• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Philosophy wars.

Cosmic Trigger

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
1,441
For those of you that study philosophy you'll likely know what I'm referring to here. In the philosophical war between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche which side do you come down on and why do you feel that way?



(OK I was being lazy sorry, I would like everyone who knows them to any extent to chime in, Schopenhauer felt that life was not worth the cost and that suffering was just what was positive about reality and Nietzsche felt that life was always worth the cost and the proof that you agree would be that you'd be willing to live your life, this one life, without modification over and over eternally.)

I think that they were maybe the two most brilliant of all the philosophers. Go figure they'd totally disagree on this.

And for those of you who need help coming to a conclusion I offer two excellent videos which should at least give you pause and realize what you are actually considering.



 
Last edited:
My favourite philosopher to have ever lived is Ludwig Wittgenstein. Brilliant man.
 
That's like comparing apples to oranges. Besides eating them, they're fruit, intrinsically. Why would someone have a war with fruit?
 
That's like comparing apples to oranges. Besides eating them, they're fruit, intrinsically. Why would someone have a war with fruit?

Because fruit makes a great splat when they hit for one thing. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche actually came down on opposite sides of one of the truly huge philosophical debates about how to live your life in this world. I would hardly call that comparing apples to oranges. They really did have a war of sorts. Schopenhauer won IMO and poor Nietzsche got the booby prize of going insane and being used as a poster boy by his shitty sister for the Nazi's fucked up idea of the Superman. He should have listened to the Schop who had the best hair of any philosopher who has ever lived. That's hard to beat right there. I have no idea why Nietzsche let all that hair grow over his lip. It's fucking obscene.
 
Cosmic Trigger, could you maybe briefly summarize the differences between the two for readers who aren't familiar with these two people?
 
I'm not sure if his recount is quite accurate... Schopenhauer died in 1860, while Nietzsche's philosophical works were all published after 1879.

But Schopenhauer is generally considered a forefather of modern analytic psychology, while Nietzsche is the same for continental psychology. That debate rages on, although later Wittgenstein, Quine and Popper effectively rewrote the foundations of what had been a Schopenhauerian tradition, while continental philosophy still owes a lot to Marx (Hegel), Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.

(Analytic philosophy further divides into "falsificationism" (Popper) and "psychologicalism" (Wittgenstein) whereas continental philosophy splits into "Marxism" (epon.) and "existentialism" (Nietzsche, Kierkegaard).)
 
But Schopenhauer is generally considered a forefather of modern analytic psychology, while Nietzsche is the same for continental psychology. That debate rages on, although later Wittgenstein, Quine and Popper effectively rewrote the foundations of what had been a Schopenhauerian tradition, while continental philosophy still owes a lot to Marx (Hegel), Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.

(Analytic philosophy further divides into "falsificationism" (Popper) and "psychologicalism" (Wittgenstein) whereas continental philosophy splits into "Marxism" (epon.) and "existentialism" (Nietzsche, Kierkegaard).)

I have a solid background in analytic philosophy and would not really associate Schopenhauer with analytic philosophy at all. So far as I know, Schopenhauer falls quite squarely in the continental tradition; though, I believe he did have some influence on Wittgenstein. Perhaps one could argue Schopenhauer has had a more direct influence on analytic philosophy than I give him credit for. However, to call analytic philosophy before Wittgenstein and Quine a "Schopenhauerian tradition" is crazy to me. Gottlob Frege is pretty much unquestionably the father of analytic philosophy; analytic philosophy before Wittgenstein and Quine was definitely a Fregean tradition and Frege's influence continues to the present day.

I find your division of analytic philosophy quite puzzling. What do you mean by "psychologicalism", and how does it relate to falsificationism? It is an odd term to associate with Wittgenstein, given how many have read his later work as behaviourist. Falsificationism is a view about the nature of scientific enquiry, it is far from a comprehensive philosophical doctrine and the position is consistent with many opposing stances in diverse areas of philosophy. Moreover, I can't think of any contemporary philosophers of science who endorse falsificationism.

It is interesting that you think Popper is such a prominent figure in analytic philosophy. To some degree, one's area of interest will have some influence on who they take to be important figures. However, while Popper is not a minor figure, I don't see that he had an impact comparable to Quine; he didn't really have a significant influence outside of philosophy of science and - to a much smaller degree - political philosophy. The person who I immediately think of as having the kind of influence that Quine did (around the same period) is Carnap.
 
Last edited:
"Behaviorism" is the word I was thinking of when I wrote "psychologicalism".

Primarily I think of Schopenhauer as falling into the analytic camp because he was such an early and strident critic of Hegel, although it's true that he wasn't a positivist. After checking deeper into it, you're correct, but I think my original point stands -- that Schopenhauer/Nietzsche is not a primary dichotomy. Gilbert Ryle's comments that a lot of modern analytic philosophy is "recycled Schopenhauer" may have distorted my memory:
http://anonym.to/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Mind#Antecedents
And of course Nietzsche himself cited Schopenhauer as an influence.

I find your division of analytic philosophy quite puzzling. What do you mean by "psychologicalism", and how does it relate to falsificationism? It is an odd term to associate with Wittgenstein, given how many have read his later work as behaviourist.

Logical positivism died IIRC because "that's not how language works". The division I was attempting to refer to were the people who wanted to retain as much of positivism as they could (e.g. Quine, Carnap) and those who went all the way in the other direction (Wittgenstein, ordinary-language philosophy). I've only heard the former camp referred to as "Quinean idealism", which I guess will have to do.

It is interesting that you think Popper is such a prominent figure in analytic philosophy. To some degree, one's area of interest will have some influence on who they take to be important figures.

Karl Popper is the only figure (ok, maybe not) whose work is actually useful in science. Sure, falsifiability might not describe how most of science is done (Kuhn, Sokal etc), but it serves as a great litmus test to determine whether you are actually doing science or just masturbating. Also I'm pretty sure they all call themselves "critical rationalists" now.

(I did not realize before that I needed to be prepared for a serious argument)
 
Last edited:
"Behaviorism" is the word I was thinking of when I wrote "psychologicalism".

Primarily I think of Schopenhauer as falling into the analytic camp because he was such an early and strident critic of Hegel, although it's true that he wasn't a positivist.

Yes, Schopenhauer was a critic of Hegel, but there is a lot more to analytic philosophy than criticising Hegel. Most analytic philosophers don't engage with Hegel at all.

After checking deeper into it, you're correct, but I think my original point stands -- that Schopenhauer/Nietzsche is not a primary dichotomy.

Nothing in my previous post was supposed to undermine this point, I was mostly just reacting to the claim that analytic philosophy used to be a Schopenhaurian tradition

Logical positivism died IIRC because "that's not how language works". The division I was attempting to refer to were the people who wanted to retain as much of positivism as they could (e.g. Quine, Carnap) and those who went all the way in the other direction (Wittgenstein, ordinary-language philosophy). I've only heard the former camp referred to as "Quinean idealism", which I guess will have to do.

Quine was a behaviourist, so the division still seems odd to me.

Karl Popper is the only figure (ok, maybe not) whose work is actually useful in science. Sure, falsifiability might not describe how most of science is done (Kuhn, Sokal etc), but it serves as a great litmus test to determine whether you are actually doing science or just masturbating. Also I'm pretty sure they all call themselves "critical rationalists" now.

The primary goal of most analytic philosophers is not to produce work that is "useful in science". It seems a bit odd to suggest that Popper "effectively rewrote the foundations" of analytic philosophy because he did something which most analytic philosophers are not really trying to do.
 
Last edited:
Schopenhauer is not an analytical philosopher by a long shot, he is placed firmly in the continental tradition, and so is Nietzsche. i'd say most analytical philosophers would get -analytically- nauseous when reading schopenhauer :D. Wittgenstein is usually considered the closest there is to a 'bridge' between continental and analytical tradition, tho definitively on the analytical side. said bridge being the nonsensical in Wittgensteins work. nuff said

i'd say the most fundamental difference between the two would be on morality. This is becomes perhaps most apparent in how either thinks about 'will'. Schopenhauer develops Kant's transcendental idealism further (in his own way) in the form of the 'will to live'. In short (and with a hacksaw for the sake of keeping it simple), at its basic level this would be the survival instinct. Schopenhauer then develops this further by adding moral awareness as a higher, reflective state of the will to live. Moral awareness is the development of the will-to-live so that it can escape the chaos and uncertainty of the animalistic 'law of the jungle' towards more tranquil, transcendent states of mind. the will-to-live reaffirms itself, transcending through morality, as mind. This transcendence is achieved, conversely, through a negation of the -immediate- will. going from the law of the jungle to moral law requires a more immediate affirmation of the will-to-live to be forgone.

for example: 'i want to eat you' when interrupted as a 'pure' -pre-reflective- act, becomes a (higher) awareness of said desire, if only for the moment it is negated. This is of course still a far cry from morality but it is this core that creates the room for the development of morality. the seed of culture lies in the negation of immediate desire. While this may be external, coincidental and of little consequence at first, the more it happens, the more it becomes part of the will, i.e. internalized in the will-to-live. Said negation is then further developed towards schopenhauers concepts of hope and despair, pessimism, asceticism etc.

Nietzsche does not disagree with all of this, but he sees the will-to-live as only an instance of a more general one, the will-to-power. In the will-to-power, the negation of will as a fundamental part of will is rejected in favor of its complete affirmation. thus, if the will is negated or negates itself, as schopenhauers will-to-live does, it only does so out of an ultimate desire for power. the development of tools, morality, etc. that serve the will is all the result of said will-to-power, and that is the way will affirms itself. Morality is not a higher, transcendent state of will but rather one particular emanation it. Morality is thus not an intrinsic part of will. will is beyond good and evil. evil is not a diminishing or lesser will, nor does good empower it. the will is simply there by means of its power; it affirms itself only by its power. life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results of that.


personally it seems to me it is possible to somewhat reconcile their views depending on interpretations of their fundamental concepts. They make different nuances and give more and/or less attention to certain areas as the other. though one could just as easily polarize i guess. To me it seems like nietzsche is reading schopenhauer in a particular way, and his interpretation is geared towards creating a dialectical opposition to clarify his own thought. Nietzsches foundation appears stronger as schopenhauers because the will is fundamentally undivided, yet for schopenhauer this fundamental division is a generative one, while in Nietzsches thought the will appears as somewhat too static perhaps. strangely enough he seems to rely on schopenhauers thought to get things moving. i dunno, i tend to keep thinking its 'two sides of the same coin, but then as different iterations of said coin' -different scratches etc.
 
The primary goal of most analytic philosophers is not to produce work that is "useful in science". It seems a bit odd to suggest that Popper "effectively rewrote the foundations" of analytic philosophy because he did something which most analytic philosophers are not really trying to do.

And here I thought "philosophy of science is philosophy enough"? =p

It's also my understanding that Popper is an arrogant jerk who really believes he is the most important philosopher of the 20th century, even if nobody else does. One way or another, Popper is the only one of these people I had heard of at 16, except Nietzsche of course. So yeah, he only messed with the parts of philosophy I happen to use.

The poll has Popper at 24th, with Quine at 5th, Nietzsche at 8th, Carnap 11, and Schopenhauer all the way down at 29:

https://leiterreports.typepad.com/b...ortant-philosopher-of-the-past-200-years.html

I guess Nietzche won this one.
 
Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil said:
The difficulty of providing a rational foundation for the principle cited [neminem laede, immo omnes, quantum potes, juva" — "hurt no one; rather, help everybody as much as you can"] may indeed be great—as is well known, Schopenhauer did not succeed either—and whoever has once felt deeply how insipidly false and sentimental this principle is in a world whose essence is will to power, may allow himself to be reminded that Schopenhauer, though a pessimist, really—played the flute. Every day, after dinner: one should read his biography on that. And incidentally: a pessimist, one who denies God and the world but comes to a stop before morality—who affirms morality and plays the flute—the laede neminem morality—what? is that really—a pessimist?
sick burn yo =D

edit: some explaining perhaps of why i put it up:
to me this quote is a very good example of what i was trying to say earlier about the division of will. It shows very clearly Nietzsche's ideas on will in action. it is very poignant, and has something of an immediate, convincing power to it. He does not divide, he does not nuance, instead he presents and combines different aspects into this one immediate, powerful jab that serves his own purpose (will). and something of that seems to hit true, it sticks in a way. But it does so with abandon, so to speak. The quote ends squarely in the camp of schopenhauer, where it does not seem sit well at all. from here it begins to look unnuanced. it begins to almost 'beg' for an answer. the context now turns back to schopenhauer, in the silence after. Once the dust has settled and the will to power has affirmed itself, something seems to begin to chip away at this immediate, undivided display of power. And that occurrence is, infact, a fine illustration of how schopenhauer views will.
 
Last edited:
Schopenhauer is not an analytical philosopher by a long shot, he is placed firmly in the continental tradition, and so is Nietzsche. i'd say most analytical philosophers would get -analytically- nauseous when reading schopenhauer :D.

I once got into Terrence Mckenna's readings on mystics and gnostics. Schopen was a good listen to when you just wanted to hate the world with the most avid imagination as possible. Can't say it helped a lot, like punching a wall -- but there you go. Also if I was Schopenhauer I would be scared of Hegel too.
 
Schopenhauer comes across to me as a firm antinatalist. No doubt about that because he states that we should end our species by not reproducing. Nietzsche felt that man could be perfected and become something really super cool. (hasn't quite happened yet but hey there is still time I guess) That's a big difference between them.
 
I once got into Terrence Mckenna's readings on mystics and gnostics. Schopen was a good listen to when you just wanted to hate the world with the most avid imagination as possible. Can't say it helped a lot, like punching a wall -- but there you go. Also if I was Schopenhauer I would be scared of Hegel too.

I found Schopenhauer comforting for pointing out some hard truths about life when most humans are in denial about some of these things imo and he actually came out against hate. He recommended compassion and empathy for our fellow man because no one asked to be born and if I remember correctly I think he believed we were determined. We're all in the soup together according to him and so we need to be nice to each other. I guess you could punch a wall if you wanted to. I have felt like doing it at times but I don't think it really helps that much in the long run. Why do you say he should have feared Hegel? He seemed pretty fearless because I'm sure he took a lot of flack for writing things like "Studies in Pessimism." Of course Europe was kind of being depressed during those times. They had a collective headache and many were feeling depressed.
 
I found Schopenhauer comforting for pointing out some hard truths about life when most humans are in denial about some of these things imo and he actually came out against hate. He recommended compassion and empathy for our fellow man because no one asked to be born and if I remember correctly I think he believed we were determined. We're all in the soup together according to him and so we need to be nice to each other. I guess you could punch a wall if you wanted to. I have felt like doing it at times but I don't think it really helps that much in the long run. Why do you say he should have feared Hegel? He seemed pretty fearless because I'm sure he took a lot of flack for writing things like "Studies in Pessimism." Of course Europe was kind of being depressed during those times. They had a collective headache and many were feeling depressed.

I don't doubt he was a determinist. Determinism and Idealism seem to be at loggerheads.
 
Top