School of Life Schopenhauer animation

[qcrisp]

Not sure how accurate this is as a portrait. (At one point "Atman" is referred to as a Buddhist concept. It's a Hindu concept, of course, and, I believe, the main point of difference between the Hindu and Buddhist cosmologies. If this is, as I believe, an error, there could be other, similar, errors.) However, the animation is attractive, and fans of Schopenhauer might find this entertaining:

YouTube

[VeganSmokerOneironaut]

I quite enjoyed that video as well.

What do you think about School of Life's comment about that Schopenhauer is the west's response to Buddhism? I think Schopenhauer might have some very general connections to Buddhism (as well as some forms of Hinduism and Christianity) his general pov is somewhat incompatible with Buddhism, and not just because Buddhism is optimistic. Most buddhists seem to be more concerned with the inner mind of humanity rather than the suffering of others. Would you disagree?

School of Life makes pretty good content usually and this video of Herr Schopenhauer, after the Herr Kafka episode, is my favorite of theirs. Thank you for sharing, Mr. Crisp.

[VeganSmokerOneironaut]

Quote Originally Posted by Nirvana In Karma

School of Life makes pretty good content usually and this video of Herr Schopenhauer, after the Herr Kafka episode, is my favorite of theirs. Thank you for sharing, Mr. Crisp.

Their episodes on Freud, Hobbes, Buddha and St. Augustine might also interest a pessimist. Would you agree that Kafka is one of the most realistic and best writers in the modern world?

Quote Originally Posted by VeganSmokerOneironaut

Their episodes on Freud, Hobbes, Buddha and St. Augustine might also interest a pessimist. Would you agree that Kafka is one of the most realistic and best writers in the modern world?

In terms of the absurd situations he constructs, no. Transforming into a giant insect is quite rare these days. He does, however, describe everyday actions and the environment pretty realistically; and the reactions that his characters display when confronted with these absurd situations seem realistic enough. So, yes and no.
Undoubtedly one of the best.

[marioneta]

Of course this animation cannot substitute reading Schopenhauer, but it does serve as an appetizer to his philosophy.

Another fundamental error of Christianity is that it has in an unnatural fashion
sundered mankind from the animal world to which it essentially belongs and
now considers mankind alone as of any account, regarding the animals as no
more than things.
On Religion
Arthur Schopenhauer

[VeganSmokerOneironaut]

Quote Originally Posted by marioneta

Of course this animation cannot substitute reading Schopenhauer, but it does serve as an appetizer to his philosophy. Another fundamental error of Christianity is that it has in an unnatural fashion sundered mankind from the animal world to which it essentially belongs and now considers mankind alone as of any account, regarding the animals as no more than things. On Religion Arthur Schopenhauer

I believe it was Savitri Devi who advocated Hinduism based on this same reasoning. (As it is the only religion that respects animals to any degree)

[Evans]

Quote Originally Posted by VeganSmokerOneironaut

Quote Originally Posted by marioneta Of course this animation cannot substitute reading Schopenhauer, but it does serve as an appetizer to his philosophy. Another fundamental error of Christianity is that it has in an unnatural fashion sundered mankind from the animal world to which it essentially belongs and now considers mankind alone as of any account, regarding the animals as no more than things. On Religion Arthur Schopenhauer I believe it was Savitri Devi who advocated Hinduism based on this same reasoning. (As it is the only religion that respects animals to any degree)

I've never bought this, at least in accounts that go on to argue about there being moral/immoral ways to treat animals. It seems pretty clear that the moral proscriptions to treat animals X way only apply to humans (as I think I wrote before: men may be guilty of a moral wrong in introducing a foreign species such as rats to an island ecosystem but the rats themselves are guilty of no wrong in e.g. eating the eggs of ground nesting birds) - as far as we know we are the only moral agents in the strict sense.

(This is not to say divers species of animal do not exhibit many emotions we connect with morality - sadness, fear, anger et cetera - they do, and some of them probably go even beyond this to having something akin to a reflective capacity for empathy. They just don't appear to apprehend a rational objective moral frame-work)

[VeganSmokerOneironaut]

Quote Originally Posted by Evans

I've never bought this, at least in accounts that go on to argue about there being moral/immoral ways to treat animals. It seems pretty clear that the moral proscriptions to treat animals X way only apply to humans (as I think I wrote before: men may be guilty of a moral wrong in introducing a foreign species such as rats to an island ecosystem but the rats themselves are guilty of no wrong in e.g. eating the eggs of ground nesting birds) - as far as we know we are the only moral agents in the strict sense. (This is not to say divers species of animal do not exhibit many emotions we connect with morality - sadness, fear, anger et cetera - they do, and some of them probably go even beyond this to having something akin to a reflective capacity for empathy. They just don't appear to apprehend a rational objective moral frame-work)

I am confused, what exactly do you not buy?

[Evans]

Quote Originally Posted by VeganSmokerOneironaut

Quote Originally Posted by Evans I've never bought this, at least in accounts that go on to argue about there being moral/immoral ways to treat animals. It seems pretty clear that the moral proscriptions to treat animals X way only apply to humans (as I think I wrote before: men may be guilty of a moral wrong in introducing a foreign species such as rats to an island ecosystem but the rats themselves are guilty of no wrong in e.g. eating the eggs of ground nesting birds) - as far as we know we are the only moral agents in the strict sense. (This is not to say divers species of animal do not exhibit many emotions we connect with morality - sadness, fear, anger et cetera - they do, and some of them probably go even beyond this to having something akin to a reflective capacity for empathy. They just don't appear to apprehend a rational objective moral frame-work) I am confused, what exactly do you not buy?

A certain kind of axe-grinder often comes out with this hectoring, brow-beating line about 'how dare we think we're think humanity is different from other animals despite the fact that what they go on to propose i.e. talk about animal rights presupposes that either there is at least one relevant categorical difference or that the entire of the animal kingdom sans a small percentage of humans is behaving immorally.

(Of course I'm restricting myself to earthly animals. There may be many species which also exhibit this difference in other parts of the universe)