Talk:Arthur Schopenhauer
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 21, 2018. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of the proofs of the parallel postulate page were merged into Arthur Schopenhauer on October 31, 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary. |
|
||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Minor emendation
editHi, in "Later life", para 6 ("In 1832 Schopenhauer left Frankfurt ..."), there is the following: "The Society was appalled that several distinguished contemporary philosophers were mentioned in a very offensive manner, claimed that the essay missed the point and that the arguments were not adequate.[135] Schopenhauer, who was very self-confident that he would win, was enraged by this rejection. He published both essays as The Two Basic Problems of Ethics and in the preface to the second edition of this book, in 1860, he was still pouring insults on Royal Danish Society.[136]". IMHO one might clarify that Wiki doesn't do mind-reading by adding that the Society published its misgivings in writing in the rejection notice (which, IIRC, S. reproduces in full in the foreword to the "...Ethics") - perhaps even present it as a quote -, and that besides invective, that foreword also contains S.'s detailed refutation of the arguments given for rejection. I'm not entirely certain that "refutation" is the exact word to use; Idk if the rejection was indeed refuted; but he certainly did gainsay it, and supported this with arguments. Also, the Society's reasons are listed in reverse order of writing, and it was the last point, the abuse of Hegel, that gave S. opportunity to lash out first against university philosophy and philosophers in general, the Society in particular, and finally Hegel as its absolute nadir. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Religion: A Dialogue, Etc.
editDoes Religion: A Dialogue, Etc., translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders, belong in the bibliography? Or does it merely contain extractions of work found elsewhere? --StephanNaro (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see that Saunders claims that these essays are taken from Parerga und Paralipomena, and maybe they are, though I don't quite see them among the contents as shown on Amazon. --StephanNaro (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Arthur left his mother, and they never met again before she died 24 years later.
editThis statement is clearly negated by mentions in the article further on. Can it simply be deleted as an unsubstantiated comment? Robertwhyteus (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I rewrote most of the biography a few years ago and it seems that I mistakenly left that statement from an earlier version. It surely doesn't make sense in this part of the text. I don't really know when was the last time they met or corresponded. You can delete the statement, or maybe try to find some more info and move it to a later paragraph. AugXV (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Stop reverting edits for no reason
editStop reverting the edits on Schopenhauer personality section for it is all based on historical facts and what problem do you have with a colorized picture of him while it is in higher resolution? You best be ashemaed of your itinerant slef whoever the hell you are. 113.203.35.143 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Portrait
editWho took the portrait picture in 1859? That photograph is outstanding and I want to know who made it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A09:8E40:2E2:8800:1:FF:FF:F (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)