Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer

Science + edits

Hi,
if some relevant RSs can be found, it would complete the picture of Artie to mention that he, unusual for a philosopher, was well versed in science - obviously at the state of the art of his time - and declared science to be highly important. I'll see what I can find in GE; if someone can trawl for EN sources, that would be helpful.
I removed his anti-marriage quotes from the section on mlle. Medon, by the way, as they were published 15-20 years after the event and so do not constitute any kind of contemporary commentary on this relationship.
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agree! Schopenhauer's descriptions of contemporary science, and his use of science-metaphors, are fascinating and one of the reasons he is so much fun to read. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Genetics v. Heredity

Please provide justification for this edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Schopenhauer&oldid=743154199#Heredity_and_eugenics

Why is an explanation of genetics versus heredity warranted? This seems an apology for an opinion of Schopenhauer that may offend and also appears contrary to Schopenhauer's stated opinion. A citation is warranted, at a minimum. Voodooengineer (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Broken Reference

Reference [37] is broken.

49.228.113.144 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw and Schopenhauer

Added a sentence to the list of thinkers influenced by Schopenhauer, mentioning the interesting fact that although everyone THINKS that George Bernard Shaw was influenced by Schopenhauer, Shaw himself denied it, in the Preface to Major Barbara. I hope this is not too trivial to mention, because it seems very interesting and funny to ME. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: Now User:FreeKnowledgeCreator objects to the sentence about Shaw, citing WP:UNDUE. But WP:UNDUE does not say how much detail about a subject should be included; it only says not to give undue weight to unsupported theories held by small minorities in scholarly communities. The thing about Shaw is not at all controversial and not a minority position; it's confirmed by Shaw himself. Therefore, WP:UNDUE is not relevant to the question whether or not it should be included. It's also kind of important, because lots of people associate Shaw with Schopenhauer--there are many similarities in their two philosophies. And, it makes the article more FUN! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not care what you think is interesting or funny. Nor should anyone else. Your addition was inappropriate, and WP:UNDUE is a perfectly valid reason for removing it. If you had bothered to read a little more, you would have noticed that the page to which WP:UNDUE links states the following, at WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Mentioning that Schopenhauer was not an influence on Shaw is a perfect example of something disproportionate to its "overall significance to the article topic".

You should also refer to WP:LEAD, which states, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Is the fact that Schopenhauer was not an influence on Shaw one of the most important parts of Wikipedia's article about him? No. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Re: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." This, of course, raises the question whether or not a single sentence, in parentheses, is really "undue weight". If I had put in a three-thousand-word paragraph about Schopenhauer and Shaw (which could easily be written), then you might have a point. There are so many similarities and commonalities between Schopenhauer's and Shaw's philosophies--witness Shaw's own complaint that everyone accused him of being influenced by Schopenhauer--that they are certainly notable and ought to be mentioned, however briefly, somewhere in the article. I would even say that failing to mention them at all makes the article fundamentally incomplete. It's not unlikely that many or most people who read Schopenhauer for the first time have already encountered his ideas by reading Shaw (or seeing his plays performed.) Among readers whose first language is English, it's quite likely.

2. Re: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Hmm. That would seem to argue against including the list of thinkers influenced by Schopenhauer in the lead at all! Maybe the best thing would be to make a new section on "Prominent thinkers influenced by Schopenhauer" and include the thing about Shaw there.

3. I notice that you have removed my Shaw sentence again, without waiting for consensus to emerge here on the Talk-page. Now might be a good time for you to review Wikipedia:Edit warring.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether a sentence is placed in parentheses or not bears no relation to the issue of proportion. Schopenhauer's not being an influence on Shaw is a trivial matter that is of basically no relevance to Schopenhauer at all. The article is better off without it. Note that per WP:BRD, it is up to you to gain consensus for an addition you wish to make. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, this whole dispute is very easy to resolve. Rather than saying that Shaw was not influenced by Schopenhauer, I will say instead that he was, and for my source I will cite the introduction to Man and Superman, in which he explicitly acknowledges the influence of "Bunyan, Blake, Hogarth and Turner (these four apart and above all the English Classics), Goethe, Shelley, Schopenhauer, Wagner, Ibsen, Morris, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche".

Q. E. D.: Quite Easily Done!

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Schopenhauer and George Bernard Shaw

Should the WP article on Schopenhauer, which currently includes a short list of prominent thinkers who were influenced by him, mention George Bernard Shaw? In the introduction to Major Barbara, Shaw points out that numerous contemporary critics considered it obvious that his (Shaw's) ideas were heavily influenced by Schopenhauer, but, Shaw denied this, perhaps jokingly. I myself think that the commonalities are so significant, and Shaw's role in popularizing Schopenhauer's basic ideas in the English-speaking world so consequential, that the article is fundamentally incomplete unless it mentions Shaw. And surely Shaw's own comment about the question is a reliable source!

Also, maybe the whole list of thinkers influenced by Schopenhauer should be moved from the lead paragraph to elsewhere in the article, according to WP:LEAD; maybe into a new section entitled "Prominent thinkers influenced by Schopenhauer" or some such.

What say you, fellow Shaw-junkies and Schopenhauer-freaks?

HandsomeMrToad (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hah, as it turns out, in the introduction to Man and Superman, Shaw himself acknowledges the influence of Schopenhauer on his ideas. So I will just add him to the list of thinkers influenced by Schopenhauer, and use this as my source. I think we can consider this resolved now. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)