|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|The content of Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of the proofs of the parallel postulate was merged into Arthur Schopenhauer on October 31, 2014. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|Arthur Schopenhauer has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
Article needs to cite sources!
The sections of the article that discuss Schopenhauer's views mostly do not cite sources from his works.
Schopenhauer "influenced thinkers .... Hitler (10) ...". First it is a curious news, that Hitler was a "Thinker". Second, by what idea did Hitler refer to Schopenhauer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Neither does the "cited" source classify Hitler as a THINKER nor can it be deemed possible for anybody with a sane mind to spread such a hideous monstrosity. This is downright intolerable and had to be removed. --Greenforester (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC) There is an edit war going on, because someone really re-established Hitler as "thinker". For a NAZI, Hitler will forever be a thinker, for sure. However, the cited source (Sluga) does not call him a "thinker". So, where is the source? In the brain of the contributor who pops Adolf Hitler constantly up between thinkers? That should not be sufficient, or else en.Wikipedia.org would better close down forever. Greenforester (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Adolf Hitler page doesn't indicate he is an influence, so it seems inappropriate to mention him in the lead here. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 00:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comments in the section aren't significant, despite the source. I'd like to see them replaced with some serious skepticism
- Since there is no discussion and a fair amount of time is passed, I'll remove the segment now. Probably, I'll get a message saying
largely ignored by academic philosophers for the past century. None of this very well-reasoned criticism, however, pertains to Schopenhauer's personal lifestyle.
- The segment at issue, sourced or not, is less than useful for shedding light on Schopenhauer. To insist on retaining it in the face of two editors with the same, perfectly reasonable objection is questionable.
"There is vast amount of published criticisms of Schopenhauer's work. So much so that he's been largely ignored by academic philosophers for the past century." That is one person's opinion regarding the reason that academic philosophers ignore Schopenhauer. Another person's opinion may be that Schopenhauer very strongly and extensively criticized academic philosophers in many of his writings.126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)The Honourable Ronald Adair
- Point is, there's plenty of substantive & illuminating criticism available. To say that he enjoyed eating and sex & therefore his philosophy is invalid, is merely a kind of joke. That Russell said it may be slightly interesting in itself, but Magee was convinced that Russell never read Schopenhauer.
Is it true he had a child? That doesn't make any sense considering he was a pessimist and an antinatalist. The two citations contradict each other. One is a daughter, the other is a son. So did he have a daughter, a son, both or neither? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Today I removed 2 sections that appeared as essays. They were based on primary sources thus giving no way to trace their origin. The entire Thought section appears to be written in the same vein & with the same MO. It is also bloated and lacks clarity for the average reader. Any suggestions on improvement? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the philosopher had a dog, not a cat
Hi. I indeed would prefer Schopenhauer had had a cat, but actually he had a dog, and it was named Atma. I think he had two dogs, both of them named Atma. In the article we read he had a cat. Hence my point. Thanks.
Please Try Harder People
Encyclopedias have higher standards of veracity than "folk-wisdom", people.
Schopenhauer was NOT an "atheist" - I spit and coughed and choked on my drink, merely reading such idiocy.
Socrates was an "atheist", too, right?
Schopenhauer rejected the Judaic conception of God as a tribal self-projection of delusory egoism, morally and rationally bankrupt. Rejection of the Jewish God does NOT constitute, in some sort of simplistic moronic distortion, "atheism" IN ITSELF -
Schopenhauer, as a penetrating thinker, is not stereotyped in conceptual demotic boxes lacking subtlety.
Schopenhauer is paradoxical, and admits paradox as the actual height of perception in human terms - do people READ HIS WORKS THESE DAYS? - do people not notice how Schopenhauer praises *mystical* and *apophatic* or *negative theological* philosophers and their notions of the Godhead...?
Jewish theism, if the paradigm we are bound to place him within forcibly, is only where pure dull ATHEIST, simple cut-and-dry, applies to Schopenhauer as a label.
Schopenhauer endlessly favorably expounds upon and comments in laudation about CERTAIN CONCEPTIONS OF THE GODHEAD - Hindu, Christian mystical, Sufi, Gnostic - do you guys read his actual books, may I ask? Or just accept book-store platitudes and nonsense passively?
To be precise, Schopenhauer approbates and celebrates glowingly the mystical Christian tradition and the personal representatives of philosophically sophisticated mystic-transcendentalist APOPHATICISM or the "via negativa", "negative theology"...
I just randomly opened "The World as..." simply to guide you guys... Here...
"In recent times Christianity has forgotten its true meaning and degenerated into banal optimism"...
Wow, strange statement coming from an anti-Christian "ATHEIST"... Contemporary academics attempt to paint their own vulgar selves onto a noble figure such as Schopenhauer and sneakily toss around ambiguously meaningless terminology in order to hide their own lack of Schopenhauer-like intelligence...
Flipped randomly some pages... Well, what do you know, the anti-Christian atheist Schopenhauer is again positively commending the mystical Christian tradition and its nobler conceptions of spiritual metaphysics... Hmm...
Angelus Silesius Schopenhauer practically gushes over...as an esoteric Christian mystic not beholden to idiotic Arabian anthropomorphic distortions of the idea of God... Look up Silesius (countless other authentic sages too) in your indexes if you have Schopenhauer's actual books (optimistically?) -
Silesius is designated "admirable" and "immeasurably deep", then the "ATHEIST" (derp!) cites Silesius on God favorably... Immediately thereafter, Schopenhauer opines Meister Eckhart is "a yet greater mystic", a whole nice passage about the meaning of God in relation to man this "ATHEIST" strangely allows into his erudition...
I could do this ALL NIGHT. Remove the horribly moronic, misleading term "ATHEIST" from the introductory summary, please - academic integrity is offended here... Does one call Dionysius the Areopagite an "ATHEIST" because he described God as incommunicable, negatively partially conceivable only as "ABSYM" and "BEDAZZLING DIVINE DARKNESS"? Ugh, is there any standard of I.Q. on Wikipedia?
I can't even endure reading the rest of this, as an actual student of Schopenhauer actually knowledgeable about his actual philosophical tendencies...
Ha, "atheist". You could have hit a little closer with the oh so new trendy "panentheist" or "trans-theist" - any Hindu deific label - anything except ATHEIST! Modern Marxist pseudo-intellectuals, entrenched in establishment educational media, WISH Schopenhauer was some empty-skulled, garden-variety rationalistic atheist of the low level of mind of Marx and co., in their dreams. No, no, no. Barf. Fallacious simplistic distortion of a vastly more multi-leveled reality, please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:201B:C69D:8184:5993 (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Here, for the rare open-minded seekers of reality here:
Not perfect as an article, but at least is a beginner's guide in this territory and should help people discuss S. a little less ignorantly... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:201B:C69D:8184:5993 (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)