>>25215640
100iq moment

>>25215646
Self report

>>25215654
Sorry bud, you're just not cut out for philosophy. Maybe stick to something more your pace. I hear Brandon Sanderson novels are entertaining for your kind. Have you tried that?

Afaik he didn't talk about lack as much as blind striving. Also if you reject the central premise, then of course everything falls apart, that's true for every philosophy.

"lack in being"
schopenhauer didn't express his ideas like this, sounds like proclus or hegel.

He meant that only pain and suffering exist positively, while satisfaction and joy are only temporary effects of suffering-reduction, Changes in pain levels.

Are you constantly endorphine-complete, or do you only feel joy from endorphine spike?
science has proven schopenhauer correct and thats also why he's a modern precursor to psychology.

plants feel pain too btw. it's not an axiom. completeness, permanent happiness are more theoretical.

>>25215640
I feel like this kind of response to Arthur Schopenhauer is only convincing if you quietly redefine all the terms he's using. You say his ideas are self-defeating because they assume "lack", but that's not actually his starting point. The whole point of the "will" is that it's not derived from a conceptual lack you can just reject. It's something you observe directly in experience; constant striving, dissatisfaction, tension, boredom, then back again. Calling yourself "complete" doesn't make that pattern disappear. You're just renaming it.
>As soon as you accept that you are whole, desire no longer makes sense
OK, but desire obviously still happens. You still want things, avoid things, feel relief, feel frustration. So either you redefine desire out of existence, which is just wordplay, or you admit the phenomenon is still there, in which case Schopenhauer's description still applies.
The flower/tree comparison also doesn't really work. A plant doesn't experience itself as complete or incomplete, and more importantly, it still expresses will in his sense growth, reaching, reacting, competing. So if anything, that example supports him.
>And what can you say is incomplete in the world? Nothing
This only works if you define "complete" as "whatever exists". But then the word becomes empty. By that logic, suffering is also "complete", contradiction is "complete", frustration is "complete". You haven't solved anything, you've just made everything trivially true.
>There is no transcending the world
Fine, but Schopenhauer isn't talking about leaving the world in some literal sense, he's talking about changing your relation to the will. Whether you agree with that or not, it's a different claim than the one you're arguing against.

>>25215763
Reminds me of hedonic treadmill.
What's the solution then?
Having experiences that make you appreciate little things in life and not take them for granted?

File: 1766055823591702.jpg (207.5 KB)

207.5 KB JPG

>>25215763
behold, a whole being without desire

>>25215640
This sounds like the kind of thing someone in a pleasure garden would say before suffering is introduced in to the world very much like Eden. It is logically consistent but...

>>25215763
>obvious AI reply
What's the point? Are you that desperate for asspats that you need them on an anonymous forum too?

>>25215934
Cope.

>>25215763
>I feel like
Any post that starts out with that isn't worth reading. Same goes for "I mean".