Scan barcode
alanffm's review against another edition
3.0
It's amazing how similar Schopenhauer's arguments in favor and against religion are to the arguments one hears today. The first section of the book, a long dialogue between two educated individuals, an atheist and a theist, could easily be misconstrued for a conversation between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. Unfortunately Schopenhauer's biases make this collection somewhat unbearable. He is arrogant, makes scoping claims, and bases much of his information on false premises. I was particularly turned off by his fetishization of eastern religions (Buddhism in particular) and his poorly informed opinions on Judaism and Zoroastrianism. There is no doubt, however, that his arguments are (at least for the 19th century) sound. While I would disagree with him on a lot of things, I don't think I would on everything - it was an interesting read.
samble's review against another edition
2.0
I do not like books of this manner. Do I agree with lots of the points raised, as well as the general argument presented? Yes I do. Is it presented in a straightforward enough manner? Absolutely. Is Schopenhauer clearly quite a talented writer and thinker? I would say so. However, this book took a toll on me. I had to physically force myself to sit and read it. Had I no obligation to read it, I never would have picked it up in the first place. Is this a flaw in myself as opposed to the book? Yes it is. In terms of content, this book is a 6 or 7 out of 10, but I cannot bring myself to give it that considering how much of a chore I found it to read (this being no fault of the author, entirely my own)
cryo_guy's review against another edition
3.0
“Now if, having taken stock of human wickedness as we have just done, you feel a sense of horror at it, you should straightaway turn your eyes to the misery of human existence. (And if you are shocked at the misery you should turn your eyes to its wickedness.) Then you will see that they balance one another, you will become aware of the existence of an eternal justice, that the world itself is its own universal Last Judgement, and you will begin to understand why everything that lives must atone for its existence, first by living and then by dying.”
Ah good ol' Schopenhauer. A friend of mine kept bringing him up because he was interested in articulating a coherent version of metaphysical pessimism and then I ran across this edition, a part of the Penguin great ideas series which I love for their covers so of course I bought it. This cover in particular is a Dürer which makes it even better.
So what about Schopenhauer? Well the first part is a dialogue on religion. Very tongue in cheek. The guy who argues against religion is called truth-lover. And the basic point is that religion is only ever allegorically true but that really just means its either trivial or deceptive so there you have it.
The rest of the stuff is observations, some interesting, others perplexingly logical. I've included a few for your amusement. I will say the pessimism is interesting. Maybe not compelling, but interesting in its own way. The idea of necessity he brings up in the second quote below is compelling in its connection with what we deserve. I'm not so sure about this notion of deserving and whether we know what we deserve. But maybe suffering does indicate to us something of what we deserve. Sometimes when philosophy borders too much on aphorism its hard to really delve into it. Or maybe I'm just being lazy.
The third quote below made me think maybe more pointedly about how suffering conditions people to see their lives. Happiness, unhappiness. Well anyway, I didn't plan on saying a whole lot in this review and I'm tired tonight besides so I'll just say this is a fast read if at times a little obtuse and at others too Schopenhauer. I will say that his very very brief analysis of Greek mythology is absolute fucking horeshit. So there's that. Anyway, happy reading!
“Philalethes: Suppose a public proclamation were suddenly made at this moment repealing all laws relating to crime: I fancy neither you nor I would have the courage even to go home alone under the protection of religious motives. If, on the other hand, all religions were in the same way declared untrue, we should go on living as before under the protection of the law alone without any special precautions.”
“The fundamental reason this is so[=empirical facts of a person's life are predetermined] is that the mode in which the metaphysical free act referred to enters the knowing consciousness is that of perception, the form of which is space and time; through the agency of space and time the unity and indivisibility of this act from then on appears drawn out into a series of states and occurrences which take place in accordance with the principle of sufficient reason in its four forms, this being precisely what is meant by necessity. The outcome however is a moral one, namely this, that by what we do we know what we are, just as by what we suffer we know what we deserve.”
“The reason the sudden announcement of a great piece of good fortune can easily prove fatal is that happiness and unhappiness is no more than the ratio between what we demand and what we receive, so that we are not sensible of the goods we possess or are quite certain of possessing as such; because all enjoyment is really only negative, only has the effect of removing a pain, while pain or evil, on the other hand, is the actual positive element and is felt directly. With possession, or the certain prospect of it, our demands straightway increase and this increases our capacity for further possessions and wider prospects. If, on the contrary, constant misfortune has contracted our spirit and reduced our demands to a minimum, we lack the capacity to receive a sudden piece of good fortune; for since it meets with no existing demands which neutralize it, it produces an apparently positive effect and thus acts with its full force: so that it can burst the spirit asunder, i.e. prove fatal.”
Ah good ol' Schopenhauer. A friend of mine kept bringing him up because he was interested in articulating a coherent version of metaphysical pessimism and then I ran across this edition, a part of the Penguin great ideas series which I love for their covers so of course I bought it. This cover in particular is a Dürer which makes it even better.
So what about Schopenhauer? Well the first part is a dialogue on religion. Very tongue in cheek. The guy who argues against religion is called truth-lover. And the basic point is that religion is only ever allegorically true but that really just means its either trivial or deceptive so there you have it.
The rest of the stuff is observations, some interesting, others perplexingly logical. I've included a few for your amusement. I will say the pessimism is interesting. Maybe not compelling, but interesting in its own way. The idea of necessity he brings up in the second quote below is compelling in its connection with what we deserve. I'm not so sure about this notion of deserving and whether we know what we deserve. But maybe suffering does indicate to us something of what we deserve. Sometimes when philosophy borders too much on aphorism its hard to really delve into it. Or maybe I'm just being lazy.
The third quote below made me think maybe more pointedly about how suffering conditions people to see their lives. Happiness, unhappiness. Well anyway, I didn't plan on saying a whole lot in this review and I'm tired tonight besides so I'll just say this is a fast read if at times a little obtuse and at others too Schopenhauer. I will say that his very very brief analysis of Greek mythology is absolute fucking horeshit. So there's that. Anyway, happy reading!
“Philalethes: Suppose a public proclamation were suddenly made at this moment repealing all laws relating to crime: I fancy neither you nor I would have the courage even to go home alone under the protection of religious motives. If, on the other hand, all religions were in the same way declared untrue, we should go on living as before under the protection of the law alone without any special precautions.”
“The fundamental reason this is so[=empirical facts of a person's life are predetermined] is that the mode in which the metaphysical free act referred to enters the knowing consciousness is that of perception, the form of which is space and time; through the agency of space and time the unity and indivisibility of this act from then on appears drawn out into a series of states and occurrences which take place in accordance with the principle of sufficient reason in its four forms, this being precisely what is meant by necessity. The outcome however is a moral one, namely this, that by what we do we know what we are, just as by what we suffer we know what we deserve.”
“The reason the sudden announcement of a great piece of good fortune can easily prove fatal is that happiness and unhappiness is no more than the ratio between what we demand and what we receive, so that we are not sensible of the goods we possess or are quite certain of possessing as such; because all enjoyment is really only negative, only has the effect of removing a pain, while pain or evil, on the other hand, is the actual positive element and is felt directly. With possession, or the certain prospect of it, our demands straightway increase and this increases our capacity for further possessions and wider prospects. If, on the contrary, constant misfortune has contracted our spirit and reduced our demands to a minimum, we lack the capacity to receive a sudden piece of good fortune; for since it meets with no existing demands which neutralize it, it produces an apparently positive effect and thus acts with its full force: so that it can burst the spirit asunder, i.e. prove fatal.”
cielllo's review against another edition
let me first tell you about the book cover: it is iconic. the two emblematic quotes summarise things not too badly; we have "mankind is growing out of religion as out of its childhood clothes" and (my favourite) "religion may be an excellent means of taming and training the perverse, obtuse and wicked biped race: but in the eyes of a friend of truth every fraud, however pious, is still a fraud."
the dialogue between demopheles and philalethes was the high point for me. schopenhauer urges for 'simplex sigillum veri' (simplicity is the seal of truth) throughout the book, i.e., "naked truth must be so simple and intelligible that it can be imparted to everyone in its true shape without adulterating it with myths and fables (a mass of lies) - that is, without disguising it as 'religion'" (p.16).
tbh, i wasn't too impressed by the ethics and the way schopenhauer (over)generalised the various & different views on virtues of ancient philosophers to 'the ancients'. there was a passage, too, that argued that procreation is the concentration of the affirmation of the will to live (p.93)? a nauseating thought, v bleak.
my overall surprisingly positive impression of this schopenhauer is probably due to its lack of vibrant misogyny (due to its not mentioning women much lol). also some early beginnings of vegetarianism in german philosophy?
the dialogue between demopheles and philalethes was the high point for me. schopenhauer urges for 'simplex sigillum veri' (simplicity is the seal of truth) throughout the book, i.e., "naked truth must be so simple and intelligible that it can be imparted to everyone in its true shape without adulterating it with myths and fables (a mass of lies) - that is, without disguising it as 'religion'" (p.16).
tbh, i wasn't too impressed by the ethics and the way schopenhauer (over)generalised the various & different views on virtues of ancient philosophers to 'the ancients'. there was a passage, too, that argued that procreation is the concentration of the affirmation of the will to live (p.93)? a nauseating thought, v bleak.
my overall surprisingly positive impression of this schopenhauer is probably due to its lack of vibrant misogyny (due to its not mentioning women much lol). also some early beginnings of vegetarianism in german philosophy?
meriamsarahe's review against another edition
4.0
Very interesting writings on religion, as well as animal rights and human nature. Very easy to read and follow.
Who knew my guy Schopenhauer the woman hater loved animals so much?
Who knew my guy Schopenhauer the woman hater loved animals so much?
peiman198913's review against another edition
3.0
در بخش اول کتاب یک مناظره و گفتگو داریم بین دو نفر در مورد دین و فلسفه، یک طرف موافق و طرف دیگه مخالف دین. این گفتگوها برای اینکه شما رو به تفکر وادار کنه جالبه ولی برای به نتیجه رسیدن خیلی کمکی نخواهد کرد، چرا؟ چون نظر من با هر دو مخالفه، یعنی هر دو هم حرفهای درست میزنند و هم حرف های اشتباه، از بین چنین دو گزینه ای قطعا انتخاب خیلی راحت نیست و شاید اصلا درست هم نباشه.ه
بخش دوم در مورد اخلاقیات هست، ابتدا توضیحاتی میده راجع به صفات خوب ذاتی از نظر دین و از نظر فلسفه یا به صورت مشخص افلاطون. و بعد به شر درونی و صفات پلید ذات انسان و نمونه هایی مثل بلایایی که بر سر برده ها آورده شده میپردازه و در نهایت گریزی میزنه به مرگ و اخلاق.ه
بخش سوم به طور کلی در مورد روانشناسی هست. به طور خیلی خلاصه و پاراگرافی به مسائلی مثل تمایل به زیستن، عادت، جدایی و وصال، شادی و اندوه، امید و یاس، لجاجت، انتقام، نفرت و ... پرداخته شده.ه
و در بخش چهارم هم به مقوله ی دین پرداخته شده که من حرفی ندارم راجع بهش :))
بخش دوم در مورد اخلاقیات هست، ابتدا توضیحاتی میده راجع به صفات خوب ذاتی از نظر دین و از نظر فلسفه یا به صورت مشخص افلاطون. و بعد به شر درونی و صفات پلید ذات انسان و نمونه هایی مثل بلایایی که بر سر برده ها آورده شده میپردازه و در نهایت گریزی میزنه به مرگ و اخلاق.ه
بخش سوم به طور کلی در مورد روانشناسی هست. به طور خیلی خلاصه و پاراگرافی به مسائلی مثل تمایل به زیستن، عادت، جدایی و وصال، شادی و اندوه، امید و یاس، لجاجت، انتقام، نفرت و ... پرداخته شده.ه
و در بخش چهارم هم به مقوله ی دین پرداخته شده که من حرفی ندارم راجع بهش :))
More...