it hides itself from the glance of old curiosity, and, finally, allow him to look into the starving dungeons of Ugolino, he too would understand at last the true nature of this "best of all possible worlds."

What do you guys think? discuss.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Saul Dzorelashvili:
Quote from: Mahler Symphony on April 30, 2006, 03:09:45 PM


Its Bushy

I see it as a hard truth, others will see differently.  It depends on one's outlook. :)

Holden Fourth:
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.

I have come to regard philosophers as being similar to Major league Baseball players, who make their living playing a child's game.  They are child-men who never outgrew their adolescent angst. 

Your poll needs another entry, idiotic jibberish.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page