I was saying Xopn'aua to myself as i noticed that it grants +2 Insight & +1 Metaphysics, and suddenly i realized it sounds just like Schopenhauer.  Another Josh Sawyer special, i bet.

I was saying Xopn'aua to myself as i noticed that it grants +2 Insight & +1 Metaphysics, and suddenly i realized it sounds just like Schopenhauer. Another Josh Sawyer special, i bet.

Your post inspired me to read up on his philosophy but I don’t think I’m any the wiser.

 

Is he saying, like Buddha, that the ‘will’ of the world around us prevents us from actually achieving anything, so we should all just deny all desire?

 

Not very helpful if true!

Edited October 11, 20187 yr by Grimo88

Kind of...?

 

Actually he's pretty close to Zahua.

 

Life is suffering - because will/desire drives us forth even if we achieved everything, it cannot be sated. To stop the suffering you have to deny will (as principle which drives everything). But you can only do that if you really love all living things and especially know compassion and sympathy - because compassion is the true fundament of moral. 

 

Something like that iirc? Whatever. The key is how "Will" is defined here. It's a rather big thing in his philosophy.

 

At the same time he ranted about women and Judaism (as religion). Quite common for that time, but still... Shows lack of compassion and love if you aske me.

Edited October 11, 20187 yr by Boeroer

Oh boy... clever and obscure easter eggs instead of more engaging mechanics x)... sure. 

Yeah, coming up with an easter-egg name for an item surely tied up considerable resources during development.

What's this emoji doing anyway? Having a stroke?

Yes, after it read Schopenhauer.

Oh boy... clever and obscure easter eggs instead of more engaging mechanics x)... sure.

Do you actively seek out unrelated topics to post your vitriol on?

More like Sulk'o'Saurus amirite

Your post inspired me to read up on his philosophy but I don’t think I’m any the wiser.

 

Is he saying, like Buddha, that the ‘will’ of the world around us prevents us from actually achieving anything, so we should all just deny all desire?

 

Not very helpful if true!

 

 

 I'm not sure if this helps. http://existentialcomics.com/philosopher/Arthur_Schopenhauer

 

Your post inspired me to read up on his philosophy but I don’t think I’m any the wiser.

 

Is he saying, like Buddha, that the ‘will’ of the world around us prevents us from actually achieving anything, so we should all just deny all desire?

 

Not very helpful if true!

 

I'm not sure if this helps. http://existentialcomics.com/philosopher/Arthur_Schopenhauer

I **** you not, this was my second port of call after Wikipedia.

 

I was saying Xopn'aua to myself as i noticed that it grants +2 Insight & +1 Metaphysics, and suddenly i realized it sounds just like Schopenhauer. Another Josh Sawyer special, i bet.

Your post inspired me to read up on his philosophy but I don’t think I’m any the wiser.

 

Is he saying, like Buddha, that the ‘will’ of the world around us prevents us from actually achieving anything, so we should all just deny all desire?

 

 

Just to be clear: the Buddha is not saying that. You have misunderstood something. I am not going to comment on Schopenhauer, as I don't know his work well enough, but he doesn't appear to be one of the more interesting philosophers, shall we say.

 

The Buddhist dictum known in the West as "life is suffering" or "everything is suffering" is one of the great mistranslations in world history. It is not entirely incorrect, but it is wrong enough to be seriously misleading.

Edited October 12, 20187 yr by xzar_monty

 

 

Your post inspired me to read up on his philosophy but I don’t think I’m any the wiser.

 

Is he saying, like Buddha, that the ‘will’ of the world around us prevents us from actually achieving anything, so we should all just deny all desire?

 

Not very helpful if true!

I'm not sure if this helps. http://existentialcomics.com/philosopher/Arthur_Schopenhauer

I **** you not, this was my second port of call after Wikipedia.

 

 

Those were pretty good, actually, and demonstrated the inadequacy of Schopenhauer's thinking. In other words, while he had correctly identified a problem, he incorrectly assumed that it was the end point. The Buddha, among others, took the next step.