I'm not fond of Schopenhauer's philosophy. I find it approaching Nietzsche's in utter repugnance; however, this little ditty seems to be a source of salutary reading for many of St. Blog's (and the world-at-large's) controversialists. These are to be distinguished from St. Blog's distinguished, reputable, and above-board disputant
Schopenhauer wrote that? Glancing through it, I was wondering if it was ghostwritten by the devil, or James Carville or someone like that.
It gave me the heebie-jeebies.
Dear Peony,
I suspect Schopenhauer would agree with you. I read this as a what NOT to do guidebook. It is written as though given instructions but I believe Schopenhauer's point is that these modes of engagement are vile and to be repudiated. I apologize if my general comment re: Schopenhauer misled you in reading this. Take another look, I think you'll see what I mean.
shalom,
Steven
thanks, that's what I was hoping (that it was written as a what not to do book.)
That's what I get for reading a few pages out of context by an author I know nothing about
Thanks, Steven!
My precious young Nietzsche friend at work has been desiring to "move on" to Schopenhauer, one of Nietzsche's prime influences.
This is one we might be able to read together and have a good time at it!
We do love arguing civilly about God, man and the universe--we certainly do feel that way about each other, that only one in a thousand is worth truly arguing with.
We argue in TRUTH, not for human pride. Nobody has to have the last word--nobody is threatened by losing a particular "point."
When we find ourselves stalemated, why, then, we start discussing old "South Park" episodes!