What do you think?
Rate this book
Schopenhauer
The Library of Alexandria is an independent small business publishing house. We specialize in bringing back to live rare, historical and ancient books. This includes manuscripts such as: classical fiction, philosophy, science, religion, folklore, mythology, history, literature, politics and sacred texts, in addition to secret and esoteric subjects, such as: occult, freemasonry, alchemy, hermetic, shamanism and ancient knowledge. Our books are available in digital format. We have approximately 50 thousand titles in 40 different languages and we work hard every single day in order to convert more titles to digital format and make them available for our readers. Currently, we have 2000 titles available for purchase in 35 Countries in addition to the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Our titles contain an interactive table of contents for ease of navigation of the book. We sincerely hope you enjoy these treasures in the form of digital books.
- GenresPhilosophy
70 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1909
22 people are currently reading
23 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 18, 2024
This is an advanced introduction to the work of Schopenhauer. The reader is expected have already read Schopenhauer in some detail. Also, it would help to have read in Buddhism widely.
Some notable quotes:
“Schopenhauer’s philosophy is in its outcome a doctrine of redemption from sin.” “As he is accustomed to insist, his final ethical doctrine coincides with that of all of the religions that aim, for their adepts or their elect, at deliverance from “this evil world.” Interesting observation if in fact the world is evil, as he says.
“He was a temperamental pessimist, feeling from the first the trouble of existence, and here he finds the deepest motive for the desire to become clear about it. He saw in the world, what we he felt in himself, a vain effort after ever new objects of desire which give no permanent satisfaction; in this view, becoming predominant, determined not indeed all the ideas of his philosophy, but its general complexion as a philosophy of redemption.”
Schopenhauer seemed to think that if in the pursuit and the achievement of our goals we did not find permanence, then they were in fact, not worth pursuing at all. Why think that though? Was he not aware of inertia, and the processes of natural decay and decline? Why think they did not affect him? Do we not have to eat and relieve ourselves every day? And shave and clean ourselves?
And why look on boredom as some kind of metaphysical state that thus condemns all pursuits?
Whittaker observes that seeing the poor of Europe in many of the cities he traveled through with his parents in his youth left him despondent. Yet, Arthur never showed any interest in doing any thing to help, except to argue that others must lift that load.
Some notable quotes:
“Schopenhauer’s philosophy is in its outcome a doctrine of redemption from sin.” “As he is accustomed to insist, his final ethical doctrine coincides with that of all of the religions that aim, for their adepts or their elect, at deliverance from “this evil world.” Interesting observation if in fact the world is evil, as he says.
“He was a temperamental pessimist, feeling from the first the trouble of existence, and here he finds the deepest motive for the desire to become clear about it. He saw in the world, what we he felt in himself, a vain effort after ever new objects of desire which give no permanent satisfaction; in this view, becoming predominant, determined not indeed all the ideas of his philosophy, but its general complexion as a philosophy of redemption.”
Schopenhauer seemed to think that if in the pursuit and the achievement of our goals we did not find permanence, then they were in fact, not worth pursuing at all. Why think that though? Was he not aware of inertia, and the processes of natural decay and decline? Why think they did not affect him? Do we not have to eat and relieve ourselves every day? And shave and clean ourselves?
And why look on boredom as some kind of metaphysical state that thus condemns all pursuits?
Whittaker observes that seeing the poor of Europe in many of the cities he traveled through with his parents in his youth left him despondent. Yet, Arthur never showed any interest in doing any thing to help, except to argue that others must lift that load.
Displaying 1 of 1 review