Jump to content

Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Voodooengineer (talk | contribs) at 14:52, 20 January 2017 (→Genetics v. Heredity: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


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.

Non-existent pet cat

In the “Life” section, the following appeared: “He died of heart failure on 21 September 1860 while sitting at home on his couch with his cat.” Helen Zimmern’s biography was cited. I deleted the reference to a cat. Zimmern’s book does not mention a cat. By the way, Schopenhauer’s pet was a poodle, not a cat. He provided for the poodle in his will. Also, the first poodle was Atma; the second was named Butz.98.110.87.71 (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Hans Wurst[reply]

I don't know anything about Schopenhauer, but wills are written while you are alive; provisions in a will for a dog do not necessarily mean that the dog was still alive at the time of the legator's death; question is whether the dog survived probate. In such a case, probably Schrodinger had more to say about it than Schopenhauer. :) 68.175.78.20 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here, for the rare open-minded seekers of reality here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0025.2005.00285.x/

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)[reply]

Vedantic horse feathers

The section on the supposed similarity to Buddhism should be dropped unless it can be shown that Schopenhauer himself made the comparison. Otherwise it's just some religious posturing, ie, trying to attach one's own religion to a famous philosopher so as bask in a little reflected glory or, alternatively, to tarnish the thinker by claiming that his insights actually come from someplace else. It adds nothing to our understanding of the man, thus, I will delete in one week if no-one objects.Theonemacduff (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is well sourced that others have recognized a parallel in Vedic thinking, I believe this is a useful insight into both Schopenhauer and the ancient Indian thinkers - with no detriment to either party. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Science + edits

Hi,
if some relevant RSs can be found, it would complete the picture of Artie to mention that he, unusual for a philosopher, was well versed in science - obviously at the state of the art of his time - and declared science to be highly important. I'll see what I can find in GE; if someone can trawl for EN sources, that would be helpful.
I removed his anti-marriage quotes from the section on mlle. Medon, by the way, as they were published 15-20 years after the event and so do not constitute any kind of contemporary commentary on this relationship.
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Schopenhauer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics v. Heredity

Please provide justification for this edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Schopenhauer&oldid=743154199#Heredity_and_eugenics

Why is an explanation of genetics versus heredity warranted? This seems an apology for an opinion of Schopenhauer that may offend and also appears contrary to Schopenhauer's stated opinion. A citation is warranted, at a minimum. Voodooengineer (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthur_Schopenhauer&oldid=761041458"