|↓||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.|
The "Criticism" section contains an ad hominem criticism by the Analytical philosopher Bertrand Russell. Russell was fond of finding a logical contradiction between an individual and the group to which the individual belongs. The article states: "The British philosopher and historian Bertrand Russell deemed Schopenhauer's doctrine insincere, because judging by his life: '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.' (Russell, Bertrand (1946). History of Western Philosophy. Start of 2nd paragraph: George Allen and Unwin LTD. p. 786)" In this criticism, Russell purported to find a logical contradiction between Schopenhauer’s personal behavior and the behavior that he recommended in general.
However, it seems only fair that Schopenhauer should be allowed to speak in his own defense. Schopenhauer, 127 years earlier, had anticipated criticisms such as Russell’s and had written: "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." (The World as Will and Representation, Volume I, § 68, p. 383 f. of the Dover Edition) I will include Schopenhauer’s words in the article’s "Criticism" section if there is no valid objection.Lestrade (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Lestrade
- Hi Lestrade, Sorry, but adding that would run afoul of WP:OR. You need to find (or publish) a work which characterizes Schopenhauer's comment as a response to criticism of the type that Russell articulated. — goethean 14:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
Stylistic Quibbles shouldnt prevent the truth
Schopenhauer's relationship to the deeper strains of Christian metaphysics should not be under the rug hidden, falsely.
I added the following non-original source text, if the style is bad, please a good-willed wikipedian help me modify it for the article, thak you.
Gerard Mannion discusses the complexity of Schopenhauer's philosophic interconnection to the modernly neglected apophatic Christianity of pre-modern Christian philosophy, wherein "God" is a sort of mystery of mysteries, unsayable, an "abysm": central here is Schopenhauer, the putative "atheist", evincing the strongest acclamation of the mystical theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, averring "this theology is the only true one". Mannion explains and contextualizes the intellectual complexity in the following words:
"Schopenhauer states that we must avoid the pitfalls of equivocation which follow when we apply our terms to what 'God' signifies. He refers to Pseudo-Dionysius' Mystical Theology and notion of 'beyond.' Schopenhauer believes Dionysius stated that, although all the predicates of God can be denied, none can be confirmed. Schopenhauer's later thought renders all talk of the 'beyond' paradoxical in a manner similar to the device from mystical theology of 'negating the negation'; that is, the apophatic element is never in isolation from cataphatic elements and, indeed, eventually becomes negated itself." (G.M., pg. 81, Schopenhauer, Religion and Morality: The Humble Path to Ethics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 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.188.8.131.52 (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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)