+iniesta Thank you!

Underrated.

Thank you for posting it to begin with. You are welcome for my little addition to it.

iniesta

iniesta thank you for this sir.

"Hope is killing me Jerry!" --George Costanza

Ha. Yup.

Schopenhauer is a far greater intellect than Durant. It shows

@@henrywolf5332 oh was not comparing them.

I agree -- this narrator is one of the best. I believe his name is Leighton Pugh.

@@JamesBath-is-here I am sure he has narrated many Phillip K. Dick novels, his voice really adds a wonderfully affable yet wry dimension to the material. A consummate professional.

@@shannonm.townsend1232 Thanks. I didn't realize that. I'll be on the lookout for that the next time I buy audio.

😁😁😁 If you ever have a second dog, dont forget to call him (Frerderic) Nietzsche . . .

I like him as well, I'm more of an Epicurean, but his insights seem to be correct. What he is describing is the struggle of the rational mind to overcome the irrationality of emotion and life.

A most wonderful comment my friend and fellow sufferer.

I find Schop comforting but 99 +% of the population don't want to know these things. If you really want an accurate picture of humanity read some Thomas Bernhard. I see little point in trying to get people to use reason. That would go against their natures. It's a bad idea to draw this misery out by slightly educating a species that is destined to forever sail the fail boat into a dirty brown sunset.

@@johnmiller7453 why not get rich educating the public

HotshotGTar An Pessimist is a realist who understands Murphy's Law and Human nature. -Jaygo

HotshotGTar Like a neo-con is "a liberal that's been mugged by reality"? (Joking) Yeah a liberal that was mugged and suffered head trauma resulting in permanent cognitive impairment.

K

Agreed.

Divorce; 'After copulation, man hears the devil's laughter." - Schopenhauer. A few seconds of pleasure for a lifetime of misery.

It is the best quote

Go on

Unless we cheat the devil for the price of a condom!

It is funny. How many other statements did he make like such? It would be a great pamphlet, "The mad wit and gloomy humor of Arthur the S".

You BET !!!

Adrian Cutner thank u. M a muslim the Qur’an teaches me that this life is not real it’s an illusion. Have u ever look into it? N y? Bcoz here the west is fond of Buddha but not Mohamed n ancient man of billion followers, I always wonder y? Mohamed-pbuh-emphasized: that the real life is when we “die” n meet Allah sw; the creator; the true owner of the soul- n everything in creation. The point here, is to “submit” to him/ to Allah sw n “worship” him alone, n know the true nature of u-hu u r- as human is : u r a slave, a mere servant; thus submit. In that token, Schopenhauer is right n had done a correct imagination.

@@ragemsaid8697 Observe the comment section here: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/rV2KfbCkp7CGsWQ.html I also request that you watch the movie Tolkien and then consider the fact that one of Tolkien's sons was a Roman Catholic priest for nearly 50 years. Dawkins' notorious book puts the entire thing neatly with its title: The God Delusion! Buddhism to the West does not contain any of the pesky things that is in Christianity and Islam and it's creator does not have any particular moral problem by today's standards (something that is especially found in Muhammed) or at least no one has paid any attention to them in however long the man has been written about.

@@artofthepossible7329 Buddhism and west is an oxymoron. It is quite funny for me to hear investment bankers or movie celebrities talk about their Buddhist wisdom and meditations. People in west use the doctrines of Buddhism to cope up with their stressful lives. Just like daoism, bhuddism is a 500 B.C pro-primitivist worldview, wherein the main problem of the existence is either the self and/or the civilization itself. Current materialistic, hedonistic and consumerist west would have been an unimaginable horror show for the buddha. Actual budhhist masters 1) abandon the worldly life. 2) Dissolve the sense of self hood/ego/personhood. All other renditions of buddha's doctrines in current west are just coping mechanisms and so was it for the Schopenhauer. Contrary to this, remove the eurocentric snobbery and contemporary moral sensitives/tastes of the men, Islam is a doctrine for an iron-fisted duel(on spiritual level) with the world, with all its miseries and it emerges as its conqueror. If you submit to the divine will, there is nothing in the world to be sad about. Sadness for a true believer, becomes trivial.

Cee Gee gee calm down, lots of philosophers have said dumb sexist and misogynistic stuff, you wouldn’t abandon modern logic just because Frege was an extreme nationalist or Heidegger ontology cause he was a nazi party member. Please piss off with your fake narrow outrage, you must be a woman to be this agitated

1. Shopenhauer says the sky is blue. 2. But Shopenhauer believes men are smarter because they rape women. 3. Therefore, the sky is not blue. Shopenhauer's distasteful ideas have nothing to do with whether or not he can have true utterances. You've employed a fatuous ad hominem non sequitur here. Attack the argument, not the person.

Cee Gee is the type of woman Shopenhauer was warning us about. How dare Shopenhauer say anything that would dissuade a man from doing irrational things to please a woman...

This guy hits the nail on the head!!!!

Schopenhauer was a profound and prescient thinker on the rôle and future of philosophy & religion. "Science requires talent but Art requires genius". Sadly, he was also profoundly male chauvinist. ☹

.

Absolutely. You got it right.

This was very good the way he describes it, so true.

estas desiulucionado....de, DIOS. ...no, seas ...COBARDE....y......admitelo, eres un jesusfreack....

I read the entire book some years ago and that was the weakest criticism for any philosopher I've seen.

Alonso Cruz As ones whose life is similar to schop, ie stuck in a dark apartment my entire youth, distrustful of society and those around me, and having a dislike for women because I see them as distractions that only bring me pain, I have found that it is the most spot on criticsm I have ever seen. However, maybe it is because it spoke to me rather than the philosopher.

IntermediateJesus almost all criticism of schopenhauer Falls flat because he wasn't sad or lonely or so upset or miserable. He enjoyed nice dinners he enjoyed Solitude and study. He was merely saying that the way most people live life thinking that they're going to be eternally happy and that they're going to make it one day and that life is a journey well all that's wrong and schopenhauer was right about that.

its not the worst criticism for someone who was clearly a sickly shut in. His perspective was limited.

Exactly, Schopenhauer obviously made Durant uncomfortable. However to his credit he did a pretty good job with this overall. Durant was no slouch. We all have places in ourselves we can't go. He had family and wife and to fully agree with the Schop would make all that seem like a bad mistake.

Yep my freind. But he wanted us to be GODS TOO ! And I aim for that goal . . .

Clearly the narrator is Gover Gardner, on eFax the best.

One of the best!

Sort of. Whenever I saw something in this life and wondered about it, by reading Schopenhauer, I felt like he was grabbing my head, point it in one direction and said, "look, there it is." And it all made sense.

You asking that because you have any anime or mangá in mind?

@@Guilherme-mg5fn Ahh hello fellow weeb.

At various points of my life, yes! Whenever I see a beetle writhing on the ground, attempting to get back on its legs, I think of the suffering of life (in the context of Schopenhauer.) I mean this seriously, because it brings to mind the pity so essential to Schopenhauer’s Ethics.

Its great

Thnx. Good info.

Throughout the book, I've noticed that Will Durant is, or at least tends to be, a relativistic man, and it's obvious that someone who sees the philosopher as an outfit that changes according to the moods is not conducive to criticism. or honest reviews. Because of this, I will show in an initial observation and in three points later that his criticism of Schopenhauer's philosophy is dishonest because it is based on forgeries and the opportunistic refusal to consider fundamental aspects that would be obstacles to its purposes. Well, let's go: The initial observation I wanted to make concerns the pseudo-refutation he made of the doctrine of the slavery of the will, a doctrine that was already present between the Stoics and St. Augustine before being appropriated by Schopenhauer (it is obvious that he received different names for each of them. of philosophies). He says that being a slave to the will isn't all that bad because total satisfaction might not be the best thing to look for and that there are things worth pursuing on their own like, for example, the "conquest", the " overcoming" and "strengthening". The problem is that he didn't make any rebuttals by saying this and, in fact, all he managed to do was make a basic mess by putting the object in front of the purpose. Let me explain: Every time we want something, we need it and we only need it because its absence causes us suffering, so we look for it not to suffer, and not for itself. Thus, the purpose of all wanting is always not to suffer and never the object that causes suffering, which is always just a tool. It also follows from this reasoning that life according to wanting can never provide what it seeks, which is the satisfaction of not suffering, because the satisfaction is merely momentary and the wanting is infinite, so that the want itself is the cause of suffering. Now, according to all the correct reasoning set out, it follows that the "refutation" Wil Durant's is an atrocious stupidity because how can a person achieve a life worth living and happy through a lifestyle that never delivers what it promises and that only causes suffering, which is precisely what one escapes from adopting this Lifestyle? He says it might be better not to live fully satisfied, but he recommends a life whose only goal is the satisfaction of not suffering. Amazing logic. If you incessantly want something, you use methods that make you get it, and not fruitless methods. It is completely meaningless, a pseudo-refutation of a born relativist. The first point I wanted to comment on concerns his own statements. He says that the unhappy and pessimistic man is blamed for his own unhappiness for having ruined his life rather than seeking to mold it to be a better place for himself. The problem is that he does not see that this transformation of his own life for the better only happens through the denial of it through ascesis precisely because life is essentially bad and that, regardless of whether this is done or not, the world continues to be in its totality a hostile and deplorable place. Still according to him, there is a mediocre happy life, honest pleasures and ascesis is the attitude of the apathetic man, but these assertions he can only make, of course, through the aforementioned pseudo-refutation and deliberate ignorance of the inherent evils of the world and of man. Furthermore, he still says that the pessimistic man is only like that because of boredom and because he has not lived a "normal" life, but what he ignores is that both types of men (both the "boring" and those of "normal life") are unhappy, differing only in the degree of unhappiness. Finally, he claims that the man of high intellectuality has both his pleasure and his suffering increased, but he forgets that pleasure grows in arithmetical progression, while suffering grows in geometric progression. The second point he wanted to comment on deals not with what he said in itself, but what he did not say. He makes a point of mentioning thebirdsong and contemplative beauty (as if Schopenhauer had not already responded to this), but "innocently" forgets to mention more unpleasant things present in nature and in the world. Why didn't he mention, for example, the fact that hyenas open up and eat buffaloes while they are still alive? Why didn't he mention the "beautiful" attitude of chimps who kill their rivals with cruelty and then cannibalize them? Why didn't he talk about male white sharks raping female white sharks? Or why didn't he mention the male African lions, which drive out the weaker male lion and kill, and sometimes even eat, its young? Now, the most important question: why did he ignore human selfishness? Why didn't he allude to the fact that the state only exists because people are naturally selfish and evil? Why didn't he mention the fact that it's impossible for two or more people to be together for a long time without them soon starting to kill and use each other, so everywhere you see murder, torture, rape, racism, inequalities and so on? The answer to all these questions is obvious: He didn't mention any of this because it would be inconvenient to his overly optimistic ends. These aspects of Schopenhauer's reality and philosophy would make it impossible for him to defend the "nice" world thesis. He hides what causes him fear and displeasure. A smart and cowardly relativist. The third and final point he wanted to comment on concerns not what he said or did not say, but rather an erroneous impression he seemed to have and which many people also have. A lot of people (including Will Durant, I believe) think (in his case, he thought) that pessimism is synonymous with sadness and depression. Turns out pessimism has nothing to do with any of this. Pessimism is merely acknowledging the world as it is, that is, as essentially evil and taking action based on that knowledge, that is, acting in such a way as not to create false illusions and have no regrets whatsoever. That's it. If a person is pessimistic and has sadness and depression, this is accidental rather than substantial. I'm sure Schopenhauer never wrote his philosophy to make people sad and depressed, but only to make them see the world as it is and thus be able to act in the best possible way in life.

Yeah, and not just the Napoleonic ones, EVERY WAR EVER FOUGHT

it can be though, which means that it can be even more, which mean it can be ...? how much? You could be christ..

He was far behind in time he was prematurely a philosopher or a man 8n the wrong times

@@Infamous41 As a man who has studied this time period very thoroughly, I can tell you He was Far Far Ahead of his time. Not perfect, but ahead of most others at the time.

Thank you for posting as well.

Talk about good timing.

Then do not miss Sir OSHO !

@@AL_THOMAS_777 My goodness🤯

@@artofthepossible7329 thank you!!! Turning 37 in November

"Hope is killing me Jerry" --- George Costanza

Truly! I feel like Caesar when he reflected on the spoils of a young Alexander-I have lived in vain. It’s amazing that Hume, Wittgenstein, and Schopenhauer were able to complete some of the most influential works in philosophy, while in their twenties.

I enjoy reading Schopenhauer as well.

You know da thing.

You're welcome!

Noah Namey I agree Noah.

+Noah Namey and the deification by S of the w to s .....is rot.

you sound pretty optimistic when you call existence a gift. all we've got is a morsel of time to ponder our existence, before we are no more. But the will, the will's got us and it's got permanence. And it's not absurd at all to Schopenhauer, he accepts it as cold hard fact

Pessimists put on a good show.

Hey Noah Namely Camus was a patriot of reason and recovery. Shakespeare was a liar and a joker. you pretend to say so much and reveal nothing,

@@DurantandFriends I've read a couple of reviews of it, and I've read Susan Blackmore's book Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction (OUP). Funny, Kastrup would very likely retitle Dennett's book Consciousness Explained -- AWAY! [LOL]

How so?

Ernest Becker - And terror management theory. We’re destined to lose the race in the end - 2nd law of thermodynamics and whatnot. But.. is that all there is??

such a gem of a line.

From a grammatical point of view I feel obliged to point out that you habe contredicted yourself

Throughout the book, I've noticed that Will Durant is, or at least tends to be, a relativistic man, and it's obvious that someone who sees the philosopher as an outfit that changes according to the moods is not conducive to criticism. or honest reviews. Because of this, I will show in an initial observation and in three points later that his criticism of Schopenhauer's philosophy is dishonest because it is based on forgeries and the opportunistic refusal to consider fundamental aspects that would be obstacles to its purposes. Well, let's go: The initial observation I wanted to make concerns the pseudo-refutation he made of the doctrine of the slavery of the will, a doctrine that was already present between the Stoics and St. Augustine before being appropriated by Schopenhauer (it is obvious that he received different names for each of them. of philosophies). He says that being a slave to the will isn't all that bad because total satisfaction might not be the best thing to look for and that there are things worth pursuing on their own like, for example, the "conquest", the " overcoming" and "strengthening". The problem is that he didn't make any rebuttals by saying this and, in fact, all he managed to do was make a basic mess by putting the object in front of the purpose. Let me explain: Every time we want something, we need it and we only need it because its absence causes us suffering, so we look for it not to suffer, and not for itself. Thus, the purpose of all wanting is always not to suffer and never the object that causes suffering, which is always just a tool. It also follows from this reasoning that life according to wanting can never provide what it seeks, which is the satisfaction of not suffering, because the satisfaction is merely momentary and the wanting is infinite, so that the want itself is the cause of suffering. Now, according to all the correct reasoning set out, it follows that the "refutation" Wil Durant's is an atrocious stupidity because how can a person achieve a life worth living and happy through a lifestyle that never delivers what it promises and that only causes suffering, which is precisely what one escapes from adopting this Lifestyle? He says it might be better not to live fully satisfied, but he recommends a life whose only goal is the satisfaction of not suffering. Amazing logic. If you incessantly want something, you use methods that make you get it, and not fruitless methods. It is completely meaningless, a pseudo-refutation of a born relativist. The first point I wanted to comment on concerns his own statements. He says that the unhappy and pessimistic man is blamed for his own unhappiness for having ruined his life rather than seeking to mold it to be a better place for himself. The problem is that he does not see that this transformation of his own life for the better only happens through the denial of it through ascesis precisely because life is essentially bad and that, regardless of whether this is done or not, the world continues to be in its totality a hostile and deplorable place. Still according to him, there is a mediocre happy life, honest pleasures and ascesis is the attitude of the apathetic man, but these assertions he can only make, of course, through the aforementioned pseudo-refutation and deliberate ignorance of the inherent evils of the world and of man. Furthermore, he still says that the pessimistic man is only like that because of boredom and because he has not lived a "normal" life, but what he ignores is that both types of men (both the "boring" and those of "normal life") are unhappy, differing only in the degree of unhappiness. Finally, he claims that the man of high intellectuality has both his pleasure and his suffering increased, but he forgets that pleasure grows in arithmetical progression, while suffering grows in geometric progression. The second point he wanted to comment on deals not with what he said in itself, but what he did not say. He makes a point of mentioning thebirdsong and contemplative beauty (as if Schopenhauer had not already responded to this), but "innocently" forgets to mention more unpleasant things present in nature and in the world. Why didn't he mention, for example, the fact that hyenas open up and eat buffaloes while they are still alive? Why didn't he mention the "beautiful" attitude of chimps who kill their rivals with cruelty and then cannibalize them? Why didn't he talk about male white sharks raping female white sharks? Or why didn't he mention the male African lions, which drive out the weaker male lion and kill, and sometimes even eat, its young? Now, the most important question: why did he ignore human selfishness? Why didn't he allude to the fact that the state only exists because people are naturally selfish and evil? Why didn't he mention the fact that it's impossible for two or more people to be together for a long time without them soon starting to kill and use each other, so everywhere you see murder, torture, rape, racism, inequalities and so on? The answer to all these questions is obvious: He didn't mention any of this because it would be inconvenient to his overly optimistic ends. These aspects of Schopenhauer's reality and philosophy would make it impossible for him to defend the "nice" world thesis. He hides what causes him fear and displeasure. A smart and cowardly relativist. The third and final point he wanted to comment on concerns not what he said or did not say, but rather an erroneous impression he seemed to have and which many people also have. A lot of people (including Will Durant, I believe) think (in his case, he thought) that pessimism is synonymous with sadness and depression. Turns out pessimism has nothing to do with any of this. Pessimism is merely acknowledging the world as it is, that is, as essentially evil and taking action based on that knowledge, that is, acting in such a way as not to create false illusions and have no regrets whatsoever. That's it. If a person is pessimistic and has sadness and depression, this is accidental rather than substantial. I'm sure Schopenhauer never wrote his philosophy to make people sad and depressed, but only to make them see the world as it is and thus be able to act in the best possible way in life.

You can hear that from the tone and pitch of his voice.