Arthur Schopenhauer: The Pessimist Philosopher Who Hated Existence

LD: Schopenhauer was a brilliant German philosopher (1788-1860), but he is also the ultimate pessimist and misanthrope, more so perhaps than anyone else who has ever lived. Disillusioned by Christianity, he found refuge in Buddhism and Vedanta. He hated Jews, women, noise, and most of the people around him. This stimulating article is Part 1 of Schopenhauer and Judeo-Christian Life-Denial by Thomas Dalton, PhD., recently published on the Occidental Observer. I have added a 9-minute video on Schopenhauer’s worldview at the end of this article. Try not to miss it. [LD]


“This world is the worst of all possible worlds. . . . Consequently, the world is as bad as it can possibly be, if it is to exist at all. ” — Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, vol.2, p. 584

“In my 17th year I was gripped by the misery of life, as the Buddha had been in his youth when he saw sickness, old age, pain and death. The truth was that this world could not have been the work of an all loving Being, but rather that of a devil, who had brought creatures into existence in order to delight in their sufferings.” — Arthur Schopenhauer  

Vitam impendere vero
“Dedicate your life to truth.”
—Juvenal, Satire IV, 91[1]

Every movement needs its icons, the alt-right no less than any other social-political ideology. Any icon—a term deriving from the Greek eikôn, meaning a likeness or image—serves to embody key elements or aspects of a particular outlook, or to encapsulate certain key values. Within Christianity, the image of a crucified Jesus serves this purpose, as does an empty cross, which signifies his alleged resurrection. Within the alt-right, we have our own secular heroes, often drawn from among the great philosophers and intellectual figures of Western history, among whom I would include Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; French thinkers like Rousseau, Diderot, and Voltaire; and leading German intellectuals like Kant, Goethe, and Nietzsche. All have contributed seminal and indispensable ideas to the Western project.

But special standing is reserved for Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860), a man of exceptional insight and courage. At once a brilliant metaphysician and a visionary social critic, Schopenhauer combined both aspects of his persona in his two main works, The World as Will and Representation (1818)[2] and Parerga and Paralipomena (1851)[3]. It is worthwhile examining his views on life and death, Christianity, and the Jews. There are valuable lessons here for us all.

Metaphysics of the Will

Let’s start with the big metaphysical picture. In its broad outline, Schopenhauer’s worldview consists of a universe of struggle, strife, and conflict—of tension and opposition which is only ever temporarily relieved, except to resume once more later on, in new and more potent forms. We see this clearly, he said, in the human realm, in the guise of war, oppression, and criminality. We see it in the mundane struggles of daily life, for money, friends, influence, power. We see it in countless minor actions and decisions that we all make, every day, aiming at something new, something better, something more. Every human action, even the most trivial, is a manifestation of a want, a desire, an urging, a striving—in short, of the will. As such, all social conflict reduces, ultimately, to a battle of wills.

But this situation is not limited to humans. We see a comparable picture in the animal kingdom, in the struggle for existence, for mates, for food, and for survival. We see it in plants, in their battle for sunlight and water, and for nutrients in the soil. And we see it even in inanimate nature, via such forces as gravitation, magnetism, and electrostatics. All the world, said Schopenhauer, is comprised, in its essence, of struggle, strife, frustration, and opposition; all the world is a manifestation of the will. The metaphysics here are fascinating and strikingly original, but I won’t elaborate for now. Here, we are most concerned with the social realm and the far-reaching implications of seeing “the world as will.”

For we humans, as mentioned, our daily life is a constant expression of our will. We want: want food, want drink, want material goods, want sex, want prestige, want power. Different people express their wills differently, but the essential nature of all people is the same: a constant striving or desiring for something. This has two important consequences. First, since we all are constantly striving—often for the same limited things—we are thereby engaged in an endless competition with others. As in any competition, there are (a few) winners and (many) losers. The losers become frustrated, disappointed, depressed, perhaps angry, perhaps aggressive. They either vow to try harder next time, or they give up altogether. Even the winners—and we all do win, from time to time—are not really satisfied. After a short-lived sense of relief or satisfaction, we immediately settle into a new sense of desiring and wanting. The sweetness of victory is fleeting. Soon we are either fending off jealous rivals, or we are constructing new, higher desires that we hope to fulfill. At best, we are simply bored.

Hence the second consequence: the basic reality of human life is a condition of unsatisfied want, endless craving, relentless competition, and unfulfilled desire—in other words, of suffering. Our lot in life is a constant striving for things that we can never really possess, least of all ‘happiness,’ and therefore the tangible reality of life is pain, suffering, and want. ‘Happiness’ or ‘satisfaction’ are merely temporary releases from such pain; therefore, happiness and pleasure are negative in their nature, and pain and suffering are the positive realities of the world.

Thus we arrive at Schopenhauer’s infamous pessimism. Life is a task, a chore, indeed, a punishment. We are all condemned to lives of greater or lesser suffering, sometimes physical, sometimes psychological, sometimes intense, sometimes mild—but ever-present and always looming greater in the future. The end of this life of suffering comes only with the ‘great suffering’ of physical death, which we all dread, and which therefore weighs upon our heads as yet more suffering. It would have been better, he concludes, if we had never been born.

What to do? Such a depressing picture almost inclines one to suicide. And yet Schopenhauer masterfully turns the picture around for us, finding a way through the morass of existence. First, he says, we are strangely fortunate that the world is as it is. Were it otherwise—if we somehow attained fulfillment and satisfaction on a regular basis, life would become truly pointless. We would either be driven insane by boredom, or would create artificial conflicts and struggles, wars and mass atrocities, simply to have a reason for being. Failing these, we might simply end our own lives—ironic, that the suicidal person is the one who has all his desires satisfied, not the one, like us, condemned to a life of struggle and pain. Suffering, said Schopenhauer, was like the ballast of a ship; it keeps us on the straight-and-narrow, keeps us focused, and drives us forward. Paradoxically, we ought to be grateful for our condition; if nothing else, it leads us to the ultimate metaphysical truths about the world.

Be that as it may, we still need to live our lives, preferably with a minimum of suffering. Hence we are faced with a profound dilemma: Life is desire, and desire leads to the very suffering that we seek to avoid. On the one hand, then, we ought logically to minimize or reduce (“deny”) our desires. But this is tantamount to denying life. This may be a theoretical possibility for a saint or a god, but it is an unworkable plan for the real world. At its worst, a ‘life of life-denial’ is an incoherent and self-annihilating concept, one appropriate only for a pathological individual.[4]

Therefore, to live, we must accept the struggle and pain of life, keep our expectations low, press ahead, and hope for the best. This is the only practical conclusion. Yes, we ought to minimize our desires where possible: avoid a fixation on money, material things, status—all those things that Jews, for example, obsess about, and thus foist upon the public mind as the ultimate goals in life. We should not be too concerned about a nebulous and facile goal like ‘happiness,’ which in any case is virtually impossible in a world of perpetual strife. We ought not expect that things will necessarily turn out well, and therefore not be disappointed when they don’t. Life goes on, the struggle goes on—such it is.

It’s a striking moral picture that Schopenhauer paints for us, one that is hard to refute. I think we all can relate to such thinking in our everyday experience. Much of this rings true, and yet we rarely follow the logic out to the full implications.

If it all sounds vaguely Buddhist, that’s because it is. One of Schopenhauer’s great surprises, and greatest satisfactions, was his discovery of Buddhist philosophy in the 1830s, well after he had written volume one of his monumental work, World as Will and Representation. There are many obvious affinities, and Schopenhauer viewed himself as independently coming to the same eternal truths as the Buddha but from an entirely different route, and with a much firmer philosophical foundation. Their prescriptions were essentially the same: end suffering via an elimination of desire and attachment, which is the source of that suffering.[5] But Buddhism was entangled in a mythological schema involving samsara or a cycle of endless reincarnation and rebirth, and of nirvana, conceived as an end to that cycle. Schopenhauer had no patience for such mythology but he respected the metaphysical insight, and placed it, in his mind, on a superior rational footing.

‘One True Christian’

But it wasn’t only Buddhism that Schopenhauer found affinity with; it was also there, to a surprising degree, in Christianity. In fact, his alignment with ‘original’ or ‘true’ Christianity was so strong that Schopenhauer considered himself the ‘one true Christian,’ and the only such person in all of modern history: “my teaching could be called Christian philosophy proper, paradoxical as this may seem to those who do not go to the root of the matter, but stick merely to the surface.”[6] This astonishing conclusion demands some examination.

Consider, he says, the basic creation myths of the major religions. In Hinduism, the god Brahma is said to have created the world “through a kind of original sin”[7]—a mistake or error, one in which Brahma himself must atone for. (Schopenhauer adds with emphasis: “This is quite a good idea!”) Buddhism, for its part, sees the world as coming into being “in consequence of an inexplicable disturbance in the crystal clearness of the blessed…state of Nirvana.” (“An excellent idea!”) The ancient Greeks saw the formation of the cosmos as an act of “unfathomable necessity,” that which simply had to be. This too was reasonable. All such views saw the act of cosmic creation as a negation, as a failing—an error, a mistake, or an unfortunate necessity.

But the Judaic view was altogether different. There, the Jewish god Jehovah creates this world “of misery and woe,” stands back on the seventh day, and declares it “all good”—what is this? Utter nonsense, declares Schopenhauer, and in fact “something intolerable.” Recall the key passage from Genesis 1:31: “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” Schopenhauer repeatedly mocks this idea, drawing from and paraphrasing the Greek Septuagint version by use of the phrase πάντα καλὰ λίαν (pánta kalá lían),[8] “all was very good.” This was pure nonsense, utterly disproven by common sense, philosophical insight, and even a modicum of a realist view of the world. Indeed, says Schopenhauer elsewhere, the world could hardly be any worse than it is.[9] To proclaim the opposite is sheer stupidity.

As a putative religion, however, Judaism is even worse. There is a god in it, of course, but this deity is merely a brutal enforcer of the Law. He praises and cajoles his “chosen” and smites their enemies, nothing more. In this metaphysical system there is no immortal soul, no real afterlife, no heaven, no hell; all such things are utterly lacking in the Old Testament. Schopenhauer concludes,

And so in this respect, we see the religion of the Jews occupy the lowest place among the dogmas of the civilized world, which is wholly in keeping with the fact that it is also the only religion that has absolutely no doctrine of immortality, nor has it even any trace thereof.[10]

Not that Schopenhauer endorsed the concept of an immortal soul; far from it. But he realized that any honest religion must include some such doctrine. Judaism, as we will see, evidently served a different purpose.

Nor did he accept anything like a moral, omnipotent, all-good god. “Such a view…is too flagrantly contradicted by the misery and wretchedness that fill the world, on the one hand, and by the obvious imperfection and even burlesque distortion of the most ‘perfect’ phenomenon…of man.” The evil inherent in worldly existence, and the many failings of humanity, decisively disprove the existence of any such god. In fact, the great suffering of the world is proof of the opposite, namely, that it came into being in “sin,” as the other religions have it. There remains a trace of this original sin, of course, in the Bible, in the myth of the Fall, of Adam and Eve—which stands as the only philosophically valid insight in Judaism: “it is only the story of the Fall of Man that reconciles me to the Old Testament. In fact, in my eyes, it is the only metaphysical truth that appears in the book.”

Schopenhauer next turns to a central issue: the view of earthly life in the various religions. For emphasis, he contrasts the ancient Greek view with that of Christianity. Consider first the distinction between Greek and Christian views of death, as seen in images engraved on ancient sarcophagi. For the Greeks, the dead man’s life is depicted in happy, optimistic terms: his birth, family, marriage, occupation, and so on. It is, says Schopenhauer, an essentially positive, life-affirming outlook; life is good, life is to be lived to its fullest, and people can indeed attain happiness. Then look at the Christian coffin: draped in black, and topped by the cross, the symbol of ultimate suffering and death. This, he said, is an essentially life-denying outlook. But it is fitting: for the Christian, this temporal life of sin and suffering is superseded by eternal life in heaven. What is life for a Christian, after all, but a test, a burden, indeed, a “cross to bear”?

From the perspective of a modern-day secular philosopher, one looks at this distinction and says: “Of course, the Greeks were right; you have one life, it can be good, so live it to the fullest. Those foolish Christians, with their mindless belief in an afterlife, disavow the value of earthly existence. They are always looking ahead, to heaven, never to the here and now.” But Schopenhauer again turns the tables on us:

Between the spirit of Graeco-Roman paganism and that of Christianity is the proper contrast of the affirmation and denial of the will-to-live, according to which, in the last resort, Christianity is fundamentally right.[11]

(I note here parenthetically that he frequently clarified his concept of the will as, more specifically, the will-to-live [der Wille zum Leben].) Christianity is “right” in the sense that the world is suffering, it is ‘sin’—not for Christian reasons, of course, but because that is the nature of a world of pure willing. Even more, the Christian ‘solution’ is nearly the same as Schopenhauer’s: deny the will, be life-denying. Will is will-to-live, and thus to deny the will is to deny life. Deny your material desires, deny bodily pleasures. Become an ascetic. “Take up your cross and follow me.”[12] This is the path of redemption.

Hence Schopenhauer sees his philosophical worldview as aligned with the Christian New Testament and its ‘pessimism’ about the world, whereas other philosophers are inherently more consistent with the ‘optimistic’ view of Judaism and the Old Testament:

My ethics is related to all the ethical systems of European philosophy as the New Testament to the Old, according to the ecclesiastical conception of this relation. Thus the Old Testament puts man under the authority of the Law [of Moses] which, however, does not lead to salvation. The New Testament, on the other hand, declares the Law to be inadequate, in fact repudiates it. On the contrary, it preaches the kingdom of grace which is attained by faith, love of one’s neighbor, and complete denial of oneself; this is the path to salvation from evil and the world. For in spite of all protestant-rationalistic distortions and misrepresentations, the ascetic spirit is assuredly and quite properly the soul of the New Testament. But this is just the denial of the will-to-live…

He then places his own outlook in historical context:

Now all the philosophical systems of ethics prior to mine have kept to the spirit of the Old Testament, with their absolute moral law and all their moral commandments and prohibitions, to which the commanding Jehovah is secretly added in thought. … My ethics, on the other hand, … frankly and sincerely admits the abominable nature of the world, and points to the denial of the will as the path to redemption therefrom. It is, accordingly, actually in the spirit of the New Testament, whereas all the others are in that of the Old, and thus theoretically amount to mere Judaism (plain despotic theism). In this sense, my teaching could be called Christian philosophy proper, paradoxical as this may seem to those who do not go to the root of the matter, but stick merely to the surface.[13]

Thus he arrives back at the quotation I cited above. Judaism, with its pánta kalá lían, an all-good God, and a promise of material prosperity, is a pathetic form of optimism, utterly at odds with the real world. (Of course, for the Jews themselves over the past century at least, and excepting a few years during World War II, the world has been exceptionally good; it’s good to be king. I will return to this shortly.) Christianity, with its sufferings of the world, its sin and misery and death, and its “you will be hated by all,”[14] is realistic pessimism—albeit, as with Schopenhauer, with an escape route, namely, denial of the will and the consequent asceticism. The analogy is imperfect but sufficient to allow for an instructive comparison. It permitted Schopenhauer to draw out some fascinating implications but it also blinded him to a likely deeper truth about Christianity.

(LD: I have added a 10-minute video after the notes. Please scroll down to this for an excellent summary of Schopenhauer’s pessimistic worldview.)


[1] Opening quotation in Schopenhauer’s Parerga and Paralipomena (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1851/1974; E. F. J. Payne, trans.). Original from Juvenal, circa 110 AD.

[2] World as Will and Representation (New York: Dover, 1969; E. F. J. Payne, trans.) The German title is also rendered in English as The World as Will and Idea, owing to the ambiguity of the word Vorstellung.

[3] A ‘parergon’ is a supplement or addition, and a ‘paralipomenon’ is something omitted or overlooked. Hence this book comprises a number of essays and aphorisms on a variety of topics that are supplemental to Schopenhauer’s main work. As an aside, I note that some of Schopenhauer’s other “books,” such as Essays and Aphorisms and On the Suffering of the World, are just extracts from Parerga and Paralipomena.

[4] Nietzsche recognized and acknowledged this very point: “For an ascetic, life is a self-contradiction. … [For such a man,] life somehow turns against itself, denies itself” (Genealogy of Morals III, sec. 11). And again: “Morality, as it has so far been understood—as it has in the end been formulated once more by Schopenhauer, as ‘negation of the will to live’—is the very instinct of decadence, which makes an imperative of itself. It says: ‘Perish!’” (Twilight of the Idols V, sec. 5).

[5] Putting an end to personal desires and attachment to material things was in fact the third of the Buddha’s “four noble truths”.

[6] Parerga and Paralipomena (hereafter, P&P), vol. 2, p. 315.

[7] P&P, vol. 2, p. 300.

[8] The full phrase in Genesis is: kaí eíden o theós tá pánta ósa epoíisen kaí idoú kalá lían kaí egéneto espéra kaí egéneto proí iméra ékti.

[9] “Now this world is arranged as it had to be, if it were to be capable of continuing with great difficulty to exist; if it were a little worse, it would no longer be capable of continuing to exist. Consequently, since a worse world could not continue to exist, it is absolutely impossible; and so this world itself is the worst of all possible worlds. … Consequently, the world is as bad as it can possibly be, if it is to exist at all.” (WWR, vol. 2, pp. 583-584).

[10] P&P, vol. 2, p. 301.

[11] P&P, vol. 2, p. 314.

[12] Mark 8:34; Matthew 16:24.

[13] P&P, vol. 2, p. 314.

[14] Matthew 10:22, Luke 6:22, John 15:19.

Continued in PART 2

VIDEO  :  9.28 mins

106 thoughts to “Arthur Schopenhauer: The Pessimist Philosopher Who Hated Existence”

  1. Copied and pasted from The Occidental Observer.
    April 28, 2020 at 9:28 am:

    I enjoyed reading this article immensely, including the erudite comments relating to Buddhism and the Oriental worldview that so influenced the thinking of Arthur Schopenhauer. This article, I must say, is a really refreshing change from Covid-19 and its woes.

    If time is “unreal” and “the world is a dream”, ideas that Schopenhauer would have been thoroughly attuned to from his deep study of Vedanta and Buddhism, our current obsessions with coronavirus can then be seen as mere bleeps against the background of eternity.

    Having said this, however, it has to be admitted that reading Schopenhauer is not fun. Though it can provide high-octane intellectual stimulation. This is because Schopenhauer is the Ultimate Pessimist. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he had induced thousands of maladjusted young people to commit suicide. One of his essays I have in front of me now is entitled “On the Emptiness of Existence”. And the final essay in the book I have on my desk, as if to help the hapless reader on his way, is entitled: “On Suicide”.

    Here the German philosopher argues that suicide is an excellent idea, universally approved of by the Ancients, and suggests that killing oneself might be a good way to solve the population problem!

    I eagerly await Part 2.

    1. Copied and pasted from The Occidental Observer.
      April 28, 2020 at 10:11 am:

      I had the remarkable good fortune a few weeks ago (just before the Covid-19 lockdown) to stumble across an old book in an antiquarian bookshop. Published in 1915, the pages yellowed with time, the book was more than I could afford. But I bought it all the same. Title: “Essays of Schopenhauer”, anonymously translated from the German.

      All these essays, I was to learn, had been originally published in 1851 under the daunting title of Parerga and Paralipomena. These were aphoristic thoughts jotted down in spare moments that were to be alluded to in Schopenhauer’s earlier masterpiece Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, “The World as Will and Representation” (1819).

      “Life is a difficult question,” the grim-faced young German told a friend when he was barely out of his teens, “I have decided to spend my life in thinking about it.” His friend advised him not to do so, hinting that there were healthier and more lucrative ways of spending his time. He ignored his friend’s advice, continuing doggedly on his dark, dismal, cantankerous and misogynistic way. The ultimate curmudgeon.

      Goethe had his doubts about young Schopenhauer and confided in a letter of 1813 to a friend: “Young Schopenhauer is a remarkable and interesting man … I find him intellectual, but I am undecided about him as far as other things go.”

      It appears that the olympian Goethe wasn’t too impressed by Schopenhauer’s dour demeanour. Schopenhauer emanated Weltschmerz (“world sorrow”). He was a mishmash of Plato and Kant seen through the prism of the Vedas and the pessimism that lies at the heart of Buddhism — All the world is suffering, and the only way to break free from the endless cycle of birth and rebirth is to achieve nirvana.

      Reincarnation and karma are the underlying ideas in both Buddhism and Hinduism. Misguided Westerners, unable to believe in the triune God and afterlife in heaven promised by Orthodox Christianity, have flirted with the Oriental religions for the wrong reasons: they like the idea of reincarnation and meeting up with their loved ones, in new bodies and locations, beyond this vale of tears. Which is precisely what Gautama Buddha was dead against. The whole idea of Buddhism is to escape reincarnation, not to seek it out eagerly as a pleasant alternative to annihilation.

      The trouble, as I understand it, is that there is still a heated ongoing disagreement among Buddhist scholars as to what “nirvana” actually means. Its definition is by no means certain. If the individual soul is akin to a candle flame which, once extinguished, is no more, then “nirvana” means total annihilation (“extinguishedness”). In short, a return to Nothingness after death. You might as well be an atheist if you adopt this worldview. Which is why Buddhism is often referred to as an “atheistic religion”, particularly suitable for Doubting Thomases and the spiritually deracinated — including Jews who have outgrown Judaism but shy away from militant atheism.

      This is one way of looking at things: You came out of Nothing and you melt back into Nothing; and there’s absolutely no question of an omnipotent and omniscient Designer Deity presiding over the whole Shadow Show.

      On the other hand, if “nirvana” means losing your personal identity and merging into an overarching “God Consciousness”, sometimes known as “the Absolute”, then there are grounds for hope that life could have a meaning and purpose. Which is? — To merge with the One, as the water drop merges with the Ocean and becomes an indistinguishable part of it.

      All these thoughts, I suspect, had occurred to Nietzsche too and may have contributed to driving him round the bend. Obsessively gloomy thoughts do in fact induce chronic depression in those who have them, which in turn leads to organic changes in the brain. Yes, the frontal lobes and other parts of the brain can be seriously damaged by thinking abominable thoughts all the time. So it helps to be cheerful, transmitting cheerfulness to all those around you.

      I can well understand what Nietzsche was getting at when he wrote: “A Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal!” I’m not sure what life meant to Schopenhauer, still less if he eventually found his “Yes” and his “No”. I see no “goal” at the end of his gloomy philosophy. All I see is a very crooked line leading into the impenetrable Forest of Words.

    2. LD –

      “Here the German philosopher argues that suicide is an excellent idea, universally approved of by the Ancients, and suggests that killing oneself might be a good way to solve the population problem!”

      It was written in the NT that Jesus took that route.

      1. B-Hawk –

        Gal 1:4

        Paul’s Greeting to the Galatians
        3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,
        4who gave Himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age,

      2. A Sanskrit interpretation for “suicide” is “sva” – oneself, one’s own. This denotes a noun, whereas the typical association for “suicide” denotes a verb.

        The implication here would suggest death of the self, or say of the “lower” self. As it would pertain to Jesus, this could in turn suggest that his crucifixion may only be a SYMBOL of that, and not an actual occurrence.

      3. Paul was a prophet of his own making. He never met Jesus and was an inquisitor against early Christians, real followers of the teachings of Jesus. Which explains why the epistles to the galatians widely contradicts the other parts of the NT.

      4. Hello, Pat. Jesus “giving himself up” to his enemies is a lot different from committing suicide. When Jesus said to them, “This is your hour, and the power of darkness,” He was submitting to His Father’s will. Remember also that just before saying that, He said to them, “I AM He,” at which they all fell to the ground, showing that it was He who allowed them to arrest Him.

        @Ed “Paul was a prophet of his own making. He never met Jesus … the epistles [sic] to the galatians widely contradicts the other parts of the NT.”

        Paul did meet the resurrected and glorified Christ on his way to Damascus. Christ made him an apostle and revealed in an instant the same truths of Christianity that were revealed to the Twelve by Christ and then understood by them in a miraculous manner at Pentecost when they received supernatural enlightenment and power from the Holy Spirit. And no book of the NT contradicts any other book, since they are all inspired by the same Holy Spirit. If one doesn’t believe this, then he is a heretic and separated from Christ. We must believe all that was taught by the Catholic Church until the papacy was taken over by Judeo-Masonry in 1958.

    3. Hello LD from the Great Alpha Circle of the North American Council,
      As much, as we admire your works all the time, this time, with your latest post, we could clearly sense, you are deeply troubled by issues, no human being was capable to find an answer to, over the time. We enjoy you, and your great works, you somehow stand out, as a true giant among the humanity.
      We would like to extend an offer for your consideration, please re-focus in your writings, and expand the entire spectrum of the issues that you recently cover on your site.
      Years ago, we already resolved all the questions, facing the role of Judaism in today’s world…
      It is being implemented, and the end result will ensure the survival of the entire human kind…
      One day, you and us, will meet in Italy, to celebrate this great victory…
      We monitor your site all the time…we wish you well, and will protect you (it is a small world, after all…)…till, we meet in Rome LD…
      Please remember LD, when governments fail their people, they forfeit the right to rule…

      1. @Darrell
        Paul claimed he saw the resurrected Jesus. So can I and anybody else.
        As quoted by Pat, the verses in the epistles embody the Mythraic Zoroastrian belief that Jesus died for our sins. Therefore there should be no hell. Everybody will go to heaven.
        Reading the epistles, one finds that Paul crowns himself above the 12 apostles and even castigates them for not preaching what was right according to him. You don’t have to be a textual critic to figure that out.
        Why would Jesus preach something while he was alive and then switch over to platonic Mythraic paganism after his death in a vision that only Paul saw? Was there any witness to the resurrection of Jesus as experienced by Paul other than Paul himself?

        1. @ Ed

          Darrell may not be right, but he’s streets ahead of you in his thinking.

          You write: “Paul claimed he saw the resurrected Jesus. So can I and anybody else.” Yes, you can say it … or the opposite. But I am more inclined to believe the words of one of the founders of Christianity, whose ideas have been taken seriously for roughly 2000 years by billions of Christians, than the words of an obscure commenter on the Darkmoon site who has nothing to offer the world but his ignorance and skepticism. St Paul’s words have stood the test of time. Your words have not, and never will.

          BTW, my above attack on you applies equally to Pat and to other nonentities on this site who think they can pass judgement on St Paul, your intellectual and spiritual superior in every way. A guy like Pat, who doesn’t even believe in the existence of nuclear weapons,suddenly sets himself up as a definitive authority on St Paul and other Biblical writings! What a joke.

          I invite the self-crowned supergenius Pat to write his own “Epistle to the Hebrews”. He’d have only one reader… himself! 🙂

          1. @ Ed

            You write: “As quoted by Pat, the verses in the epistles embody the Mythraic (sic) Zoroastrian belief that Jesus died for our sins. Therefore there should be no hell. Everybody will go to heaven.”

            You make the mistake of deferring to Pat’s opinion, a man without credibility who knows nothing about religion except that he doesn’t like it. 🙂

            A man who doesn’t even believe in nuclear weapons, like Pat, is hardly the type of person likely to be a respected authority on Biblical texts and “Mythraic (sic) Zorastrian belief.” I’m not sure if it’s Pat or you you cannot even spell “Mithraic” correctly! This is not the first time Pat has shown he can barely spell, so maybe he’s to blame for the bad spelling, proving yet again his ignorance and lack of education.

            In any case, you know nothing about the New Testament or hell if you can claim that the New Testament has nothing to say about hell and that “everybody will go to heaven.” Jesus never said this even once in the NT, nor did he even imply it. There are at least 33 references to hell in the NT — check them out!

            In the King James Bible, the Old Testament term Sheol is translated as “Hell” 31 times, and it is translated as “the grave” 31 times. Sheol is also translated as “the pit” three times. Modern Bible translations typically render Sheol as “the grave”, “the pit”, or “death”.


            1. Well said, Sardonicus. It’s time these Christ haters were put in their place. They don’t have a religious bone in their bodies and so they burn with envy and hatred against those who believe in God and have reverence for Jesus Christ and his teachings.

              One needs to feel sorry for them, these latter-day crucifiers of Christ.

              If they’s been at Golgotha, they would have helped the Romans to hammer in the nails.

      2. Sard –

        You wrote:
        “This is not the first time Pat has shown he can barely spell, so maybe he’s to blame for the bad spelling,”
        YOU are at it again… STILL…. inventing lies about me… after apologizing for your hatred of me over a dozen times in the past!!
        You must have lost your glasses!! Or can’t read!!! 🙂

        NOW… go get your glasses and show me the MISSPELLED words I wrote this time!!!

        May 2, 2020 at 2:57 pm
        B-Hawk –
        Gal 1:4

        Paul’s Greeting to the Galatians
        3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,
        4who gave Himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age,

        1. @ Pat

          I don’t hate you in the least. I pity you. When you attack Christian values, as you repeatedly do on this site, you do so WITHOUT MENTIONING NAMES. That is cowardly. All your attacks on Christianity are veiled attacks on Lasha Darkmoon and the pro-Christian administrators of this website. They are not so stupid as not to know that. The fact that your attacks are veiled attacks, covert attacks, underhand attacks, makes them COWARDLY. Do you understand that?

          When I attack you for attacking my religious values, I do so openly, by calling you out BY NAME. My attack is always a COUNTER-ATTACK. You have provoked the attack. You have initiated the attack. You have started the attack. So I have attacked you back. And I will continue to do so as long as you SPIT IN LASHA DARKMOON’S FACE. As long as you SPIT IN ADMIN’S FACE. And as long as you SPIT IN MY FACE.

          I hope I’ve made my position clear.

          1. Whether your spelling is lousy or not is totally irrelevant to my argument. I couldn’t care less if you are dyslexic or the finest speller in the world.

            May I ask why you are here in the first place, hogging the limelight on a pro-religious website sympathetic to Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and other world religions when you hate all these attempts to access the divine?

            You never lose an opportunity, it seems to me, to undermine the religious ethos of this site and the reverence for Jesus Christ that underpins this precious ethos.

      3. Sard –
        You wrote:
        “Whether your spelling is lousy or not is totally irrelevant to my argument.”

        You mentioned it first, not me.

        Your points would be better made if YOU corrected ME where I am mistaken, rather than YOUR screaming hateful insults at ME.

        I am here to welcome opposing views. Now try some of those. for a refreshing change! 🙂

        1. @ Sardonicus

          You have my full support. Don’t waste your breath on this creepy old crap artist. He is here to cause trouble.

        2. @ Pat

          Your points would be better made if YOU corrected ME where I am mistaken, rather than YOUR screaming hateful insults at ME.

          Tut tut, best to cool it and try not to get too emotional! 🙂

          I repeat: I genuinely respect you and even like you, even though my language gave the false impression of “screaming hateful insults.” You are right about my language, but you are not right about my feelings.

          Try and understand that this is a bit like a mother screaming at her inconsiderate brat (age 11) to turn down the loud rock music in his room. He does that and she calms down, and then she comes into his room later to tuck him into bed and give him a goodnight hug.

          There are no hard feelings, you see. She’s just had a hissy fit. And now she’s herself again.

      4. Sard –

        OK Mom!! Rock music station changed to ‘elevator music’ now….. Muzak, just so I can keep my allowance coming in.

        Can I get a raise of a nickel for that??? 🙂

        1. This site wouldn’t be the same without you. So hang around and don’t be scared away by your enemies! I ain’t one of them. 🙂

          I will say this, and you will recognize the truth of what I say: when I lose my cool, as I often do, this is because of a definite character defect. I must do more to combat this.

          Well, I must get to bed… it’s been a long, long day.

  2. Hayagriva dasa: Although Schopenhauer officially takes an atheistic stand, he writes: “If a man fears death as his annihilation, it is just as if he were to think that the sun cries out at evening, ‘Woe is me! For I go down to eternal night….’ Thus suicide appears to us as a vain and therefore foolish action….”

    Srila Prabhupada: Yes, because the will is there, death is not the stoppage of life. One simply gets another life.

    Dialectic Spiritualism – Arthur Schopenhauer

    1. @ Hp

      Thanks for the useful link. I think these words of Srila Prahbupada’s interviewer perfectly captures Schopenhauer’s worldview:

      Syamasundara dasa: “Schopenhauer says, ‘Human life must be some kind of mistake.’ The greatest crime of man was that he was ever born….He concludes, however, that because the world is mad or irrational, it could not possibly have an author. If there were a God, He would have set the world in order.”

      This is absolutely clear from the article and from Schopenhauer’s own words. The fact that Sri Prahbupada objects to these words is interesting but strictly speaking irrelevant. We are here after all, to consider Schopenhauer’s viewpoint. Not Prahbupada’s viewpoint.

      Thousands of people have written comments on Schopenhauer’s views, including Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell. Why should we accept Prahbupada’s commentary as the ultimate truth? Prahbupada is just one of many commenters.

      1. @ Florian
        @ Hp

        Anyone who actually reads Schopenhauer’s own words in his essay “On Suicide” is left in no doubt that he approved of suicide thoroughly and did not consider it a crime. The opening words of his essay confirm this: “As far as I can see, it is only the followers of monotheistic, that is of Jewish, religions that regard suicide as a crime.” He goes on to add: “This is the more striking as there is no forbiddance of it, or even positive disapproval of it, to be found either in the New Testament or the Old.”

        He pours contempt on the Orthodox Christian view that suicide is “wrong” and “a crime against God”, and he is particularly angry with the Christian clergy for refusing to bury suicides in hallowed ground. The Church’s attitude that all suicides will burn in hell forever is one he regards with withering scorn. He is clearly in full support of euthanasia and mercy killing.

        He then goes on to cite numerous examples from the Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Romans, the Indians, Chinese and Japanese, all of them praising suicide to the skies as a “heroic” and noble act.

        Homer (Hp) will find this reference to suicide among the Hindus of special interest:

        “Further, it is well known that the Hindoos often look upon suicide as a religious act, as, for example, the self-sacrifice of widows, throwing oneself under the wheels of the chariot of the god at Juggernaut, or giving oneself to the crocodiles in the Ganges or casting oneself in the holy tanks in the temples, and so on.”

        — Essays of Schopenhauer, On Suicide, p.221

      2. LD, the Swami expounded upon suicide a little here, in this dialectic, and in further depth elsewhere.

        Hayagriva dasa: As examples of the denial of the will to live, Schopenhauer cites the religious suicides under the wheels of the Jagannatha carts, and the ritual of sati.

        Srila Prabhupada: These are not suicides. These are acts based on the understanding that because we are getting different types of bodies, we are suffering a variety of miseries. When one voluntarily accepts death in these ways, he thinks of his spiritual life while dying, and he attains it.

        Bg. 8.6) Therefore King Kulasekhara prayed that Krsna take him while he was in good health and remembering Krsna, because he feared forgetting Krsna when dying in a diseased condition. Often, when death comes, a person is in a coma, his bodily functions are impeded, he dreams in various ways, and so on. Therefore an intelligent man sometimes thinks that it would be more desirable to meet death in sound health so that he can think of his next life and go back to Godhead. If a person thinks of Lord Jagannatha while dying, he goes back to Lord Jagannatha.

        That is not suicide but the voluntary acceptance of death so that one can immediately transfer to the spiritual world.

        Hayagriva dasa: And that is effective?

        Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
        “Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits the body, that state he will attain without fail.” (Bg. 8.6)

        1. @ Hp

          That is not suicide but the voluntary acceptance of death so that one can immediately transfer to the spiritual world.

          Sorry to disappoint you, dear Homer, but this is not a verdict any sensible person would accept, least of a coroner’s court. I doubt if LD will bother to respond to this semantic quibbling. When a woman throws herself under the wheels of an express train, as Anna Karenin did in Tolstoy’s novel, this is suicide pure and simple.

          You are saying it is NOT suicide if she throws herself under the train for a religious motivation — “the voluntary acceptance of death so that one can immediately transfer to the spiritual world”. This is pure and unadulterated garbage.

          I’m sorry to see you are so brainwashed by your Indian guru that you are unable to see this. Throwing yourself under the wheels of a train is NO DIFFERENT to throwing yourself under the wheels of the Indian Juggernaut, is it? In both case, you are taking your own life and being crushed to death.

          No disrespect intended to your dear guru, Homer. I’m sure he’s a very wise man, but one thing he is not: omniscient. He is capable of human error. Even the Buddha said not to accept everything he said, but to doubt it and test it.

          Next you will be telling us that someone who hangs himself has NOT committed suicide if his motivation is “to immediately transfer to the spiritual world”! 🙂

          Would any coroner’s court accept that verdict?

      3. Florian, accept or not accept, it’s information, a viewpoint from a whole other (Vedic) perspective, fund of knowledge, philosophy, religion, dharma. The other commenters you cited were Westerners same as Schopenhauer and likely too the vast majority of the other “thousands of people.” The Vedic Eastern ancient views might be seen as eminently desirable in aiding the process of ciphering and deciphering even one’s own idea of reality or viewpoint on these matters.

        There’s generally thought to be an advantage in having as much data and pertinent expert personal input from various sources when drawing any conclusions or even just remaining idling.

        1. As Saki said to you in his excellent comment: “No disrespect intended toward your guru.” Of course we welcome a wide variety of views and the views of the Indian sages are to be welcomed. But honestly, common sense must ultimately triumph over Oriental jiggery pokery with words. If you slit you own throat, you commit suicide.

          By no stretch of the imagination can you argue it is NOT suicide if you slit your throat and leave a suicide note by your dead body, saying: “This is not suicide! This is a religious act. I want to transfer to the Other World as soon as possible.”

      4. Saki, yes, I believe everything the Swami says.
        Not even a little bit lukewarm.
        When I don’t understand, I keep trying until I do. Even if it takes many lifetimes.
        A good habit I’ve picked up along the way..

        1. @ Hp

          Well then, there’s no reasoning with you. Go in peace.
          Your unshakable faith in your guru has triumphed over reason.

        2. @ Hp

          Saki, yes, I believe everything the Swami says.
          Not even a little bit lukewarm.
          When I don’t understand, I keep trying until I do. Even if it takes many lifetimes.
          A good habit I’ve picked up along the way..

          Pathetic. Worsted in rational argument, you resort to this insolence. There’s no arguing with fanatics like you.

          You are no different from those Bible thumpers who clinch every argument with a quote from the Old Testament. Only in your case it’s a quote from the leader of the Hare Krishna cult.

          Your slogan: Prabhupada is right, even when wrong.

  3. For starters, a correction to what Schopenhauer wrote as a certain Gnostic understanding would have it:

    The d-evil didn’t “bring creatures into existence” as if to say being responsible for existing at ALL. The responsibility for being in this punitive REALITY is due to its actions of (d)evil resulting in life descending too far into a dense state – what we know as “matter”.

    Devolution/Evolution….the planet and all its inhabitants are at a crossroads, and dwelling in pessimism will do us no good

  4. 🎵get outta yer head, and into yer heart, and see there yer angel divine🎵

  5. Evidently, Herr Philosopher craved for a better world where there is no struggle, no misery, and no death, i.e. nothing but a bliss.

    Well, let the fool have his wish fulfilled:

    The “great” Western philosophy is so freaking shallow! So, is it any wonder that the “no less great” Western world, which is built on that philosophy, ends up where it does?

    A sounder philosopher, perhaps, would have concluded: The fact is that there is only one world, so the two statements:

    (a) This world is the worst of all possible worlds,
    (b)This world is the best of all possible worlds

    are logically equivalent, i.e. they have the same truth value.

    1. @ Circassian

      The idea that “this is The best of all possible worlds” was satirized by Voltaire in his novel Candide. Here he depicts his fictional philosopher, Pangloss, as maintaining that “this is the best of all possible worlds” — in spite of all the evil and suffering in it.

      I think his fictional philosopher Pangloss is based on the Jewish philosopher Spinoza.

      In other words, Spinoza and Schopenhauer were polar opposites in every way, with Spinoza being the sunny optimist and Schopenhauer the gloomy pessimist.

      1. @ Sister Monica

        In other words, Spinoza and Schopenhauer were polar opposites in every way, with Spinoza being the sunny optimist and Schopenhauer the gloomy pessimist.

        As you probably know by now, I do not think or operate in terms of “Jew” this or “Jew” that.

        If you, or anyone else here for that matter, feel comfy with the two-bit , i.e. Jew/non-Jew, way of thinking, I shall have no objection to that: go ahead full steam, and when you get some good, positive results in that mode of mental operation, let us know about it, so that we can emulate you and follow your lead.

        Until then, I shall stick to my own way of thinking and living.

        1. I was merely pointing out that Spinoza was Jewish. I see no reason to suppress his ethnicity because you are in favor of the suppression of factual information.

          When a black man goes on a rape spree, would you like me to conceal the fact that he is black as somehow “irrelevant”? Next you will telling me nor to mention the significant fact that most of the cruel Soviet commissars in the Cheka and subsequent NKVD were JEWS? 🙂

          It’s nice to know, dear Circassian, that you would like us to suppress the Jewish ethnicity of Stalin’s most evil agents during the Bolshevik Revolution. I’m sorry. You will not get your wish.

      2. @ Sister Monica

        The art of reasoning (especially that of plausible reasoning as opposed to the deductive one) is incredibly subtle subject, sister.

        There are certain rules to follow if one wishes to exercise sound reasoning. I will not list them all here, but I shall mention the most important one: never ever ignore any piece of information at your disposal, which is relevant to the question at hand.

        There is one nasty problem though:: But how do we decide if a particular piece of information is relevant or not in the context of the question at hand?

        Since you seem to enjoy this subject, let me entertain you a bit. There was this German philosopher by the name of Carl Gustav Hempel who in the 1940s came up with a fascinating logical conundrum called Hempel’s paradox.

        Hempel starts with the premise: “A case of a hypothesis supports the hypothesis.” Then he observes: “Now the hypothesis that all ravens are black is logically equivalent to the statement that all non-black things are non-ravens, and this is supported by the observation of a white shoe.” An incredible amount has been written about this seemingly innocent argument, which leads to an intolerable conclusion.

        So, what do you think, sister: Does the observation of a white shoe support the hypothesis that all ravens are black?

        1. @ Circassian

          So, what do you think, sister: Does the observation of a white shoe support the hypothesis that all ravens are black?

          No, it doesn’t. I too have studied logic and was was pretty good at it. This reminds me of the paradox: “All Cretans are liars,” when delivered as the final judgment of a highly respected Cretan authority. Tell me: is it possible to believe this honest Cretan, never known to tell a lie?

          And then there’s the Greek philosopher Zeno’s paradox. He attempted to prove that “a moving arrow is not moving”. His argument, I’m told, was most convincing! — and yet, the arrow moved — though logically it couldn’t! 🙂

      3. @ Sister Monica

        No, it doesn’t. I too have studied logic and was pretty good at it.

        Excellent! Now let’s move to the next exercise.

        We start with a premise: “Jews are bad, Germans are good”. Then we observe: “Jewish philosopher Spinoza and German philosopher Schopenhauer were polar opposites in every way, with Spinoza being the sunny optimist and Schopenhauer the gloomy pessimist”, which leads to an intolerable conclusion: “Sunny optimism is bad, gloomy pessimism is good”.

        How would you resolve this conundrum, sister? At which point in our chain of reasoning we went wrong?

        Or, perhaps, you think that we have arrived at perfectly reasonable and tolerable conclusion?

        1. @ Circassian

          *SIGH”. At no point did Lasha suggest that Spinoza was wrong to be an optimist or that Schopenhauer was right to be a pessimist. So there is no such *intolerable conclusion* as “Sunny optimism is bad, gloomy pessimism is good.”

          There is therefore no conundrum to resolve! 🙂

          Lasha does NOT believe that “sunny optimism is bad, gloomy pessimism is good.” She believes the contrary: that optimism is preferable to pessimism.

          We don’t have to believe, with Spinoza, that “this is the best of all possible worlds” … nor do have to believe, with Schopenhauer, that “this is the worst of all possible worlds.” Very few people believe in these two extremes, both at opposite ends of the spectrum. What did the Buddha preach? The Middle Way. The Way of Moderation. Schopenhauer’s revulsion toward life is an extreme borderline attitude, totally at variance with the Buddha’s gentle admonition to practise moderation.

      4. @ Sister Monica

        My question was addressed to you, sister, and not to Lasha, i.e. I was interested in your take on things, not Lasha’s. If Lasha and Sister Monica are one and the same (lest to be misinterpreted, please note that I am far from implying such equivalence) then, of course, your reaction is perfectly natural.

        Anyhow, it’s nice to know that Lasha is not about to give the Jewish philosopher Spinoza the satisfaction of dragging her into his world of sunny optimism, just like she is not about to let the German philosopher Schopenhauer to drive her to suicide with his gloomy pessimism 🙂

        I would hate to see the beautiful Lasha – in her juicy 39 years young age – hanging on a greased rope in her bathroom 🙁

        1. @ Circassian

          I speak for Lasha, conveying her thoughts to you, acting at all times as her spokesperson. This is partly why I am here. Lasha has been advised to stay clear of the Comment Section for private reasons which I cannot disclose. She posts comments only as a last resort when she has something on her mind that needs to be said. At all other times she remains silent, not wishing to intrude.

          You persist in misunderstanding LD and do so, I think, out of sheer malice. She does not hold the twisted views you attribute to her. She is NOT against optimism, as you foolishly state! She is for optimism, not against it! She prefers optimism to pessimism, as most sane and well-balanced people would.

          However, she regards Schopenhauer’s philosophical worldview with respect, based as it is on Buddhism and Vedanta. Schopenhauer performed a valuable service for Western philosophy, she believes, by being one of the first Western philosophers to import the deepest insights of the Far East into Western thought. For that alone, she thinks, he deserves the highest praise.

      5. @ Sister Monica

        You persist in misunderstanding LD and do so, I think, out of sheer malice.

        I think I understand LD perfectly well. It would be not quite correct to say that LD and I are enemies – we are rather adversaries, or “partners”, if you wish, in politically correct parlance (in the same sense that Putin calls Americans “our partners”).

    2. @Circassian
      “The “great” Western philosophy is so freaking shallow! ”

      Yep. When then we have you to save us from it and, you know, give it some depth and all!

      1. Yes, Bjørn, we saved your ass in 1945 from that “freaking shallow Western philosophy”.

        I am pretty sure that we have to bring you to your f*cking senses again. Not that I would expect any gratitude for that from you, though.

      2. @Circassian
        You saved us in 1945, and obviously put some depth to it. I see it all around…..

        I am not sure what you mean by our ‘f*cking senses’, but it is probably so deep it would be hard to come back up again. Would you mind terribly if I’d rather not have it?

  6. The theme of Schopenhauer, solution to not suffering, is to have no desire or control your desires as much as possible with your ratio as we don’t have control over externals according the Stoics. I don’t know if Schopenhauer ever mentioned the Stoics who also mentioned suicide
    If life is not bearable.

    1. @ Allen

      “I don’t know if Schopenhauer ever mentioned the Stoics who also mentioned suicide…”

      Yes, Schopenhauer mentions the Stoics with approval in his essay on suicide. These are his exact words:

      “And we find that suicide was also praised by the Stoics as a noble and heroic act. This is corroborated by hundreds of passages, and especially in the works of Seneca.”

      — Essays of Schopenhauer, ‘On Suicide’, p. 221

      The philosopher and statesman Seneca was the most famous of the Roman stoics. He was ordered to commit suicide by the Emperor Nero and did so without a murmur, calmly and heroically. First he took poison, like Socrates, but this failed to work. He then committed suicide in the traditional Roman manner by getting into a warm bath, slitting his veins, and bleeding to death slowly.

  7. “But Buddhism was entangled in a mythological schema involving samsara or a cycle of endless reincarnation and rebirth, and of nirvana, conceived as an end to that cycle”

    Samsara is not mythology. Samsara is not a story that Buddha made up to impress his followers. It is an explanation of knowledge acquired by raising one’s consciousness into higher states, at first by Buddha and then by the multitude of disciples. And indeed it can be known by anyone who has followed the recommended 8 fold path to experience the finer states of consciousness. This cannot be understood or known by intellect or logic. It can only be understood by personal experience and struggle using one’s own wisdom.

    “The trouble, as I understand it, is that there is still a heated ongoing disagreement among Buddhist scholars as to what “nirvana” actually means. Its definition is by no means certain. If the individual soul is akin to a candle flame which, once extinguished, is no more, then “nirvana” means total annihilation (“extinguishedness”). In short, a return to Nothingness after death.”
    I do not know which scholars argue about what “nirvana” is because by that very act you can be assured that they know nothing about it. The only people that can tell you about it and show you the steps are people who have achieved it. Those who have achieved it will never declare in words that they have achieved it. A bit like the saying ” those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know”. You can infer it through the way they teach and the very experiential advice they give their followers of meditation practices. Even though I was born a Buddhist and studied Buddhism most of my life I only grasped this about a year ago when I was introduced to the sermons by a monk who taught this very path of practice and experience. And yes I have heard him referring to nirvana as just that, an extinguished flame of a candle. Sadly I never got to meet him as he passed away in 2018. However, there are over 500 recorded sermons on a website that one can listen to and practice to which I am very grateful. And yes the teaching is that life is suffering, pain and illusion however when you really practice instead of feeling suicidal you feel an overwhelming strength and peace and an uninvited joy. I think you would have enjoyed it, sadly it is in Sinhalese and It might be a mammoth task to adequately translate it into English due to its’ depth and complexity.

    1. An excellent comment, Mihiri. I’ll try to get back to you later in more detail about this valid point you have made:

      I do not know which scholars argue about what “nirvana” is because by that very act you can be assured that they know nothing about it. The only people that can tell you about it and show you the steps are people who have achieved it.

      Suffice to say for the moment that my comment that there was disagreement among Buddhist scholars about the actual nature of nirvana came from a discussion (I think) of this very point by the renowned Buddhist scholar and anthropologist W. Evans-Wentz, either on his book on Tibetan Yoga or in his book on Milarepa. I’ll have to check the source. Finding it won’t be easy.

      As to your point that only those who have achieved nirvana can explain what it is, since no one can can talk about a state they have never experienced, reflect that one does not have to experience death to talk about the afterlife. Swedenborg spoke of heaven and hell at great length, writing voluminous books describing the life after death in detail. Blake did the same. Neither of these mystics needed to die in order to discourse on the life after death.


      The argument that Swedenborg and Blake are “charlatans” won’t do, I’m afraid, because then the same charge of charlatanry could be made against those Buddhists who talk about nirvana authoritatively One can speculate about life after death in the same way that one can speculate about NDE experiences or a futuristic world. In the same way one can speculate about the nature of nirvana or its Hindu equivalent, provided one is an advanced sage in a higher state of consciousness — like Ramakrishna, for example.

      The point I make about nirvana is a logical one: either nirvana means “extinguishedness” (non-existence) or it means non-extinguishedness (continued existence in some form). There are no other alternatives but these: after death, you either exist (alternative A) or you cease to exist (alternative B). Some Buddhist scholars opt for alternative A (the atheists), others opt for alternative B (the non-atheists).

      1. The fact that you DO exist infers that you cannot NOT exist. Thinking of that sort is hopelessly muddled in an excess of the reasoning mind, populated by an endless array of the formulated words which COMPRISE such thinking.

        A useless exercise of distraction 🤔

  8. Thank you all for your suggestions. It’s apparent the Swami very simply corrects Arthur S when needed, and with Arthur S it’s shown to be at times both minorly and majorly needed. He is a bit crude and unrefined, like petroleum. This explained via logic, reason, metaphor, shastra.
    No personal opinion interjected, just the facts, ma’am.

    I also think most of you are very superstitious..

    1. Pay no attention attention to those who fail to understand you, Homer. I’ve known you long enough to appreciate your honesty and sincerity.

    2. Homer –

      “I also think most of you are very superstitious..”

      I agree. But, as you already know….. count me out of that club. 🙂

  9. Shopenhauer contradicts himself. It is metaphysically impossible for there to be no afterlife, including survival of consciousness for the self-soul, and what he describes below:

    Regarding suicide, he thought it a mistake, since by death only our consciousness, our world as representation, is destroyed; but the will, our essence, endures. Again from §54 of WWR, Vol I:

    someone who is oppressed by the burdens of life, who certainly desires life and affirms it, but detests its sufferings and in particular does not want to put up with the difficult lot that has fallen to him any longer: a person like this cannot hope for liberation in death, and cannot save himself through suicide; the temptation of cool, dark Orcus as a haven of peace is just a false illusion. The earth turns from day into night; the individual dies: but the sun itself burns its eternal noontime without pause. For the will to life, life is a certainty: the form of life is the endless present; it does not matter how individuals, appearances of the Idea, come into existence in time and pass away like fleeting dreams.

  10. Schopenhauer should have gotten out more or become inspired by an art.

    Catastrophic cerebral imbalance, that incidentally most city dwelling packed and stacked humans are now afflicted with, is the explanation for his attitude.

    However, a materialistic, purely rational, atheistic outlook is to be preferred to the irrational fanatic. From the semi-autobiographical book Shantaram “In fact, he has more in common with a rational, reasonable-minded atheist than he does with a fanatic from his own religion. ”

    Cerebral imbalance is a pathology.

    Regarding nirvana, consciousness, gurus, 500 lecture websites, and so on … Gopi Krishna, a lowly Indian civil servant placed it all on a scientific basis in the 1970’s. There is no mystery about the technique, only biology. Of course the perceptions of higher consciousness are difficult to transcribe, but the gifted are able to – this is the explanation of genius. Last interview here:

  11. “Life is desire, and desire leads to the very suffering that we seek to avoid.”
    “Life” translated as the human condition leads to a life full of individual and constant growing physical needs and hence automatic suffering follows. To comfort and serve a dependent fragile body with a captured/regulated/influenced mind that until now is not quite understood by but a “chosen” few – is critical. Needs to “serve” a body constantly in an hostile environment which again will need certain criteria to function as needed/wanted and serving all present (or rather only a few) that exploit everything there is in the material realm. The need to breathe as a new born, the need for love/food/clothes/education/success/prosperity (to bring a “happier and fulfilled life”) and the need for a decline in health/function – needed to grow as a whole – ending with the need of a physical death of the “vessel of mortal flesh” as a purpose to finally grasp the meaning of life and eternity – again as a whole or as one.
    Bagged into such a world/system full of controlled individual needs and negative emotions, human suffering can in mho not be seen as optimism at all. Even if all is reversed during ones life time from crying out in pain during birth and to die laughing/grinning with the physical body’s last breath – “life” as in human condition fails all realistic optimism. Maybe it is just a “pessimistic German thing” to look at life in such a way as Schoppenhauer did but it will not be far from truth or a reality that for once is not made/designed or influenced in any way by man.

    1. female Jo’s posts always make the commentary board, male TROJ’s posts hardly ever get put-up on the commentary board, so that proves female Jo is smarta’ than male TROJ and WE’RE proud a female is here sharing her intelligent insight into every subject matter WE discuss greatly enhancing Darkmoon and making Darkmoon a much richer experience for all of the readers and WE think WE made the right decision to ship male TROJ to Sapmblinka for a life sentence.

      How serendipitous, what Cosmic Synchronicity! that female Jo showed up here at Darkmoon right after WE got rid of male TROJ, like 3 seconds after WE threw male TROJ into Spamblinka female Jo shows up!

      And Oh how Darkmoon has improved since WE got rid of male TROJ and female Jo Oh what good Fortune! showed up her to bless Us with her keen insights into every subject under The Sun! male TROJ never had anything intelligent to say about anything, contrast that with female Jo who always has very very intelligent insights into every subject under The Sun! So obviously female Jo is a lot smarta’ than male TROJ ever was.

      Woemin can do anything men can do and Woemin can do it betta! LOL 🙂

      1. “Geschwätz ist jede Konversation mit einem, der nicht gelitten hat”.
        How about a sex change for you too – just to become smarter and maybe to suffer just a little bit to get a little more sense into your thinking that you may not end up as TROJ – even if you are one and the same.
        Quite tricky that one init?

    2. Cioran & Schopenhauer share quite an hefty pessimism and maybe even a similar glorification of suicide. My sister was 45 and on the peak of her “most beautiful” life and without any worries in the world apart from “to be”. The man she loved intensely, her closest Brazilian and German friends and family never understood that she took her own life nor did her/our mother. There were no obvious signs to end a “happy” fulfilled life just some theories and philosophies that myself at that time did not quite understand. Schopenhauer, Herman Hesse, as well as Cioran had occupied much of her intellect after a drowning/near death experience took place while being an adolescent. A dreamlike experience filled with incredible colors and divine symphonies of tongueless compositions and an endless glueckseeligkeit stayed with her embedded deep within. There was no depression, addiction or fear of “existence” nor hatred against herself – just a hidden wish to return “home” to the universal sea/soup of loving creation where perfection abides in normality.
      Her boat was found abandoned by fishermen on an early morning drifting in a bay of the Brazilian coastline where my sister on a full moon night while listening to her favorite German classical symphonies and the sound of shallow silver waves gently rocking the drifting boat went ahead to return to the same moment that happened 30 years before.
      When going through her belongings in her Brazilian home there were poems she wrote, besides a farewell letter, money and the last will with the wish to leave her body in her chosen wet grave in the caring arms of the “Bay of all saints” asking all to kindly accept her last wish.

      “A man does not kill himself, as is commonly supposed, in a fit of madness but rather in a fit of unendurable lucidity, in a paroxysm which may, if so desired, be identified with madness; for an excessive perspicacity, carried to the limit and of which one longs to be rid at all costs, exceeds the context of reason.” M. Cioran

      Es kann geschehen, dass es Glück in einer Begierde gibt, aber die Glückseligkeit erscheint nur da, wo alle Bande gebrochen sind. Die Glückseligkeit ist mit dieser Welt nicht vereinbar. Um ihretwillen zerstört der Erimit alle seine Bindungen, um ihretwillen zerstört er sich. M. Cioran – Die verfehlte Schöpfung (1969)

  12. Herr Schopenhauer
    As miserable as you were, look on the ‘bright side’: You might’ve been married!

    1. Well said! Both witty and wise.
      Schopenhauer hated women even more than he hated Jews.

      “God’s greatest mistake: making Woman.”
      Schopenhauer didn’t write that, but he could have.

      1. @Sister Monica
        Thank you for your praise Sister Monica. Haven’t felt so good since I filched a ‘gold star’ from Miss Semmons’ secret stash and stuck it on my homework assignment for Mommy to beam over

    2. The problem with Schopenhauer is that he took women too serious and thought that he could talk with them as talking to a man, obviously forgetting that women are women and men are men. Both must ‘ play’ their assigned task. He should have amused himself with the ladies, giving pleasure and receiving pleasure. Instead of being depressed. Life is not deductible to a philosophy or a mathematic formula, dry stuff. Life needs, lubrification and spirit, passion. At the end there is not much.

  13. “In this metaphysical system [of Judaism] there is no immortal soul, no real afterlife, no heaven, no hell; all such things are utterly lacking in the Old Testament.”

    Actually, in 2 Maccabees 12.46 it states that “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins.” This book was discarded, along with 5 others by the Protestant so-called “reformers”, who can be more accurately called revolutionaries. This passage from 2 Macc. not only implies an afterlife, and even a heaven, but also a place of purification, which Christian tradition calls Purgatory.

    1. “Reformers” have edited & removed many books from the bible over the centuries. Many were never placed there initially. It seems god’s words were seleted by men with an agenda.

      I studied these and many others starting in the 50s. Since, to me, they were inventions…. I gave them away in the 80s, along with numerous bibles and other sources of fake history:

      The Forgotten Books of Eden
      edited by Rutherford H. Platt, Jr.


    I think one of the greatest minds who ever dealt with the questions raised by the article and the comments is G K Chesterton (1874-1936). His books, Orthdoxy and The Everlasting Man (especially part 2) are must reads. Here is a section from his early “Blatchford Controversies” (1903), “Why I Believe in Christianity.”

    I mean no disrespect to Mr. Blatchford in saying that our difficulty very largely lies in the fact that he, like masses of clever people nowadays, does not understand what theology is. To make mistakes in a science is one thing, to mistake its nature another. And as I read God and My Neighbour, the conviction gradually dawns on me that he thinks theology is the study of whether a lot of tales about God told in the Bible are historically demonstrable. This is as if he were trying to prove to a man that Socialism was sound Political Economy, and began to realise half-way through that the man thought that Political Economy meant the study of whether politicians were economical.
    It is very hard to explain briefly the nature of a whole living study; it would be just as hard to explain politics or ethics. For the more a thing is huge and obvious and stares one in the face, the harder it is to define. Anybody can define conchology. Nobody can define morals. Nevertheless it falls to us to make some attempt to explain this religious philosophy which was, and will be again, the study of the highest intellects and the foundation of the strongest nations, but which our little civilisation has for a while forgotten, just as it has
    forgotten how to dance and how to dress itself decently. I will try and explain why I think a religious philosophy necessary and why I think Christianity the best religious philosophy. But before I do so I want you to bear in mind two historical facts. I do not ask you to draw my deduction from them or any deduction from them. I ask you to remember them as mere facts throughout the discussion.
    1. Christianity arose and spread in a very cultured and very cynical world – in a very modern world. Lucretius was as much a materialist as Haeckel, and a much more persuasive writer. The Roman world had read God and My Neighbour, and in a weary sort of way thought it quite true. It is worth noting that religions almost always do arise out of these sceptical civilisations. A recent book on the Pre-Mohammedan literature of Arabia describes a life entirely polished and luxurious. It was so with Buddha, born in the purple of an ancient civilisation. It was so with Puritanism in England and the Catholic Revival in France and Italy, both of which were born out of the rationalism of the Renaissance. It is so to-day; it is always so. Go to the two most modern and free-thinking centres, Paris and America, and you will find them full of devils and angels, of old mysteries and new prophets. Rationalism is fighting for its life against the young and vigorous superstitions.
    2. Christianity, which is a very mystical religion, has nevertheless been the religion of the most practical section of mankind. It has far more paradoxes than the Eastern philosophies, but it also builds far better roads.
    The Moslem has a pure and logical conception of God, the one Monistic Allah. But he remains a barbarian in Europe, and the grass will not grow where he sets his foot. The Christian has a Triune God, “a tangled trinity,” which seems a mere capricious contradiction in terms. But in action he bestrides the earth, and even the cleverest Eastern can only fight him by imitating him first. The East has logic and lives on rice. Christendom has mysteries-and motor cars. Never mind, as I say, about the inference, let us register the fact.
    Now with these two things in mind let me try and explain what Christian theology is. Complete Agnosticism is the obvious attitude for man. We are all Agnostics until we discover that Agnosticism will not work. Then we adopt some philosophy, Mr. Blatchford’s or mine or some others, for of course Mr. Blatchford is no more an Agnostic than I am. The Agnostic would say that he did not know whether man was responsible for his sins. Mr. Blatchford says that he knows that man is not.
    Here we have the seed of the whole huge tree of dogma. Why does Mr. Blatchford go beyond Agnosticism and assert that there is certainly no free will? Because he cannot run his scheme of morals without asserting that there is no free will. He wishes no man to be blamed for sin. Therefore he has to make his disciples quite certain that God did not make them free and therefore blamable. No wild Christian doubt must flit through the mind of the Determinist. No demon must whisper to him in some hour of anger that perhaps the company promoter was responsible for swindling him into the workhouse. No sudden scepticism must suggest to him that perhaps the schoolmaster was blamable for flogging a little boy to death. The Determinist faith must be held firmly, or else certainly the weakness of human nature will lead men to be angered when they are slandered and kick back when they are kicked. In short, free will seems at first sight to belong to the unknowable. Yet Mr. Blatchford cannot preach what seems to him common charity without asserting one dogma about it. And I cannot preach what seems to me common honesty without asserting another.
    Here is the failure of Agnosticism. That our every-day view of the things we do (in the common sense) know, actually depends upon our view of the things we do not (in the common sense) know. It is all very well to tell a man, as the Agnostics do, to “cultivate his garden.” But suppose a man ignores everything outside his garden, and among them ignores the sun and the rain?
    This is the real fact. You cannot live without dogmas about these things. You cannot act for twenty-four hours without deciding either to hold people responsible or not to hold them responsible. Theology is a product far more practical than chemistry.
    Some Determinists fancy that Christianity invented a dogma like free will for fun – a mere contradiction. This is absurd. You have the contradiction whatever you are. Determinists tell me, with a degree of truth, that Determinism makes no difference to daily life. That means that although the Determinist knows men have no free will, yet he goes on treating them as if they had. The difference then is very simple. The Christian puts the contradiction into his philosophy. The Determinist puts it into his daily habits. The Christian states as an avowed mystery what the Determinist calls nonsense. The Determinist has the same nonsense for breakfast, dinner, tea, and supper every day of his life.
    The Christian, I repeat, puts the mystery into his philosophy. That mystery by its darkness enlightens all things. Once grant him that, and life is life, and bread is bread, and cheese is cheese: he can laugh and fight. The Determinist makes the matter of the will logical and lucid: and in the light of that lucidity all things are darkened, words have no meaning, actions no aim. He has made his philosophy a syllogism and himself a gibbering lunatic.
    It is not a question between mysticism and rationality. It is a question between mysticism and madness. For mysticism, and mysticism alone, has kept men sane from the beginning of the world. All the straight roads of logic lead to some Bedlam, to Anarchism or to passive obedience, to treating the universe as a clockwork of matter or else as a delusion of mind. It is only the Mystic, the man who accepts the contradictions, who can laugh and walk easily through the world.
    Are you surprised that the same civilisation which believed in the Trinity discovered steam? All the great Christian doctrines are of this kind. Look at them carefully and fairly for yourselves. I have only space for two examples. The first is the Christian idea of God. Just as we have all been Agnostics so we have all been Pantheists. In the godhood of youth it seems so easy to say, “Why cannot a man see God in a bird flying and be content?” But then comes a time when we go on and say, “If God is in the birds, let us be not only as beautiful as the birds; let us be as cruel as the birds; let us live the mad, red life of nature.” And something that is wholesome in us resists and says, “My friend, you are going mad.” Then comes the other side and we say: “The birds are hateful, the flowers are shameful. I will give no praise to so base an universe.” And the wholesome thing in us says: “My friend, you are going mad.” Then comes a fantastic thing and says to us: “You are right to enjoy the birds, but wicked to copy them. There is a good thing behind all these things, yet all these things are lower than you. The Universe is right: but the World is wicked. The thing behind all is not cruel, like a bird: but good, like a man.” And the wholesome thing in us says. “I have found the high road.”
    Now when Christianity came, the ancient world had just reached this dilemma. It heard the Voice of Nature-Worship crying, “All natural things are good. War is as healthy as he flowers. Lust is as clean as the stars.” And it heard also the cry of the hopeless Stoics and Idealists: “The flowers are at war: the stars are unclean: nothing but man’s conscience is right and that is utterly defeated.”
    Both views were consistent, philosophical and exalted: their only disadvantage was that the first leads logically to murder and the second to suicide. After an agony of thought the world saw the sane path between the two. It was the Christian God. He made Nature but He was Man.
    Lastly, there is a word to be said about the Fall [Original Sin]. It can only be a word, and it is this. Without the doctrine of the Fall [Original Sin] all idea of progress is unmeaning. Mr. Blatchford says that there was not a Fall but a gradual rise. But the very word “rise” implies that you know toward what you are rising. Unless there is a standard you cannot tell whether you are rising or falling. But the main point is that the Fall like every other large path of Christianity is embodied in the common language talked on the top of an omnibus. Anybody might say, “Very few men are really Manly.” Nobody would say, “Very few whales are really whaley.” If you wanted to dissuade a man from drinking his tenth whisky you would slap him on the back and say, “Be a man.” No one who wished to dissuade a crocodile from eating his tenth explorer would slap it on the back and say, “Be a crocodile.” For we have no notion of a perfect crocodile; no allegory of a whale expelled from his whaley Eden. If a whale came up to us and said: “I am a new kind of whale; I have abandoned whalebone,” we should not trouble. But if a man came up to us (as many will soon come up to us) to say, “I am a new kind of man. I am the super-man. I have abandoned mercy and justice”; we should answer, “Doubtless you are new, but you are not nearer to the perfect man, for he has been already in the mind of God. We have fallen with Adam and we shall rise with Christ; but we would rather fall with Satan than rise with you.”

    1. @ Darrell

      Excellent comment. A pity it had to disappear into Spam. This is also happening on many other websites, I believe, ever since Google started interfering in the free flow of information.

  15. I realised at around twelve years of age that it is a dog eat dog world. I realised every person I met was really only concerned about their self. In fact, all our sensory perceptors are directed at serving the self. This can only lead to conflict and disaster. A group of people can all be looking at the same thing, but, because our sensory receptors vary in interpretative abilities and the simple ability of our senses to act within our god-given intelligence levels, which can vary from Australian Aboriginal 65 IQ levels, to someone like me, with an IQ over 145, we all respond in our own peculiar ways to the physical-materialistic stimuli of the world. At 16 years I read about the womanising, fun ways of Fielding’s Tom Jones. I had long realised the super powers inherent in unbridled love giving. I read about the bureaucratic, humdrum and boredom in the life of Mr Polly; and a 16 year old girlfriend inspired my by giving me her copy of Lady Chatterly’s Lover. I went to the closest rose bush and with petals in hand, decorated our bed. I compared the latter to Notes From the Underground, War and Peace, etc, and decided the way forward in life for me – and the way to making the most of the gift of LIFE – was to emulate the lustful, nature loving, natural, unencumbered ways of the Lady’s rural lover. Oh yeah, I know all about the ugly, deformed Jews like Fauci, Adelson, Schaffer, Soros, etc, who run the finances of our corrupted, life-sapping planet, but they do not have my riches of the natural world, of endless forests, pure running water and access to a continual supply of love-making nymphettes that I have. I used to walk past the local nunnery and viewed the boredom of rigour and sexual frustration on the faces of the poor sisters, all caught up in a system that denied happiness. I persuaded many to climb the imprisoning fences and escape with me into the beauties of the hazy, tree covered hinterlands, I taught them to LIVE without guilt. They never looked back…… Today I am a free spirit of Queensland’s Daintree Rainforest, unimpeded by the depressing visions presented by Schopenheur’s pessimism. LIFE is for the living. Yeah, we all die, but we can make our short lives one of happiness and unbridled sexual exaltation. And the latter can be just as simple as a warm, loving embrace with another human traveller. I hate Jews because they are the ANTI-LIFE, who have turned sex into a commodity.

    1. @ Max Bilney

      Well, that was certainly a fine bit of prose, proving, if nothing else, that antisemitic sex maniacs can be literary geniuses! 🙂

      I hear that the Covid-19 lockdown is having a disastrous effect on the sex life of the world’s nations. More people are having more sex out of sheer boredom, because they have nothing better to do with their time. Dating agencies like Tinder are doing extra business as adultery and fornication thrive as never before. Pornography is doing exceptionally well, with the Solitary Vice reaching new horrendous heights of lecherous abandonment.

      The Jews in the porn industry are rubbing their hands with fiendish glee, as masturbation saps the energy of the young and destroys the lives of children, its newest victims.

      Where all this will end I don’t know. It does not bode well.

      I doubt if the pretentious poseur, David Icke, has a clue about what is going on. He hates Christianity. He hates religion and its restraints like the sex-crazed Max Bilney.  He serves his Jewish masters by handing them new nails to hammer into the blood-spattered body of the crucified Christ. Anyone who follows this False Prophet is asking for trouble. Fools and knaves get the mad gurus they deserve.

      Down with Icke! May he join his paymasters in Sheol! May they all end up in the Slithering Pit!   

    2. I used to walk past the local nunnery and viewed the boredom of rigour and sexual frustration on the faces of the poor sisters, all caught up in a system that denied happiness. I persuaded many to climb the imprisoning fences and escape with me into the beauties of the hazy, tree covered hinterlands, I taught them to LIVE without guilt. They never looked back.

      Wow! I’ve heard of Mack-the-Knife, but this Max-the-Rake thing is new to me.

      However, at least I learned something, Next time I won’t throw the comforter over the rose bush. It’s the other way around.

      I have often thought about asking the sisters what it’s like to be married to a husband that has been dead for 2000 years. Should they tell me he is still alive, I’ll invite them to the wine and cheese wedding party next week. The host is worried about a shortage of blessed refreshments.

      Jews are just “anti” – period. Jews are the black-holes of humanity. I’m surprised they don’t float from being anti-gravity.

  16. Looks like this plandemic isn’t helping much to reduce the population. However, the suicide rate may help even things out lead by some of the commenters on Darkmoon.
    On an other note, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860), would be driven around the bend if he were alive in the year of out Lord of 2020 hearing, acute vison and hind-ass.

  17. LD, unfortunately for Arthur S he didn’t have many, if any bona fide Vedic acharyas, Buddhist lamas or their shastras at his service. If he’d had, perhaps his disposition would have softened, allowing a personal aspect into his cipher mill.

    Today, even the simplest citizen of practically any nation on earth has these treasures literally at a fingertip. A simple push of a button. Arthur would be awed..

  18. I agree that Schopenhauer was one of the greatest geniuses in the history of literature, but his ideas were sometimes very silly, even extremely so.

    Just one example: Schopenhauer’s solution to the Kantian “thing-in-itself” problem was that the “thing-in-itself” exists “only in your mind”.

    Schopenhauer even said (this is an exact quote), “When you see a building, it only exists in your mind, and if you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand anything.”

    One of his translators called this a “philosophy for a lunatic asylum”, which is hardly an exaggeration.

    Yet the same man slept with two loaded pistols on his bedside table every night; he must have believed that SOMETHING was real! He claimed it was because he was afraid of robbers!

    Well, if the “thing-in-itself” only exists in your mind, then so do the robbers! How do you shoot robbers if they only exist in your mind? Do you blow your brains out?

    (“Thing-in-itself” problem: “my car is red, but at night it looks brown, so what colour is it REALLY?” Kant claimed you can’t KNOW what colour your car is. It’s more complicated than that, but it’s just as silly.)

    Another example: it’s all very well to say that “life is suffering” etc., etc., when you’ve lived comfortably off inherited money practically your whole life, but to other people, this will inevitably look like an act, a form of virtue signalling.

    Another: if moles are only happy digging tunnels where they can’t even see anything, then why make a huge tragedy out of it? Why not just let them do what they do best?

    Schop. was a great writer, but like many people, he didn’t believe what he was saying. Surprisingly, this is more common than one might imagine.

    Incidentally, despite his pessimism he could be very funny at times. His “Wille and Vorstellung” contains an essay on German medical terminology that had me laughing out loud, something I don’t often experience.

    Schopenhauer was one of the few serious people I’ve ever come across that took Bartolomé de las Casas’s “Brevisima Historia” absolutely seriously as an historical source, although it contains, by implication, thousands of obvious impossibilities and lies. It’s like a Soviet War Crimes Report out of the 16th century.

    Schopenhauer reminds me of a woman looking for excuses to complain. Seeing only the negative is ipso facto no more realistic than seeing only the positive.

  19. One more comment:
    Schop. was educated for a career in international business and was sent to a number of boarding schools in foreign countries. He spoke English so well he was often mistaken for an Englishman; he wrote French as easily and well as he did German; he was familiar with all the classical literature in Latin, Greek, Italian and Spanish.

    His knowledge of the natural sciences was nobody’s business; reading his chapters on the sciences is like reading Darwin. For example, chapter 28 of volume II of Will and Representation describes giant sea turtles being eaten alive on a beach on Sumatra or some such place. Now THERE’s a depressing topic.

    In the end, Schop’s father is believed to have committed suicide, although nobody knows for sure. Reading between the lines I get the impression that Schop’s mother nagged him to death. Schop inherited the family fortune and invested it very conservatively in government bonds, receiving twice the income of a university professor.
    Basically, I think many of his attitudes were just sour grapes.

  20. One more comment: many famous people, not just Schopenhauer, have made successful careers for themselves out of saying thing they don’t believe. In politics, this goes without saying. But it is often true in other fields.

    For example: put a Kantian behind the wheel of a car. A little girl runs into the road right in front of him. Does he say “That is only phenomena, we can never know noumena” and run over her and kill her? Or does he get scared as hell and slam on the brakes, with his heart pounding? You know what he’ll do. He’ll stop the car.

    Put a Berkeleian on a railroad track with a fast train approaching, and let him recite his little mantras all he wants — “I see the train approaching; I hear the whistle; I feel the road bed vibrating underneath my feet; but where, apart from my perception of these things, is there any proof that the train exists at all?” — what will he do then? You know perfectly well what he’ll do. He’ll get out of the way.

    What does he say when you call him a faker, hypocrite and liar? The same thing: “OK, you say you saw me step out of the way. But where, apart from your perception of these things, is there any proof that I ever stepped out of the way at all, or that the train or the railroad track ever even existed?”

    These people have more tricks than a dog has fleas.

    These people are not monsters. They’re not crazy. They just doesn’t believe what they’re saying, that’s all. Like many philosophers and most philosophy students, they are intellectually pretentious, verbally manipulative little attention-seekers dreaming of tenure in some comfortable little college where they can torture and torment students with questions like “prove to me that you exist” at some huge salary.

    1. The source for all this idealism, as you know, was Plato. With his basic idea of Platonic forms. They say that all Western philosophy is a footnote to Plato. Please don’t tell me you think Plato was insincere and pretentious and that privately he knew he was a confidence trickster.

      Men don’t dedicate their entire lives to metaphysics just to make money. Schopenhauer didn’t need to do this; he had a substantial private income.

      One doesn’t spend 40 years of one’s life writing voluminous books and following an austere daily regime, like Kant for example, just for the pleasure of duping the public with piffle. No need to do this if you have a private income. Cui bono?

      1. Sister Monica, you say “Men don’t dedicate their entire lives to metaphysics just to make money” but actually many men and women do just that. A huge business world wide. More so now than ever.

        Being professionals, the bulk of these metaphysicians have steadily expanded their vocabulary and playbooks to suit the times and markets.

        Schopenhauer and Kant and Co., despite being exceptional among their peers, were fortunate to have even a small peek at the mountains of data now available to the modern mediocre metaphysical manipulators and word jugglers, at the push of a button.

        This WWW in itself might even be held as having metaphysical facets.

    June 5, 2020 at 10:22 pm

    Plato is another rich source of silly ideas. In one of the dialogues, it might be Alcibiades I, Socrates says that “the faster you do something, the better”. Nobody disagrees. Nobody says, “look, Soc, unless I’m paying by the hour, I don’t care how fast somebody works, I want him to show up on time, work correctly, clean up his mess, and invoice me correctly”. Nobody says that.

    There are four overtly homosexual dialogues. In one of them, the narrator is returning from the wars, and is flabbergasted by the “beauty” of some “boy” he sees (he calls him “one of the beauties of the day”).

    In the Republic, somebody says that “boys are most attractive when hair first appears on the upper lip”.

    I think this is a perfectly shocking thing to say! This is the time of life when the genitals develop and they grow pubic hair! But that’s the way Plato likes ’em. Supposedly.

    At the same time, women are supposed to wrestle around naked with a load of men, just like other men!

    This is typically homosexual: an exclusive concentration on male youth; a hatred of women (who represent competition, after all), and a desire to humiliate them as much as possible.

    I do not understand Plato’s “theory of forms”, but I do understand the story of the “shadows of the cave”: it means: even if you possessed the truth and could prove what it was, nobody would believe you, and nobody would be interested; like here, now, today.

    1. @ Carlos Porter

      I’ve just read this on your site. It’s good. You do yourself an injustice to say “This is for laughs only.” What you have here is a collection of short notes (mostly quotations) that would form the basis for a much longer and more serious exposé of pretentious pseudo-philosophy. If you think Jean-Paul Sartre and Heidegger are pseuds, what must you think of the jewish contingent led by Derrida and Lacan?

      You will find this pdf article of interest — here is a key quote:

      In 1996, Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University, [wrote] a parodic article entitled ‘Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity’ [and sent it to] the leading Cultural Studies journal Third Text.

      The article, described by Sokal as “a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense”, was designed to test the scientific understanding (or lack of it) and the political biases of the editors. For Sokal and his followers, its publication was taken as proof of the intellectual bankruptcy of postmodernist philosophy – claims that subsequently generated much debate.

      In other words, the author wrote a grotesque parody of academic obscurantism, a tongue-in-cheek article that was totally incomprehensible and sent it to a prestigious academic journal for publication, WITHOUT TELLING the editors HE WAS PULLING THEIR LEGS.

      They took the article seriously and published it.

      That tells you something, doesn’t it?

      1. There are two whole books of this sort of stuff, THE POOH PERPLEX and POST-MODERN POOH, by Frederick Crews. You’re getting into the history of hoaxing.

        There was a qualified scientist at Stanford University, the founding president, in fact, David Starr Jordan, who published a “scientific paper” in which he described a “special lens” that would enable scientists to photograph a man’s “mental image of a cat”, with all sorts of complicated jargon, mathematical formulae and diagrams.

        They published it. He then followed up with a lens that would enable scientists to photograph a cat’s “mental image of a man”. Only at this point did they start to smell a rat.

        The American Taliban are now trying to remove all mention of Jordan from the university because he believed in eugenics or something. What did we go to Afghanistan for?

        Why do idiot Americans keep saying “We got to fight ’em over there, otherwise we’ll have to fight ’em over here”? We never do fight them over here, do we? We just let them take over.

  22. Thank you. I sense I am growing tiresome, but I do have one more comment.

    I think Socrates was probably guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens, and, judging by what I have seen, I think he probably corrupted them as much as he could.

    Which means that Plato’s Apologia of Socrates — despite its solemnity, dignity, and profound wisdom — particularly when he says “What could be more refreshing than a dreamless sleep?” — the wisest and most sensible discussion of death I have found in literature — is probably a fabrication. No other contemporary records seem to have survived.

    Thank you for your kind comments. I have not read Dacan and Derrida and I have always done everything in my power to avoid reading anything by Sartre. Perhaps that is the result of having acted in a boarding school production of a Sartre play for my French class called LES JEUX SONT FAITS, where I shot somebody and walked off stage.

  23. Thanks, Carlos. You are not getting “tiresome” at all! Not to me, anyway.

    I myself was indoctrinated in my teens to hold existentialism in high regard, ever since Colin’s Wilson’s book, “The Outsider”, was published in the late 1950s. This book began with enthusiastic quotations from Jean-Paul Sartre’s novel “Nausea” and continued with breathless quotes from Camus’ novel “The Outsider”. Those novels left me feeling empty and bereft, as if I’d been infested with some mind virus.

    (Mind you, Colin Wilson was still in his mid-twenties when he achieved overnight fame with that book, published by the Jewish publisher Victor Gollancz. He later carved out a niche for himself writing books about the occult and paranormal. )

    LD believes firmly in “mind viruses” and so do I, viruses that in every way are the analogues of the viruses that attack the physical body and are just as dangerous.

    Your mention of Frederick Crewes came as a surprise to me. This is because, by sheer coincidence, I happen to be halfway right now through Crewes’ devastating biography of Sigmund Freud. Full title : “Freud: The Making of an Illusion”. (With the letter ‘A’ superimposed over the latter ‘E’ in ‘FREUD’, making it read ‘FRAUD’).,204,203,200_.jpg

    How Crewes got this book published is a mystery to me, since Freud is still regarded as a sacred icon in respectable, politically correct circles. I fear the slur of anti-Semitism may dog his footsteps one day, unless of course he is Jewish himself or has a Jewish wife as an insurance policy.

    The book is as gripping as any thriller.

    1. Sister Monica, this big thing in a small package might interest you as well. A short read just for fun.
      The Vedic Shrink is in!
      Dialectic Spiritualism – Sigmund Freud

      1. Thanks, Homer. I’ll draw LD’s attention to this article. It will be of great interest to her.

        Even before reading it, I know that the good Swami in unlikely to be impressed with Siggy, given that Siggy was an out-and-out atheist and sex-obsessed cocaine addict. BTW, did the Swami have anything to say on Jung? I have a feeling he would have had much to say about Jung that was far more complimentary. Mind you, I’m only speculating, as I haven’t had time to read the Swami’s long article yet.

      2. Srila Prabhupada also liked the psychologist
        Carl Jung (“He seems the most sensible”)

        “In their confrontation with the Vedic version, some of the philosophers scored high, some low, some in between. Ranking high as first-class philosophers were Socrates, Plato, Plotinus, Origen, Scotus, Descartes, Pascal, and Bergson.

        After these, ranked Aquinas, Locke, Berkeley, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant, Schopenhauer, Alexander, Nietzsche, James, and Kierkegaard.

        In low regard, for various reasons, were Aristotle, Augustine, Fichte, Bacon, and Huxley.

        Conflicting most with Vedic thought were Machiavelli, Hume, Hegel, Hobbes, Darwin, Mill, Comte, Marx, Dewey, Sartre, and Freud.”

        1. Thanks, Homer. It’s useful to have this ranking of philosophers. In a way, it’s only too predictable.

          The Vedas are “God-centred” and anyone like the Swami, steeped in Vedic lore, is therefore most unlikely to think highly of atheistical “freethinkers” like Marx, Freud, Sartre, Machiavelli and so on. On the other hand, it’s entirely predictable that the Swami should think highly of Plato, Plotinus and Pascal. Why? Because they were religious types, all idealists and mystics. Pascal even had a very intense road-to-Damascus type mystical experience.

          It’s so very simple, Homer. Those who believe in God are naturally repelled by those who doubt and deny God, and vice versa. I can’t imagine a guy like Freud being pally with someone who was into bhakti yoga, can you? 🙂

    2. “LD believes firmly in “mind viruses” and so do I…”
      …“mind viruses” are very real, they’re like the ink released by a cuttlefish. The Jews are experts at this.

      June 7, 2020 at 2:38 pm

      That Freudianism is a fraud and a terrible influence would be the understatement of the millennium. When I was a child, because of a family tragedy which had nothing to do with me and which I didn’t even know about, my mother went a little bit nuts and I got sent to a psychoanalyst – a Jew with a medical degree – 4 times a week for 3 years when I was in primary school.

      Since there was nothing to talk about and nothing to do most of the time, we played poker for Confederate money for the better part of three years. He was a good poker player. It was the 1950s. The Civil War Centennial was coming up; you could buy Confederate money in any toy store. All the kids were playing poker because of the TV show “Maverick” (another bad influence). Confederates were treated with respect in those days. They had a mystique, an aura. All the top stars were pretending to be Confederates in the movies and on TV (perhaps most notably Elvis Presley in “Love Me Tender”). There were Civil War re-enactments on TV all the time, most of them historically quite accurate. But I digress.

      In the following satire — in which I pretend to be a psychoanalyst engaged in the “therapy of racially repressed white persons in situations of difficulty” — the person “I know very well” is my wife of 47 years, whom I married in South Africa in 1973, and the “world-famous hospital” was the Maudsley (pronounced “Mordsly”), located at Denmark Hill, London. This is not a made-up incident, as many people have supposed. “Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent”, as Joe Friday [LAPD homicide detective on the TV crime show “Dragnet”, brilliantly played by Jack Webb] would have said…

      “Many years ago, someone I know very well worked as a trained children’s nurse in a world-famous hospital for disturbed children, in London, with 4 years of training (RN, RSCN) and about 8 years of experience. All the other staff members were similarly qualified. The head of the unit was, obviously, a qualified physician, with 20 years of experience working with disturbed children.

      “One day two Jews showed up, both of them 22 years old, one from South Africa, the other from Canada, neither one of them with any medical training or experience, but with 4-year ‘psychology degrees’.
      “They created total chaos throughout the entire hospital, from the day they arrived until the day they left.
      “They said that the children should be allowed to ‘express themselves’ by refusing to do what they were told, by hitting and kicking members of staff, by spitting on members of staff, etc. etc.
      “If you didn’t agree with what they said, you were accused of ‘not wanting to be progressive’, etc. etc.
      “They would argue the hind leg off a mule, and were adept at ‘proving’ that 2 + 2 = 6.
      “The English being what they are – wishy-washy – in short order these two Jews had everybody fighting and quarreling with everybody else.
      “The doctor in charge of the unit simply opted out.
      “In the end, after several months, they both left, presumably to wreak havoc elsewhere, and things returned more or less to normal.
      “This is how the Jews always operate, at all times and in all places: they get everybody fighting with each other, over crazy theories invented by them, and it only stops when they leave or are expelled.
      “This has been the history of the Jews for 3,000 years, wherever they have ever lived, from the distant past to the present.
      “That repression causes neurosis is a truism of the modern world, a notion invented and peddled chiefly by Jews and originally, but not exclusively, by the Freudians. Good manners, discretion, a decent sense of shame, a consideration for the feelings and sensitivity of others, are a thing of the past. This applies chiefly to sexual matters.
      “This does not apply, of course, to the ‘repression’ of our natural resentment of buttinsky yidniks and other by-products of the primeval ooze. What about our self-expression? What about our mental health? We should bust a gut or something? We might become neurotic, already?
      “It is the hypothesis of this practitioner (i.e., myself) that millions of white Americans are suffering from neurotic symptoms caused by the repression of their racial feelings. Freud believed that neurosis would cure itself through the ‘catharsis’ [κάθαρσις] of analysis, i.e., the ‘expression’ [Äußerung] of ‘repressed feelings’ [verdrängten Empfindungen].
      Hence the present volume…”

  24. Thank you.

    I never found what I was looking for in philosophy. I found it in law (I have thousands of dollars worth of law books); yet law is derived from scholasticism, wouldn’t you agree?

    I admire the scholastics. If you draw a line from St. Thomas Aquinas to somebody like Heidegger (with his “Sein, Dasein and das Seiende” — all of which mean exactly the same thing if they mean anything at all — is like going from an Alpine meadow to the depths of a quagmire, or even cesspool.

    And yet, in the end, in both, there is the same unrealism, the same banality, the same irrelevance. I mean, fancy writing tens of thousands of pages, all over Europe, for centuries, on God, the Creation, the Trinity, the angels, etc. while you’re burning people at the stake! It’s all back to front! I say: you prove your authority to torture and burn people, and THEN we’ll talk about God, the Creation and all the rest of it.

    Same thing with Plato: those dialogues about “What is virtue? Is it knowledge?”, etc. seem oddly irrelevant, oddly trivial today.

    No doubt if I had a better knowledge of these things, I would find more things to appreciate. It’s the Dunning-Kruger Effect. But more things to criticize as well.

    I like Malthus, Darwin, Thomas Hobbes , people like that. I don’t like Sartre, Camus or any other modern French writer. Proust, Balzac, Flaubert, yes, but that was a different world. Proust needed an editor, to cut out some stuff. But otherwise, what beautiful writing! I love ALBERTINE DISPARUE. I read all that stuff.

    Another writer I can’t stand is James Joyce. Fancy an “Irishman” writing a novel about a Hungarian Jewish “Irishman” named “Bloom” sniffing the shitty underpants of a prostitute! The world is sick.

    1. James Joyce is a writer I’ve never been able to read. I had no idea that Leopold Bloom, the protagonist of Ulysses, was a Hungarian Jew “Irishman”. Are you sure of that? I’m aware that both “Leo” and “Bloom” are Jewish names.

      Was Molly Bloom a Jewess also . . . or was she pure Irish?

      Were you aware that Joyce and his wife were both excrement fetish sexual perverts? There is a voluminous correspondence between them that was regarded as unquotable and kept out of all the official biographies. The letters to and fro between Joyce and his wife, scatologically sickening in the extreme, ended up in the possession of Joyce’s wife who was meant to destroy them. She failed to do so, and so this black mark against Joyce’s reputation now remains.

      Most Joyce admirers, usually young men and women at university, remain totally unaware of this dark underside of their literary hero.

      It’s amazing how many incriminating letters written by great men have either been destroyed by their relatives or their legal representatives. Thus the rose-tinted reputation of many great men who had hidden feet of clay. As they say, De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

      1. I can understand your disgust at these revelations. Your response is a healthy and robust one, for you shy away instinctively from anything that could contaminate your mind. As you yourself admit, there are mind viruses and one must do what one can to avoid infection.

        And yet there is such a thing as lying by omission. And the bitter disillusionment that comes when one finds out one has been cruelly deceived by putting on a pedestal someone who turns out to be a pervert and a mentally deranged monster.

        Enough said . . . back to my adorable P.G. Wodehouse! 🙂

      2. Bloom appears to have been Molly’s married name, and as far as I can tell there is no indication that she was Jewish, but she had a bit of a faecal fetish, too, “or lick my shit”, she says.
        Why does an Irishman write a 1000 page book about a Jew? It’s fiction, why not write about an Irishman?

  25. The episode with Leopold Bloom sniffing the shitty pants of a prostitute is about 2/3 of the way through. I read it in French and no longer have the book. I think it is well known that Bloom was a Jew of Hungarian origin. There is a very clever parody of the catechism, but it’s like stand-up comedy, or like Woody Allen: clever, but what’s the point? This is literature?
    To me, Joyce was a translator who should have stuck to translating. I am not impressed when I read that Finnegan’s Wake contains puns taken from 64 different languages. There’s a sermon about hell in PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN that made me feel physically ill. I couldn’t read another page. Bought the DUBLINERS in Italian and I think I read one story. It seemed to make no sense. If you want a good Irish writer read Lawrence Sterne or Jonathon Swift.

    1. The episode with Leopold Bloom sniffing the shitty pants of a prostitute is about 2/3 of the way through.

      What you regard as absolutely disgusting would have been regarded by Joyce as a delicious turn-on.

      Both Joyce and his wife were sexually fired up by each other’s excrement and other bodily secretions, and all their letters to each other are pornographic fantasies involving fecal fetishism. It beggars belief that such a sexual pervert should write books that have turned him into a literary colossus. I’ve been unable to read a single book of his without repressing a shudder.

      Doubtless the fault is mine: a narrow-minded prude with a bourgeois soul, a prim little schoolmarm type. Miss Pruneface, that’s me.

      There’s an anecdote about Joyce that is instructive. You may have come across it. On one occasion, at a literary festival or something similar, a young man came up to Joyce and requested “the pleasure of shaking the hand of a great man”. Joyce declined, adding politely: “You don’t know what that hand has been up to.”

  26. I hope you noticed my remark about the “person I know very well” and the “world-famous hospital.”

Comments are closed.