Return to Answer

Frankl and Vivekananda come to the same. It's just that Frankl was speaking from the space of much deeper torment — Whats the meaning of all this hell? — hence the framing in terms of meaning. Vivekananda, had more "legroom" to reflect and coming from a culture where meditation on reality is synonymous with religion he expressed himself in terms of jnana — poorly translated as knowledge. Also Vivekananda is an early seminal figure in India's struggle against British colonialism. So the subtext of his will to knowledge is really will to power. See for example.

Freud is just a half corollary to Schopenhauer's will to live and procreate — What we experience individually as desire is the species' impulse to perpetuate. See Jung on the half that Freud doesn't understand.

Nietzsche is more a poet-prophet than a philosopher — This (effete 19th century) Christianity needs to be rejuvenated. Another way of saying that is that Nietzsche puts on a cognitive front — God IS dead — when in fact his message is mostly volitive — Kill your false God — and affective — I hate your weakness, sentimentality and hypocrisy! See Cognitive-Volitive-Affective.

People are too much misled by his violent fulminations like "God is dead". God was certainly not dead in the world of Nietzsche nor was he trying to kill him. He was trying to scrub a decadent religion into a robust and thriving one. Reading God is dead as a fact than a call is an absurd case of presentism because we today live in a secular dead-God world, that Nietzsche foretold without wishing it. It was not his world.

I do not believe that Nietzsche would push Will to Power in our world where we already have the power to blow the earth to smithereens, create killer viruses, clone super copies of ourselves and now are gleefully hurtling towards AGI that will supersede us.

That leaves Schopenhauer.

To me he is the most authentic and insightful, a true philosopher and his message is more timeless than all the others. To see this more clearly it's important to understand that Schopenhauer is channeling in clear European language the highest wisdom of Buddha and the Upanishads. The most inexorable and terrible fact is our will to live and perpetuate — tanha in Buddhist speak, moha-maya in the Hindu formulation — which drives all sorrow, dukha. And to see that with absolute clarity is the pinnacle of knowledge, meaning, power and happiness.

^{Note 1: Of course his popularity is lower than his stature for the same reason that spinach is less popular than cheesecake — people dont like bitter medicine!}

^{Note 2: I don't recommend Schopenhauer if you're young. When life has given you enough blows, you can recognize the truths he speaks in your own terms without getting knocked down by the pessimism.}

Will to meaning and witll to knowledge come to the same. How far Frankl and Vivekananda are related is a quite different question: Frankl was speaking from the space of much deeper torment — What's the meaning of all this hell? — hence the framing in terms of meaning. Vivekananda, had more "legroom" to reflect and coming from a culture where meditation on reality is synonymous with religion he expressed himself in terms of jnana — poorly translated as knowledge. Also Vivekananda is an early seminal figure in India's struggle against British colonialism. So the subtext of his will to knowledge is really will to power. See for example.

Freud is just a half corollary to Schopenhauer's will to live and procreate — What we experience individually as desire is the species' impulse to perpetuate. See Jung on the half that Freud doesn't understand.

Nietzsche is more a poet-prophet than a philosopher — This (effete 19th century) Christianity needs to be rejuvenated. Another way of saying that is that Nietzsche puts on a cognitive front — God IS dead — when in fact his message is mostly volitive — Kill your false God — and affective — I hate your weakness, sentimentality and hypocrisy! See Cognitive-Volitive-Affective.

People are too much misled by his violent fulminations like "God is dead". God was certainly not dead in the world of Nietzsche nor was he trying to kill him. He was trying to scrub a decadent religion into a robust and thriving one. Reading God is dead as a fact rather than a call is an absurd case of presentism because we today live in a secular dead-God world, that Nietzsche foretold without wishing it. It was not his world.

I do not believe that Nietzsche would push Will to Power in our world where we already have the power to blow the earth to smithereens, create killer viruses, clone super copies of ourselves and now are gleefully hurtling towards AGI that will supersede us.

That leaves Schopenhauer.

To me he is the most authentic and insightful, a true philosopher and his message is more timeless than all the others. To see this more clearly it's important to understand that Schopenhauer is channeling in clear European language the highest wisdom of Buddha and the Upanishads. The most inexorable and terrible fact is our will to live and perpetuate — tanha in Buddhist speak, moha-maya in the Hindu formulation — which drives all sorrow, dukha. And to see that with absolute clarity is the pinnacle of knowledge, meaning, power and happiness.

^{Note 1: Of course his popularity is lower than his stature for the same reason that spinach is less popular than cheesecake — people dont like bitter medicine!}

^{Note 2: I don't recommend Schopenhauer if you're young. When life has given you enough blows, you can recognize the truths he speaks in your own terms without getting knocked down by the pessimism.}

Frankl and Vivekananda come to the same. It's just that Frankl was speaking from the space of much deeper torment — Whats the meaning of all this hell? — hence the framing in terms of meaning. Vivekananda, had more "legroom" to reflect and coming from a culture where meditation on reality is synonymous with religion he expressed himself in terms of jnana — poorly translated as knowledge. Also Vivekananda is an early seminal figure in India's struggle against British colonialism. So the subtext of his will to knowledge is really will to power. See for example.

Freud is just a half corollary to Schopenhauer's will to live and procreate — What we experience individually as desire is the species' impulse to perpetuate.

Nietzsche is more a poet-prophet than a philosopher — This (effete 19th century) Christianity needs to be rejuvenated. Another way of saying that is that Nietzsche puts on a cognitive front — God IS dead — when in fact his message is mostly volitive — Kill your false God — and affective — I hate your weakness, sentimentality and hypocrisy! See Cognitive-Volitive-Affective.

People are too much misled by his violent fulminations like "God is dead". God was certainly not dead in the world of Nietzsche nor was he trying to kill him. He was trying to scrub a decadent religion into a robust and thriving one. Reading God is dead as a fact than a call is an absurd case of presentism because we today live in a secular dead-God world, that Nietzsche foretold without wishing it. It was not his world.

I do not believe that Nietzsche would push Will to Power in our world where we already have the power to blow the earth to smithereens, create killer viruses, clone super copies of ourselves and now are gleefully hurtling towards AGI that will supersede us.

That leaves Schopenhauer.

To me he is the most authentic and insightful, a true philosopher and his message is more timeless than all the others. To see this more clearly it's important to understand that Schopenhauer is channeling in clear European language the highest wisdom of Buddha and the Upanishads. The most inexorable and terrible fact is our will to live and perpetuate — tanha in Buddhist speak, moha-maya in the Hindu formulation — which drives all sorrow, dukha. And to see that with absolute clarity is the pinnacle of knowledge, meaning, power and happiness.

^{Note 1: Of course his popularity is lower than his stature for the same reason that spinach is less popular than cheesecake — people dont like bitter medicine!}

^{Note 2: I don't recommend Schopenhauer if you're young. When life has given you enough blows, you can recognize the truths he speaks in your own terms without getting knocked down by the pessimism.}

Frankl and Vivekananda come to the same. It's just that Frankl was speaking from the space of much deeper torment — Whats the meaning of all this hell? — hence the framing in terms of meaning. Vivekananda, had more "legroom" to reflect and coming from a culture where meditation on reality is synonymous with religion he expressed himself in terms of jnana — poorly translated as knowledge. Also Vivekananda is an early seminal figure in India's struggle against British colonialism. So the subtext of his will to knowledge is really will to power. See for example.

Freud is just a half corollary to Schopenhauer's will to live and procreate — What we experience individually as desire is the species' impulse to perpetuate. See Jung on the half that Freud doesn't understand.

Nietzsche is more a poet-prophet than a philosopher — This (effete 19th century) Christianity needs to be rejuvenated. Another way of saying that is that Nietzsche puts on a cognitive front — God IS dead — when in fact his message is mostly volitive — Kill your false God — and affective — I hate your weakness, sentimentality and hypocrisy! See Cognitive-Volitive-Affective.

People are too much misled by his violent fulminations like "God is dead". God was certainly not dead in the world of Nietzsche nor was he trying to kill him. He was trying to scrub a decadent religion into a robust and thriving one. Reading God is dead as a fact than a call is an absurd case of presentism because we today live in a secular dead-God world, that Nietzsche foretold without wishing it. It was not his world.

I do not believe that Nietzsche would push Will to Power in our world where we already have the power to blow the earth to smithereens, create killer viruses, clone super copies of ourselves and now are gleefully hurtling towards AGI that will supersede us.

That leaves Schopenhauer.

To me he is the most authentic and insightful, a true philosopher and his message is more timeless than all the others. To see this more clearly it's important to understand that Schopenhauer is channeling in clear European language the highest wisdom of Buddha and the Upanishads. The most inexorable and terrible fact is our will to live and perpetuate — tanha in Buddhist speak, moha-maya in the Hindu formulation — which drives all sorrow, dukha. And to see that with absolute clarity is the pinnacle of knowledge, meaning, power and happiness.

^{Note 1: Of course his popularity is lower than his stature for the same reason that spinach is less popular than cheesecake — people dont like bitter medicine!}

^{Note 2: I don't recommend Schopenhauer if you're young. When life has given you enough blows, you can recognize the truths he speaks in your own terms without getting knocked down by the pessimism.}

Frankl and Vivekananda are the same. It's just that Frankl was speaking from the space of much deeper torment — Whats the meaning of all this hell? — hence the framing in terms of meaning. Vivekananda, had more "legroom" to reflect and coming from a culture where meditation on reality is synonymous with religion he expressed himself in terms of jnana — poorly translated as knowledge.

Freud is just a half corollary to Schopenhauer's will to live and procreate — What we experience individually as desire is the species' impulse to perpetuate.

Nietzsche is more a poet-prophet than a philosopher — This (effete 19th century) Christianity needs to be rejuvenated. Another way of saying that is that Nietzsche puts on a cognitive front — God IS dead — when in fact his message is mostly volitive — Kill your false God — and affective — I hate your weakness, sentimentality and hypocrisy! See Cognitive-Volitive-Affective.

People are too much misled by his violent fulminations like "God is dead". God was certainly not dead in the world of Nietzsche nor was he trying to kill him. He was trying to scrub a decadent religion into a robust and thriving one. Reading God is dead as a fact than a call is an absurd case of presentism because we today live in a secular dead-God world, that Nietzsche foretold without wishing it. It was not his world.

I do not believe that Nietzsche would push Will to Power in our world where we already have the power to blow the earth to smithereens, create killer viruses, clone super copies of ourselves and now are gleefully hurtling towards AGI that will supersede us.

That leaves Schopenhauer.

To me he is the most authentic and insightful, a true philosopher and his message is more timeless than all the others. To see this more clearly it's important to understand that Schopenhauer is channeling in clear European language the highest wisdom of Buddha and the Upanishads. The most inexorable and terrible fact is our will to live and perpetuate — tanha in Buddhist speak, moha-maya in the Hindu formulation — which drives all sorrow, dukha. And to see that with absolute clarity is the pinnacle of knowledge, meaning, power and happiness.

^{Note 1: Of course his popularity is lower than his stature for the same reason that spinach is less popular than cheesecake — people dont like bitter medicine!}

^{Note 2: I don't recommend Schopenhauer if you're young. When life has given you enough blows, you can recognize the truths he speaks in your own terms without getting knocked down by the pessimism.}

Frankl and Vivekananda come to the same. It's just that Frankl was speaking from the space of much deeper torment — Whats the meaning of all this hell? — hence the framing in terms of meaning. Vivekananda, had more "legroom" to reflect and coming from a culture where meditation on reality is synonymous with religion he expressed himself in terms of jnana — poorly translated as knowledge. Also Vivekananda is an early seminal figure in India's struggle against British colonialism. So the subtext of his will to knowledge is really will to power. See for example.

Freud is just a half corollary to Schopenhauer's will to live and procreate — What we experience individually as desire is the species' impulse to perpetuate.

Nietzsche is more a poet-prophet than a philosopher — This (effete 19th century) Christianity needs to be rejuvenated. Another way of saying that is that Nietzsche puts on a cognitive front — God IS dead — when in fact his message is mostly volitive — Kill your false God — and affective — I hate your weakness, sentimentality and hypocrisy! See Cognitive-Volitive-Affective.

People are too much misled by his violent fulminations like "God is dead". God was certainly not dead in the world of Nietzsche nor was he trying to kill him. He was trying to scrub a decadent religion into a robust and thriving one. Reading God is dead as a fact than a call is an absurd case of presentism because we today live in a secular dead-God world, that Nietzsche foretold without wishing it. It was not his world.

I do not believe that Nietzsche would push Will to Power in our world where we already have the power to blow the earth to smithereens, create killer viruses, clone super copies of ourselves and now are gleefully hurtling towards AGI that will supersede us.

That leaves Schopenhauer.

To me he is the most authentic and insightful, a true philosopher and his message is more timeless than all the others. To see this more clearly it's important to understand that Schopenhauer is channeling in clear European language the highest wisdom of Buddha and the Upanishads. The most inexorable and terrible fact is our will to live and perpetuate — tanha in Buddhist speak, moha-maya in the Hindu formulation — which drives all sorrow, dukha. And to see that with absolute clarity is the pinnacle of knowledge, meaning, power and happiness.

^{Note 1: Of course his popularity is lower than his stature for the same reason that spinach is less popular than cheesecake — people dont like bitter medicine!}

^{Note 2: I don't recommend Schopenhauer if you're young. When life has given you enough blows, you can recognize the truths he speaks in your own terms without getting knocked down by the pessimism.}