Draft talk:Arthur Schopenhauer

This turned up in Liberapedia at Arthur Schopenhauer. I'm sure there are users here who can assess whether it's up to RationalWiki standard. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like a partial copy-paste from Wikipedia by somebody who doesn't understand Wikicoding (hence [15] [16][17] where footnote links should be). Still, at least we don't have his name misspelled like the Liberapedia page.   I suggest we scrap it, or replace it with an original article.  13:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the introduction is identical to the one on Wikipedia. I think this is probably a very old version of the Wikipedia article. I'd have to agree that this shouldn't be allowed to stay here in its current form. We shouldn't be copying articles from Wikipedia, Liberapedia, Muppets Wiki or anywhere else.--Spud (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nuke it. Тy Bother me 17:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've nuked it and restarted, if there is a stub others will be encouraged to continue the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * [[File:Facepalm.gif]] -- Nx  / talk 08:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

These two articles are useful potential references:-
 * Arthur Schopenhauer: (1788-1860)
 * Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need it in the first place? I can see a need for us to do Marx and Nietschze, but why Schopenhauer? What's his influence on people or ideas that come under our mission? Sophie Wilder  12:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Sophie and Nx here. Тy Bother me 12:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm 50/50 on this. We have articles on Immanuel Kant, Søren Kierkegaard, & various others.  An article on Schopenhauer would be in keeping with these (though not essential), but if we have one it should be concise, relevant, informative, accessible, & preferably written by somebody who knows a little of the subject, not just cribbed from other wikis & websites.  In the meantime, I don't see the point in keeping a worthless stub as placeholder.  12:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Stubs can be worse than redlinks sometimes, they just sit there not giving any useful info. In the case of philosophy articles, it's important that we discuss meaning and influence, and more important that we do it our own way rather than regurgitate WP like every other website. Sophie  Wilder  12:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Gone for now. Тy Bother me 12:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I knocked up a piece on Schopenhauer, I've studied Schopenhauer from people like Bryan Magee and Copleston. I know two thirds of fuck all about how wiki editing works, so I apologise for this being among my first attempts. Hope it isn't too bad, but apologies anyway. There are some useful themes in the article connecting him to ours on Hegel, and I've fit him into some earlier cognitive science and Eastern stuff. --Jack B (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

We appreciate your efforts. However, as this article is still very-much under construction, it’s probably better sitting in draftspace. I’d be happy to work with you on it! I’ve always had a keen interest in Schopenhauer and I hope, together, that we can do justice to Einstein’s favourite philosopher. Leucippus Salva veritate 07:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sweet, a draft is better than nothing. Where would you like me to begin? --Jack B (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack.You can begin wherever you want (within reason, of course).
 * If you are asking for info on what an article should include see What is a RationalWiki article? You should try to connect your article to our mission statement and include a scientific point of view (SPOV). For example, as GrammarCommie has mentioned below, you could include a section on Schopenhauer’s politics i.e. his connection to reactionary thought; or alternatively, you may wish to continue your section on Schopenhauer’s relation to Hegel, where you might comment on the validity or invalidity of Schopenhauer’s criticism.  Leucippus Salva veritate 15:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Schopenhauer's politics
These might be worth going into, as Schopenhauer and many of his fellow Pessimists were hardline reactionaries partly as a result of their philosophical school of thought. Sadly I lack direct familiarity with Schopenhauer and so cannot get into the technical minutia. 04:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s an interesting angle. I for one (I don’t know about Jack B) am only superficially familiar with Schopenhauer. But I will say—from what I do understand of Schopenhauer—that I particularly abjure his celebration of asceticism and other monkish virtues.
 * “Pessimists were hardline reactionaries partly as a result of their philosophical school of thought.”—I can definitely see how Pessimism can aid comfort to conservative and reactionary positions, but would you say that pessimists such as or  were pessimists in the sense you’re espousing?
 * As an aside, I must admit that I have no sympathies for what has traditionally been called “Pessimism.” If indeed I can be made to fit onto the Procrustean bed of Pessimism, then it that of the commitment to realism that is embedded in the scientific method. Leucippus Salva veritate 15:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Leopardi I don't know about, but Mainländer was an exception to the general trend among the German Pessimists. Please note though that I said "many" not "all". 16:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did notice your many qualifier (perhaps too late though, when I was responding to your comment); nevertheless, I hope I can do your position justice.
 * I tried to incorporate it into my sentence by focussing on a correlation between Pessimism and reactionary ideologies that is maintained by the fact that Pessimism “can [lend] comfort to conservative and reactionary positions”, and hence may have a tendency to be subsumed under the banner of a particular brand of reactionarism e.g. certain religions that preach against modernity and the Luddites. However I would not, and I’m sure you wouldn’t, claim that Pessimism—by itself— is a necessary condition for reactionary ideologies nor would I claim that it is a sufficient one. Leucippus Salva veritate 18:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "However I would not, and I’m sure you wouldn’t, claim that Pessimism—by itself— is a necessary condition for reactionary ideologies nor would I claim that it is a sufficient one." Of course not, that would be extremely reductive. 20:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)