1 پسندیده
Friendships!
A friend of mine has decided to ghost me lately which is funny cuz I didn’t do anything to hurt her feelings. If I’m being completely honest with myself tho, I don’t mind being ghosted by her. We were close once, but our feelings toward one another changed over time. And during these past few years, why, we’ve been more of an acquaintance to each other than a friend.
Last Friday, a friend of mine and I decided to end our friendship. Despite my expectations, I don’t really feel like I’ve lost something valuable. We had such a great time together. Don’t get me wrong. But, you know, I realized we’re at a point where we don’t even care about hurting the other person. So it was necessary to end it.
What do you think, guys? Do you think friendships last forever?
2 پسندیده
Everything in this world is fleeting and ephemeral. So is friendship too. Change is the only constant.
We are also egotistical and selfish
creatures and most friendships are based on mutual benefits, so when there can no longer be a benefit we naturally end our friendship.
Friends are not supposed to last forever, therefore we shouldn’t upset ourselves with ending the relationships.
2 پسندیده
I think friendships are like flowers. They need water, sunlight and care to grow and bloom. Some flowers are annuals, they only last for a season and then they die. Some flowers are perennials, they come back year after year and grow stronger and more beautiful. Some flowers are evergreens, they stay green and alive all year round. I think friendships are the same. Some friendships are meant to be short-lived, they serve a purpose and then they fade away. Some friendships are meant to be long-lasting, they survive the ups and downs and grow deeper and more meaningful. Some friendships are meant to be eternal, they never change and never die. I think friendships can last forever, but only if both parties are willing to nurture them like flowers.
4 پسندیده
Let us for a moment imagine that the act of procreation were not a necessity or accompanied by intense pleasure, but a matter of pure rational deliberation;
could then the human race really continue to exist? Would not everyone rather feel so much sympathy for the coming generation that they would prefer to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate would not like to assume in cold blood the responsibility of imposing on it such a burden?In fact, the conviction that the world
and thus also humanity is something that really ought not to be, is calculated to fill us with forbearance towards one another; for what can we expect from beings in such a predicament? In fact from this point of view it might occur to us that the really proper address between one person and another should be, instead of Sir, Monsieur, and so on, Leidensgefährte, socci malorum, compagnon de misères, my fellow-sufferer.
However strange this may sound, it accords with the facts, puts the other person in the most correct light, and reminds us of that most necessary thing, tolerance, patience, forbearance, and love of one’s neighbour, which everyone needs and each of us, therefore, owes to another.
Arthur Schopenhauer, On The Suffering of the World
3 پسندیده
I find this text to be flawed and unconvincing for several reasons. First, it assumes that human life is inherently miserable and worthless, without providing any evidence or argument to support this claim. It also ignores the many sources of joy, meaning, and value that people can find in their lives, such as love, art, science, morality, and spirituality. Second, it implies that procreation is a matter of pure rational deliberation, which is clearly not the case. Procreation is influenced by many biological, psychological, social, and cultural factors that Schopenhauer does not acknowledge or address. Third, it proposes that the proper way to address each other is by using terms that emphasize our suffering and pity, such as “fellow-sufferer” or “compagnon de misères”. This seems to be a very negative and defeatist attitude that would only increase our misery and despair. Instead of wallowing in self-pity and sympathy, we should strive to overcome our challenges and improve our conditions. We should also respect and appreciate the diversity and dignity of each person, rather than reducing them to their suffering. Therefore, I disagree with this Mr. Schopenhauer’s text and his worldview. I think he presents a distorted and biased view of human nature and reality that does not reflect the complexity and richness of human experience. I also think he fails to offer any constructive or hopeful solution to the problems he identifies. I would recommend reading some alternative perspectives on life and happiness, such as those of Albert Camus, Viktor Frankl, or Martin Seligman.
2 پسندیده
Your understanding of this text is flawed and I’m not convinced at all by your criticisms. Here’s why:
You judge this view very unfairly, he definitely has provided arguments for his claims. Go and read his book “The world as will and representation” (in German: Die welt als Wille und Vorstellung), in short, his theory is similar to Darwin’s with slightly different vocabulary. Remember that he was writing several decades before Darwin. All life is struggle and conflict for survival and passing our genes without any care for the individuals. Nature is a blind machine and we are its slaves. That’s all!
It seems you are completely unfamiliar with his ideas otherwise you wouldn’t judge him so unfairly. He is one of the rare philosophers who values art (and especially music) and writes hundreds of pages about it. It is also true about morality. His ethics is based on compassion (in German: Mitleid). Go and read his “On The Wisdom of Life” if you’re interested to know his solutions.
But all of these donnot change the fact that our lives are meaningless. All love and things like that are just pills to go through life more easily. So it has a negative charachter i.e. it is something for our consolation in this absurd life.
You also ignore myriads of sufferings and pains in life. All the wickedess of humankind, all wars, dictatorships, famines, rapes, diseases, mental disorders and so on. What’s the point off all these? Suffering is far more prevalent in life than joys. If you have a relatively good life, it doesn’t mean that life itself is woth it. Even if life is good for some people, there is “death” that eventually destroys all! So really what is the point of this joke called existence?
God! You totally got him wrong. He said that if and only if procreation was pure rational, would we really do it. I don 't think so.
every person knows this. But it does not make procreation a right action. And besides, procreation is morally wrong because it involves imposing something on others without their consent. I never asked to be in this shithole. If you find your life meaningful you don’t have any right to impose it on someone else without their consent. The imposibility of consent makes procreation a wrong act no matter what. Procreation is a risky gamble and I will never do it. If I want to experience parenthood, there are millions of orphans around the world That I could adopt a few of those poor souls, instead of imposing life on someone else in this already overpopulated planet.
Not to mention all the sufferings and miseries that humans inflict upon animals in various ways, including slaughtering them for their delicious meat.
You also got him wrong here. I even think his approach is very beautiful and compassionate. It advocates loving one another and trying to alleviate each others’ pains. He is only encouraging to be more compassionate and I agree with him. How many people really follow this advice? Realising the amounts of sufferings that each person should go through, helps us treat each other with more respect and honor, quite the opposite of your false understanding of the text.
Thank you. But I haver read Albert Camus. He is not very convincing to me. His Myth of Sisyphus offers nothing fundamental for life. He just repeats this view that life has no inherent meaning, so you’d better enjoy your life. This is a mere truism! He is a shallow philosopher.
3 پسندیده
Someone You Hate by Sasha Sloan
2 پسندیده
I confess, Schopenhauer is a mystery to me. I have only glimpsed some fragments of his thoughts, which may not even be his own. Philosophy does not stir my curiosity much. I spun this text from the thread you gave me. My only aim was to weave words and to spark your passion and make you reply.
2 پسندیده
Anticlimactic!
2 پسندیده
One of his books is available on zbook. And it is a great guide for living well. He was a polyglot and could read books in their original languages, including ancient Greek and Latin. By reading this book the reader will become familiar with many interesting ideas and advices from antiquity up until his own time. A nineteenth century self help book. I highly recommend reading it:
3 پسندیده
Now I’m curious. What did you send, please? O_o
1 پسندیده
Okay.
I only asked: who?! 
1 پسندیده
Nobody. I was just expecting a more interesting debate, but @yektaamir simply spoiled it. (･–･)
2 پسندیده
When I posted that quote from Schopenhauer, I didn’t really intend to debate with anyone. I don’t like arguments to be honest.
So maybe it was a wise decision.
2 پسندیده
I am so sorry dear autophile 
2 پسندیده
Really? When bored, I actually enjoy playing the devil’s advocate. Just for the fun of it.
2 پسندیده
Apology not accepted. ᕙ(＠°▽°＠)ᕗ
2 پسندیده
Don’t Give Up On Me by Andy Grammer
2 پسندیده
No one wants you to be yourself. They want you to be the version of yourself that they like.
Marie Lu
P.S. A bitter truth!
3 پسندیده