20 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 19.2 ms ] thread
Schopenhauer died in 1860. NSDAP was funded in 1920. In wich way was Schopenhauer a Nazi ?
"The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races" - Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena, Vol. 2, "On Philosophy and Natural Science," §92, trans. Payne (p. 158-159).

"[Judaism] is, therefore, the crudest and poorest of all religions and consists merely in an absurd and revolting theism." - Schopenhauer, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy", Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I, trans. Payne (p. 126).

Thank you very much, I will take a look. Do you know of such ideas in The World as Will and Representation ?
Are we still doing this? Antisemitism was the norm among intellectuals before WW2. Check out what Marx had to say.
>Schopenhauer died in 1860. NSDAP was funded in 1920. In wich way was Schopenhauer a Nazi ?

I was following Rule 38.

LoL I got flagged for being 100% on subject.

This book should be read by everyone at least a bit interested into how a debate works.

The analytical prowess of Schopenhauer is brilliant and highlights very clearly many of the tactics everyone uses willingly or unwillingly when in need to convince or to prove a point.

A short and good read.

The greatest users of these tactics: politicians. They're great at not necessarily "winning an argument", but making it seem like they won to the weaker minded.
If anything, this drives home the point that debates are never about finding the truth. But what is the alternative? I don't know.
Socratic dialogue, where everyone is intent on building up a shared truth. Socrates talks about these two different ways of engaging in dialogue in Plato's works.
Ironically, Plato's Socrates rarely ever actually arrives at what he considers truth, most dialogues just end at an impasse. This is arguably why they're still so readable. They're more about teaching you how to think and question what you know than proselytizing some particular doctrine.
#6 sounds an awful lot like #2 + #3
It's a subtle difference, #2 is arguing against a different meaning of the words than you are intended (what do you mean 2+3=6? Everyone knows 2+3 = 5), #6 is actually changing the words you are saying (what do you mean #2 is #3 + #6?! that doesn't make sense!)
Some of these advance toward truth, but many do not. Did Schopenhauer's original make that distinction?