Thread #25214271
File: 47910_schopenhauer1855akg_images_ullsteinbild.jpg (73.3 KB)
73.3 KB JPG
>The first consideration that influences our choice and feelings is age. . . .
>The second consideration is that of health: a severe illness may alarm us for the time being, but an illness of a chronic nature or even cachexy frightens us away, because it would be transmitted.
>The third consideration is the skeleton, since it is the foundation of the type of the species. Next to old age and disease, nothing disgusts us so much as a deformed shape; even the most beautiful face cannot make amends for it — in fact, the ugliest face combined with a well-grown shape is infinitely preferable. Moreover, we are most keenly sensible of every malformation of the skeleton; as, for instance, a stunted, short-legged form, and the like, or a limping gait when it is not the result of some extraneous accident: while a conspicuously beautiful figure compensates for every defect. It delights us. Further, the great importance which is attached to small feet! This is because the size of the foot is an essential characteristic of the species, for no animal has the tarsus and metatarsus combined so small as man; hence the uprightness of his gait: he is a plantigrade. And Jesus Sirach has said (1) (according to the improved translation by Kraus), “A woman that is well grown and has beautiful feet is like pillars of gold in sockets of silver.” The teeth, too, are important, because they are essential for nourishment, and quite peculiarly hereditary.
>The fourth consideration is a certain plumpness, in other words, a superabundance of the vegetative function, plasticity. . . . Hence excessive thinness strikingly repels us. . . . The last consideration that influences us is a beautiful face. Here, too, the bone parts are taken into account before everything else. So that almost everything depends on a beautiful nose, while a short retroussé one will mar all. A slight upward or downward turn of the nose has often determined the life’s happiness of a great many maidens; and justly so, for the type of the species is at stake.
16 RepliesView Thread
Showing all 16 replies.>>
>>
File: 1705904403168008.gif (937 KB)
937 KB GIF
>>25214271
What's weird is that The World as Will and Representation Volume 1 was a complete slog for me, but Volume 2 was highly engaging and much easier to parse. I mean he did warn at the beginning that you would have to read it at least twice, but it seems like he could have been less impenetrably dense in the first volume. Also, I read it without reading Hegel, which he said in the intro that you shouldn't do.
>>
File: 1702409735157775.png (239.7 KB)
239.7 KB PNG
>>25214655
His version of science is far more accurate than the politically-driven dreck we have today. Phrenology is absolutely a legitimate science.
>>
>>25214655
>>25214671
Fundamentally, he’s spot on, regardless of any anatomical errors he makes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: gigachad.png (300.6 KB)
300.6 KB PNG
>>25214781
You're right. But I didn't read either.
>>
>>
>>25214864
Smug is what he does best, I love him for it. After reading Kant who’s harder to parse but is awfully kind to the reader in spite of that, as well as humble (as much as he can be, after all he’s still dogmatic), it’s refreshing.
>>
>>25214875
He is fun.
>Kant
Kant can be a cunt in the prolegomena too. He says that the people too dumb to recognize his novelty are too dumb to recognize any novelty and should stick yo the history of philosophy instead of philosophy.
>>
>>25214892
Ah, I think I recall that, I forgot about that, since CPR seems to have a somewhat cocky, but guiding tone. I feel he was directing that statement to his contemporary naysayers who didn’t agree with or “get” CPR.
>>
>>25214864
Just read his fourfold root online, it is not long and includes the material from his book on colors.
Schopensisters, I am still a learner, but I’m getting discouraged by how he relates the will and the intellect. How can I ‘merely think’ of something without willing to think? And how can I will something without knowing what it is? I just don’t know that this radical voluntarism is tenable. If the intellect is like an accident to will’s substance then how can it even be set against the will? You wouldn’t oppose your body qua mobile to your will, so how can Schoppie oppose intellect to it as he does? And how does psychic conflict work then? The will would be opposing itself.
>>
for me he is kinda funny in a chud way. he tries to larp as a buddhist but then threw an old lady down the stairs cause she was being noisy. he talks in some sort about an ego death but then he is really egotistic.