Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 12:06, 11 January 2024

Skip to table of contents

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 21, 2018.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Aesthetics / Social and political / Modern High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Aesthetics
	Social and political philosophy
	Modern philosophy

Veganism and Vegetarianism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Musicians / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Animal rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:

For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.

The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Minor emendation[edit]

Hi, in "Later life", para 6 ("In 1832 Schopenhauer left Frankfurt ..."), there is the following: "The Society was appalled that several distinguished contemporary philosophers were mentioned in a very offensive manner, claimed that the essay missed the point and that the arguments were not adequate.[135] Schopenhauer, who was very self-confident that he would win, was enraged by this rejection. He published both essays as The Two Basic Problems of Ethics and in the preface to the second edition of this book, in 1860, he was still pouring insults on Royal Danish Society.[136]". IMHO one might clarify that Wiki doesn't do mind-reading by adding that the Society published its misgivings in writing in the rejection notice (which, IIRC, S. reproduces in full in the foreword to the "...Ethics") - perhaps even present it as a quote -, and that besides invective, that foreword also contains S.'s detailed refutation of the arguments given for rejection. I'm not entirely certain that "refutation" is the exact word to use; Idk if the rejection was indeed refuted; but he certainly did gainsay it, and supported this with arguments. Also, the Society's reasons are listed in reverse order of writing, and it was the last point, the abuse of Hegel, that gave S. opportunity to lash out first against university philosophy and philosophers in general, the Society in particular, and finally Hegel as its absolute nadir. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religion: A Dialogue, Etc.[edit]

Does Religion: A Dialogue, Etc., translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders, belong in the bibliography? Or does it merely contain extractions of work found elsewhere? --StephanNaro (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Saunders claims that these essays are taken from Parerga und Paralipomena, and maybe they are, though I don't quite see them among the contents as shown on Amazon. --StephanNaro (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur left his mother, and they never met again before she died 24 years later.[edit]

This statement is clearly negated by mentions in the article further on. Can it simply be deleted as an unsubstantiated comment? Robertwhyteus (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote most of the biography a few years ago and it seems that I mistakenly left that statement from an earlier version. It surely doesn't make sense in this part of the text. I don't really know when was the last time they met or corresponded. You can delete the statement, or maybe try to find some more info and move it to a later paragraph. AugXV (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting edits for no reason[edit]

Stop reverting the edits on Schopenhauer personality section for it is all based on historical facts and what problem do you have with a colorized picture of him while it is in higher resolution? You best be ashemaed of your itinerant slef whoever the hell you are. 113.203.35.143 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait[edit]

Who took the portrait picture in 1859? That photograph is outstanding and I want to know who made it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A09:8E40:2E2:8800:1:FF:FF:F (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Skip to talk}}
+{{On this day|date1=2018-09-21|oldid1=860575343}}
-{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=B}}
-{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|listas=Schopenhauer, Arthur|vital=yes|living=no|1=
-{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=B|philosopher=yes|aesthetics=yes|importance=high|modern=yes|social=yes}}
+{{WikiProject Philosophy|philosopher=yes|aesthetics=yes|importance=high|modern=yes|social=yes}}
-{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|class=B|importance=high}}
+{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=high}}
-{{WikiProject Germany|class=B|importance=High}}
+{{WikiProject Germany|importance=High}}
-{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=B|s&a-work-group=yes|listas=Schopenhauer, Arthur|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=}}
+{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=}}
-{{WikiProject Animal rights|class=B|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Animal rights|importance=Low}}
 }}
 {{merged-from|Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of the proofs of the parallel postulate|October 31, 2014}}
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 |archive = Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer/Archive %(counter)d
 }}
-{{OnThisDay|date1=2018-09-21|oldid1=860575343}}
 {{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 }}
-== How to start the introduction of the section "Philosophy" ==
-There is apparently a minor disagreement between [[User:Gentlecollapse6|Gentlecollapse6]] and me on whether we should start the section Philosophy, "The world as representation", with one or another sentence.
-Originally, when I had written this text, it started like this:
---
-Philosophy
-The world as representation
-Schopenhauer saw his philosophy as a continuation of that of Kant, and used the results of his epistemological investigations, that is, transcendental idealism, as starting point for his own:
-My philosophy is founded on that of Kant, and therefore presupposes a thorough knowledge of it. Kant's teaching produces in the mind of everyone who has comprehended it ... Only in this way can anyone become susceptible to the more positive expositions which I have to give.
-Kant had argued the empirical world is merely a complex of appearances whose existence and connection occur only in our representations. Schopenhauer reiterates this in the first sentence of his main work: "The world is my representation." We do not draw empirical laws from nature, but prescribe them to it.
---
-The suggestion of Gentlecollapse6 is to move the last paragraph and to let the philosophy section start with the "Kant had argued ..." paragraph.
-I don't see why this would be an improvement. Gentlecollapse6 seems to consider it obvious why this is an improvement. "It obviously makes more sense to summarize Schopenhauer’s idea than to explain his debt to Kant, what’s your problem" is what Gentlecollapse6 said after the second edit. I believe that I hear some irritation because of the "what's your problem", but for me it is not obvious why this is an improvement.
-In my original text I started with mentioning that Schopenhauer's starting point, as he so often stresses, is Kant's transcendental idealism. I believed that this order of introducing new information was good for the reader. After this remark it is explained what Kant's transcendental idealism entails.
-In the proposed edit of Gentlecollapse6 the Philosophy section of Schopenhauer would start out of blue with: "Kant argued the empirical world is merely a complex of appearances whose existence and connection occur only in our representations." Why would an article on Schopenhauer's philosophy start with a statement on Kant's philosophy, without even explaining how this is relevant?
-I welcome improvements of the Philosophy section, but this seems like a lazy edit.
-[[User:Yuyuhunter|Yuyuhunter]] ([[User talk:Yuyuhunter|talk]]) 19:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
-== "Thoughts on other philosophers" doesn't mention Hegel? ==
-Hegel deserves a section, for sure. I intend to write it, unless someone else is willing to do it before me. My first language is portuguese, and it'd be better if a native speaker wrote it.
-As guidance, I remember that a posthumously published book of aphorisms contain significant material about Hegel. It is a book published by a friend of his. This friend was told to burn the material, for it was worth little, according to Schopenhauer. --[[User:Bageense|<b style="color:#000000;font-family:Rockwell;">Bageense</b>]][[User talk:Bageense|<sup style="color:#AA0000;">'''(disc.)'''</sup>]] 22:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
-I'm not in favor of that idea. Even Spinoza doesn't have his own section. Hegel is already discussed in the section on the post-Kantian philosophy, if he gets his own section there should be a new one Fichte and for Schelling. (Plato and Aristotle ''aren't mentioned at all''!) If you would argue that Hegel had, unlike Spinoza and Plato, personal contact with Schopenhauer which needs more attention, then I say, the confrontations between them are described in the "Biography" section and that is in my opinion the right place. [[User:Yuyuhunter|Yuyuhunter]] ([[User talk:Yuyuhunter|talk]]) 07:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 == Minor emendation ==
@@ Line 79: / Line 38: @@
 Stop reverting the edits on Schopenhauer personality section for it is all based on historical facts and what problem do you have with a colorized picture of him while it is in higher resolution? You best be ashemaed of your itinerant slef whoever the hell you are. [[Special:Contributions/113.203.35.143|113.203.35.143]] ([[User talk:113.203.35.143|talk]]) 16:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
+== Portrait ==
+Who took the portrait picture in 1859?  That photograph is outstanding and I want to know who made it.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A09:8E40:2E2:8800:1:FF:FF:F|2A09:8E40:2E2:8800:1:FF:FF:F]] ([[User talk:2A09:8E40:2E2:8800:1:FF:FF:F#top|talk]]) 18:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->