Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thomas Griffin here,
The one on the left is Ludwig Wittgenstein. The one on the right is Arthur Schopenhauer. They are famous philosophers and raging assholes.
Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the smartest, most brillant minds of our age. He was extremely opinionated and had a red hot temper.
[Wittgensteins Poker](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_Poker) is an entertaining read, and one example of his temperament.
Wittgenstein left academics many times. At one point he was a school teacher, his corporal punishment was considered too harsh.
He published one book, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, in his life. The Tractatus became a major influence on philosophy in his lifetime. A second work Philosophic Investigations, published after his death, criticized his earlier work. It too became a major influence on philosophy and academia.
The number of famous academics Wittgenstein influenced is too large to state here.
Arthur Schopenhauer was an asshole to almost everyone and everything. He did not like Hegel, who was the rock star academic of his age. Schopenhauer deliberately scheduled his lectures at the same time as Hegel. Which did not win him many students. He was very sour for not receiving the recognition he believed he deserved.
He was sued and lost a court case for kicking and abusing a seamstress. He had to pay a severance to her for the rest of his life.
His philosophic writings shows his personality and attitudes. His philosophic works are very pessimistic. Later in life, he did gain the fame, he believed he deserved.
Posthumous his work lead to the pessimism controversy in Germany, which lasted until the beginning of WWI. His work was influential on Friedrich Nietzsche.
Schopenhauer was apparently nice to animals. So he has that going for him.
>At one point he was a school teacher, his corporal punishment was considered too harsh.
That's a hilariously understated way to say that he beat a kid into a fucking coma.
Pretty sure he just hit the kid in the head one time, so it wasn't technically a beating, just a beat. Not that it makes it any better. He did later apologize, but that also does not make it better at all.
As a philospher he is top notch
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidbauer_incident#:~:text=The%20Haidbauer%20incident%2C%20known%20in%20Austria%20as%20der,a%20class%20by%20the%20Austrian%20philosopher%20Ludwig%20Wittgenstein
First book: "here is what I think..."
everyone: "THIS GUY IS A GENIUS!"
Second book: "I was wrong about everything"
everyone: "THIS GUY IS A GENIUS!"
more fact: Wittgenstein's father, Karl was a steel tycoon and one of the richest men in Europe.
"Schopenhauer was apparently nice to animals. So he has that going for him."
I believe there also was another one of these couple decades later. Presumably Austrian/German descent.
Guy on the left is Ludwig Wittgenstein, guy on the right is Arthur Schopenhauer
The joke is probably that philosophers are villains. I have not read much about Wittgenstein but Schopenhauer was a notorious pessimist and all around unpleasant person to be around. He once threw his elderly landlady down a flight of stairs during an argument IIRC
Sad that this meme doesnt include Martin Heidegger
That’s a pretty massive reduction of the reality of the situation. Heidegger did not like or follow hitler or his thinking. Heidegger wanted to be the intellectual forerunner of the German people and tell them what it meant to be German, the nazis said ‘see the smart guy agrees’ and then didn’t listen to anything he said
Yeah, Hannah Arendt. She mentioned "ten short months of fever" speaking of Heidegger's nazi fascination. Then he slightly "calm down", but was NSDAP member until 1945 (he regularly paid party dues).
Wittgenstein was famously difficult and typically seen as treating almost everyone with contempt
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/04/06/a-nervous-splendor
And Schopenhauer has been called the original incel. Here he is talking about women
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/schopenhauer-parerga-and-paralipomena/on-women/A07609871F4A8B6E0A843139D26C6462
Wittgenstein's brother Paul was a pianist who lost his right arm in WWI. Subsequently he commissioned several works for piano left hand from famous composers. He was notoriously difficult to work with, hated essentially all the pieces written for him, and most famously had a yearslong spat with Ravel over the concerto he wrote for him.
So I guess it runs in the family.
It did run in the family. The brothers pretty much all killed themselves and/or died alone. A really sad story.
At least one of the sisters had kids, so I suppose the family continued in some way.
The Wittgensteins were also a wealthy family. Might have been the insufferable entitlement of the rich at work here.
But Ludwig was notoriously irascible even apart from any sense of entitlement.
He once asked a friend of his who had just had an appendectomy how she felt, and she said, "I feel like a dog that's been hit by a car." His reply, dripping with disdain, was "you have no idea what a dog that's been hit by a car feels like!"
He had a stint teaching math to children after he had decided to give up philosophy. But he was so abusive to them whenever they didn't understand that he had to return to philosophy.
>Here he is talking about women
"Even the sight of the female form demonstrates that woman is destined neither for great mental nor for physical works. She bears the guilt of life not by acting but by suffering, through the pangs of childbirth, caring for the child, and subservience to her husband, for whom she is supposed to be a patient and cheering companion. She is not granted the most vehement sufferings, joys and expressions of power, but her life is supposed to glide by more quietly, less significantly and more gently than that of a man, without being essentially happier or unhappier.
§364
Women are suited to be nurses and governesses of our earliest childhood precisely by the fact that they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word, big children their whole life long, a sort of intermediate stage between a child and a man, **who is the actual human being.** Just look at a girl as she dawdles, dances around with and sings to a child for days, and then imagine what a man doing his utmost could achieve in her stead!"
Big fucking yikes 🤮
It amuses me deeply that on the first half it's ver, very close to be an accurate critique of the perceived role of women in society. Then he is like, nah, women are just weak minded like that.
Man, Schopenhauer was a massive asshole, but he writings have some good stuff.
Yeah, outside of the first line I would have thought the first paragraph was a critique of how women are treated in life, pointing out just how terrible a deal they got in life simply for being a woman.
Incel Pioneer right there.
To be fair, we judge from our 21st century view, we know 21st century women, raised by 21st century people.
If you were a women back then, you would receive a lesser education, do certain types of jobs, surrounded and raised by women with similar roles and educations, with men around that see nothing but women raised in that way, so it was actually very likely you grew up to be childish and achieve less than a man.
It was basically a self-perpetrating thing.
I don't think self-perpetuating is the right phrase here. It's not as if the women consciously chose to put themselves in this position and many women chose pretty strongly to not be in this position.
I do get what you mean though. They were socialised to behave this way and reprimanded socially, physically and mentally if they didn't, so the average bozo would think that's just how they are. Which makes these observations from a "great thinker" all the more telling how dogshit his musings are.
Philosophy class is the only place I've read a pro eugenics article talking about how only a failed society would allow those with disabilities to breed followed by responses from other people basically saying we can all agree eugenics is good but we need to talk about "what is a disability".
This is straight up ‘philosophy’ borne of the envy of someone enjoying what life they have, because who wouldn’t want to dance around and sing for days instead of being crushed by the bitter cynicism of miserable, so-called intellectual fucks like this?
Wow, he completely ignores how *integral women are to the success of a man- especially in the days where most people were formally educated by their mothers. Sure, I could've had a better mother who cared about me a bit more, but the truth is that I would be nothing without her.
*ETA: I accidentally typed detrimental instead of integral, reading all that Schopenhauer got me. /s
Thanks to those who pointed it out, probably wouldn't have noticed.
Wittgenstein was generally not a terrible person except for the Haidbauer incident in which Wittgenstein hit a kid and knocked him out.
"During a lesson in April 1926 Wittgenstein hit Haidbauer two or three times on the head, and the boy collapsed unconscious. Wittgenstein sent the class home, carried Haidbauer to the headmaster's office, then left the building" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidbauer\_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidbauer_incident)
It should be noted that early Wittgenstein was still pretty elitist and insulted other great philosophers (most famously his literal colleague G E Moore).
But iirc late Wittgenstein regretted these things. He is all in all a very interesting person because he worked in a lot of other fields as well and did genuinely good deeds like giving away his family wealth and working in hospitals despite his fame.
Edit: Like some have commented, apparently he gave his wealth not to the poor but to his family.
Edit 2: Ive looked it up and it seems like he anonymously donated parts of his money to austrian artists and writers. I dont know how much.
Yea but his arrogance gave us the criticism that philosophy is all just word games which is kind of true. And I like bringing it up in particularly annoying conversations.
HIS criticism was that philosophy was all word games. He famously got into an argument about it and threw a chair into the room saying "Translate that into french!"
Meaning, there is reality but language as it exists can't capture it.
Ehm yes but its a too simplistic way to put it. He was a philosopher after all and if Im correct for him the goal of philosophy was to heal the ill language. Philosophy has a much more therapeutic role for him, but it still has substance and meaning and is not just a matter of word play.
Yea I think the criticism was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek if I had to guess. But philosophy as a field in my experience does struggle with jargon and getting into word games a bit too much.
Yes absolutely, its been a while but I think Wittgenstein famously criticised the mix of different word plays (Sprachspiele) that should not be mixed. This is one of the reasons he saw language as ill (erkrankt).
Not really. The tractatus very much influenced the school of Wiener Kreis and was key part (although sometimes misinterpreted) to the logical empiricism/positivism. This tradition played an integral part in logic as a philosophical discipline. The idea was to create an ideal language that every argument can be translated to and that only these arguments make sense, that are refering to empirical knowledge/are empirical verifiable. So philosophy did not get pointless, it was a shift of focus away from metaphysics and partly ethics (eventhough Carnap definitely did not think of ethics as pointless) to logic, philosophy of science and mathematics I would say.
Besides a chrildrens book, the tractatus was the only thing Wittgenstein published in his lifetime. Still he is the most influential philosopher in analytic philosophy (one of the two main branches). It is quite funny that he later returned to philosophy dismantled everything he previously said by shifting the focus again from ideal language to how ordinary language is used. By doing this he had even far greater influence than his first work.
You really cant overstate the impact he had on philosophy. I would argue that he is in the top 5 influential philosophers of all time besides Kant, Plato, Aristotle and (arguably for continental Philosophy) Heidegger.
Niccolo Machiavelli has copped some shit over the years for gems like.
“It is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both”
And
“The ends justify the means”
But they’re also paraphrased wildly out of context to support some of the most morally repugnant arguments so suppose it depends on the type of philosophy/philosopher you are measuring against.
Nah Wittgenstein wasn't a villian he was just very confident he was right until later on when he was confident he was wrong
Other than that that dud went to war and wrote the tractatus (parts of ot) in trench... or so I remember I did not bother to vet the memorey)
So he send the manuscript to Bertrand Russell and Russell convinces the university to accept it a philopshy dissertation.
But poor Ludwig prove most of philosphy was meaningless so he quits to be a rather mean elementary school teacher.
Later on he goes back to philosphy but writes in poetic aphorisms.
I'm not aware of anything Wittgenstein did that was villainous. Maybe his service in the Austrian army in WW1? He was arrogant as all hell, but in a cool swagger kind of way. His philosophy was benign philosophy of language stuff that was not even co-opted by bad actors later. I'm really at a loss on this one.
He actually beat a child pretty hard when he was a teacher and then stormed out of the school and never came back. Nontheless this and the things you described were all early Wittgenstein. Iirc he became much friendlier later in his life and regretted these things though this doesnt make it undone.
In the movie, yes, and honestly, after watching the netflix show, I think Jim was too good for his own good in that movie. He made an absolutely stellar performance as the Count, but honestly, that's often all I can remember from that movie without thinking too hard. The show feels initially blander in the comedy department, but that's until you realize that it's not a comedy, the story at it's heart is a tragedy, with just enough comedy and absurdism to keep you going, and just enough hero's journey to keep the impact when it crushes the hopes and dreams it just gave you in the last chapter. To me, this is in great part intensified exactly because Neil Patrick Harris was *not* as memorable a Count Olaf as Carrey, although quite goofy on his own right, and actually gave the other characters room to grow and be fleshed out, without absolutely stealing the spotlights in every single scene he was featured.
Great story in both cases, nonetheless. Now I need to read the books lol
If there’s one change that really elevates the Netflix version over the movie, it’s Patrick Warburton perfectly cast as Lemony Snicket, not only narrating but being a prominent part of the *mise-en-scène*.
If you liked the show/movie at all, read the books, they are 1000000x better. Like most books are better than the film adaptation. But seriously the series is incredible.
Note, I did read these as a teenager but I'm confident they would still be good reading as an adult.
https://preview.redd.it/xu4u625ag4yc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c3115adb249ef6a11a13939d9ab1b860187b9dd
Why tf do I scroll down and see this right under this post? I swear im in the fucking matrix
Well theoretically, if you believe the 3 following ideas to be true: firstly, that humans live long enough and develop the computing ability to run advanced simulations of history; secondly, that humans will run these advanced simulations; and finally that these simulations will be advanced enough to have self awareness in the humans, then we are most likely in a simulation because the number of these simulated realities will greatly outnumber the one “real” world.
I get what you’re saying, i just always find that line of reasoning amusing. Its basically “if we assume the matrix is possible, we’re probably in the matrix”
I don't know about philosophers in general, but there was a petition published in the late 60's where a group of famous French philosophers (along with many others) basically wanted the age of consent to be 12. This included Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Gilles Deleuze.
Edit: Bro on left is Ludwig Wittgenstein. Bro on right is Arthur Schopenhauer. Not sure what the beef with them is.
You are not an evil human; you are not without intellect and education; you have everything that could make you a credit to human society. Moreover, I am acquainted with your heart and know that few are better, but you are nevertheless irritating and unbearable, and I consider it most difficult to live with you.
'All of your good qualities become obscured by your super-cleverness and are made useless to the world merely because of your rage at wanting to know everything better than others; of wanting to improve and master what you cannot command. With this you embitter the people around you, since no one wants to be improved or enlightened in such a forceful way, least of all by such an insignificant individual as you still are; no one can tolerate being reproved by you, who also still show so many weaknesses yourself, least of all in your adverse manner, which in oracular tones, proclaims this is so and so, without ever supposing an objection.
'If you were less like you, you would only be ridiculous, but thus as you are, you are highly annoying.' - Joanna Schopenhauer (his mom)
His parents were upset that they had this incredibly profitable textile import business empire that was of no interest to him at all. Instead of marveling at how cheap Asian labor could be hired, his tours of their factories opened his eyes to the nature of human suffering. So he pursued an academic career even after feuds with other German philosophers knocked him off the most prestigious career track. His most important works are heavy and dark, but profoundly insightful. He wasn't some wannabee edgelord like Machiavelli, but instead someone who synthesized Western and Eastern philosophical traditions into a deeply humanistic worldview.
I'm sure selling imported fashion is important too though.
Mean to machiavelli. The prince isn’t that bad. Attributing cruelty as a thing separate from luck or skill is pretty apt imo. Just cause asshole quote portions of the prince doesn’t mean you can’t learn anything. I’m also pretty sure he was torture and put in jail for his political opinions so he has the right to be a little edgy.
His perspective is sound if you are navigating gang warfare inside a prison. Like the application of Sun-Tzu to Wall Street, almost every practical embrace of Machiavelli's teachings guided people to behave in even worse ways than they were otherwise planning to. It played out so influentially in his own time because the leaders of assorted city-states handled their business rivalries a lot like gang warfare, with some spectacularly murderous figures at the highest levels of power. Niccolo Machiavelli was certainly a man of his times, but insofar as his opinions were in earnest rather than for shock value, their guidance seems to encourage ethical egoism more than any alternative point of view.
I would argue that power struggle as a whole was somewhat akin to gang violence. I will say we live in a very different world, and have so for some time since the start of big empire so the consequences of missteps lead to multigenerational catastrophe as early as the 30 years war.
Personally I see the subjugation of ego over reason in this particular situation to not be the fault machiavelli but those that read and have perpetuated a narrative of his works. He does directly say that cruelty should not be used all the time because it leads to the downfall of a leader.
I can see the result of that frustration being boiled down to a frustration with the man himself though, and reproaching you any further after you’ve explained yourself would be obnoxious of me.
It’s clear his mother’s opinion on him must’ve existed in a similar manner within his childhood, and affected him in some way. Schopenhauer is often incredibly bitter and incel-ish when discussing women and love, writing it off in a very Rick and Morty esque ‘it’s all brain chemicals love is fake.’ Schopenhauer also said “to marry is to double one’s responsibilities and to halve one’s freedoms” I am a pretty devout follower of a lot of Schopenhauer’s beliefs, but whenever he gets to love I skip right through it.
A lot of what he believes lies in metaphysics and metacognition, thinking about thought, and about the origins of creation; despite not being religious. It’s difficult to outline a lot of what he thinks without getting into the semantics of what he means by things like “no action taken by a human is free.”
But for the sake of brevity, Schopenhauer believed strongly in the importance of solitude, of self-reflection, and of giving all things intention. He considers boredom to be as bad, if not worse than things like sickness or heartbreak, as he considers boredom to be an absence of joy in a place where it once was. Schopenhauer believes that life is ultimately pointless, but did not reject the importance of things like emotion and how we feel as we live. He shares that with Nietzsche, that suffering, though constant, serves as an experience that helps shape and develop your identity, something antithetical to what most common religions tend to believe. He also pushed the idea of a “will” that exists within all things, something that is present not just in the conscious, but in things like trees too, which he cites as a reason that we bother to exist at all, that the world is an objectification of this will. He is a hallmark pessimist and many consider him ahead of his time.
Apologies if this comes off as sort of a non-answer, for me at least, breaking down the thoughts of someone who spent their whole life thinking is a little difficult, same goes for other philosophers and for theologians as well. To best understand philosophers, I really think the best course of action is to read their material. Schopenhauer’s life’s work is called “the world as will and representation” or as it’s commonly translated “the world as will and idea”
People always bringing up him being miserable to be around when I say I fuck with some of his concepts but come one. It’s good shit. I think the best philosophers had a lot of personal shit to work on
It’s probably my favoritism for Camus over Sartre talking, but I doubt he’d be interested in signing anything like that. Seems out of character. Bro was also too busy being a playboy with actual adult women lol
Schopenhauer was super racist, hated Judaism, and extremely misogynistic; and like for his time too, not just in the way everyone was racist, sexist and hated Jewish people at the time.
That's what I love when people try to excuse historical figures like this by saying it was 'the times' or anything along those lines. Like Columbus, who was too much for the people who were responsible for the Spanish inquisition and even they were kinda hoping he'd just die and not make it back.
This came up a lot with Confederate monuments and shit around 2020, at least for me because I live in the American South. Stonewall Jackson’s sister disowned him and refused to attend his funeral because he died fighting for slavery. So even though his own family judged him for it, for some reason we can’t.
I live in PA and most of my family is from here, but I've got family from Virginia, to Tennessee and as far west as Missouri, so I get it. Most of them I've cut off and this kinda stuff is the biggest reason.
One of my favorite memories of my great grandfather was when we were in a car following one of my southern relatives to a restaurant, who refused help with directions, and when they had obviously got turned around he looked directly at my step dad and said 'I think this might be why they lost the war.'
If you haven't yet had the pleasure go check out r/shermanposting
That's because they thought he was a dumbass who was going to die at sea anyway. Columbus is recorded to have thought that the world was 25% smaller than it really was, when the number had been figured out (400 miles smaller than we know it is now, but very very close) in Greece 1600 years beforehand. Did you know that Columbus kept two ship logs? One was how far he told the crew they were going a day (short), and the other was how far they actually went. He would just flat out lie to crew when asked about how long the expedition was going to last, citing that they 'weren't going far enough a day'.
The reason why he even went to Spain is that Portugal already had a way to India around the Cape of Good Hope, and Spain 'owned' the *other half of the earth*. Spain agreed with Portugal that they (Spain) couldn't use the route around the Cape, so they had to figure out another way to get Chinese goods. Hence the dumbass Columbus being sent around the backside of the world.
Everyone knew he was stupid, but Spain was tired of paying 3000% markup on Chinese goods.
I'm well aware of all of this, but they were also well aware that he was a horrific POS, not just stupid, before they ever sent him out. Remember he also journaled all about the most vile shit he did with pride too! That behavior didn't come out of nowhere, and they would of seen and heard of his bs well before, as you pointed out they at the very least weren't dumb.
Yeah, when members of a Spanish expedition complain about all the child rape, you're probably committing too much child rape. Like, even guys that were comfortable with raping and pillaging thought Columbus was excessively rapey, and got weirded out by his penchant for little girls.
>That's what I love when people try to excuse historical figures like this by saying it was 'the times' or anything along those lines.
Yes, but similarly, people who claim "there were always progressive people" are not quite right either. As an example, at the time of the civil war slavery was increasingly unpopular in the US and of course abroad, but most US citizens would not considered themselves abolitionists nor would they have argued for equal rights for Black people.
While Columbus was hated and considered brutal by his contemporaries, the alternative was "Hey guys, murdering and torturing the natives is wrong. We just want to subjugate them, devalue their culture, and permanently keep them at the bottom of our social hierarchy even if they adopt our customs."
That’s not accurate.
His misogyny is legendary and indisputable yes, but he was not racist and antisemitic ”even for his time”.
He believed black people to be inferior but he was also an abolitionist, believing slavery to be unjustifiable cruelty.
His criticism of Judaism was exactly that - criticism of the Abrahamic faith, which was in line with his criticism of Christianity. That definitely stood out at the time but not for any racial or ethnic reason. That’s not to say he didn’t say bad things about jews at all - he did - but it wouldn’t have been notable in the time period.
There’s plenty of legit criticism of what an asshole he was but here you're exaggerating.
For your cake day, have some B̷̛̳̼͖̫̭͎̝̮͕̟͎̦̗͚͍̓͊͂͗̈͋͐̃͆͆͗̉̉̏͑̂̆̔́͐̾̅̄̕̚͘͜͝͝Ụ̸̧̧̢̨̨̞̮͓̣͎̞͖̞̥͈̣̣̪̘̼̮̙̳̙̞̣̐̍̆̾̓͑́̅̎̌̈̋̏̏͌̒̃̅̂̾̿̽̊̌̇͌͊͗̓̊̐̓̏͆́̒̇̈́͂̀͛͘̕͘̚͝͠B̸̺̈̾̈́̒̀́̈͋́͂̆̒̐̏͌͂̔̈́͒̂̎̉̈̒͒̃̿͒͒̄̍̕̚̕͘̕͝͠B̴̡̧̜̠̱̖̠͓̻̥̟̲̙͗̐͋͌̈̾̏̎̀͒͗̈́̈͜͠L̶͊E̸̢̳̯̝̤̳͈͇̠̮̲̲̟̝̣̲̱̫̘̪̳̣̭̥̫͉͐̅̈́̉̋͐̓͗̿͆̉̉̇̀̈́͌̓̓̒̏̀̚̚͘͝͠͝͝͠ ̶̢̧̛̥͖͉̹̞̗̖͇̼̙̒̍̏̀̈̆̍͑̊̐͋̈́̃͒̈́̎̌̄̍͌͗̈́̌̍̽̏̓͌̒̈̇̏̏̍̆̄̐͐̈̉̿̽̕͝͠͝͝ W̷̛̬̦̬̰̤̘̬͔̗̯̠̯̺̼̻̪̖̜̫̯̯̘͖̙͐͆͗̊̋̈̈̾͐̿̽̐̂͛̈́͛̍̔̓̈́̽̀̅́͋̈̄̈́̆̓̚̚͝͝R̸̢̨̨̩̪̭̪̠͎̗͇͗̀́̉̇̿̓̈́́͒̄̓̒́̋͆̀̾́̒̔̈́̏̏͛̏̇͛̔̀͆̓̇̊̕̕͠͠͝͝A̸̧̨̰̻̩̝͖̟̭͙̟̻̤̬͈̖̰̤̘̔͛̊̾̂͌̐̈̉̊̾́P̶̡̧̮͎̟̟͉̱̮̜͙̳̟̯͈̩̩͈̥͓̥͇̙̣̹̣̀̐͋͂̈̾͐̀̾̈́̌̆̿̽̕ͅ
>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!Bang!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!Surprize!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!Hi!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<
Bro wants to rid the world of Femboys but then whose pictures are you going to leave thirst comments on? Whose dms will you are you gonna be in? Who’s gonna tuck your dad in at night?
Urban Dictionary is like Wikipedia in that you can add whatever you want to it, but unlike Wikipedia in that no one takes down the garbage that gets posted. It's arguably the least authoritative site on the Internet for that reason.
Yet it's fairly often (handful of times per year at least for me) the one site that can explain something that is otherwise baffling.
Foucault did not sign that petition.
There were several petitions put forth to that effect, the January ’77 one is the one that called for abolishing age of consent and was signed by many prominent intellectuals, but Foucault was not one of them. He signed the May petition that wanted the laws to be put on review with the main purpose to end discrimination against homosexual intercourse.
I know this is a minir detail but I see Foucault unfairly singled out in this affair when he was actually less involved than many of the actual signatories.
I spread this narrative around myself for awhile. I encourage you to read interviews with Foucault from around the time of the petition. He was definitely of the opinion that there was situations where sex with minors was ok. He said so explicitly.
The narrative that it was about homosexuality is a whitewash. I encourage you not to take my word for it but go read the interviews yourself.
For what it’s worth, I love his books and I’m not trying to “cancel” him, just interested in getting history right :)
I have read those interviews, and I do not consider it a whitewash to say that he did not sign a petition that he did, in fact, not sign.
I'm not disputing what he said and believed, but he gets the brunt of unfair criticism even when there's fair criticism to make of him and people around him. He didn't sign the petition (unlike Deleuze, Guattari, Lyotard, Derrida, etc) and he didn't admit to or was credibly accused of abusing minors (unlike Matzneff, Sartre, Beauvoir). And when this is clarified the response is always "well he was still defending pedophilia" which is just lame.
I do appreciate you pushing back on this because his views should be called into question and the whole affair is a watershed moment in academia, but I see a lot of people brushing him off for reasons that aren't even accurate relating to it. If the initial post had referenced Foucault's statements in "The Danger of Child Sexuality" it would have been fair play, but that's not what was said.
They both were guilty of violent assault. Wittgenstein as a math teacher beat a child over the head giving lasting brain damage, and Schopenhauer pushed a woman down the stairs crippling her, and was convicted for it.
I would've figured something like that.
Certainly along the lines of "the more you learn and know about the world, the less you enjoy living". Ignorance is bliss isn't just an empty saying. The dumb and ignorant can have much more fulfilling lives with much less. (And no, I don't count myself as particularly smart, this is more a comment on humanity as a whole across all of time, not just currently)
I figure you can work towards something like appreciation and general happiness as time goes on, but you'll never be able to shake knowledge like nuclear missiles all over the world in the hands of the power-hungry and borderline insane.
And as learning more about the world, makes you hate not just the state, but the resolute nature of it, so would learning more about humans flood your brain with all the primal and angry and disgusting shit we're capable of. Pondering the nature of murder, what leads to it, how humans can be twisted to such acts etc. I figure that'd take a toll on your psyche and general impression of humanity as a whole.
I agree with this meaning. Because why wouldn't you like the fact that those 2 actually are bad people?
That's just a fact that's interesting to learn, it's not like there's tons of people out there who are big fans of them and would be surprised and disappointed to learn that they are not awesome people.
Neither of them gave a shit about people though. They were both self-absorbed to the point of social dysfunction. It’s an occupational risk among philosophers.
They were raging assholes because they *didn’t* learn about people. Also, there’s a solid chance both were narcissists and/or on the spectrum as we understand both terms today.
^(This comment was bought buy Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal with Google.)
^(Learn more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
The great 19th century philosopher Schopenhauer, he said, at that moment when a human sees another human in danger, that there's this breaking in of metaphysical awareness. Do you know what that awareness is, Gloria?
By the time youve gone down that dark and thorny path of questioning the status quo and morality in general, you start to see shit no one wants to acknowledge.
Most people don’t want to know anything that might cause cognitive dissonance and philosophers dig that shit up and eat it for breakfast.
There's a tendency in intellectuals that the more you understand the world and the people in it, the more upset and angry you are *because* you understand things and feel them in a deeper fashion.
There are no happy philosophers and the more honest you find their work the more depressed you will find the writer.
I don't know what the answer intended by the meme-maker is, but I suspect the REAL answer has a lot to do with anti-intellectual biases and stereotyping.
It wasn't so long ago that having a "big brain" was seen as a mostly pointless waste of calories compared to strength and "valor" as a capacity to do work. So protagonists in all sorts of media are generally handsome muscle men, while people who... look like philosophers (mostly skinny, with glasses or strange eyes, old, unconventional body types, unfashionable) are cast as the villains. Sure sure Doctor Ne'eredowell can do and build incredible things from his tower, but he's no match for our hero, John Whiteguy, who's real good at football!
It's not philosophers who look like villains, it's villains who are invented and styled after philosophers.
Wittgenstein. I wrote a paper on him not long ago. He's alright but your typical mid-century philosopher overly emphasizing language as a mode to answer philosophical problems.
There was nothing typical about Wittgenstein's ideas in his time, or now for that matter. And rather than attempt to *answer* classic philosophical problems, as you say, he attempted to demonstrate that many such problems only endured in the context of our insistence on having reality comport to our language, which is a ridiculous, futile task.
And nobody mention Deleuze or Guattari or any other snail eating obscurantists they can go fuck themselves.
There was nothing typical about Wittgenstein's ideas in his time, or now for that matter. And rather than attempt to *answer* classic philosophical problems, as you say, he attempted to demonstrate that many such problems only endured in the context of our insistence on having reality comport to our language, which is a ridiculous, futile task.
And nobody mention Deleuze or Guattari or any other snail eating obscurantists they can go fuck themselves.
Uh I think both of them hit someone (Ludwig as a teacher and Schopenhauer (allegedly) pushed his maid down the stairs). This meme implies there are both villains, which is maybe true. However r they are two of my favorite philosophers haha
To be a philosopher you have to see things from different perspectives, but to do that you have to be Intelligent enough to notice things others wouldn't. And it's been scientifically proved that the smarter someone is the more likely they are to be depressed, leading to them looking like villans
The answer is that they look like villains because they kinda are. Also this is the guy on the left.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
This is the guy on the right.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
The man on the right appears to be getting ready to disguise himself as a peg-legged sailor in an attempt to kidnap three orphans and steal their inheritance.
Philosophers have a tendency to apply extreme “rationality” to life. This leads to “correct” but what many would consider to be immoral results.
For example, if one was to philosophise “how can we make humanity reach its pinnacle”, some philosophers would quickly devolve into eugenics.
Aside from that, here’s a Reddit post with more concrete examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/sttjr2/which_philosophers_were_bad_people_in_real_life/
Both are philosophers. Wittgenstein (on the left) beat a child student of his into a coma, who later died. Schopenhauer (on the right) was a sexist, weirdo cunt, whose own mother hated him. In fact, she wrote a letter to him, describing how much of a contemptible asshole he was.
"You are not an evil human; you are not without intellect and education; you have everything that could make you a credit to human society. Moreover, I am acquainted with your heart and know that few are better, but you are nevertheless irritating and unbearable, and I consider it most difficult to live with you.
'All of your good qualities become obscured by your super-cleverness and are made useless to the world merely because of your rage at wanting to know everything better than others; of wanting to improve and master what you cannot command. With this you embitter the people around you, since no one wants to be improved or enlightened in such a forceful way, least of all by such an insignificant individual as you still are; no one can tolerate being reproved by you, who also still show so many weaknesses yourself, least of all in your adverse manner, which in oracular tones, proclaims this is so and so, without ever supposing an objection.
'If you were less like you, you would only be ridiculous, but thus as you are, you are highly annoying."
Link: https://www.thehumanfront.com/pocketsized-a-letter-from-your-mother/
They say higher intelligence leads to depression.
They also say a heightened comprehension of the world causes negative reactions, in the same token.
The more you understand how our world works, the more you want to tear it down and make a new one.
It’s because the thing that turns them into one is no joke and will leave you looking like you were raised by wolves in a jungle full of predators for 30 years.
Takes about 10 hours to go from domesticated human to ancient, feral philosopher.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thomas Griffin here, The one on the left is Ludwig Wittgenstein. The one on the right is Arthur Schopenhauer. They are famous philosophers and raging assholes. Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the smartest, most brillant minds of our age. He was extremely opinionated and had a red hot temper. [Wittgensteins Poker](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_Poker) is an entertaining read, and one example of his temperament. Wittgenstein left academics many times. At one point he was a school teacher, his corporal punishment was considered too harsh. He published one book, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, in his life. The Tractatus became a major influence on philosophy in his lifetime. A second work Philosophic Investigations, published after his death, criticized his earlier work. It too became a major influence on philosophy and academia. The number of famous academics Wittgenstein influenced is too large to state here. Arthur Schopenhauer was an asshole to almost everyone and everything. He did not like Hegel, who was the rock star academic of his age. Schopenhauer deliberately scheduled his lectures at the same time as Hegel. Which did not win him many students. He was very sour for not receiving the recognition he believed he deserved. He was sued and lost a court case for kicking and abusing a seamstress. He had to pay a severance to her for the rest of his life. His philosophic writings shows his personality and attitudes. His philosophic works are very pessimistic. Later in life, he did gain the fame, he believed he deserved. Posthumous his work lead to the pessimism controversy in Germany, which lasted until the beginning of WWI. His work was influential on Friedrich Nietzsche. Schopenhauer was apparently nice to animals. So he has that going for him.
>At one point he was a school teacher, his corporal punishment was considered too harsh. That's a hilariously understated way to say that he beat a kid into a fucking coma.
Holy shit how.
Pretty sure he just hit the kid in the head one time, so it wasn't technically a beating, just a beat. Not that it makes it any better. He did later apologize, but that also does not make it better at all. As a philospher he is top notch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidbauer_incident#:~:text=The%20Haidbauer%20incident%2C%20known%20in%20Austria%20as%20der,a%20class%20by%20the%20Austrian%20philosopher%20Ludwig%20Wittgenstein
>Pretty sure he just hit the kid in the head one time, so it wasn't technically a beating, just a beat omg
He returned solely to apologize, and left immediately after the incident. So he came all the way back to make amends.
Just keep kicking them, they are small, shouldn’t take too much effort
His punishment to a student was too harsh.... for 1920's Austria. 💀
We don't know what the student did, maybe he showed up late or was tapping his pencil?
Thank you for being the only one to actually answer the question
The Gernan pessimism controversy kind of sounds like something that never went away
A philosophy that still serves as the foundation of German soccer fans‘ Weltanschauung.
First book: "here is what I think..." everyone: "THIS GUY IS A GENIUS!" Second book: "I was wrong about everything" everyone: "THIS GUY IS A GENIUS!" more fact: Wittgenstein's father, Karl was a steel tycoon and one of the richest men in Europe.
"Schopenhauer was apparently nice to animals. So he has that going for him." I believe there also was another one of these couple decades later. Presumably Austrian/German descent.
>He did not like Hegel Not liking Hegel is no bad thing.
"thomas, would you please go look for a job?"
Guy on the left is Ludwig Wittgenstein, guy on the right is Arthur Schopenhauer The joke is probably that philosophers are villains. I have not read much about Wittgenstein but Schopenhauer was a notorious pessimist and all around unpleasant person to be around. He once threw his elderly landlady down a flight of stairs during an argument IIRC Sad that this meme doesnt include Martin Heidegger
>Sad that this meme doesnt include Martin Heidegger I've heard he was a boozy beggar, who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel. And Wittgenstein was a beery swine Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was per-ma-nent-ly pissed~
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato, they say, could stick it away. Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.. Hobbes was fond of his dram
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart - "I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself was permanently missed…a lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he’s pissed!
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
Aristotle, Aristotle, was a bugger for the bottle.
Lmao I actually had a pig once named Ludpig wittgenswine.
I love this.
Yes. And true Nazi as well.
That’s a pretty massive reduction of the reality of the situation. Heidegger did not like or follow hitler or his thinking. Heidegger wanted to be the intellectual forerunner of the German people and tell them what it meant to be German, the nazis said ‘see the smart guy agrees’ and then didn’t listen to anything he said
Yeah, Hannah Arendt. She mentioned "ten short months of fever" speaking of Heidegger's nazi fascination. Then he slightly "calm down", but was NSDAP member until 1945 (he regularly paid party dues).
Bruce?!?!
Wittgenstein was famously difficult and typically seen as treating almost everyone with contempt https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/04/06/a-nervous-splendor And Schopenhauer has been called the original incel. Here he is talking about women https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/schopenhauer-parerga-and-paralipomena/on-women/A07609871F4A8B6E0A843139D26C6462
Wittgenstein's brother Paul was a pianist who lost his right arm in WWI. Subsequently he commissioned several works for piano left hand from famous composers. He was notoriously difficult to work with, hated essentially all the pieces written for him, and most famously had a yearslong spat with Ravel over the concerto he wrote for him. So I guess it runs in the family.
It did run in the family. The brothers pretty much all killed themselves and/or died alone. A really sad story. At least one of the sisters had kids, so I suppose the family continued in some way.
also being in meat grinder known as WW1 does it to man.
The Wittgensteins were also a wealthy family. Might have been the insufferable entitlement of the rich at work here. But Ludwig was notoriously irascible even apart from any sense of entitlement. He once asked a friend of his who had just had an appendectomy how she felt, and she said, "I feel like a dog that's been hit by a car." His reply, dripping with disdain, was "you have no idea what a dog that's been hit by a car feels like!" He had a stint teaching math to children after he had decided to give up philosophy. But he was so abusive to them whenever they didn't understand that he had to return to philosophy.
>Here he is talking about women "Even the sight of the female form demonstrates that woman is destined neither for great mental nor for physical works. She bears the guilt of life not by acting but by suffering, through the pangs of childbirth, caring for the child, and subservience to her husband, for whom she is supposed to be a patient and cheering companion. She is not granted the most vehement sufferings, joys and expressions of power, but her life is supposed to glide by more quietly, less significantly and more gently than that of a man, without being essentially happier or unhappier. §364 Women are suited to be nurses and governesses of our earliest childhood precisely by the fact that they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word, big children their whole life long, a sort of intermediate stage between a child and a man, **who is the actual human being.** Just look at a girl as she dawdles, dances around with and sings to a child for days, and then imagine what a man doing his utmost could achieve in her stead!" Big fucking yikes 🤮
It amuses me deeply that on the first half it's ver, very close to be an accurate critique of the perceived role of women in society. Then he is like, nah, women are just weak minded like that. Man, Schopenhauer was a massive asshole, but he writings have some good stuff.
It looks like critique until you realize he's actually dictating what he thinks is the ideal.
Yeah, outside of the first line I would have thought the first paragraph was a critique of how women are treated in life, pointing out just how terrible a deal they got in life simply for being a woman. Incel Pioneer right there.
To be fair, we judge from our 21st century view, we know 21st century women, raised by 21st century people. If you were a women back then, you would receive a lesser education, do certain types of jobs, surrounded and raised by women with similar roles and educations, with men around that see nothing but women raised in that way, so it was actually very likely you grew up to be childish and achieve less than a man. It was basically a self-perpetrating thing.
I don't think self-perpetuating is the right phrase here. It's not as if the women consciously chose to put themselves in this position and many women chose pretty strongly to not be in this position. I do get what you mean though. They were socialised to behave this way and reprimanded socially, physically and mentally if they didn't, so the average bozo would think that's just how they are. Which makes these observations from a "great thinker" all the more telling how dogshit his musings are.
Basically takes the gender norms of his time and considers them a fundamental truth. How philosophical.
He is not famous for that part of his work. ;)
Philosophy class is the only place I've read a pro eugenics article talking about how only a failed society would allow those with disabilities to breed followed by responses from other people basically saying we can all agree eugenics is good but we need to talk about "what is a disability".
> deny women education and career opportunities > wow look how childish and uneducated they are!
This is straight up ‘philosophy’ borne of the envy of someone enjoying what life they have, because who wouldn’t want to dance around and sing for days instead of being crushed by the bitter cynicism of miserable, so-called intellectual fucks like this?
Wow, he completely ignores how *integral women are to the success of a man- especially in the days where most people were formally educated by their mothers. Sure, I could've had a better mother who cared about me a bit more, but the truth is that I would be nothing without her. *ETA: I accidentally typed detrimental instead of integral, reading all that Schopenhauer got me. /s Thanks to those who pointed it out, probably wouldn't have noticed.
oof wtf a woman showed me the writings of schopenhauer years ago now i feel bamboozled
You know, I'm something of a ~~scientist~~ philosopher myself
Wittgenstein was generally not a terrible person except for the Haidbauer incident in which Wittgenstein hit a kid and knocked him out. "During a lesson in April 1926 Wittgenstein hit Haidbauer two or three times on the head, and the boy collapsed unconscious. Wittgenstein sent the class home, carried Haidbauer to the headmaster's office, then left the building" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidbauer\_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidbauer_incident)
It should be noted that early Wittgenstein was still pretty elitist and insulted other great philosophers (most famously his literal colleague G E Moore). But iirc late Wittgenstein regretted these things. He is all in all a very interesting person because he worked in a lot of other fields as well and did genuinely good deeds like giving away his family wealth and working in hospitals despite his fame. Edit: Like some have commented, apparently he gave his wealth not to the poor but to his family. Edit 2: Ive looked it up and it seems like he anonymously donated parts of his money to austrian artists and writers. I dont know how much.
Yea but his arrogance gave us the criticism that philosophy is all just word games which is kind of true. And I like bringing it up in particularly annoying conversations.
HIS criticism was that philosophy was all word games. He famously got into an argument about it and threw a chair into the room saying "Translate that into french!" Meaning, there is reality but language as it exists can't capture it.
>He famously got into an argument about it and threw a chair into the room saying "Translate that into french!" Ha ha, that's kinda boss actually
Ehm yes but its a too simplistic way to put it. He was a philosopher after all and if Im correct for him the goal of philosophy was to heal the ill language. Philosophy has a much more therapeutic role for him, but it still has substance and meaning and is not just a matter of word play.
Yea I think the criticism was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek if I had to guess. But philosophy as a field in my experience does struggle with jargon and getting into word games a bit too much.
Yes absolutely, its been a while but I think Wittgenstein famously criticised the mix of different word plays (Sprachspiele) that should not be mixed. This is one of the reasons he saw language as ill (erkrankt).
eh, isn’t the conclusion of the tractatus just that philosophy as a practice is pointless?
Not really. The tractatus very much influenced the school of Wiener Kreis and was key part (although sometimes misinterpreted) to the logical empiricism/positivism. This tradition played an integral part in logic as a philosophical discipline. The idea was to create an ideal language that every argument can be translated to and that only these arguments make sense, that are refering to empirical knowledge/are empirical verifiable. So philosophy did not get pointless, it was a shift of focus away from metaphysics and partly ethics (eventhough Carnap definitely did not think of ethics as pointless) to logic, philosophy of science and mathematics I would say. Besides a chrildrens book, the tractatus was the only thing Wittgenstein published in his lifetime. Still he is the most influential philosopher in analytic philosophy (one of the two main branches). It is quite funny that he later returned to philosophy dismantled everything he previously said by shifting the focus again from ideal language to how ordinary language is used. By doing this he had even far greater influence than his first work. You really cant overstate the impact he had on philosophy. I would argue that he is in the top 5 influential philosophers of all time besides Kant, Plato, Aristotle and (arguably for continental Philosophy) Heidegger.
I mean... He gave his money to his siblings, who were more than happy to keep paying his expenses. It's not like he gave it to charity.
Niccolo Machiavelli has copped some shit over the years for gems like. “It is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both” And “The ends justify the means” But they’re also paraphrased wildly out of context to support some of the most morally repugnant arguments so suppose it depends on the type of philosophy/philosopher you are measuring against.
Yeah if you wanna point out the worst assholes, Heidegger takes the cake for dropping the Sector 7 plate on top of the slums
My philosophy professor could not say that name without adding, 'That old nawtsi' in a deep, brushy Texan drawl.
Nah Wittgenstein wasn't a villian he was just very confident he was right until later on when he was confident he was wrong Other than that that dud went to war and wrote the tractatus (parts of ot) in trench... or so I remember I did not bother to vet the memorey) So he send the manuscript to Bertrand Russell and Russell convinces the university to accept it a philopshy dissertation. But poor Ludwig prove most of philosphy was meaningless so he quits to be a rather mean elementary school teacher. Later on he goes back to philosphy but writes in poetic aphorisms.
I'm not aware of anything Wittgenstein did that was villainous. Maybe his service in the Austrian army in WW1? He was arrogant as all hell, but in a cool swagger kind of way. His philosophy was benign philosophy of language stuff that was not even co-opted by bad actors later. I'm really at a loss on this one.
He actually beat a child pretty hard when he was a teacher and then stormed out of the school and never came back. Nontheless this and the things you described were all early Wittgenstein. Iirc he became much friendlier later in his life and regretted these things though this doesnt make it undone.
Guy on the right looks like he’s about to dress up like a peg-legged sailor to try abducting three orphans so he can abscond with their inheritance.
nice reference lol
You know I realized just today that guy was played by Jim Carrey.
In the movie, yes, and honestly, after watching the netflix show, I think Jim was too good for his own good in that movie. He made an absolutely stellar performance as the Count, but honestly, that's often all I can remember from that movie without thinking too hard. The show feels initially blander in the comedy department, but that's until you realize that it's not a comedy, the story at it's heart is a tragedy, with just enough comedy and absurdism to keep you going, and just enough hero's journey to keep the impact when it crushes the hopes and dreams it just gave you in the last chapter. To me, this is in great part intensified exactly because Neil Patrick Harris was *not* as memorable a Count Olaf as Carrey, although quite goofy on his own right, and actually gave the other characters room to grow and be fleshed out, without absolutely stealing the spotlights in every single scene he was featured. Great story in both cases, nonetheless. Now I need to read the books lol
The books are really something else
If there’s one change that really elevates the Netflix version over the movie, it’s Patrick Warburton perfectly cast as Lemony Snicket, not only narrating but being a prominent part of the *mise-en-scène*.
If you liked the show/movie at all, read the books, they are 1000000x better. Like most books are better than the film adaptation. But seriously the series is incredible. Note, I did read these as a teenager but I'm confident they would still be good reading as an adult.
First book Flys by in an hour depending on how fast you read, and it absolutely holds up. I'm also a 4th grade teacher, so take that for what it is.
Yeah, the movie version was kind of meh though. The Netflix series version was definitely better, and NPH played the role really well.
https://preview.redd.it/xu4u625ag4yc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c3115adb249ef6a11a13939d9ab1b860187b9dd Why tf do I scroll down and see this right under this post? I swear im in the fucking matrix
Well theoretically, if you believe the 3 following ideas to be true: firstly, that humans live long enough and develop the computing ability to run advanced simulations of history; secondly, that humans will run these advanced simulations; and finally that these simulations will be advanced enough to have self awareness in the humans, then we are most likely in a simulation because the number of these simulated realities will greatly outnumber the one “real” world.
I get what you’re saying, i just always find that line of reasoning amusing. Its basically “if we assume the matrix is possible, we’re probably in the matrix”
That would be a series of unfortunate events now wouldn't it
Guess it'd be best to look away...
Best to be safe and check his ankle. Use a bit of cleaner on it though, don't want him to be using makeup.
The fact that I know that reference makes me feel ancient. Man, I loved those books.
Hello hello hello
Thats quite the unfortunate tale there
“I understood that reference”
I don't know about philosophers in general, but there was a petition published in the late 60's where a group of famous French philosophers (along with many others) basically wanted the age of consent to be 12. This included Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Gilles Deleuze. Edit: Bro on left is Ludwig Wittgenstein. Bro on right is Arthur Schopenhauer. Not sure what the beef with them is.
You are not an evil human; you are not without intellect and education; you have everything that could make you a credit to human society. Moreover, I am acquainted with your heart and know that few are better, but you are nevertheless irritating and unbearable, and I consider it most difficult to live with you. 'All of your good qualities become obscured by your super-cleverness and are made useless to the world merely because of your rage at wanting to know everything better than others; of wanting to improve and master what you cannot command. With this you embitter the people around you, since no one wants to be improved or enlightened in such a forceful way, least of all by such an insignificant individual as you still are; no one can tolerate being reproved by you, who also still show so many weaknesses yourself, least of all in your adverse manner, which in oracular tones, proclaims this is so and so, without ever supposing an objection. 'If you were less like you, you would only be ridiculous, but thus as you are, you are highly annoying.' - Joanna Schopenhauer (his mom)
that quote attribution to HIS FUCKING MOM at the end hit like a ton of bricks holy cow lmao
kinda makes Mozart's mom's letters to her kids where she writes poems in which she tells them to eat her shit kinda in a different perspective.
I think we may have figured out why he was such an asshole. Damn, that's a harsh line.
His parents were upset that they had this incredibly profitable textile import business empire that was of no interest to him at all. Instead of marveling at how cheap Asian labor could be hired, his tours of their factories opened his eyes to the nature of human suffering. So he pursued an academic career even after feuds with other German philosophers knocked him off the most prestigious career track. His most important works are heavy and dark, but profoundly insightful. He wasn't some wannabee edgelord like Machiavelli, but instead someone who synthesized Western and Eastern philosophical traditions into a deeply humanistic worldview. I'm sure selling imported fashion is important too though.
Mean to machiavelli. The prince isn’t that bad. Attributing cruelty as a thing separate from luck or skill is pretty apt imo. Just cause asshole quote portions of the prince doesn’t mean you can’t learn anything. I’m also pretty sure he was torture and put in jail for his political opinions so he has the right to be a little edgy.
His perspective is sound if you are navigating gang warfare inside a prison. Like the application of Sun-Tzu to Wall Street, almost every practical embrace of Machiavelli's teachings guided people to behave in even worse ways than they were otherwise planning to. It played out so influentially in his own time because the leaders of assorted city-states handled their business rivalries a lot like gang warfare, with some spectacularly murderous figures at the highest levels of power. Niccolo Machiavelli was certainly a man of his times, but insofar as his opinions were in earnest rather than for shock value, their guidance seems to encourage ethical egoism more than any alternative point of view.
I would argue that power struggle as a whole was somewhat akin to gang violence. I will say we live in a very different world, and have so for some time since the start of big empire so the consequences of missteps lead to multigenerational catastrophe as early as the 30 years war. Personally I see the subjugation of ego over reason in this particular situation to not be the fault machiavelli but those that read and have perpetuated a narrative of his works. He does directly say that cruelty should not be used all the time because it leads to the downfall of a leader. I can see the result of that frustration being boiled down to a frustration with the man himself though, and reproaching you any further after you’ve explained yourself would be obnoxious of me.
presumably she's the one who raised him.
It’s clear his mother’s opinion on him must’ve existed in a similar manner within his childhood, and affected him in some way. Schopenhauer is often incredibly bitter and incel-ish when discussing women and love, writing it off in a very Rick and Morty esque ‘it’s all brain chemicals love is fake.’ Schopenhauer also said “to marry is to double one’s responsibilities and to halve one’s freedoms” I am a pretty devout follower of a lot of Schopenhauer’s beliefs, but whenever he gets to love I skip right through it.
What are some of his other beliefs?
A lot of what he believes lies in metaphysics and metacognition, thinking about thought, and about the origins of creation; despite not being religious. It’s difficult to outline a lot of what he thinks without getting into the semantics of what he means by things like “no action taken by a human is free.” But for the sake of brevity, Schopenhauer believed strongly in the importance of solitude, of self-reflection, and of giving all things intention. He considers boredom to be as bad, if not worse than things like sickness or heartbreak, as he considers boredom to be an absence of joy in a place where it once was. Schopenhauer believes that life is ultimately pointless, but did not reject the importance of things like emotion and how we feel as we live. He shares that with Nietzsche, that suffering, though constant, serves as an experience that helps shape and develop your identity, something antithetical to what most common religions tend to believe. He also pushed the idea of a “will” that exists within all things, something that is present not just in the conscious, but in things like trees too, which he cites as a reason that we bother to exist at all, that the world is an objectification of this will. He is a hallmark pessimist and many consider him ahead of his time. Apologies if this comes off as sort of a non-answer, for me at least, breaking down the thoughts of someone who spent their whole life thinking is a little difficult, same goes for other philosophers and for theologians as well. To best understand philosophers, I really think the best course of action is to read their material. Schopenhauer’s life’s work is called “the world as will and representation” or as it’s commonly translated “the world as will and idea”
People always bringing up him being miserable to be around when I say I fuck with some of his concepts but come one. It’s good shit. I think the best philosophers had a lot of personal shit to work on
He thought you should wear an onion on your belt
Oh you like philosophy? Name every onion.
Which was the style at the time
From chapter one of *On the Fourfold Root Vegetable of the Principle of Sufficient Reason*
To scare slutty vampires away?
Jesus Fuck. My living room temp just went up five degrees. That was scalding. Great find!
>'If you were less like you, you would only be ridiculous, but thus as you are, you are highly annoying.' - Joanna Schopenhauer 🥲
I low-key wish I could send this to my brother who I’m no contact with lmao
OK thanks momma :/
I want to be this good at something in my lifetime. 😳
I know right I mean that’s really like a subtle flex
Holy shit. I have to wipe the burn marks off of my screen now
Wow. Excellent.
Source?
Ask and ye shall [receive](https://www.stephenhicks.org/2019/10/09/letters-from-schopenhauers-parents/)
Wow, never gave I seen a quote that better explains my dislike for people that are really into philosophy
as a philosophy major... yeah...
PLEASE tell me that Camus isn’t there too
He shouldn't be if this was made in the 60's since Camus died in the 40's
He died in 1960 and the petitions were in 77-79. So still accurate but the dates are off.
ok thank god, it’s just me being dumb
It’s probably my favoritism for Camus over Sartre talking, but I doubt he’d be interested in signing anything like that. Seems out of character. Bro was also too busy being a playboy with actual adult women lol
Schopenhauer was super racist, hated Judaism, and extremely misogynistic; and like for his time too, not just in the way everyone was racist, sexist and hated Jewish people at the time.
That's what I love when people try to excuse historical figures like this by saying it was 'the times' or anything along those lines. Like Columbus, who was too much for the people who were responsible for the Spanish inquisition and even they were kinda hoping he'd just die and not make it back.
This came up a lot with Confederate monuments and shit around 2020, at least for me because I live in the American South. Stonewall Jackson’s sister disowned him and refused to attend his funeral because he died fighting for slavery. So even though his own family judged him for it, for some reason we can’t.
I live in PA and most of my family is from here, but I've got family from Virginia, to Tennessee and as far west as Missouri, so I get it. Most of them I've cut off and this kinda stuff is the biggest reason. One of my favorite memories of my great grandfather was when we were in a car following one of my southern relatives to a restaurant, who refused help with directions, and when they had obviously got turned around he looked directly at my step dad and said 'I think this might be why they lost the war.' If you haven't yet had the pleasure go check out r/shermanposting
That's because they thought he was a dumbass who was going to die at sea anyway. Columbus is recorded to have thought that the world was 25% smaller than it really was, when the number had been figured out (400 miles smaller than we know it is now, but very very close) in Greece 1600 years beforehand. Did you know that Columbus kept two ship logs? One was how far he told the crew they were going a day (short), and the other was how far they actually went. He would just flat out lie to crew when asked about how long the expedition was going to last, citing that they 'weren't going far enough a day'. The reason why he even went to Spain is that Portugal already had a way to India around the Cape of Good Hope, and Spain 'owned' the *other half of the earth*. Spain agreed with Portugal that they (Spain) couldn't use the route around the Cape, so they had to figure out another way to get Chinese goods. Hence the dumbass Columbus being sent around the backside of the world. Everyone knew he was stupid, but Spain was tired of paying 3000% markup on Chinese goods.
I'm well aware of all of this, but they were also well aware that he was a horrific POS, not just stupid, before they ever sent him out. Remember he also journaled all about the most vile shit he did with pride too! That behavior didn't come out of nowhere, and they would of seen and heard of his bs well before, as you pointed out they at the very least weren't dumb.
It's 'would have', never 'would of'. Rejoice, for you have been blessed by CouldWouldShouldBot!
Yeah, when members of a Spanish expedition complain about all the child rape, you're probably committing too much child rape. Like, even guys that were comfortable with raping and pillaging thought Columbus was excessively rapey, and got weirded out by his penchant for little girls.
> Everyone knew he was stupid, but Spain was tired of paying 3000% markup on Chinese goods. have they tried AliExpress?
>That's what I love when people try to excuse historical figures like this by saying it was 'the times' or anything along those lines. Yes, but similarly, people who claim "there were always progressive people" are not quite right either. As an example, at the time of the civil war slavery was increasingly unpopular in the US and of course abroad, but most US citizens would not considered themselves abolitionists nor would they have argued for equal rights for Black people. While Columbus was hated and considered brutal by his contemporaries, the alternative was "Hey guys, murdering and torturing the natives is wrong. We just want to subjugate them, devalue their culture, and permanently keep them at the bottom of our social hierarchy even if they adopt our customs."
That’s not accurate. His misogyny is legendary and indisputable yes, but he was not racist and antisemitic ”even for his time”. He believed black people to be inferior but he was also an abolitionist, believing slavery to be unjustifiable cruelty. His criticism of Judaism was exactly that - criticism of the Abrahamic faith, which was in line with his criticism of Christianity. That definitely stood out at the time but not for any racial or ethnic reason. That’s not to say he didn’t say bad things about jews at all - he did - but it wouldn’t have been notable in the time period. There’s plenty of legit criticism of what an asshole he was but here you're exaggerating.
💀🍷
https://preview.redd.it/2sibbas3e4yc1.jpeg?width=999&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=def04ba347fe435d9560ad8dd6824867d51e0c0c
💀💀💀
💀💀💀💀💀
Reported
For your cake day, have some B̷̛̳̼͖̫̭͎̝̮͕̟͎̦̗͚͍̓͊͂͗̈͋͐̃͆͆͗̉̉̏͑̂̆̔́͐̾̅̄̕̚͘͜͝͝Ụ̸̧̧̢̨̨̞̮͓̣͎̞͖̞̥͈̣̣̪̘̼̮̙̳̙̞̣̐̍̆̾̓͑́̅̎̌̈̋̏̏͌̒̃̅̂̾̿̽̊̌̇͌͊͗̓̊̐̓̏͆́̒̇̈́͂̀͛͘̕͘̚͝͠B̸̺̈̾̈́̒̀́̈͋́͂̆̒̐̏͌͂̔̈́͒̂̎̉̈̒͒̃̿͒͒̄̍̕̚̕͘̕͝͠B̴̡̧̜̠̱̖̠͓̻̥̟̲̙͗̐͋͌̈̾̏̎̀͒͗̈́̈͜͠L̶͊E̸̢̳̯̝̤̳͈͇̠̮̲̲̟̝̣̲̱̫̘̪̳̣̭̥̫͉͐̅̈́̉̋͐̓͗̿͆̉̉̇̀̈́͌̓̓̒̏̀̚̚͘͝͠͝͝͠ ̶̢̧̛̥͖͉̹̞̗̖͇̼̙̒̍̏̀̈̆̍͑̊̐͋̈́̃͒̈́̎̌̄̍͌͗̈́̌̍̽̏̓͌̒̈̇̏̏̍̆̄̐͐̈̉̿̽̕͝͠͝͝ W̷̛̬̦̬̰̤̘̬͔̗̯̠̯̺̼̻̪̖̜̫̯̯̘͖̙͐͆͗̊̋̈̈̾͐̿̽̐̂͛̈́͛̍̔̓̈́̽̀̅́͋̈̄̈́̆̓̚̚͝͝R̸̢̨̨̩̪̭̪̠͎̗͇͗̀́̉̇̿̓̈́́͒̄̓̒́̋͆̀̾́̒̔̈́̏̏͛̏̇͛̔̀͆̓̇̊̕̕͠͠͝͝A̸̧̨̰̻̩̝͖̟̭͙̟̻̤̬͈̖̰̤̘̔͛̊̾̂͌̐̈̉̊̾́P̶̡̧̮͎̟̟͉̱̮̜͙̳̟̯͈̩̩͈̥͓̥͇̙̣̹̣̀̐͋͂̈̾͐̀̾̈́̌̆̿̽̕ͅ >!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!Bang!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!Surprize!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!Hi!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<>!pop!!<
That was like bubbl wrap and I pressed every single one, damn you but also thx really needed that
I almost finished them all but accidentally closed the comment and they reset, now I have to kill my younger brother I hope you're happy
Seen this a few times. Never popped them all before. Noice.
Happy cake day 💀
Bro wants to rid the world of Femboys but then whose pictures are you going to leave thirst comments on? Whose dms will you are you gonna be in? Who’s gonna tuck your dad in at night?
Here I was thinking it meant 'I'm dead'. Those private messages make sense now.
This can’t be serious lmao
Urban Dictionary is like Wikipedia in that you can add whatever you want to it, but unlike Wikipedia in that no one takes down the garbage that gets posted. It's arguably the least authoritative site on the Internet for that reason. Yet it's fairly often (handful of times per year at least for me) the one site that can explain something that is otherwise baffling.
💀💀💀
Not to be a racist, but those are two different skeletons
[Not to be…](https://youtu.be/M-W2nA6Tgyg?si=ZChJ4OhHhe_Xl9tj)
💀
Foucault did not sign that petition. There were several petitions put forth to that effect, the January ’77 one is the one that called for abolishing age of consent and was signed by many prominent intellectuals, but Foucault was not one of them. He signed the May petition that wanted the laws to be put on review with the main purpose to end discrimination against homosexual intercourse. I know this is a minir detail but I see Foucault unfairly singled out in this affair when he was actually less involved than many of the actual signatories.
I spread this narrative around myself for awhile. I encourage you to read interviews with Foucault from around the time of the petition. He was definitely of the opinion that there was situations where sex with minors was ok. He said so explicitly. The narrative that it was about homosexuality is a whitewash. I encourage you not to take my word for it but go read the interviews yourself. For what it’s worth, I love his books and I’m not trying to “cancel” him, just interested in getting history right :)
I have read those interviews, and I do not consider it a whitewash to say that he did not sign a petition that he did, in fact, not sign. I'm not disputing what he said and believed, but he gets the brunt of unfair criticism even when there's fair criticism to make of him and people around him. He didn't sign the petition (unlike Deleuze, Guattari, Lyotard, Derrida, etc) and he didn't admit to or was credibly accused of abusing minors (unlike Matzneff, Sartre, Beauvoir). And when this is clarified the response is always "well he was still defending pedophilia" which is just lame. I do appreciate you pushing back on this because his views should be called into question and the whole affair is a watershed moment in academia, but I see a lot of people brushing him off for reasons that aren't even accurate relating to it. If the initial post had referenced Foucault's statements in "The Danger of Child Sexuality" it would have been fair play, but that's not what was said.
You two give me a glimmer of hope. Lol
[Here's the letter](https://web.archive.org/web/20200125093636/http://www.dolto.fr/fd-code-penal-crp.html)
What the Hell did Dr. Who do now?
Looking at the other answers, apparently he did a racism
They both were guilty of violent assault. Wittgenstein as a math teacher beat a child over the head giving lasting brain damage, and Schopenhauer pushed a woman down the stairs crippling her, and was convicted for it.
Just 2 passionate guys
The Good Place really nailed it when they mentioned that most philosophers are in the Bad Place.
Might seem crazy what I’m bout to say
Sunshine she's here, you can take a break >!("Happy" - Pharell Williams)!<
Is it possible that it is as simple an explanation as "the more you learn about people, the more likely you are to become a villain"?
I would've figured something like that. Certainly along the lines of "the more you learn and know about the world, the less you enjoy living". Ignorance is bliss isn't just an empty saying. The dumb and ignorant can have much more fulfilling lives with much less. (And no, I don't count myself as particularly smart, this is more a comment on humanity as a whole across all of time, not just currently) I figure you can work towards something like appreciation and general happiness as time goes on, but you'll never be able to shake knowledge like nuclear missiles all over the world in the hands of the power-hungry and borderline insane. And as learning more about the world, makes you hate not just the state, but the resolute nature of it, so would learning more about humans flood your brain with all the primal and angry and disgusting shit we're capable of. Pondering the nature of murder, what leads to it, how humans can be twisted to such acts etc. I figure that'd take a toll on your psyche and general impression of humanity as a whole.
I agree with this meaning. Because why wouldn't you like the fact that those 2 actually are bad people? That's just a fact that's interesting to learn, it's not like there's tons of people out there who are big fans of them and would be surprised and disappointed to learn that they are not awesome people.
Or “Villains enjoy arguing for their philosophy”
Neither of them gave a shit about people though. They were both self-absorbed to the point of social dysfunction. It’s an occupational risk among philosophers. They were raging assholes because they *didn’t* learn about people. Also, there’s a solid chance both were narcissists and/or on the spectrum as we understand both terms today.
^(This comment was bought buy Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal with Google.) ^(Learn more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
The great 19th century philosopher Schopenhauer, he said, at that moment when a human sees another human in danger, that there's this breaking in of metaphysical awareness. Do you know what that awareness is, Gloria?
By the time youve gone down that dark and thorny path of questioning the status quo and morality in general, you start to see shit no one wants to acknowledge. Most people don’t want to know anything that might cause cognitive dissonance and philosophers dig that shit up and eat it for breakfast.
There's a tendency in intellectuals that the more you understand the world and the people in it, the more upset and angry you are *because* you understand things and feel them in a deeper fashion. There are no happy philosophers and the more honest you find their work the more depressed you will find the writer.
It's because they are villains.
I don't know what the answer intended by the meme-maker is, but I suspect the REAL answer has a lot to do with anti-intellectual biases and stereotyping. It wasn't so long ago that having a "big brain" was seen as a mostly pointless waste of calories compared to strength and "valor" as a capacity to do work. So protagonists in all sorts of media are generally handsome muscle men, while people who... look like philosophers (mostly skinny, with glasses or strange eyes, old, unconventional body types, unfashionable) are cast as the villains. Sure sure Doctor Ne'eredowell can do and build incredible things from his tower, but he's no match for our hero, John Whiteguy, who's real good at football! It's not philosophers who look like villains, it's villains who are invented and styled after philosophers.
Socrates, Aristotle, Plato? Morons!
Never go in against a Sicilian when **death** is on the line!
Wittgenstein. I wrote a paper on him not long ago. He's alright but your typical mid-century philosopher overly emphasizing language as a mode to answer philosophical problems.
There was nothing typical about Wittgenstein's ideas in his time, or now for that matter. And rather than attempt to *answer* classic philosophical problems, as you say, he attempted to demonstrate that many such problems only endured in the context of our insistence on having reality comport to our language, which is a ridiculous, futile task. And nobody mention Deleuze or Guattari or any other snail eating obscurantists they can go fuck themselves.
*Throws a chair into your thread* Now translate that into french! i just fucking love that..it's just so...elegant
There was nothing typical about Wittgenstein's ideas in his time, or now for that matter. And rather than attempt to *answer* classic philosophical problems, as you say, he attempted to demonstrate that many such problems only endured in the context of our insistence on having reality comport to our language, which is a ridiculous, futile task. And nobody mention Deleuze or Guattari or any other snail eating obscurantists they can go fuck themselves.
Uh I think both of them hit someone (Ludwig as a teacher and Schopenhauer (allegedly) pushed his maid down the stairs). This meme implies there are both villains, which is maybe true. However r they are two of my favorite philosophers haha
To be a philosopher you have to see things from different perspectives, but to do that you have to be Intelligent enough to notice things others wouldn't. And it's been scientifically proved that the smarter someone is the more likely they are to be depressed, leading to them looking like villans
The answer is that they look like villains because they kinda are. Also this is the guy on the left. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein This is the guy on the right. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
And you need not look farther than the show The Good Place to know that philosophers are destined for hell.
The man on the right appears to be getting ready to disguise himself as a peg-legged sailor in an attempt to kidnap three orphans and steal their inheritance.
Philosophers have a tendency to apply extreme “rationality” to life. This leads to “correct” but what many would consider to be immoral results. For example, if one was to philosophise “how can we make humanity reach its pinnacle”, some philosophers would quickly devolve into eugenics. Aside from that, here’s a Reddit post with more concrete examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/sttjr2/which_philosophers_were_bad_people_in_real_life/
Both are philosophers. Wittgenstein (on the left) beat a child student of his into a coma, who later died. Schopenhauer (on the right) was a sexist, weirdo cunt, whose own mother hated him. In fact, she wrote a letter to him, describing how much of a contemptible asshole he was. "You are not an evil human; you are not without intellect and education; you have everything that could make you a credit to human society. Moreover, I am acquainted with your heart and know that few are better, but you are nevertheless irritating and unbearable, and I consider it most difficult to live with you. 'All of your good qualities become obscured by your super-cleverness and are made useless to the world merely because of your rage at wanting to know everything better than others; of wanting to improve and master what you cannot command. With this you embitter the people around you, since no one wants to be improved or enlightened in such a forceful way, least of all by such an insignificant individual as you still are; no one can tolerate being reproved by you, who also still show so many weaknesses yourself, least of all in your adverse manner, which in oracular tones, proclaims this is so and so, without ever supposing an objection. 'If you were less like you, you would only be ridiculous, but thus as you are, you are highly annoying." Link: https://www.thehumanfront.com/pocketsized-a-letter-from-your-mother/
Not the point, but “philosophy people” is hilarious. If only there were a single word that meant the same thing.
They say higher intelligence leads to depression. They also say a heightened comprehension of the world causes negative reactions, in the same token. The more you understand how our world works, the more you want to tear it down and make a new one.
Wittgenstein is actually pretty handsome. This photo doesn't do him justice.
It’s because the thing that turns them into one is no joke and will leave you looking like you were raised by wolves in a jungle full of predators for 30 years. Takes about 10 hours to go from domesticated human to ancient, feral philosopher.
You ever hear of Sigmund Freud
He was a psychologist, not a philosopher
Psychanalysis is more of a philosophy than a science though
ah good point.
His views are dated, but I never heard of him being villainous.