asdjkl
@efilist
85 okur puanı
Kasım 2019 tarihinde katıldı
Şu anda okuduğu kitap
Bahnsen’s pessimism has been described as the most extreme and radical in the age of Weltschmerz. 11 A strong case can be made for this view. Bahnsen is indeed more radical than Schopenhauer and Hartmann, because he denies the possibility of redemption. He is skeptical that art, asceticism or culture can remove us from the world of suffering, or that they provide escape from the self-torment of the will. Bahnsen’s irrationalism is also greater than Schopenhauer’s and Hartmann’s, because he maintains that the striving of the will is not only incessant but also self-contradictory. But whether Bahnsen is more radical and extreme than Mainlander is contestable. If Bahnsen denies the possibility of redemption, Mainlander maintains that there is redemption only in death. While Bahnsen disapproves of suicide, Mainlander beckons us toward this ultimate step. Who, then, is more pessimistic? Bahnsen or Mainlander?
0-30p: Kontrollü okuyucu 📖
40-70p: Hafif bağımlı 👀
80p+: Geçmiş olsun, kitaplar seni ele geçirmiş 😅
Those who suppose they have found truth are called Dogmatists; those who think it incomprehensible are the Academics; those who still seek are the Skeptics.
Despite his obsession with death, the core of Mainlander’s thought, and of his very being, was his hope to redeem humanity, all of humanity. For that noble cause, his suicide was an act of martyrdom.
"Only he who attempts to enjoy all the rotten fruits of this earth will see through its emptiness and discover for himself the true value of death." P.M.
There are four fundamental evils of human life that are constant and that cannot be eradicated by political means: birth, sickness, age and death (206). Mainlander’s pessimism was immune to political change or reform, because no state, even a socialist one that cares for all human needs, could make life worth living.