Past few days have been as sore as a sore thumb, with all the nerve endings turned blue. Morose and melancholy, decided that the best thing would be to get into a self-imposed exile, listening to those I am totally not in position to talk back to. Some like for instance, Arthur Schopenhauer, as I listened into the audiobook of The World as Will and Representation.
Often termed as the philosopher for the pessimists, the reading, on contrary turned out to be the most pleasant thought I have come across in the recent times. He argues, on the lines of ancient Hindu philosophy that major source of discomfort in life draws from great expectation we subject our lives to. We dream, think and imagine what life should be, how people around us ought to act, to us and to the world in general and anythink in deviance from our idea of "ought to" leaves us feeling terribly betrayed. Is the ought-to really practical? is the world around us as faithful to the idea of ought to? While having an idea of what is right and pursuing it could eventually lead to some sort of upliftment in personal realm, in all the areas of life, where we are merely on of the actors on the stage, it is clear, dispassionate and objective understanding of What-is and its acceptance is the only way to make life bearable. which as per Schopenhauer is a good enough objective, unlike Nietzsche's search for heavenly ecstasy, where a day in which you have not danced once is a day wasted. While both philosophies seem to be gazing at one another as adversary on opposite shores of understanding, to me it seems they complement each other, Nietzsche to evolve your relation with the self to an ecstatic and euphoric state and Schopenhauer to evolve your relation with the world to a bearable gloom.
Often termed as the philosopher for the pessimists, the reading, on contrary turned out to be the most pleasant thought I have come across in the recent times. He argues, on the lines of ancient Hindu philosophy that major source of discomfort in life draws from great expectation we subject our lives to. We dream, think and imagine what life should be, how people around us ought to act, to us and to the world in general and anythink in deviance from our idea of "ought to" leaves us feeling terribly betrayed. Is the ought-to really practical? is the world around us as faithful to the idea of ought to? While having an idea of what is right and pursuing it could eventually lead to some sort of upliftment in personal realm, in all the areas of life, where we are merely on of the actors on the stage, it is clear, dispassionate and objective understanding of What-is and its acceptance is the only way to make life bearable. which as per Schopenhauer is a good enough objective, unlike Nietzsche's search for heavenly ecstasy, where a day in which you have not danced once is a day wasted. While both philosophies seem to be gazing at one another as adversary on opposite shores of understanding, to me it seems they complement each other, Nietzsche to evolve your relation with the self to an ecstatic and euphoric state and Schopenhauer to evolve your relation with the world to a bearable gloom.
Comments