2:18 He actually had two daughters, both died shortly or not that long following their birth. It’s always worse when the guy who warns the world not to play with matches ends up burned by them… even though in his case the intention was never to play with them but to apply them in serving the (individual) will. Also, it’s great to see the one and only Louis CK doing an epic deep dive on Schop’s works across so many videos. 👍
@@Pandemonium-n9b Do you think most/any parents actually have children purely for the hope of the child's happiness? Real question, honestly. Do you think most parents really think very deeply about it at all? To me, most parents I've talked to seem to have an idea about having children and the idea itself lacks any reflection. "I want two kids" or "we should have kids!" and that's about the end of the thought process, seems to me. Little to no reflection on, "why?" Probably most just wanna have sex and it just happens. The Will to live, overtaking the rationality.
@@jonmustang I didn’t say people weren’t selfish Just that hope and pleasure would be content enough to proceed having the child. If you have children, you should be responsible to them & at least repertoire their happiness and health. The dissatisfaction in life you build because of the selfish nature of other people is really terrible, But if someone says “I want to bare that responsible care/condition” Then I support it, Even if this means at some point the kid would be hurt in some way. I would be on board for the moral subjgation of good will on many kids then a negative selfish experience that makes their living space a hell to be apart of… Selfish conceited people really are the worst thing about existence but again if the kid is a purpose and i instill purpose to the best of my ability let nature make the decision
@@Pandemonium-n9b I see where you’re coming from. On an individual basis, a prospective future parent might think the way that you have described, and, as you say, choose to bare the burden of responsibility regarding the happiness of the child. That being said, Schopenhauer was probably thinking more about parenthood and existence at large, spread over the average and masses of humanity, and he might consider a thoughtful situation like you’re describing as being more like a noble anomaly in an ocean of suffering and brutish, unconscientious, or selfish motivation. In the same way that he wrote of what it’s like to himself be an anomaly of high intellect, he might also have conceited that there are occasional anomalies of high parenting
I don't think that one should say someone "is wrong" or "right" but rather " I don't agree" or "I agree" with him/her. Because there will always be some people who share the views you reject. Other than that, it helps to avoid omniscient postures and pompousness. Having pointed out that, your videos are very instructive and easily digestible. Thanks a lot.
Well Pavlov found that a dog can have a conditioned response to a bell and salivate in anticipation of food. That, in a sense is the dog enjoying what is to come and happily enjoying the promise of a future event.
By the way, I love your videos and I feel like you have the perfect reading and presentation for this material, very enjoyable! Thanks for doing what you do
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the texts as always. The anticipation argument is interesting, I would say its quite counterintuitive but just consider the case of illicit love, the pleasure of illicit love lies solely on the anticipation of a future good, where irrationality dominates, or in other words, under the immense influence of the will. If we examine what this kind of pleasure it really resides, it cannot be anything secular but the mere mental anticipation of the love itself. That means, to actually achieve the object of this love is not the true goal, while Schopenhauer will argue its the will to live that drives the illicit lover to basically have sex and give birth to a baby, a secret desire to prolong one’s life. But the love itself is illusory, and people who actually achieved such love are often met with disappointment. It is true people often feel that hard fought victory taste better, but via such victories they have already unconsciously assigned secular value to the things they desired, that they believe such and such will indeed benefit them by satisfying their desires, but it only means that they are not conscious of the nature of desire and pleasure.
Said you're strongly pro-natalist but didn't say it's rational. Then you immediately opined "Children are a source of joy & meaning." Isn't that selfish? "Bring children into the world b/c they will give you joy & meaning. Sure, they'll suffer a lot, but at least you'll get something out of it!"
Great point! I think it has to be that cosmic Will that brings about procreation because it certainly isn’t rational, nor just. I think the Will just overrides the rational observer in us and then our minds explain away through handwaving philosophy why the world isn’t as bad as Schopenhauer says it is.
Aren't bringing joy and meaning, acts of virtue? Children can bring joy and meaning to as many people who are open to recieve those gifts. Not just to bring joy and meaning to the procreators of said children.
@@Mr89siR the argument against that might go that it is still looking at children from a utilitarian standpoint, much like owning pets or even raising livestock for the slaughter. Schopenhauer's argument is that the pleasure that the predator gets out of devouring its prey is tiny compared to the immense pain that the prey suffers in its jaws. The same could be said for bringing children into the world. Should children have to endure the same loss of innocence and fall into the despair and suffering that adults have, just to cheer us up for a few years? Weren't all the suffering adults once innocent, joy-filled children who temporarily brought a few smiles into the world before having their hearts hardened and innocence destroyed by the world? A vicious cycle that Schopenhauer questioned.
Animals such as dogs can cower in fear about remembered threats and wag their tail in remembrance. They can anticipate the future with fear or glee. I do believe humans take these perceptions to a more fantastic level, even to the point of revelation or delusion. I don't blame Schopenhauer for his world view, but find it concedes to the times he lived in.
Just an idea, with Halloween around the corner, Schopenhauer's chapter in his On the Will in Nature entitled Animal Magnetism and Magic may be of interest. Also, I find it odd how little notice there is of the commonalities there are between Schopenhauer and Jacob Boehme. Schopenhauer definitely read him - he mentions him occasionally, for example in the aforementioned chapter on animal magnetism and magic - and while there are undoubtedly differences between them, the basic tenet of Will as the basis of life, the origin of which Will is "ungrounded" (boehme says Ungrund and Abyss) is obvious. Boehme preceded Schopenhauer, wrote in Deutsch, and was also commended by Hegel as the first German philosopher. He strikes me as an obvious formative influence overlooked when reading Schopenhauer in favor of Kant and Brahmanic sources.
@jonmustang probably why the parallels aren't recognized. But just for example: Boehme's Six Theosophic Points, First Point, chapter 2, paragraph 17: "The creation of this world was brought about by an awakening of the Will-spirit..." Msyterium Pansophicum, Third Text, third paragraph: "We recognize, therefore, the eternal Will-spirit as God, and the moving life of the craving of Nature..." Signature of All Things, chapter 3 paragraph 2: "We give you to understand this of the divine essence; without nature God is a mystery, understand in the nothing, for without nature is the nothing, which is an eye of eternity, an abyssal eye, that stands or sees in the nothing, for it is the abyss; and this same eye is a will, understand a longing after manifestation, to find the nothing; but now there is nothing before the will, where it might find something, where it might have a place to rest, therefore it enters into itself, and finds itself through nature." There's more but you get the idea.
I think the presenter is invested in looking like a philosopher. He doesn't seem to have given much thought to the philosophy itself though. Maybe too busy making children?
I think anti-natalism and Schopenhauer’s other points about the suffering of existence don’t make any sense without the inclusion of transcendence. The same goes for Buddhism, apocalyptic veins of Christianity, and other transcendent (“pessimistic”) philosophies. You have to believe, suspect, or have experienced that there is something that transcends mundane existence before the denial of the world can really become sound philosophy. I suppose you could also have unconscious nothingness as an option to pair with world denial, but that’s a rarer personality who would find that appealing.
Transcendence is short lived no matter how much meditation experience you have, this world was designed to inflict more pain than pleasure no matter what
@@Daniel-ef7nk Well, you may be wrong about meditative experiences and correct about the world. The whole idea about realization of transcendent "inner" states of consciousness is that they are not really an aspect of the world at all. Through development of subtle awareness, one might realize that their own innermost sense of being is actually not related to the outside world at all and, therefor, transcends it.
The brute is the man,is the strong man that thinkethth invisible to any thought the weaker man can assume mentally, or physically, for the mind,is stronger physically, or mentally .With beliefs given by any God you represent.Hope to the world its a good God
Anti natalism is a high point in lack of humility, pride and want of acceptance of each persons radical dependence on the creator. This bloke was an anti realist who refused to take joy when it was freely offered
@@jonmustang why it is a problem? because if u actually wanted to grow up, become an adult and live a fulfilling life, have kids will do that for you. and for them and so on and so on.
@@darillus1 From Schopenhauer's perspective, it's the sage, monk, or ascetic renunciate who is the true adult, the enlightened man who doesn't fall for nature's cruel trickery of the Will to Live but instead uses his faculty of reason to see through the charade of mundane existence, including procreation. Nobody has to agree with this, of course, but this is a Schopenhauer video comments section, after all. You can say he's wrong, but that was his take
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
2:18 He actually had two daughters, both died shortly or not that long following their birth. It’s always worse when the guy who warns the world not to play with matches ends up burned by them… even though in his case the intention was never to play with them but to apply them in serving the (individual) will.
Also, it’s great to see the one and only Louis CK doing an epic deep dive on Schop’s works across so many videos. 👍
I was randomly searching for topics to watch found this channel hes best and the fact he explaine everything so perfectly damm man ❤
So you had children for your own pleasure, while ignoring reason. What is moral about bring a human into a world of continuous pain and suffering...
The hope of them achieving their own pleasure and content
@@Pandemonium-n9b Do you think most/any parents actually have children purely for the hope of the child's happiness? Real question, honestly. Do you think most parents really think very deeply about it at all? To me, most parents I've talked to seem to have an idea about having children and the idea itself lacks any reflection. "I want two kids" or "we should have kids!" and that's about the end of the thought process, seems to me. Little to no reflection on, "why?" Probably most just wanna have sex and it just happens. The Will to live, overtaking the rationality.
@@jonmustang I didn’t say people weren’t selfish Just that hope and pleasure would be content enough to proceed having the child. If you have children, you should be responsible to them & at least repertoire their happiness and health. The dissatisfaction in life you build because of the selfish nature of other people is really terrible, But if someone says “I want to bare that responsible care/condition” Then I support it, Even if this means at some point the kid would be hurt in some way. I would be on board for the moral subjgation of good will on many kids then a negative selfish experience that makes their living space a hell to be apart of… Selfish conceited people really are the worst thing about existence but again if the kid is a purpose and i instill purpose to the best of my ability let nature make the decision
@@Pandemonium-n9b I see where you’re coming from. On an individual basis, a prospective future parent might think the way that you have described, and, as you say, choose to bare the burden of responsibility regarding the happiness of the child. That being said, Schopenhauer was probably thinking more about parenthood and existence at large, spread over the average and masses of humanity, and he might consider a thoughtful situation like you’re describing as being more like a noble anomaly in an ocean of suffering and brutish, unconscientious, or selfish motivation.
In the same way that he wrote of what it’s like to himself be an anomaly of high intellect, he might also have conceited that there are occasional anomalies of high parenting
@@jonmustang Cruel 🥲Truths
I don't think that one should say someone "is wrong" or "right" but rather " I don't agree" or "I agree" with him/her. Because there will always be some people who share the views you reject. Other than that, it helps to avoid omniscient postures and pompousness.
Having pointed out that, your videos are very instructive and easily digestible. Thanks a lot.
'Freedom from suffering defines human happiness'; an experiment with a popular opiate would prove this to oneself to be so.
Shame on people who have children. At the expense of others
Thanks!
You are very welcome! I appreciate your support. 👍
@@ChristopherAnadale You are welcome!
Fascinating concept when we reside in a universal holographic consciousness
Well Pavlov found that a dog can have a conditioned response to a bell and salivate in anticipation of food. That, in a sense is the dog enjoying what is to come and happily enjoying the promise of a future event.
Good point.
By the way, I love your videos and I feel like you have the perfect reading and presentation for this material, very enjoyable! Thanks for doing what you do
"Relish the moment as nothing is certain, tomorrow isn't promised and today is just yesterday's rumor." - The Manimal
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the texts as always. The anticipation argument is interesting, I would say its quite counterintuitive but just consider the case of illicit love, the pleasure of illicit love lies solely on the anticipation of a future good, where irrationality dominates, or in other words, under the immense influence of the will. If we examine what this kind of pleasure it really resides, it cannot be anything secular but the mere mental anticipation of the love itself. That means, to actually achieve the object of this love is not the true goal, while Schopenhauer will argue its the will to live that drives the illicit lover to basically have sex and give birth to a baby, a secret desire to prolong one’s life. But the love itself is illusory, and people who actually achieved such love are often met with disappointment. It is true people often feel that hard fought victory taste better, but via such victories they have already unconsciously assigned secular value to the things they desired, that they believe such and such will indeed benefit them by satisfying their desires, but it only means that they are not conscious of the nature of desire and pleasure.
Said you're strongly pro-natalist but didn't say it's rational. Then you immediately opined "Children are a source of joy & meaning." Isn't that selfish? "Bring children into the world b/c they will give you joy & meaning. Sure, they'll suffer a lot, but at least you'll get something out of it!"
Great point! I think it has to be that cosmic Will that brings about procreation because it certainly isn’t rational, nor just. I think the Will just overrides the rational observer in us and then our minds explain away through handwaving philosophy why the world isn’t as bad as Schopenhauer says it is.
The virtue signalling is real gross when antinatalist try to shame people for having children.
Aren't bringing joy and meaning, acts of virtue? Children can bring joy and meaning to as many people who are open to recieve those gifts. Not just to bring joy and meaning to the procreators of said children.
@@Mr89siR the argument against that might go that it is still looking at children from a utilitarian standpoint, much like owning pets or even raising livestock for the slaughter. Schopenhauer's argument is that the pleasure that the predator gets out of devouring its prey is tiny compared to the immense pain that the prey suffers in its jaws. The same could be said for bringing children into the world. Should children have to endure the same loss of innocence and fall into the despair and suffering that adults have, just to cheer us up for a few years? Weren't all the suffering adults once innocent, joy-filled children who temporarily brought a few smiles into the world before having their hearts hardened and innocence destroyed by the world? A vicious cycle that Schopenhauer questioned.
Totally agree, to be pro natalist you must also believe that you can have more pleasure than pain in this world, which is an obvious impossibility
Animals such as dogs can cower in fear about remembered threats and wag their tail in remembrance. They can anticipate the future with fear or glee. I do believe humans take these perceptions to a more fantastic level, even to the point of revelation or delusion. I don't blame Schopenhauer for his world view, but find it concedes to the times he lived in.
In order to get a life you have to give your life. Big R
Just an idea, with Halloween around the corner, Schopenhauer's chapter in his On the Will in Nature entitled Animal Magnetism and Magic may be of interest.
Also, I find it odd how little notice there is of the commonalities there are between Schopenhauer and Jacob Boehme. Schopenhauer definitely read him - he mentions him occasionally, for example in the aforementioned chapter on animal magnetism and magic - and while there are undoubtedly differences between them, the basic tenet of Will as the basis of life, the origin of which Will is "ungrounded" (boehme says Ungrund and Abyss) is obvious. Boehme preceded Schopenhauer, wrote in Deutsch, and was also commended by Hegel as the first German philosopher. He strikes me as an obvious formative influence overlooked when reading Schopenhauer in favor of Kant and Brahmanic sources.
That’s a great insight that I’d overlooked, perhaps it’s time I check out Boehme. Thanks!
@@jonmustang he's unfortunately not as readable as Schopenhauer.
@jonmustang probably why the parallels aren't recognized. But just for example:
Boehme's Six Theosophic Points, First Point, chapter 2, paragraph 17:
"The creation of this world was brought about by an awakening of the Will-spirit..."
Msyterium Pansophicum, Third Text, third paragraph:
"We recognize, therefore, the eternal Will-spirit as God, and the moving life of the craving of Nature..."
Signature of All Things, chapter 3 paragraph 2:
"We give you to understand this of the divine essence; without nature God is a mystery, understand in the nothing, for without nature is the nothing, which is an eye of eternity, an abyssal eye, that stands or sees in the nothing, for it is the abyss; and this same eye is a will, understand a longing after manifestation, to find the nothing; but now there is nothing before the will, where it might find something, where it might have a place to rest, therefore it enters into itself, and finds itself through nature."
There's more but you get the idea.
I think the presenter is invested in looking like a philosopher. He doesn't seem to have given much thought to the philosophy itself though. Maybe too busy making children?
He's a conformist, not a Thinker. He is a *great presenter* in this capacity though.
Imagine the Beast who is happy to father children in this ocean of tears & futility. ..omg, brutal!!!
I think anti-natalism and Schopenhauer’s other points about the suffering of existence don’t make any sense without the inclusion of transcendence.
The same goes for Buddhism, apocalyptic veins of Christianity, and other transcendent (“pessimistic”) philosophies. You have to believe, suspect, or have experienced that there is something that transcends mundane existence before the denial of the world can really become sound philosophy.
I suppose you could also have unconscious nothingness as an option to pair with world denial, but that’s a rarer personality who would find that appealing.
What a great comment - especially the point of transcendence
Transcendence is short lived no matter how much meditation experience you have, this world was designed to inflict more pain than pleasure no matter what
@@Daniel-ef7nk Well, you may be wrong about meditative experiences and correct about the world. The whole idea about realization of transcendent "inner" states of consciousness is that they are not really an aspect of the world at all. Through development of subtle awareness, one might realize that their own innermost sense of being is actually not related to the outside world at all and, therefor, transcends it.
Great comment
THAT'S UTTER RUBBISH. YOU ARE PROJECTING YOUR DAFT MAGICAL THINKING ON OTHERS!!!
May prove fatal is the fear in the Supreme being.I fear monsters and nothing that wish me peace on earth. 7:44
The brute is the man,is the strong man that thinkethth invisible to any thought the weaker man can assume mentally, or physically, for the mind,is stronger physically, or mentally .With beliefs given by any God you represent.Hope to the world its a good God
Not the &%$#@- BEAST who drowned His own children in the great flood or authored Ps 137, then..
Interesting perspectives. 🙏
Anti natalism is a high point in lack of humility, pride and want of acceptance of each persons radical dependence on the creator. This bloke was an anti realist who refused to take joy when it was freely offered
wow... you make that really boring
Schopenhauer was a antinatalist, why is that not a surprise? Also the Biggest mistake with Epicureanism as well, anti reproduction
Why is it a problem?
@@jonmustang why it is a problem? because if u actually wanted to grow up, become an adult and live a fulfilling life, have kids will do that for you. and for them and so on and so on.
@@darillus1 From Schopenhauer's perspective, it's the sage, monk, or ascetic renunciate who is the true adult, the enlightened man who doesn't fall for nature's cruel trickery of the Will to Live but instead uses his faculty of reason to see through the charade of mundane existence, including procreation. Nobody has to agree with this, of course, but this is a Schopenhauer video comments section, after all. You can say he's wrong, but that was his take
@@jonmustang Parents are the real children in this world, since they are totally irresponsible.
@@francisdec1615 what? Being a parent means taking on responsibilities