Has anyone else here had their worldview shaped by him to some degree? When I stumbled upon his work in my university library many years ago it almost took my breath away.
-
Hey Guest,
We wanted to share a quick update with the community.
Our public expense ledger is now live, allowing anyone to see how donations are used to support the ongoing operation of the site.
👉 View the ledger hereOver the past year, increased regulatory pressure in multiple regions like UK OFCOM and Australia's eSafety has led to higher operational costs, including infrastructure, security, and the need to work with more specialized service providers to keep the site online and stable.
If you value the community and would like to help support its continued operation, donations are greatly appreciated. If you wish to donate via Bank Transfer or other options, please open a ticket.
Donate via cryptocurrency:
Bitcoin (BTC):Ethereum (ETH):Monero (XMR):
DisillusionedDragon
Pessimist/Antinatalist
- Nov 25, 2020
- 172
Not directly, no. My worldview was shaped by various pessimistic/antinatalist people and my own thinking. Personally I never really resonated with Schopenhauers specific ideas and concepts very much,to be honest. Another person you're obviously familiar with, Thomas Ligotti, probably had a bigger impact
But really my brain always took in all the things I resonate with/find interesting/worth pondering etc. and I think about it and thereby slowly created my worldview. There were some "breakthrough" moments, but really the impact of any one person on my overall worldview is quite small, I'd imagine.
I hear you. I trust you have read The Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Ligotti. What a masterpiece.
whatevs
Mining for copium in the weirdest places.
- Jan 15, 2022
- 2,911
I read back to back Part 4 of World as Will and Representation many times in a 3-4 year period. To this day I will use phrases and concepts from Schopie in conversations or when pondering about something. To me he was the greatest philosopher ever alive and I would like him to be cloned and forced to absorb the modern context and give us a thesis.
He wasn't perfect, however. I grew out of some of his stuff. I particularly find concerning that he commended asceticism but biographers and he himself paint something quite removed from asceticism. In my opinion, you need to practice what you preach. This is why I still try to stop jerking off, lol.
Still, his explanation for religious celibacy makes sense to me. It's borne from some type of understanding of life being something that might be best stopped and not propagated. But I don't completely know at this point what I really think. It just sort of makes sense, and people breeding certainly looks like mindless animalism.
For me his biggest accomplishment is a successful characterization of the essence of life as an inmaterial, fatalistic WILL, and the logical defense of metaphysics that he also presents successfully. Not ex nihilo, neither ad nihilum. Basically he argues perfectly in favour of essences being a thing, (or THE thing), which modern "intellectuals" obviously dispute. As long as you believe in essences you believe in metaphysics, or, as dreaded as it might be, you may even be a spiritual person.Last edited:
Oblivion Access
I don't know anything
- Jul 5, 2019
- 333
whatevs
Mining for copium in the weirdest places.
- Jan 15, 2022
- 2,911
