Monism, Insect Eggs, and Excrement in a Jar

Reconstructo · # **94486** Tue 24 Nov, 2009 07:38 pm

Schopenhauer offered his readers a grim clarity.

He compared a genius writing to an insect laying its eggs -- then both are able to die in peace.

And: Corpses are the excrement of the species. Philosophers are motivated by aggression / irritability. The brain is the tool of the gonads and belly.

Then the monism of his thing-in-itself. The world as desire / force / will / need/ hunger / itch.

He founded his system upon the Irrational. Nietzsche is arguably just a twist on Schopenhauer.

I disagree with him on many points, but his value, for me, is undeniable.

Reconstructo · # **94487** Sun 20 Dec, 2009 07:22 am

Nietzsche in 3 words: "God is Fred."
Schopenhaur in 9: "Life sucks unless you're a genius or a saint."

Jackofalltrades phil · # **94488** Sun 20 Dec, 2009 12:05 pm

It takes a genius to write these words!

Reconstructo · # **94489** Mon 21 Dec, 2009 12:50 am

Jackofalltrades;113038 wrote:

It takes a genius to write these words!

I don't know what you mean exactly, but I like your signature (the couplet).

Jackofalltrades phil · # **94490** Mon 21 Dec, 2009 06:29 am

thanks...

Oh,..when i meant the 'words' it means the words written under quotation which, was referred to. I found it very interesting and amusing. A derivation out of that formulation is......that it will logically follow, that a genius is ultimately an excrement!! ...lol. And that, only a genius can figure it out, i say.

Reconstructo · # **94491** Mon 21 Dec, 2009 06:59 am

Jackofalltrades;113203 wrote:

..that it will logically follow, that a genius is ultimately an excrement!! ...lol. And that, only a genius can figure it out, i say.

This made an expression come to my mind: Holy Sh**

Antoine Roquenti · # **94492** Fri 19 Feb, 2010 08:20 pm

A danish thinker said (the translation is a bit tricky for me as it goes on word-plays): Though Schopenhauer always get right, does not mean that he is right.

Quinn phil · # **94493** Fri 19 Feb, 2010 09:04 pm

Antoine Roquenti;130179 wrote:

A danish thinker said (the translation is a bit tricky for me as it goes on word-plays): Though Schopenhauer always get right, does not mean that he is right.

What does it mean to get right? I know the translation's tricky, but what do you think he means?

Antoine Roquenti · # **94494** Sat 20 Feb, 2010 04:24 am

Life swings, Schopenhauer tell us, like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom. Between those two poles are joy. IE. there are far more pain and boredom in life than joy. Or to put it in another way, If life is like that, there is always far more work than joy and pleasure and when we finally (and seldom) are satisfied, we quickly moves to a state of boredom.
In a cruel way, Schopenhauer is absolutely right but - as the thinker I was quoting says - this does not - nessesarily - mean that he cannot be wrong also.

Does that make sence?

Quinn phil · # **94495** Sat 20 Feb, 2010 10:25 am

Antoine Roquenti;130227 wrote:

Life swings, Schopenhauer tell us, like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom. Between those two poles are joy. IE. there are far more pain and boredom in life than joy. Or to put it in another way, If life is like that, there is always far more work than joy and pleasure and when we finally (and seldom) are satisfied, we quickly moves to a state of boredom.
In a cruel way, Schopenhauer is absolutely right but - as the thinker I was quoting says - this does not - nessesarily - mean that he cannot be wrong also.

Does that make sence?

Completely. Thanks.

Reconstructo · # **94496** Sat 20 Feb, 2010 02:20 pm

I certainly disagree with Schopenhauer on important points. In fact, I reject his metaphysical system as a whole. But the fragments are brilliant in any case. He presented the mind/brain as the tool of the heart/gonads. Of course "heart" and "gonads" symbolize Will here. He was a corrective to Hegel, a forerunner of depth-psychology, and a brilliant writer on the nature of music. He just couldn't resist the temptation to build a system that answered the fundamental questions.