Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer/Archive 4) (bot
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer/Archive 4) (bot
 
(23 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{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 Germany|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=B|s&a-work-group=yes|listas=Schopenhauer, Arthur}}
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=}}
{{WikiProject Animal rights|importance=Low}}
}}
}}
{{merged-from|Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of the proofs of the parallel postulate|October 31, 2014}}
{{merged-from|Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of the proofs of the parallel postulate|October 31, 2014}}
Line 19: Line 21:
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 }}
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 }}


== Minor emendation ==
== Justification for the edits in the philosophy section ==


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 [[Special:Contributions/85.166.161.28|85.166.161.28]] ([[User talk:85.166.161.28|talk]]) 05:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I deleted one paragraph in the section on his metaphysical voluntarism, and since it is the work of someone else which I dare to throw away, I believe a good justification is needed on my part. The introduction on Hegel and Kant is without sources. It says that Schopenhauer criticizes Hegel and Kant for their logical optimism, but Schopenhauer does this nowhere (his criticisms of Kant deal with epistemology and ethics, and regarding Hegel, that he is not a philosopher). Even if "Hegel had popularized the concept of Zeitgeist, the idea that society consisted of a collective consciousness that moved in a distinct direction, dictating the actions of its members." it is unclear what this should tell us about Schopenhauer's theory on will.


== Religion: A Dialogue, Etc. ==
This part should set out Schopenhauer's fundamental doctrine. Historical context can be useful if it clarifies the starting point.


Does ''[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Religion:_A_Dialogue,_Etc. Religion: A Dialogue, Etc.]'', translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders, belong in the bibliography? Or does it merely contain extractions of work found elsewhere? --[[User:StephanNaro|StephanNaro]] ([[User talk:StephanNaro|talk]]) 10:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The two sentences: "Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated by only their own basic desires, or Wille zum Leben ("Will to Live"), which directed all of mankind. Will, for Schopenhauer, is what Kant called the "thing-in-itself", are better. On the current page they would add no new information.
: 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. --[[User:StephanNaro|StephanNaro]] ([[User talk:StephanNaro|talk]]) 10:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


== Arthur left his mother, and they never met again before she died 24 years later. ==
⚫
[[Yuyuhunter]] UTC 13:55, 5 october 2017 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Yuyuhunter|Yuyuhunter]] ([[User talk:Yuyuhunter#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yuyuhunter|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


This statement is clearly negated by mentions in the article further on. Can it simply be deleted as an unsubstantiated comment? [[User:Robertwhyteus|Robertwhyteus]] ([[User talk:Robertwhyteus|talk]]) 03:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
==Schopenhauer and religion==
: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. [[User:AugXV|AugXV]] ([[User talk:AugXV|talk]]) 17:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
This article could benefit from a section on Schopenhauer and religion, stating that, although Schopenhauer's philosophy is atheistic, he was influenced by the world religions, especially Hinduism. It could also mention that he admired Jesus, whom he saw as an ascetic. [[User:Vorbee|Vorbee]] ([[User talk:Vorbee|talk]]) 08:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


== Stop reverting edits for no reason ==
: I was thinking about this as well. His philosophy has led people back to religion (such as Tolstoy, J.K. Huysman) because all his examples of the most important phenomenon in ethics, the denial of the will to live, are religious figures. Right now the ethics section does not clear how important these religious accounts are for his philosophy. I therefore plan to improve the ethics section with this important matter, which has caused the attraction towards religion among his readers. [[User:Yuyuhunter|Yuyuhunter]] ([[User talk:Yuyuhunter|talk]]) 09:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


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)
<s>Why does the infobox say that his religion is Western philosophy? That is quite dubious.


⚫
== Portrait ==
Update: I changed it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Schopenhauer&type=revision&diff=833693524&oldid=833692224 --[[User:Bringback2ndpersonverbs|Bringback2ndpersonverbs]] ([[User talk:Bringback2ndpersonverbs|talk]]) 00:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)</s> My mistake, it said "region", not "religion". --[[User:Bringback2ndpersonverbs|Bringback2ndpersonverbs]] ([[User talk:Bringback2ndpersonverbs|talk]]) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


⚫
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-->
==Contra Academia==
In the "Life" section it is claimed that "A late essay, 'On University Philosophy,' expressed his resentment towards the work conducted in academies." Is it possible for anyone beside Schopenhauer to know what motivated his opposition to academia? Isn't it merely a subjective opinion for anyone to assert that his motive was simply resentment? Did his extremely clear and thorough judgments regarding academia, as published in the above-mentioned essay, have, then, no intelligible basis in reality and were they the result of a mere emotional reaction?[[Special:Contributions/96.235.138.179|96.235.138.179]] ([[User talk:96.235.138.179|talk]]) 03:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Barry Spizona

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on [[Arthur Schopenhauer]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/813054836|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611051923/http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/paschons/language_http/essays/schopenhauer.html to http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/paschons/language_http/essays/Schopenhauer.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100802010348/http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/motives.html to http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/motives.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029052257/http://www.schopenhauersource.org/type_list.php?type=manuscript to http://www.schopenhauersource.org/type_list.php?type=manuscript
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702122520/http://www.avinus-magazin.eu/html/jimenez_-_der_junge_schopenhau.html to http://www.avinus-magazin.eu/html/jimenez_-_der_junge_schopenhau.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040826122437/http://www.centrebouddhisteparis.org/En_Anglais/Sangharakshita_en_anglais/Aesthetic_appreciation/aesthetic_appreciation.html to http://www.centrebouddhisteparis.org/En_Anglais/Sangharakshita_en_anglais/Aesthetic_appreciation/aesthetic_appreciation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 13:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

⚫
== Photo ==

Regarding this photo of Schopenhauer https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur_Schopenhauer_by_J_Sch%C3%A4fer,_1859b.jpg, I will copy and paste what I just wrote on its discussion page:

'The date of this photo is given as being March 1859. However, two things lead me to doubt this.

First of all, the Encyclopedia Britannica - a reliable source if anything is - identifies the photo as being from 1855. See https://www.britannica.com/biography/Arthur-Schopenhauer

Secondly, this painting of Schopenhauer https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schopenhauer.jpg is from 1855, according to that page itself and also according to the article on Schopenhauer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer), and is almost identical to the photo.

I therefore suggest that the photo's date is either changed to 1855 or else we remove reference to the date altogether, so as to get rid of the false information that the photo is from March 1859.'

Actually, the very title of the photo might be a problem because it has 1859 in its title.

[[User:Matthew Fennell|Matthew Fennell]] ([[User talk:Matthew Fennell|talk]]) 01:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

: And there is another version of the photo here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur_Schopenhauer_by_J_Sch%C3%A4fer,_1859b.jpg

: [[User:Matthew Fennell|Matthew Fennell]] ([[User talk:Matthew Fennell|talk]]) 01:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:06, 11 January 2024


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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthur_Schopenhauer&oldid=1194919671"