Historical Philosophers:
Hegel (largely in agreement /w Spinoza)
Schopenhauer (largely in agreement)
Nietzsche (in both agreement and disagreement - sometimes N loved S, sometimes he hated him)
Miguel de Unamuno (very critical) - best shown in Tragic Sense of Life, where he throws stone after stone at Spinoza... not that I agree with the criticism.
Gilles Deleuze - Spinoza: Practical Philosophy and/or Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza (you should be able to find pdfs of these online - I liked them and found them interesting interpretations!)
Not much DIRECT criticism of Spinoza though - at least not as a philosopher. Certain strands of Aristotelianism would have philosophical criticism of SOME of Spinoza's doctrines though, as would many forms of skeptical philosophy (ex. Humeans). There's a lot of indirect criticism. If you're interested let me know and I'll point to a few authors.

I've liked a lot:
Edwin Curley - Behind the Geometrical Method
Stuart Hampshire - Spinoza and Spinozism - is probably one of the best secondary works.
Steven Nadler - Spinoza's Heresy - also good.
Giuliani Bruno - Le bonheur avec Spinoza (if you manage to find a translation or can read French)
Also - I may add here Edwin Curley's A Spinoza Reader - contains the Ethics + a selection of Spinoza's correspondence.

I've also read the following but didn't like as much:
Rebecca Goldstein - Betraying Spinoza
Michael LeBuffe - From Bondage to Freedom: Spinoza on Human Excellence
Michael Della Rocca - Spinoza
Antonio Negri - Spinoza for Our Time

I am interested in going deep into his work. — Pneumenon

Why? What attracts you to him?

Why? What attracts you to him? — Agustino

What attracts me is the fact that I not only agree with him, but feel as if I always have. You dig?

(also, thanks for the extensive list!)

What attracts me is the fact that I not only agree with him, but feel as if I always have. You dig? — Pneumenon

He is an interesting philosopher, who certainly got a lot right. His writings on virtue are some of the best, and I have committed to memory some of his passages, especially from Book V of the Ethics. However, I think Spinoza paints a correct but incomplete picture; his philosophy is not critical - aware of its own limitations. The problem with his philosophy is that it doesn't provide a living answer - it's not sufficient to get someone to become virtuous - it does not teach virtue in and by itself. It cannot play that role - perhaps no work of philosophy can though, although artistic works, like Nietzsche's Zarathustra, Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, etc. do make it more likely.

Fear and Trembling, and the Sickness Unto Death, are two of my favorites. TSZ is next on my list after my Spinoza studies. :)

Yes and I think K is better than the Nietzsche tbh, but Nietzsche is quite good, so yes I do recommend TSZ :p . The thing is, Spinoza's philosophy MASKS and HIDES and CONCEALS what is most important. It attempts to account for everything, and it does, except that it never accounts for that which claims to account for everything (itself). This is obscured, and an illusion of all-comprehensiveness ensues. What accounts for his philosophy? Experience. But since our cognitive abilities are always partial and incomplete representations of reality (which always outruns the possibility of our experience), no philosophy as such can be complete. Thus, Spinoza also offers, after Plato, just another myth. Spinoza's philosophy does not reach this degree of self-awareness; it is not self-reflective (the way Wittgenstein is self-reflective in the Tractatus - at least the guy knows he's talking nonsense :D), and thus the reader risks being misled into a false sense of knowledge that is severed from its necessary experiential roots which gave birth to it in the first place. To truly understand Spinoza, one must retrace his steps by himself, and the moment Spinoza is used without understanding the origins of his symbols within your own experience, without appropriating him, he has been misunderstood. And so Spinoza fails at that Socratic mission of teaching virtue - of being a midwife - he HAS virtue, no doubt, but he can't teach it or share it, which ultimately reflects in Spinoza's relatively isolated life as an outcast - he didn't convince anyone, because reason alone is not sufficient to generate conviction - the will must also be moved.

One interesting perspective is Subversive Spinoza by Antonio Negri.

I've added Gilles Deleuze as a historical philosopher who responds to Spinoza in particular @Pneumenon, and recommended the works ! :) Don't know how I forgot him!

To truly understand Spinoza, one must retrace his steps by himself, and the moment Spinoza is used without understanding the origins of his symbols within your own experience, without appropriating him, he has been misunderstood. And so Spinoza fails at that Socratic mission of teaching virtue - of being a midwife - he HAS virtue, no doubt, but he can't teach it or share it, which ultimately reflects in Spinoza's relatively isolated life as an outcast - he didn't convince anyone, because reason alone is not sufficient to generate conviction - the will must also be moved. — Agustino

The statement of someone who lacks conviction and is still looking towards philosophy and myth to provide it. Virtue cannot be taught, only enacted. Neither philosophy nor art teach virtue. Both, including any sort of dry philosophy, may inspire virtue, by generating understanding and action within people.

Here the illusion is that any form of knowledge was meant to be all encompassing in the first place. Spinoza doesn't lack self-awareness. He just knows he is talking about something specific about, metaphysics, and tells it to its fullest extent. What he claimed was never all encompassing knowledge, but knowledge of the all encompassing logical expression (Substance).

His philosophy (along with many others) only fails if YOU mistakenly bring in the flawed expectation philosophy is going to be all encompassing and "save" us from worthlessness. The myth is in you, not Spinoza. Like any instance of media, Spinoza's philosophy is just a description of meaning. It's one of the many instances of knowledge which may inspire our will. It can "teach" (inspire) virtue in people, particularly with respect to metaphysics and our relationships to them.

For those of you who are drawn to Spinoza, would you be willing to share what makes him so attractive? I just can't get into him, I don't know what it is. Deleuze is one of my faves and he raves about Spinoza. Continental philosophers love him, scientists love him, historians love him, even analytic philosophers seem partial. But idk I just don't get it.

I will respond to this soon :)

For those of you who are drawn to Spinoza, would you be willing to share what makes him so attractive? I just can't get into him, I don't know what it is. Deleuze is one of my faves and he raves about Spinoza. Continental philosophers love him, scientists love him, historians love him, even analytic philosophers seem partial. But idk I just don't get it. — csalisbury

Spinoza is an ethicist - for him, the whole of philosophy is done for ethics - that is why even his magnum opus is called Ethica More Geometrico Demonstrata. Most philosophers - those that you have mentioned - are interested in Spinoza, surprise surprise, not for ethical reasons, but rather for his metaphysics. They want to take over Spinozist metaphysics because it avoids the difficulties of substance dualism, and is a coherent backbone for explaining the whole of reality, which accords physical science a fitting place. Furthermore, it is largely immanent, which means that it can allow them to dispense with God and/or the transcendent.

Despite this, Spinoza as a person must have been a very devoted believer - although he was also a very intelligent believer, and disagreed with the common conceptions of God. Spinoza lived an impeccable moral life, a moral life that would not have justified adultery, promiscuity, etc. In fact, neither would his philosophy, which condemns those acts to be similar to drinking poison. Spinoza, for me, is the first philosopher I have read who showed that "virtue is its own reward" - and who had supreme confidence in our capacity to identify virtue through reason. He was against the religion of his times, all of them, because people were hypocrites - they thought they were religious by going to Church, but when they went home, they still committed adultery, etc. Spinoza was against this mockery. He had faith that human beings were much better than this - and they could reach up to the potential of living the moral life. His intellectual martyrdom at the end of Ethica is awe inspiring:

"Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility [...] The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to recieve a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should preffer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These [common beliefs] are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning [...] Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them" - Benedictus de Spinoza

He admits, after his whole magnum opus, that if someone were not convinced by all his arguments, and all the metaphysics and philosophy - they would STILL have no reason, and hence no excuse, for being immoral. Spinoza's conception of freedom is NOT modern - it is pre-modern, and that's what makes it great. Even today, people associate freedom with lust, instead of with real morality. The whole of modern philosophy is a disgrace, and it is the greatest irony that these are the people who want to appropriate Spinoza, who lived a saintly life.

He admits, after his whole magnum opus, that if someone were not convinced by all his arguments, and all the metaphysics and philosophy - they would STILL have no reason, and hence no excuse, for being immoral. Spinoza's conception of freedom is NOT modern - it is pre-modern, and that's what makes it great. Even today, people associate freedom with lust, instead of with real morality. The whole of modern philosophy is a disgrace, and it is the greatest irony that these are the people who want to appropriate Spinoza, who lived a saintly life. — Agustino

I never understood how virtue is a reward unto itself. It's another Shibboleth to give meaning for what does not exist. Lust and listless pleasure for the sake of pleasure can be seen as the same thing no doubt. But since your gushing over virtue contra listless lusting (whatever that is), I'm just going to pick on that. It sounds like bragging in a high-minded manner- aka smug and self-righteous. I am not saying you are that, or all that you say is now moot, just that it comes off that way, which to me lacks a sort of virtue in itself (humility perhaps?). Anyways, virtue to me, is just a fancy word for self-improvement projects. Most people say they do self-improvement projects because it makes them "feel good", and that is the reward, thus negating the idea that it is for the sake of self-improvement qua self improvement. Now, I personally think there is a more rudimentary cause of why people seek self-improvement that is more than just their stock answer of "it feels good", but that would be going on a tangent.

I never understood how virtue is a reward unto itself. — schopenhauer1

I think S. states this to show, primarily, that it is UNREASONABLE not to pursue virtue - anyone who is reasonable must pursue it. I think furthermore, that since virtue is something that simply is the flowering of one's real nature and being, it cannot, by definition and once understood, be anything but a reward unto itself. Furthermore, S. combats those who aim to be virtuous for some other reason - he states "no no, don't avoid cheating on your wife because God will reward you in Heaven - avoid it because this is against your own nature here on Earth!" - in other words, don't prostitute yourself - don't be good in order to be paid - the only payment is the goodness itself.

It sounds like bragging in a high-minded manner- aka smug and self-righteous. — schopenhauer1

Knowledge of one's own virtue is dignity of character - it's not arrogance. Lack of this would be a false humility. I am well aware that modern society demands this false humility - it's a way to protect itself and its lack of virtue - no one can criticise them, or be a gadfly, as Socrates was a gadfly - because then they are labelled as arrogant.

"Greatness of mind or dignity of character; with elevation of sentiment, disdain of slavery, and with that noble pride and spirit, which arises from conscious virtue [...] To any one who duly considers of the matter, it will appear that this quality has a peculiar lustre, which it derives wholly from itself, and from that noble elevation inseparable from it" - David Hume, Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morality

For reasons such as these - Alexander the Great is, well, the Great! We call him the Great for his magnanimity - for his greatness of mind - and we do not label him as arrogant, etc. We respect him BECAUSE he showed no fear in situations where others would have cowered. So too, the moralist and the philosopher - like Socrates - will not cower in front of those who lack virtue, but will stand towering above. Remember that Socrates was dismissive in front of the court in Athens. He told them "Yeah, you bastards go ahead and kill me, but you will only hurt yourselves. You think you're hurting me... but you will see!" He mocked them in the court. Was Socrates arrogant? I don't think so. That quality is not called arrogance, as it is confidence based on truth.

Anyways, virtue to me, is just a fancy word for self-improvement projects. — schopenhauer1

Virtue is eudaimonia. Or in other words, virtue consists in development of character. Not self-improvement projects. Self-improvement projects may be part of virtuous living though, but they are not virtue. Virtue is the character being cultivated.

Now, I personally think there is a more rudimentary cause of why people seek self-improvement that is more than just their stock answer of "it feels good", but that would be going on a tangent. — schopenhauer1

Then go on a tangent and tell us what it is ;)

Also, one is not virtuous because "it feels good", but RATHER:
"Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself ; neither do we rejoice therein, because we control our lusts, but, contrariwise, because we rejoice therein, we are able to control our lusts." - B. Spinoza ;)

His philosophy (along with many others) only fails if YOU mistakenly bring in the flawed expectation philosophy is going to be all encompassing and "save" us from worthlessness. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:s You have become quite obsessed by worthlessness - you have started to see worthlessness everywhere. It's not there, but you always read it in! Talk about projecting...

Virtue cannot be taught, only enacted. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I disagree. If it cannot be taught, then the efforts of Socrates were for nothing. This, for a philosopher, is alike saying that Jesus's death was in vain for a Christian - blasphemy.

He just knows he is talking about something specific about, metaphysics, and tells it to its fullest extent. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It can "teach" (inspire) virtue in people, particularly with respect to metaphysics and our relationships to them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's not called Metaphysica. It's called Ethica ;)

I think S. states this to show, primarily, that it is UNREASONABLE not to pursue virtue - anyone who is reasonable must pursue it. — Agustino

Then what does your definition of reasonable entail? If you say that it follows the dictates of this metaphysical Reason that is behind all things, than that begs the question and just puts it in a loftier status.

Knowledge of one's own virtue is dignity of character - it's not arrogance. — Agustino

You say tomato, I say tomato. I'm just saying what it comes off as. To call boasting about one's virtue as dignity seems a bit of a stretch. Dignity would be not even mentioning it. Dignity is something which is shown but not stated.

Knowledge of one's own virtue is dignity of character - it's not arrogance. Lack of this would be a false humility. I am well aware that modern society demands this false humility - it's a way to protect itself and its lack of virtue - no one can criticise them, or be a gadfly, as Socrates was a gadfly - because then they are labelled as arrogant. — Agustino

No, rather false dignity is assuming one has knowledge of one's own (of course) virtuous character. Rather, one would just be a good person. It doesn't sound virtuous or inviting to be virtuous to shout one's accolades from the rooftops, um forums.

"Greatness of mind or dignity of character; with elevation of sentiment, disdain of slavery, and with that noble pride and spirit, which arises from conscious virtue [...] To any one who duly considers of the matter, it will appear that this quality has a peculiar lustre, which it derives wholly from itself, and from that noble elevation inseparable from it" - David Hume, Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morality — Agustino

I can't help but think that Mr. Hume and Mr. Spinoza might be saying the same thing that I am saying that most people pursue virtue (aka "self-improvement" plans) because it makes them feel good. "Peculiar lustre", and "noble elevation" meaning a sort of pleasure of the mind from doing high-minded self-improving stuff.

He mocked them in the court. Was Socrates arrogant? I don't think so. That quality is not called arrogance, as it is confidence based on truth. — Agustino

He could have also been arrogant. But, if he knew that he was going to die no matter what, why not rub their faces in it and let them know the great error of killing someone like himself? Seems like a very human thing to do in that situation. I'd probably try to mock them too. Of course probably not with the prose and wit as translated through Plato's prose.

Virtue is eudaimonia. Or in other words, virtue consists in development of character. Not self-improvement projects. Self-improvement projects may be part of virtuous living though, but they are not virtue. Virtue is the character being cultivated. — Agustino

Virtue is the goal and the path to virtue is self-improvement plans..But virtue is not a thing, it is a consistent following of patterns that of actions and responses such that it becomes habituated thinking. In the Western world this takes the form of self-help books. If one wants to feel a bit more fancy about it with more systematization (of varying degrees), one reaches for a Spinoza or Aristotle or Epictetus. Or you can think all of it is bullshit we do to keep our minds occupied, and this seems the most user-friendly version for those who have personalities that gravitate to this sort of thing. There are some personalities that take to following what they view to be foundational ethical practices- usually the ones commonly taught in societies. In Western societies they are often found in philosophical, religious, or other things. In tribal societies, I wonder if this would play out as the tribesman with the most knowledge of sacred rituals and the one most ardent in making sure people follow them.

Then go on a tangent and tell us what it is — Agustino

I just kind of did in my previous paragraph there, but to reiterate, we are motivated out of supreme existential boredom and survival. Some personalities, and individuals like filling time following some system of ethics. Much of the reason why this happens is society shapes people's desire through institutions, subtle coercion, and education to divert their existential listlessness in what is productive for that society. What is productive for that society is what it has deemed useful to survive.

Then what does your definition of reasonable entail? If you say that it follows the dictates of this metaphysical Reason that is behind all things, than that begs the question and just puts it in a loftier status. — schopenhauer1

Reasonable is what follows once the nature or being or essence of something is understood. The properties of circles follow once the essence of a circle is understood. They follow necessarily. Likewise morality follows necessarily once the nature of man is understood.

You say tomato, I say tomato. I'm just saying what it comes off as. To call boasting about one's virtue as dignity seems a bit of a stretch. Dignity would be not even mentioning it. Dignity is something which is shown but not stated. — schopenhauer1

I haven't stated it. You have assumed, and I responded to your assumption, since you seem to be more interested in the character that I have, and why I have it. So I am just explaining. It's not boasting when it's true, also keep that in mind.

No, rather false dignity is assuming one has knowledge of one's own (of course) virtuous character. Rather, one would just be a good person. It doesn't sound virtuous or inviting to be virtuous to shout one's accolades from the rooftops, um forums. — schopenhauer1

Yes it doesn't. I haven't done that, let me remind you once again. I didnt come here shouting I am virtuous, all of you bow! You have said my remarks come off as that, so I addressed it only because you have to begin with. So don't raise the dust and then pretend you cannot see.

I can't help but think that Mr. Hume and Mr. Spinoza might be saying the same thing that I am saying that most people pursue virtue (aka "self-improvement" plans) because it makes them feel good. "Peculiar lustre", and "noble elevation" meaning a sort of pleasure of the mind from doing high-minded self-improving stuff. — schopenhauer1

Virtue is not self-improvement. I've already covered that it has to do with character. Projects of self-improvement may or may not be part of character building.

But, if he knew that he was going to die no matter what, why not rub their faces in it and let them know the great error of killing someone like himself? — schopenhauer1

No, in fact, he didn't know this as he had MULTIPLE chances to escape if he had wanted to ;)

Virtue is the goal and the path to virtue is self-improvement plans — schopenhauer1

Not necessarily. Some of the virtues can be gained merely through understanding, not any sort of what is associated with self-improvement projects, which do not consist of mere understanding, but of actually doing something.

In the Western world this takes the form of self-help books. If one wants to feel a bit more fancy about it with more systematization (of varying degrees), one reaches for a Spinoza or Aristotle or Epictetus. — schopenhauer1

No, there is something admirable about people like Epictetus, Socrates, Alexander the Great, etc. they are not just any other human being. They are great. It is not, contrary to what you say here:

Or you can think all of it is bullshit we do to keep our minds occupied, and this seems the most user-friendly version for those who have personalities that gravitate to this sort of thing. There are some personalities that take to following what they view to be foundational ethical practices- usually the ones commonly taught in societies. — schopenhauer1

It's not just a personality. It is something more, something authentically superior about those people. That is virtue.

I just kind of did in my previous paragraph there, but to reiterate, we are motivated out of supreme existential boredom and survival. — schopenhauer1

Survival yes - boredom no. Boredom occurs when we are not motivated - it's exactly the opposite of motivation. Boredom cannot motivate - by definition, since it is the absence of all motivation. The person who is motivated is not bored, and the person who is bored is not motivated. For this reason, boredom cannot act as a motivating factor. If it did, it could not be the opposite of the motivated state.

Alexander - probably motivated by the desire to be great and to achieve the impossible
Socrates - probably motivated by the desire to teach virtue to others in order to create a virtuous society
Plato - probably motivated by the desire to outline what the Just man and Just society consist in... also by a love of Agathon
Aristotle - probably motivated by the desire to understand the whole of Nature
etc.

Reasonable is what follows once the nature or being or essence of something is understood. The properties of circles follow once the essence of a circle is understood. They follow necessarily. Likewise morality follows necessarily once the nature of man is understood. — Agustino

Ok, so there is your definition of reasonable. Your conceit is now that there is a "nature of man" to be understood. That is a lump of clay anyone can interpret is anything.. Rhetoric can justify its reason for your interpretation for it, but the premises are going to be mighty shaky.

I haven't stated it. You have assumed, and I responded to your assumption, since you seem to be more interested in the character that I have, and why I have it. So I am just explaining. It's not boasting when it's true, also keep that in mind. — Agustino

Just by asserting virtue in the picture is a sort of boasting. I see virtue theory as boasting. You mine as well be a metaphorical Conan the Barbarian flaunting his strength and pounding his chest in the "strength of his character" (whatever that means..). We are living in a communal world. No one is an island. Your virtue is a signal to others.. a boastful symbol of your awesome strength. You can fool yourself all you want otherwise.

Yes it doesn't. I haven't done that, let me remind you once again. I didnt come here shouting I am virtuous, all of you bow! You have said my remarks come off as that, so I addressed it only because you have to begin with. So don't raise the dust and then pretend you cannot see. — Agustino

You talked about the morality of most people, and how they are not virtuous (assuming like you, or at least your philosophical heroes in the pantheon of Reason who are the truly good people). No, not indirectly boastful or self-righteous

— Agustino

No, in fact, he didn't know this as he had MULTIPLE chances to escape if he had wanted to

So he really wanted them to pay by having a martyr. Not the first time. Also, remember, like the Bible, this stuff is literature and history combined.

It's not just a personality. It is something more, something authentically superior about those people. That is virtue. — Agustino

No, this is not self-righteous either.. "superior" "something more". This is building castles of sand. There is no more, there is no authentically superior, except in the value that an admirer places on them.

Survival yes - boredom no. Boredom occurs when we are not motivated - it's exactly the opposite of motivation. Boredom cannot motivate - by definition, since it is the absence of all motivation. The person who is motivated is not bored, and the person who is bored is not motivated. For this reason, boredom cannot act as a motivating factor. If it did, it could not be the opposite of the motivated state. — Agustino

Really? Sit in a room and do nothing for hours on end, with little stimulation except your own thoughts. Some monks can do it, but they are actually doing something- usually mental exercises. Anyways, you will get bored and be "motivated" to do something to not be bored. Seems to me boredom motivates more than anything else. Many people would rather do mindless chores and upkeep on their possessions than be bored.

Your conceit is now that there is a "nature of man" to be understood. That is a lump of clay anyone can interpret is anything.. Rhetoric can justify its reason for your interpretation for it, but the premises are going to be mighty shaky. — schopenhauer1

Prove it. What shall you use? Reason? Or will you use un-reason? If you use reason, then we're playing the same game. So prove it to me. Prove it to me that this "nature of man" can be anything.

Just by asserting virtue in the picture is a sort of boasting. I see virtue theory as boasting. You mine as well be a metaphorical Conan the Barbarian flaunting his strength and pounding his chest in the "strength of his character" (whatever that means..). We are living in a communal world. No one is an island. Your virtue is a signal to others.. a boastful symbol of your awesome strength. You can fool yourself all you want otherwise. — schopenhauer1

Yes, well said, YOU see it as boasting, you are interpreting it that way, and I see that it is annoying you. You have a problem with me being virtuous. Why? Let's interrogate this. What about it makes you feel bad? When I see someone like Socrates for example - I feel all but admiration for them, and I wish to emulate them, because their virtue is greater than mine. I don't react like "OMG what an ass this person is boasting of his strength of character, etc.". I look at him, and say "I wanna be like that too!"

You talked about the morality of most people, and how they are not virtuous (assuming like you, or at least your philosophical heroes in the pantheon of Reason who are the truly good people). No, not indirectly boastful or self-righteous — schopenhauer1

Yes, does this annoy you? Why?

Really? Sit in a room and do nothing for hours on end, with little stimulation except your own thoughts. Some monks can do it, but they are actually doing something- usually mental exercises. Anyways, you will get bored and be "motivated" to do something to not be bored. Seems to me boredom motivates more than anything else. Many people would rather do mindless chores and upkeep on their possessions than be bored. — schopenhauer1

I've done this already. I can be quite content sitting for long times doing nothing too. I never get bored. But, suppose I were to lock myself in such a room for a very long period of time - I figure I would begin to lose my sanity, not that I will be bored and look to do something. I will simply lose my humanity, by not relating with other people.

Prove it. What shall you use? Reason? Or will you use un-reason? If you use reason, then we're playing the same game. So prove it to me. Prove it to me that this "nature of man" can be anything. — Agustino

We are restless Will that strives for things. By necessity, time passes and strive for things.. yadayada.. oh hell with it.. Here is a good start so I don't have to give a whole damn treatise: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38427/38427-pdf.pdf

But wait.. that's not all so is this: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39064/39064-h/39064-h.html

But wait...there's this: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm

And on and on.. Yep, people can reason many ways to explain human nature. There are many variations of this theme.

Yes, well said, YOU see it as boasting, you are interpreting it that way, and I see that it is annoying you. You have a problem with me being virtuous. Why? Let's interrogate this. What about it makes you feel bad? When I see someone like Socrates for example - I feel all but admiration for them, and I wish to emulate them, because their virtue is greater than mine. I don't react like "OMG what an ass this person is boasting of his strength of character, etc.". I look at him, and say "I wanna be like that too!" — Agustino

Holy shit, you have to get off the high horse now before it's too late! I always imagined people who had "good character" (even though that really doesn't exist in my mind) never really talked about it much because they were living it. That is why I am suspect.. The whole Virtue crew (Epictetus bunch and others), seemed a bit too conspicuous with their talk and show.. Always seemed a bit overstated. I don't feel bad as much as irritated that you think that you are superior.. Also, I really couldn't give a crap if is trying to be virtuous or not. Virtue to me is a non-concept, a reification. It more irritates me in the fact that you think this reification makes some people better or more superior than others. But perhaps this is just a difference in our preferences. When I see someone "trying" to be virtuous- in the way you describe it at least, I think they are arrogant. You want to join. If you find some people admirable, good for you.. Not everyone else has to follow in what you think is admirable. I only feel bad because you are framing it that way.. It reminds me a bit of Nietzsche and the ubermensch and that nonsense. It's also why I am not into the self-help fads either...Understandably most of those are way less systematic, but just as pedantically self-righteous with usually less complexity.

es, does this annoy you? Why? — Agustino

That quote was trying to show the indirect boasting about the truly good people etc..

I've done this already. I can be quite content sitting for long times doing nothing too. I never get bored. But, suppose I were to lock myself in such a room for a very long period of time - I figure I would begin to lose my sanity, not that I will be bored and look to do something. I will simply lose my humanity, by not relating with other people. — Agustino

Bullshit, you would get bored.. But of course, who am I to tell you what you will do. Do nothing for long periods, you get sick of hearing yourself talk to yourself. If you don't get bored ever, and you have never done something because you would be bored otherwise, then you are the first human to do so.

We are restless Will that strives for things. By necessity, time passes and strive for things.. yadayada.. oh hell with it.. Here is a good start so I don't have to give a whole damn treatise: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38427/38427-pdf.pdf

But wait.. that's not all so is this: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39064/39064-h/39064-h.html

But wait...there's this: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm

And on and on.. Yep, people can reason many ways to explain human nature. There are many variations of this theme. — schopenhauer1

No - many of these are in large agreement with each other by the way. And even if they can put forward many theories, it doesn't mean they are all correct, neither does it mean that we cannot discover which approximates the truth better, neither does it mean that we shouldn't try. This is a weak and lazy attempt schopenhauer1 ... one expects better from a philosopher, these sound more like the words of philistines, with no personal analysis of the matter at all.

I always imagined people who had "good character" (even though that really doesn't exist in my mind) never really talked about it much because they were living it. That is why I am suspect.. The whole Virtue crew (Epictetus bunch and others), seemed a bit too conspicuous with their talk and show.. Always seemed a bit overstated. — schopenhauer1

Fine, I see that you have a problem with many of the wise people from the past as well.

don't feel bad as much as irritated that you think that you are superior.. — schopenhauer1

Why are you irritated that I think I am superior? Do you really fear that I am superior? A person who knows the truth, would not have such fears now, would they? But it seems you are uncertain - maybe maybe - I am superior, and that is worrying you. Again - it's a problem you have manufactured and have read into me. I never claimed to be superior. I never even thought about it. You are thinking about it in that manner.

It more irritates me in the fact that you think this reification makes some people better or more superior than others. — schopenhauer1

Virtue does make people more noble - this does not mean that it makes them superior. Before God (morally) we are all equal.

If you don't get bored ever, and you have never done something because you would be bored otherwise, then you are the first human to do so. — schopenhauer1

Well okay, I am the first human to do so. Do I get a prize? Seriously, what's the point of having a discussion if we can't even trust what we say we have experienced? If we're going to doubt each other's experiences, and claim "no you haven't" when someone claims something, without even offering a different interpretation of the experience in question, there's really no point in having a discussion is there? I'm willing to listen to you and take what you say into consideration, but I feel you are not willing to do the same when it comes to me - because you have separated yourself from me, by putting me in the superior category in your mind, and obviously keeping yourself in the inferior category. When I read Epictetus, I don't mind being inferior to him - because I know that I too, given sufficient effort and time, will become like him. I am happy to see, in fact, that a human being could become like that. It means that I too can become so! So my mind never rushes to categorise inferior/superior. That simply doesn't matter to me. Epictetus, and many others, are images which motivate me.

This is a weak and lazy attempt schopenhauer1 ... one expects better from a philosopher, these sound more like the words of philistines, with no personal analysis of the matter at all. — Agustino

I'm honestly not up to give a complete picture of my worldview right now correct, but providing Schop's view is a good stand in for now.

Why are you irritated that I think I am superior? Do you really fear that I am superior? A person who knows the truth, would not have such fears now, would they? But it seems you are uncertain - maybe maybe - I am superior, and that is worrying you. Again - it's a problem you have manufactured and have read into me. I never claimed to be superior. I never even thought about it. You are thinking about it in that manner. — Agustino

You don't have to state it.. you exude it in your posts.. Mind you that you "think" you are superior, not that you are.

Virtue does make people more noble - this does not mean that it makes them superior. Before God (morally) we are all equal. — Agustino

What the hell, are we in an episode of Game of Thrones? Nobility is again, simply a societal concept- a signal to others of some sort of showing of "better". But just like virtue, it stands on nothing of substance. It's a non-concept made real by custom.

I'm willing to listen to you and take what you say into consideration, but I feel you are not willing to do the same when it comes to me - because you have separated yourself from me, by putting me in the superior category in your mind, and obviously keeping yourself in the inferior category. When I read Epictetus, I don't mind being inferior to him - because I know that I too, given sufficient effort and time, will become like him. I am happy to see, in fact, that a human being could become like that. It means that I too can become so! — Agustino

Because what you say is so far removed from what I have experienced, and what other people have shared as what is part of their human experience, it is suspect.

I'm willing to listen to you and take what you say into consideration, but I feel you are not willing to do the same when it comes to me - because you have separated yourself from me, by putting me in the superior category in your mind, and obviously keeping yourself in the inferior category. When I read Epictetus, I don't mind being inferior to him - because I know that I too, given sufficient effort and time, will become like him. I am happy to see, in fact, that a human being could become like that. It means that I too can become so! — Agustino

No, it is not the case at all. I don't put you in a superior category, just someone who thinks there is, or thinks that Epictetus is in a better category than himself. This is one step away from the religious adherent viewing this or that person as having holy status- another reification and non-concept.

Yes, if someone masters something, or improves in something, good for them! Sometimes I am even impressed. Virtue, however is kind of bullshit. Improving this or that is one thing, and usually done so people feel good, or better about themselves, or because they simply enjoy it (all pretty much the same thing). Virtue, on the other hand, is simply people trying to signal some sort of superiority of their actions. Do or do not, there is no virtue, except in as far as impressing others with one's awesome actions.

What I think virtue actually is (besides a way to boast), is a certain society's recipe as to how to live successfully in that society. It is no coincidence that the virtues of ancient Greece, the virtues of Benjamin Franklin, the virtues of just about anything from Western history is what is the ideal to survive in most civilizations, which just deflates it to a sort of consequentialism.

.

I'm honestly not up to give a complete picture of my worldview right now correct, but providing Schop's view is a good stand in for now. — schopenhauer1

LOL! Yes - you certainly chose the perfect example :p ... (by the way, you should've chosen Hegel, I know far far less Hegel than Schopenhauer, who I've studied extensively especially for the last two years!) Since Schopenhauer is one of the philosophers I admire most, I cannot let his genius be used as support for the highest abominations of thought. All quotes from WWR Vol I

"I take up again the thread of our discussion of the ethical significance of conduct, to show how, from the same source from which all goodness, affection, VIRTUE, and NOBILITY OF CHARACTER spring, there ultimately also arises what I call denial of the will-to-live" page 377

"We feel on seeing any very unfortunate person a certain kind of esteem akin to that which virtue and nobility of character force from us[...] We cannot help but regard every suffering, both those felt by ourselves and those felt by others, as at least a possible advance towards virtue and holiness" page 396

"Thus we see that genuine virtue and saintliness of disposition have their first origin not in deliberate free choice (works), but in knowledge (faith)" page 406

It's certainly no good to get one's views of Schopenhauer from wikipedia.

You don't have to state it.. you exude it in your posts.. Mind you that you "think" you are superior, not that you are. — schopenhauer1

Okay so don't run away from the question I have asked. You still haven't answered it. What irritates you about me thinking that I am superior?

But just like virtue, it stands on nothing of substance. It's a non-concept made real by custom. — schopenhauer1

Schopenhauer disagreed ;)

Because what you say is so far removed from what I have experienced, and what other people have shared as what is part of their human experience, it is suspect. — schopenhauer1

Maybe from what you've experienced. Certainly not from what others have experienced. Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, etc.

Virtue, however is kind of bullshit. — schopenhauer1

Again, Schopenhauer did not agree with this nonsense :)

What I think virtue actually is (besides a way to boast), is a certain society's recipe as to how to live successfully in that society. — schopenhauer1

Virtue has often times, even as Schopenhauer argues, been associated with that which leads towards the denial of the will-to-live and hence to something that is NOT necessarily socially useful.

That's still metaphysics though, just those of ethics, namely that there is never an excuse for immorality. It's always committed for no reason at all. Freedom is not, as people frequently treat it, something constrained by outside forces. It is an absolute, infinite aspect of every moment of our lives: the fact we have no reason for committing immoral acts.

My point was, following on from your impression that Spinoza's philosophy didn't "teach" ethics, is that he doesn't focus on inspiring any particular contention to an ethical way of acting, such as a code of law or specific ethical command issue to society. But... that this doesn't preclude Spinoza's philosophy from inspiring ethical will in some situations and certainly doesn't make it incomplete, for it was never meant to pass on knowledge in the form of ethical commands.

I disagree. If it cannot be taught, then the efforts of Socrates were for nothing. This, for a philosopher, is alike saying that Jesus's death was in vain for a Christian - blasphemy. — Agustino

You're not reading. I outright said the exact opposite: that understanding of virtue is frequently inspired all the time through writing and teaching. This, however, is has to be done. You can't just sit there proclaiming virtues, telling people to try for "perfection" and walk away thinking that's the teaching of virtue. People have to actually have to learn them.

My point is you are bewitched by the appearance of "teaching" virtue, substituting it for the learning of virtue. You are so proud of yourself for saying what's virtuous that you think it's enough to teach virtue. It's why your philosophical engagement amounts to boasting about your own wisdom and pulling proclamations from genius philosophers. You are in love the appearance of wisdom, but unwilling to move any further.

When people learn and respect virtue, there is only perfection in those moments, they have done exactly what they have ought to, so there is no "try." For the moment in question, they have DONE perfectly. They are virtuous.

This is why your "trying for perfection" amounts to a failure to understand ethics. You use the same misunderstood notion of "freedom" that you decry. You don't demand people act ethically (i.e. "perfectly" ), you treat as if their freedom is constrained by outside forces which give them a reason for acting immoral, such the merely trying to be ethical (perfect) is somehow good enough.

You have become quite obsessed by worthlessness - you have started to see worthlessness everywhere. It's not there, but you always read it in! Talk about projecting... — Agustino

I don't doubt that's what you think of the world I propose. In saying there is a world which is, sometimes, infinitely evil (i.e. immoral states which have no resolution), I am denying the perfect world you hold so dear, the world where evil can be resolved of paid for through future actions.

The world I am suggesting is, indeed, irrevocable worthless in a sense: immorality has no reason and can never be undone. So many act of expressing infinite evil all the time... a world full of worthlessness.

Yet, this does not make the world worthless. This is what you do not understand. You have not accepted that the world is sometimes worthless, but that we can nevertheless have moments of perfection (the ethical). You're always chasing a way to resolve worthlessness: retribution here, proclamations that we try to be perfect there, etc.,etc., rather than accepting that some state of the world are worthless and we cannot get around that, no matter how much death, torture, shame, apologies and virtue we might happen to use.

You don't respect the seriousness of immorality. Even you calls for punishment, are bound-up in somehow justifying the presence of immorality in the world, rather than stating how we ought to act towards someone after they do something. You are in love with the appearance of a world without worthlessness, with the myth that infinite evil can be undone, that it can be retroactively justified through our actions, such that everything might be "perfect. (well, as close as possible anyway)"

I am rather obsessed by worthlessness, namely recognising for what it is, rather than pretending it is all an illusion because I'm consumed by the thought that a world with immorality without reason amounts to the destruction of anything ethical.

highest abominations of thought — Agustino

Really? Abominations? Not wanting to explain my whole philosophy in a particular post is an abomination now?

I take up again the thread of our discussion of the ethical significance of conduct, to show how, from the same source from which all goodness, affection, VIRTUE, and NOBILITY OF CHARACTER spring, there ultimately also arises what I call denial of the will-to-live" — Agustino

Yes, any Schopenhauerian knows that he thought that certain people could become ascetics and have capacity to serve others (compassion). This was a hypothetical imperative- to overcome the Will's imperative. Those are his recommendations. I also don't agree with his idea of nobility of character, or his idea of character in general. I don't subscribe slavishily to Schopenhauer, but respect much of his core views. I used his philosophy as a proxy for "I am tired and not willing to write a whole treatise, especially when I have done this more or less for many years anyways in other posts." It was also used to prove that human nature is argued about, and there is no way the matter is settled due to strong conviction that one is more reasonable and has thus found the answer. This was more constrained to arguing the validity of virtue theory. I also admire Spinoza's neutral monism. But, this doesn't mean I agree with his ideas on virtue. Yes, they are system-builders and much of what they say follows from previous statements, but I don't care- I like some things, and don't like others in their systems.

It's certainly no good to get one's views of Schopenhauer from wikipedia. — Agustino

This is a trolling statement. Is this the fruits of being virtuous? Snide remarks on what you deem as your internet interlocutors?

Okay so don't run away from the question I have asked. You still haven't answered it. What irritates you about me thinking that I am superior? — Agustino

I don't know- because it borders on narcissism and narcissism turns me off? I am averse to such people. That's all I can say. It's arrogant, and whatever virtue is- it seems to me humility is a large part of it. I believe I know people who are good people, at least in terms of how classic societies view it, and thinking themselves as better in some way is not part of it. Well, if they do, it's not stated- following the virtue of humility and whatever else prevents someone from sounding arrogant.

Schopenhauer disagreed ;) — Agustino

Then I disagree with Schopenhauer.

Maybe from what you've experienced. Certainly not from what others have experienced. Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, etc. — Agustino

Very different people whose texts that are attributed to them conveyed different types of ethics- though like anything you can draw comparisons. Who are you to know what the real person felt? Even if they literally said they don't get bored, and this was verified as a true statement, I would not believe them. You like reifying and deifying it seems. This does not refute my sentiments and does not bolster the idea that virtue exists.

Really? Abominations? Not wanting to explain my whole philosophy in a particular post is an abomination now? — schopenhauer1

Yes you did want to, that's why you gave me Schopenhauer's system no? You directed me towards it, I didn't just randomly choose it, did I?

Then I disagree with Schopenhauer. — schopenhauer1

Then please don't tell me that your thought is explained or supported by Schopenhauer, because I have read Schopenhauer, and I know it isn't.

I don't subscribe slavishily to Schopenhauer, but respect much of his core views. — schopenhauer1

The belief in virtue and nobility IS a core part of Schopenhauer's philosophy. According to S. virtue comes prior to the denial of the will and is motivated by the same sentiments that motivated the denial of the will when fully expanded on. Some people reach up to virtue and never go beyond to the denial of the will. In fact, S. spends quite a few chapters discussing virtue in the last book of his WWR Volume I.

It was also used to prove that human nature is argued about, and there is no way the matter is settled due to strong conviction that one is more reasonable and has thus found the answer. — schopenhauer1

No, not settled due to strong conviction, settled by argument instead.

Yes, they are system-builders and much of what they say follows from previous statements, but I don't care- I like some things, and don't like others in their systems. — schopenhauer1

Good, thanks for at least admitting that you are irrational, and you will freely discard parts of systems, regardless of the demands of reasons to agree to what follows from some of the statements...

This is a trolling statement. Is this the fruits of being virtuous? Snide remarks on what you deem as your internet interlocutors? — schopenhauer1

It's not a snide remark - it's there to show that if you want to argue against virtue ethics, then you need a lot more than snide and arrogant pretences and (false) appeals to other philosophers. You need to actually expound a coherent system, and actually provide justification and arguments, not mere assertions. And by the way, most disagreement in philosophical history has generally been over metaphysics and epistemology, NOT over ethics. Most philosophers have expounded radically similar ethical theories.

I don't know- because it borders on narcissism and narcissism turns me off? — schopenhauer1

No it doesn't. For one, narcism is defined as excessive love of self. More than one's self deserves in other words. If one is superior, it follows that his self deserves more love - does it not? So if you think one is superior, then you can't accuse them of narcissism. On the other hand, how is saying "I am virtuous" for example, love of self? Love of self is, when we don't have enough food to fully fill both of us, me taking that food and eating it all myself. That is narcissism. When one says "I am virtuous and therefore I deserve more bread than you do", that is narcissism. But when one states "I am virtuous" - there is no narcissism in that, just a statement. Not to mention that I didn't even say that I am fully virtuous, and I have said, in one of the other threads, that I have been wrong many times.

It's arrogant, and whatever virtue is- it seems to me humility is a large part of it. — schopenhauer1

Hopefully you don't mean false humility. Because Schopenhauer, whose name you bear, had this to say about false humility and modesty:

"For what is modesty, if not false humility which someone with merits and advantages uses to beg the pardon of those who have none? Someone who does not claim to merit because he has none is being honest, not modest"

Very different people whose texts that are attributed to them conveyed different types of ethics — schopenhauer1

Wrong. For example - Buddhism, just as Christianity, condemns sexual immorality and even has a specific rule against it for lay people:

"He avoids unlawful sexual intercourse, abstains from it. He has no intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father or mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women, nor female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls."

Also, I expected someone who has read WWR Volume I to be aware of the many similarities between Buddhism and Christianity for example, which despite the distances between the regions where the two religions formed and flourished, nevertheless exist, and Schopenhauer takes great pains to point them out continuously through the book.

Who are you to know what the real person felt? — schopenhauer1

And who are you to question the evidence that exists? On what basis are you questioning it? On the basis of your feelings?

Even if they literally said they don't get bored, and this was verified as a true statement, I would not believe them. — schopenhauer1

Yes, but then you are being irrational. You have no reason to disbelieve them, except your self-supported fantasies.

This does not refute my sentiments and does not bolster the idea that virtue exists. — schopenhauer1

No of course it doesn't refute your SENTIMENTS. How could it? Words don't refute feelings. That you feel this way is a given fact. You don't feel like trusting these sources. But again, that is a feeling, and not a reason. So I acknowledge your feeling, but have to say once again that this has no bearing on the rational discourse we are, both I am assuming, trying to carry here.

Yes you did want to, that's why you gave me Schopenhauer's system no? You directed me towards it, I didn't just randomly choose it, did I? — Agustino

Again, I was proving that people have different understandings of human nature- all (according to them and their admirers) "reasonable". Again, I was explaining how my view is different than yours, and it was a proxy for that- and then subsequently explained that I am not a slavish adherent to every word in the WWR (Schopenhauer).

Then please don't tell me that your thought is explained or supported by Schopenhauer, because I have read Schopenhauer, and I know it isn't. — Agustino

My thought on character is not "supported by Schopenhauer" but my views on boredom, survival, and life's general tendency to never be fully satisfied align with Schopenhauer.

No, not settled due to strong conviction, settled by argument instead. — Agustino

Making a consistent argument is not making a sound argument. Stumping an opponent isn't even a sound argument, just a good rhetorician- ask Socrates.

Good, thanks for at least admitting that you are irrational, and you will freely discard parts of systems, regardless of the demands of reasons to agree to what follows from some of the statements... — Agustino

It's not irrational to have discernment and not follow every conclusion? You can find some things to be true and others not. No one is perfect- even if some have more of a ring of truth in their sentiments and statements.

No it doesn't. For one, narcism is defined as excessive love of self. More than one's self deserves in other words. If one is superior, it follows that his self deserves more love - does it not? So if you think one is superior, then you can't accuse them of narcissism. On the other hand, how is saying "I am virtuous" for example, love of self? Love of self is, when we don't have enough food to fully fill both of us, me taking that food and eating it all myself. That is narcissism. When one says "I am virtuous and therefore I deserve more bread than you do", that is narcissism. But when one states "I am virtuous" - there is no narcissism in that, just a statement. Not to mention that I didn't even say that I am fully virtuous, and I have said, in one of the other threads, that I have been wrong many times. — Agustino

No, you have narcissism wrong then. It does not have to take the crude form of simply being selfish. One can give quite largely and be narcissistic. All it takes is being conspicuously boastful about it and make people know that your efforts or this and that virtuous act. Meanwhile, the humble person just does a good act, and doesn't need the recognition, praise, or even label as being "virtuous". Perhaps someone else might view this, but they would never look at it this way themselves.

Wrong. For example - Buddhism, just as Christianity, condemns sexual immorality and even has a specific rule against it for lay people: — Agustino

You truly excel at twisting my meanings. I don't view Socrates/Plato/Aristotle's virtues proper as the same as the Schopenhauer's conception of "virtue" being compassion and ascetic contemplation. Virtue proper is very much "of this world"- the type of thing Schopenhauer was against. It is a way to thrive in civilization. You can have an excess of rich living off the populous and an excess of poor living off the populous, but as long as there is a large middle carrying out their virtuous lifestyle- society will thrive. Asceticism renounces this world in a Gnostic-like fashion. This world is the world of Maya and suffering, thus one is compelled to be free of its fetters through world-renounciation, not mere character building. Now, this is not necessarily my view of ethics, but I am showing its difference with virtue theory proper. Despite Schop's use of virtue- it is rather different than Stoic/Aristotlean/Platonic visions of virtue. Thus my original statement that these may be philosophers deemed as "virtuous" but different conceptions of virtue.

Also, I expected someone who has read WWR Volume I to be aware of the many similarities between Buddhism and Christianity for example, which despite the distances between the regions where the two religions formed and flourished, nevertheless exist, and Schopenhauer takes great pains to point them out continuously through the book. — Agustino

There are similarities as explained, but for very different reasons.

And who are you to question the evidence that exists? On what basis are you questioning it? On the basis of your feelings? — Agustino

On the basis of my experience and what others experience. If you want, go read more Schopenhauer on it, he discusses this at length- his pendulum swing.

No of course it doesn't refute your SENTIMENTS. How could it? Words don't refute feelings. That you feel this way is a given fact. You don't feel like trusting these sources. But again, that is a feeling, and not a reason. So I acknowledge your feeling, but have to say once again that this has no bearing on the rational discourse we are, both I am assuming, trying to carry here. — Agustino

Because its like saying "I have never felt sad in my life". It is so part of the human experience that I don't need rational discourse. It is a given. Humans have emotions. Humans have motivations. Humans are trying to survive, and if they are not surviving or anxious about this or that little uncomfortable feeling- then they are motivated by boredom. This leads to the plethora of what we pursue.
.

My thought on character is not "supported by Schopenhauer" but my views on boredom, survival, and life's general tendency to never be fully satisfied align with Schopenhauer. — schopenhauer1

No, S. did not think boredom was a motivating force. He thought the existence of boredom is proof that existence in this world is worthless. He identified boredom with the direct awareness of the world's worthlessness.

Making a consistent argument is not making a sound argument. Stumping an opponent isn't even a sound argument, just a good rhetorician- ask Socrates. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, did I say otherwise in the bit which you quoted?

It's not irrational to have discernment and not follow every conclusion? — schopenhauer1

While granting the premises? That's impossible. You must disagree with at least one premise.

All it takes is being conspicuously boastful about it and make people know that your efforts or this and that virtuous act. — schopenhauer1

About which virtuous act have I made people aware? :D

Meanwhile, the humble person just does a good act, and doesn't need the recognition, praise, or even label as being "virtuous". — schopenhauer1

Yes, exactly, so the humble person is the one trying to convince the others of the goodness of virtue :)

I don't view Socrates/Plato/Aristotle's virtues proper as the same as the Schopenhauer's conception of "virtue" — schopenhauer1

They are almost the same. The difference is that Schopenhauer claims that virtue is not the end - unlike Aristotle for example. Instead, the end is what is beyond virtue - denial of the will-to-live.

. Virtue proper is very much "of this world"- the type of thing Schopenhauer was against — schopenhauer1

He was against it ONLY from the vantage point of the denial of the will to live. Not from the vantage point of the average person, a vantage point from which virtue is very important.

This world is the world of Maya and suffering, thus one is compelled to be free of its fetters through world-renounciation, not mere character building. — schopenhauer1

Exactly, a step beyond mere virtue.

Despite Schop's use of virtue- it is rather different than Stoic/Aristotlean/Platonic visions of virtue. — schopenhauer1

Nope. For Schopenhauer, prudence was still a virtue, so was courage, so was temperance, so was justice, so were ALL the other virtues of Aristotle/Plato.

On the basis of my experience and what others experience. — schopenhauer1

-_- yes, what "others" experience after you eliminate those whose experiences are not valid right?

and if they are not surviving or anxious about this or that little uncomfortable feeling- then they are motivated by boredom. — schopenhauer1

No - boredom does not motivate. What motivates is the will-to-live, according to Schopenhauer.

No, S. did not think boredom was a motivating force. He thought the existence of boredom is proof that existence in this world is worthless. — Agustino

While certainly I agree he said this sentiment, and I agree with him very much so on this point, there a many quotes just from his shorter works on the motivations of boredom including but not limited to these:

Certain it is that work, worry, labor and trouble, form the lot of almost all men their whole life long. But if all wishes were fulfilled as soon as they arose, how would men occupy their lives? what would they do with their time? If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature. — Schopenhauer

and this..

Boredom is a form of suffering unknown to brutes, at any rate in their natural state; it is only the very cleverest of them who show faint traces of it when they are domesticated; whereas in the case of man it has become a downright scourge. The crowd of miserable wretches whose one aim in life is to fill their purses but never to put anything into their heads, offers a singular instance of this torment of boredom. Their wealth becomes a punishment by delivering them up to misery of having nothing to do; for, to escape it, they will rush about in all directions, traveling here, there and everywhere. No sooner do they arrive in a place than they are anxious to know what amusements it affords; just as though they were beggars asking where they could receive a dole! Of a truth, need and boredom are the two poles of human life. Finally, I may mention that as regards the sexual relation, a man is committed to a peculiar arrangement which drives him obstinately to choose one person. This feeling grows, now and then, into a more or less passionate love,2 which is the source of little pleasure and much suffering. — Schopenhauer

and definitely this:

At the same time it is a wonderful thing that, in the world of human beings as in that of animals in general, this manifold restless motion is produced and kept up by the agency of two simple impulses — hunger and the sexual instinct; aided a little, perhaps, by the influence of boredom, but by nothing else; and that, in the theatre of life, these suffice to form the primum mobile of how complicated a machinery, setting in motion how strange and varied a scene! — Schopenhauer

And then there's this:

Life presents itself chiefly as a task — the task, I mean, of subsisting at all, gagner sa vie. If this is accomplished, life is a burden, and then there comes the second task of doing something with that which has been won — of warding off boredom, which, like a bird of prey, hovers over us, ready to fall wherever it sees a life secure from need. The first task is to win something; the second, to banish the feeling that it has been won; otherwise it is a burden.

While granting the premises? That's impossible. You must disagree with at least one premise. — Agustino

No, I meant by that, not agreeing with every premise, hence not agreeing with the conclusion. In other words, while internally consistent or valid of its own logical structure, it is not sound.

Yes, exactly, so the humble person is the one trying to convince the others of the goodness of virtue :) — Agustino

No, rather, the humble person is not trying to convince people of his/her accolades at all. The humble person would not think about it like that, but simply do what is right without thoughts of the glory this would bring to their name. Those who place the person on a pedestal and calling others inferior instead of simply following in that person's example, would be making a folly that does not seem to jive with what is usually seen as virtuous.

They are almost the same. The difference is that Schopenhauer claims that virtue is not the end - unlike Aristotle for example. Instead, the end is what is beyond virtue - denial of the will-to-live. — Agustino

Not really- the one "virtue" Schopenhauer values as ethical is that which extinguishes the individual ego. Compassion and the ability to renounce the world's willing nature are the best examples. This is very much not the listing of character traits in most virtue theory. All the others affirm life in some way, and only deny oneself to live better within its confines. This is complete renunciation in gradations.. compassion has efficacy, though compassion is very good, the ascetic is most efficacious in renouncing Will and as you state, that is their purpose. The world is not reasonable here, but a cause of suffering.

Schopenhauer's "virtue" is a hypothetical imperative.. Want to escape Will's clutches? Be compassionate and ascetic. If you want to call this virtue as the Stoics/Aristotle and the link practiced them, be my guest, but that is to conflate two very different systems. Virtue theories, at the end of the day, through the goal of being "this or that" kind of character, are creating a certain society, or ideal for people to follow in society, and thus more social engineering than anything else. Someone following the ideal of a good character leads to a society that runs smoothly. It is consequential and utilitiarian in a social sense, and not explicitly so since it is mostly applied at an individual level.

What motivates is the will-to-live, according to Schopenhauer. — Agustino

How do you think the will-to-live is carried out? Survival (goals/tasks/discomfort that is imposed by the constraints of the world) and its opposite end which is boredom (which brings us to more goals/tasks that are self-imposed).

While certainly I agree he said this sentiment, and I agree with him very much so on this point, there a many quotes just from his shorter works on the motivations of boredom including but not limited to these: — schopenhauer1

Yes - but these are made in the context of his larger philosophy. Also:

How do you think the will-to-live is carried out? Survival (goals/tasks/discomfort that is imposed by the constraints of the world) and its opposite end which is boredom (which brings us to more goals/tasks that are self-imposed). — schopenhauer1

The quotes you have given do not illustrate that S. considered boredom to be a motivating factor. On the contrary, boredom is what is always eliminated because of the will-to-live. Because of the pull of the will-to-live one does not support boredom.

No, I meant by that, not agreeing with every premise, hence not agreeing with the conclusion. In other words, while internally consistent or valid of its own logical structure, it is not sound. — schopenhauer1

Ok.

No, rather, the humble person is not trying to convince people of his/her accolades at all. The humble person would not think about it like that, but simply do what is right without thoughts of the glory this would bring to their name. Those who place the person on a pedestal and calling others inferior instead of simply following in that person's example, would be making a folly that does not seem to jive with what is usually seen as virtuous. — schopenhauer1

It may be necessary to convince people of his accolades but only if this helps spread the message.

Not really- the one "virtue" Schopenhauer values as ethical is that which extinguishes the individual ego. — schopenhauer1

Courage, for example, also extinguishes the individual ego, in-so-far as one is ready to sacrifice his own self for something. Nevertheless, this is not a full extinguishing of the will-to-live, which in some form is still affirmed. From this higher vantage point ONLY does Schopenhauer not think of courage alone and by itself as a virtue.

If you want to call this virtue as the Stoics/Aristotle and the link practiced them, be my guest, but that is to conflate two very different systems. — schopenhauer1

No it isn't. Schopenhauer never denied the truth of the Stoics/Aristotle. He just went beyond it. That is NOT denying their truth. It is rather subsuming it under a higher Truth - and from the vantage point of the higher Truth it becomes "false". But from the vantage point of the average individual, virtue ethics still retains its truthfulness.

Virtue theories, at the end of the day, through the goal of being "this or that" kind of character, are creating a certain society, or ideal for people to follow in society, and thus more social engineering than anything else. — schopenhauer1

I think rather virtue is necessary in order to step onto what S. identified as asceticism and denial of the will to live.

The quotes you have given do not illustrate that S. considered boredom to be a motivating factor. On the contrary, boredom is what is always eliminated because of the will-to-live. Because of the pull of the will-to-live one does not support boredom. — Agustino

I don't see how that comes from those quotes or the "larger context" of his philosophy. His statements seem pretty clear- tasks of survival, tasks of warding off boredom. As he says "Life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom."

It may be necessary to convince people of his accolades but only if this helps spread the message. — Agustino

But to sell the humble person in a non-humble ways seems contradictory to the spirit of the humble person's actual deeds.

Courage, for example, also extinguishes the individual ego, in-so-far as one is ready to sacrifice his own self for something. Nevertheless, this is not a full extinguishing of the will-to-live, which in some form is still affirmed. From this higher vantage point ONLY does Schopenhauer not think of courage alone and by itself as a virtue. — Agustino

Courage in and of itself is not extinguishing the ego- it is simply a way of facing or enduring difficult/fearful tasks. This can be any task. Only if it was courage in respect to extinguishing the ego would it matter. Even so, one does not do courage for its own sake, unless it makes one feel happy or feel good about oneself. However, this is not a metaphysical imperative. In fact, even extinguishing the ego is not a metaphysical imperative according to Schop- just a possible option that is hard to obtain, and even he himself never accomplished. [As a side note, I don't necessarily think it can be accomplished, but that is a separate argument. This is just to make a point that Schopenhauer's views can be separated from Virtue proper in the taxonomy of ethical theories].

No it isn't. Schopenhauer never denied the truth of the Stoics/Aristotle. He just went beyond it. That is NOT denying their truth. It is rather subsuming it under a higher Truth - and from the vantage point of the higher Truth it becomes "false". But from the vantage point of the average individual, virtue ethics still retains its truthfulness. — Agustino

The only place I have seen Schopenhauer discuss virtue theories is regarding the Stoics. He seemed to think of them as a bourgeois in regards to especially "preferred indifferents". Schopenhauer thought complete negation the aim, but virtue is not the aim, even if complete negation made someone seem more "virtuous"- meaning the ideal people usually think of when thinking of this term.

I think rather virtue is necessary in order to step onto what S. identified as asceticism and denial of the will to live. — Agustino

As I was hinting at with the previous statement, I think virtuous behavior itself is a reification in a metaphysical sense, but has cache value in that it describes a type of ideal that virtue theorists have postulated or expounded upon. Virtues, this is my own estimation, are simply traits that a society has deemed as valuable. Some traits are culturally contingent or manifest in culturally contingent versions, though there may be similarities in basic definition. All of them lead to a certain kind of society- usually one that is supposed to be thriving in the best, most flourishing way. By each person doing their part by honing their character, society is functions optimally. Of course, this flies in the face of the life-denying that Schopenhauer valued.