Antinatalism

We might want to find one whose work seems to suggest something close to a flawless character, but especially with older works, such things might not last. And it's almost impossible to know what claims are true, nor even which works are properly attributed to an author. We can seek to write as honestly as we can, then make use of the old works without giving them the same standard as we give ourselves and we give other people for whom we can personally address and so clarify misunderstandings. or unknown issues, that arise.

It seems like a lot of this rests on who Schopenhauer expected would read his work, and if it was very specific audiences then he may have taken much needed context for granted as implied. I found Schopenhauer's work on suffering to be of high personal value. I recommend it to many, but not to be taken literally. I would try to hold my own words to a higher standard of accuracy and consistency than his words on suffering. His words can be taken as a counter-balance to so much writing which's consistency is far worse and which's content is on the opposing extreme; that of unnatural optimism.

The worst case is likely that Schopenhauer's work on suffering, which is only that which fairly literate people would attempt, has been given to those people severally outside of context, and with not only not the right necessary prior understanding, but with information, such as the common misinformation, that has been spread along side the old misinformation involving Christianity, through the west in the last 200 years.

And say the worst you quoted above, was true, we can most likely still say he would have still been one worth knowing, as one who we might have found able to receive and respond to our criticism, even if never satisfactorily.

Also, while I can't claim I understand this very well, Satyr mentions how it was Nietzsche who most exactingly brought the life-affirming works of the Greeks to modern days. Schopenhauer may be looked at in a historic context as one making do with an honest will to address Christianity and it's influences without having much to help him in his pursuit. Though, that's largely in terms of how he addresses suffering and purpose, in the most direct of manner. In terms of how he addresses will, as a broader subject involving pain and purpose, and knowledge, that may stand alone, largely outside of a historic context, even should the other work not.

I can see how living in the Natalist Christian stagnated society might make one react towards the opposite extreme, but one cant write about such hatred for life without some level of contempt for one's own people... a people before the 20th century.

In his lifetime how could he sense the multiplicity of life such as animals, forests, mountains, rivers, rain, snow, fire, the Sun and conclude that these things should not be, did he ever consider that life is more than just humanity or even animals?

Given his worship of death, is he truly that different from the messiah who also prescribes death (paradise) as an antidote to existence, just providing the secular variant of the same disease?

It is important to understand him, like any thinker, as a form of immunizing one's self against their particular will or anti-will.

In this scene a crucial factor in what is occurring is presented in an indirect form...



If we place it within the contexts of a War Like No Other, where the enemy is a parasite spreading a memetic virus that zombifies - metaphors galore - then one way to survive is to inject yourself with the virus so that the diseased cannot sniff you out as an uninfected one, and be driven to tear you apart.
See how this mind altering mental virus is turning on anyone exhibiting "symptoms" of healthy.
We can only use allusions - metaphors, allegories - so that the infected do not detect our presence and be driven by madness to chew us to shreds.
Interesting that a mental disease spreading semiotically from mind to mind, necessitates linguistic concealments.


In my opinion - returning to the case of Schopenhauer - is that he was infected/affected by an eastern strain, identified as Buddhism.
Buddhism is to Hinduism what Abrahamism is to...Hellenism.
The issue is an absence of accessible frontiers, creating a "Behavioural Sink" scenario.
Life must survive, by any means...and nobility, intelligence, or even dignity is not its primary goal and will be sacrificed if need be.

Schopenhauer's "pessimism" was a product of spiritual fatigue.
A common factor for many males who are confronted by these modern/postmodern state of affairs. His age had not progressed as far down the rabbit hole as ours has. We are sitting with the Mad Hatter in this alternate reality. But Abrahamism was still a factor.
Don't know what personal events triggered his "turning away"....but I know that Nietzsche found among the pre-Socratics an intoxicating antidote, a pharmakon, which he could not find personal healing in drinking himself....since it is also toxic. He too died childless and miserable, having identified Christian symptoms but not daring to go to the source of this infestation that goes all the way back to Socrates, through Plato, and is rooted in an emerging self-awarness...in my view.
The theme of the medicine being as dangerous than the disease it purports to heal, continues through...
With Nietzsche there's the protestant paternal factor to consider when trying to understand his polemics against Christianity, rather than the entire Abrahamic triad.

Another factor is high IQ and how individuals - primarily females - on the upper 3% find it difficult to make the necessary sacrifices, in time and effort, and to settle for what is available. Males have an easier time with it.
I've explored how and why high IQ - top 10% - females tend to not settle, and why high IQ males - top 3% - are also hampered reproductively, unless the process is made as easy as it was during periods of Paternalistic dominance.
In this age, when males are expected to adopt feminine seductive and reproductive practices, this has made the sacrifices impossible to accept rationally, and so irrationality is demanded as a requirement for reproduction.

Nihilism serves as an empowering excuse.
In the absence of absolute one then absolute nil is divine, i.e., omnipotent.
Uncertainty, poor odds, squash what will is left to reaffirm life.

Satyr wrote:

In my opinion - returning to the case of Schopenhauer - is that he was infected/affected by an eastern strain, identified as Buddhism.
Buddhism is to Hinduism what Abrahamism is to...Hellenism.
The issue is an absence of accessible frontiers, creating a "Behavioural Sink" scenario.
Life must survive, by any means...and nobility, intelligence, or even dignity is not its primary goal and will be sacrificed if need be.

How coincidental that this video was just recently produced.

Impulso Oscuro, I need to reread Schopenhauer's work on suffering before I comment again, and would have better to have reread it before commenting here.

Satyr, similarly, I'd like to reread some of Nietzsche's later work before commenting about his views.