Despite Nietzsche's thoughts about him, Schopenhauer was not as "pessimistic" as everyone says. On the contrary, he was quite realistic about the human condition of constantly oscillating between need and boredom. Schopenhauer's view of death is bold and illuminating - evidence of the well-being that solitude allows.
phenomenal video! i am 14 years old and really getting into philosophy-all im asking for, for christmas, is philosophy book 😅. i was noticing how nietzsche liked schopenhauer and how in general he wasn’t very open minded; this video really showed me their similarities!
Nietzsche liked Schopenhauer early in his life, but moved away from him as he got older, also after he had a falling out with Richard Wagner. The BEST thing you can do is read primary sources. This video has some information, but read on for a deeper and more nuanced picture.
@@humanperson5153 Nietzsche always revered Schopenhauer. He might've disagreed with his account of the Will and his life-negating philosophy, but Nietzsche very early on identified Schopenhauer's sense of destruction and held this as something to be emulated.
Oh my god, I can so relate to the whole wanting philosophy books as presents 😂 I'm reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and got an amazing edition of it translated from my mom.😅
Ironically, Nietzsche mirrored all those three faults that he find on Schopenhauer throughout most of his life (while still adopting the genius and virtue of his great educator as well).
I gotta say, after reading Schopenhauer my grades went a little bit down, but my writing went up to the point where teachers started to encourage me to write articles thanks to the dangers Nietzsche says, because not only I do agree with Schopenhauer's work and specially the melancholy because I learned to disagree with the common view that I had of beauty of life and how I really did not know nothing
As someone also said in another video, I just found this channel in my recommended section & I’ve been zipping through some of your takes on existentialism. So glad to have found you - very concise & easy-to-understand content. Keep it up! 💯
This moment of realisation and inspiration must have happened to you professor Ellie when you first opened your first book of philosophy; mine was doodling and then finding out I was an artist as everything just came so easy after that ( with a lot of practise of course!)..
I've only read Schopenhauer's 'World as Will and Idea', so my understanding of its author is limited to that work alone, but the egoistic, despairing pessimist described in this video via Nietzsche's perspective no less doesn't sound anything like the man I imagined who wrote such a life-affirming work -"So the person who is content with life as it is, the person who in every way affirms life, may confidently see it as endless, and banish the fear of death as an illusion that suggests to him the foolish fear that he can ever lose the present." From Book Four - sorry, I don't have a citation any more specific than that. In truth, I came to Schopenhauer via Nietzsche, who I've read much more of by comparison, and whilst I still believe that this astounding moustache-bearing intellectual and visionary has much merit to many of his ideas, and certainly his poetic language and imagery remains potent stuff, when it comes to hard-nosed, practical philosophy that is nonetheless steeped in a deeper awareness of reality, just my reading of 'World as Will and Idea' tells me that Schopenhauer has Nietzsche beat; not that this is a competition or anything! Still, when comparing the two and their respective philosophies (as far as I grasp them with my limited intellect) Nietzsche, for all his admiration of Schopenhauer, doesn't seem to have really grasped what he was about, and did misunderstand and misinterpret him in some key ways which has, from the looks of it, led to this mischaracterisation of the man's philosophy; at least in parts (again, I am only familiar with this one book), and I would not pretend to comment upon his actual personality or lived life (for that I'd need to refer to a biography of some description). Basically, for all I know Schopenhauer might well have been a miserable, lonely git, and to all outside appearances perhaps that was the case, but perhaps beneath that crusty exterior, and based only on the intellectual and spiritual insights represented in his crowning philosophical work, any potential curmudgeonly attitude might not have appeared too dissimilar to a Zen Buddhist’s somewhat impenetrable shell, seemingly cut off from the worldly concerns of those still caught in the round of samsara, as indeed Nietzsche indubitably was. Indeed, unlike Nietzsche who revelled in realising his and mankinds greatness in the world, albeit in a subtle way (and such ubermensch aspirations were no doubt part of his self-destructive neurosis and, even more unfortunately, grossly bastardised by his sister and her Nazi followers) Schopenhauer appears much wiser than that - he well understood the illusory nature of existence, which is certainly a key reason why he doesn't appear to revel in it the same way! This is not to say however he considers it meaningless or without purpose - only that the meaning is found somewhere beyond the basic will to life itself which drives all apparent material form, and which any kind of criticism of can be almost half-dismissed as a pessimistic view! In sum, I got very little of the so-called pessimistic attitude from at least this one book, and I suspect that’s because what we often consider ‘pessimistic’ in the West is better understood as ‘acceptance of what is’ in the East (to be grossly reductive myself, but this is a UA-cam comment!), and it is to the great Eastern traditions, particularly Hinduism and Advaita Vedanta, which Schopenhauer clearly holds his most heavy intellectual and spiritual debt. This is a point that, whilst acknowledged by Nietzsche in his interpretation of Schopenhauer the times I recall him mentioning him and his work, still doesn’t seem to me to have been fully understood because Nietzsche’s ideas, or criticism of Schopenhauer’s ideas or concepts, don’t appear to have grasped the non-dualistic thinking of dependent origination in the same way Schopenhauer clearly did, probably because (from what I've been able to research online about what we know of Nietzsche's own education) Nietzsche never delved very deeply into this whole other world of thought and indeed 'no-thought'! It is thus easy to see why the short-hand label of 'pessimism’ which Schopenhauer has been brushed with, seems to be a general reading of his philosophy today, borne of a lack of understanding or appreciation of what the man explored philosophically in a rationalist Western way via strongly-held Eastern influences. If I was writing a dissertation, this contention of mine would no doubt make for a fine point of philosophical debate - Schopenhauer re-interpreted in the 21st century with a deeper understanding of his Eastern philosophical roots - but I'm no academic, and all that citation busyness would only drive me up the wall! Someone of a more academically rigorous bent should get on it!
I'm cramming for an essay on Nietzschean critique of Hegelianism in the context of graphic novels. Thanks for the quick and insightful explanations of both, while I'm sure they're imperfect due to short length, it helped me with my assignment.
You are an example on how to present philosophy. The core ideas of complicated texts, in presentations that are actually smaller than most video essays. I am really greatly surprised.
I do get the onion analogy but as someone who likes to cook and also as someone who has a strong interest in botany I want to point out that onions do have a kernel. It's the bud and that is how they actually start to grow. The outer layers are just used to support the growth with sugar and so forth.
Prof. Anderson, after you recommended Nietzsche's Untimely Meditations (it goes by a number of different names), I read the essay on Schopenhauer as Educator. One of the ideas which struck me, but which you didn't touch on was that in order to reach this higher level of one's self, one must suffer. And that reaching a certain greatness within oneself requires this sacrifice and suffering. Am I reading that wrong?
Nietzsche is indeed one who you want to hug than at another moment want to take his own philosophers hammer to . Here from my own experience i found his points interesting .A existential therapist once said to me " your obsessed with the mind and genius 'adding i pick up a good old fashion novel and loosen up . Than when you do you hear ' you have to take things more seriously " hmm dammed if you do dammed if you dont . i do believe in the idea that one should read and learn from good teachers than forget it all when. walking through the battlefield of words letting your self emerge from the storm .. Again thanks for your brief, spirited yet informative lecture.!
Actually, Buddha (as he did with most philosophical concepts) got there before Shrek and Nietzsche (and Schopenhauer obviously) when he said the self was like a banana tree for the same reasons
I admire Nietzsche's insights into Schopenhauer's psychological makeup, and thank you very much for the clear explanation. I wonder, though, whether it is fair or even practical to strip Schopenhauer's "honesty, cheerfulness, and steadfastness" from his "isolation, melancholy, and hardening," as Nietzsche suggests. Is it possible to conceive the growth of a rose without the stem's thorns? Besides, how does it rhyme with Nietzsche's other polemical work of going "Beyond Good and Evil," where he attacks all kinds of moralizing like considering "this is good" or "that is evil"? On the other hand, looking beyond oneself to become oneself is like looking into a mirror to know who you truly are. While a mirror unveils how tidy, fat, etc., one looks, it can never point beyond aesthetic appearances that can be manipulated at will without ever getting to the core. One can only become what one truly is, not what one likes to appear, which could be anything, really.
Young made a point that Nietzsche lost his mind by saying Thus Spoke Zarathustra was Nietzsches many archetypes wrestling one another. I didn’t think of it like this until I came across this by Young. If correct maybe it is very scary to look within too much.
Cool video! Though with the way Nietzsche orders his books, wouldn't it be more convenient to say what part and section you are quoting from rather than the page number? It would make it easier for people to search up those sections and read them for themselves even though they might be reading in a different language.
I’ve watched philosophy explanation videos for nearly, 6 years perhaps. At least. Got into philosophy properly in ‘16, having gotten into Buddhism to try and cure my angst and nihilism in ‘14. Wrote a book called The Ecstasy of Nothing in ‘20. Anyway, with philosophy teaching videos. I discovered you last week. You’re the best one. Hands down.
I wonder what Nietzsche would think the initial layers built from within from early life in their role to bias who we see as models in the first place. If you have no choice in whom you'll define as a model then what free will is there to choose the right one in the first place. I'm not saying success of model cannot me measured but that in what characteristics are measured over others determine what the outcome of success of imitation will be.
He never escaped Schopenhauer, nor did others, we're just denying him one way or another to avoid the depressing nature of reality. Whatever works for you, good fortune! :) as long as you at least try not to cause harm. Napoleon, an Ubermensch, was not a good guy at all, so please don't try to imitate him. We've already got a Putin on our hands, and a Xi Jinping and many others unfortunately.
Hi fellow Pakistani. I think I understand your struggle. We live in society where it is impossible to find someone who is willing to have philosophical discussions with us. Such discussions are dangerous in Pakistan and can get us murdered, think Mashal Khan. Throughout our formal education, we hardly study one course that helps us think critically, and that's it. These are all the reasons we find philosophy particularly hard. I get ridiculed I when I share philosophical ideas with friends, because our entire south Asian culture is based on blind obedience. So when I come across someone like you who is trying their ass off not to be a blind follower, I immensely respect it. I do have one or two friends who are open minded, I do not deserve them they are brilliant people. So if you find such people in Pakistan, hold onto them and do not let them to. They are extremely rare to find. Also it isn't necessary to listen to philosophers' history like we do on this channel, you could listen to people like Sam Harris, Cosmic Skeptic, who simply discuss philosophical ideas, not the philosophers. Syed Muzamil Shah, Faisal Warraich, Taimoor, are also good people. And try not to discuss such ideas on public profiles, only with extremely close friends. Take care man.
So, on the one hand, no core self, on the other hand, dangerous content, best to stay away from. Which content could therefore only be the result of acculturation. Of course, Nietzsche did look a little too hard and seems to have had intimations about what would transpire. Nowadays, we would say that he fell prey to unresolved inner conflicts.
This is what the internet should be for ! Thank you !
I love your tone of voice professor Ellie. Thanks for educating us.
Despite Nietzsche's thoughts about him, Schopenhauer was not as "pessimistic" as everyone says. On the contrary, he was quite realistic about the human condition of constantly oscillating between need and boredom. Schopenhauer's view of death is bold and illuminating - evidence of the well-being that solitude allows.
phenomenal video! i am 14 years old and really getting into philosophy-all im asking for, for christmas, is philosophy book 😅. i was noticing how nietzsche liked schopenhauer and how in general he wasn’t very open minded; this video really showed me their similarities!
Nietzsche liked Schopenhauer early in his life, but moved away from him as he got older, also after he had a falling out with Richard Wagner. The BEST thing you can do is read primary sources. This video has some information, but read on for a deeper and more nuanced picture.
Neitzche only had frenemies, meaning any friend was also an enemy and any enemy was also a friend. He was one of those guys.
@@humanperson5153 Nietzsche always revered Schopenhauer. He might've disagreed with his account of the Will and his life-negating philosophy, but Nietzsche very early on identified Schopenhauer's sense of destruction and held this as something to be emulated.
@@Kar-Kan Hannah Arendt was reading Greek and Latin when she was 12. She did alright.
Oh my god, I can so relate to the whole wanting philosophy books as presents 😂 I'm reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and got an amazing edition of it translated from my mom.😅
This is 1 of the best expositions of this essay that I've found. Thank you, professor
Ironically, Nietzsche mirrored all those three faults that he find on Schopenhauer throughout most of his life (while still adopting the genius and virtue of his great educator as well).
I gotta say, after reading Schopenhauer my grades went a little bit down, but my writing went up to the point where teachers started to encourage me to write articles thanks to the dangers Nietzsche says, because not only I do agree with Schopenhauer's work and specially the melancholy because I learned to disagree with the common view that I had of beauty of life and how I really did not know nothing
Thanks!
I like your diction and way of speaking quite a lot. It's clear, precise, easy to understand yet scratches beyond the surface.
Dr. Ellie Anderson, thank you for inspiring us with your excellent lectures.
As someone also said in another video, I just found this channel in my recommended section & I’ve been zipping through some of your takes on existentialism. So glad to have found you - very concise & easy-to-understand content.
Keep it up! 💯
This moment of realisation and inspiration must have happened to you professor Ellie when you first opened your first book of philosophy; mine was doodling and then finding out I was an artist as everything just came so easy after that ( with a lot of practise of course!)..
I've only read Schopenhauer's 'World as Will and Idea', so my understanding of its author is limited to that work alone, but the egoistic, despairing pessimist described in this video via Nietzsche's perspective no less doesn't sound anything like the man I imagined who wrote such a life-affirming work -"So the person who is content with life as it is, the person who in every way affirms life, may confidently see it as endless, and banish the fear of death as an illusion that suggests to him the foolish fear that he can ever lose the present." From Book Four - sorry, I don't have a citation any more specific than that.
In truth, I came to Schopenhauer via Nietzsche, who I've read much more of by comparison, and whilst I still believe that this astounding moustache-bearing intellectual and visionary has much merit to many of his ideas, and certainly his poetic language and imagery remains potent stuff, when it comes to hard-nosed, practical philosophy that is nonetheless steeped in a deeper awareness of reality, just my reading of 'World as Will and Idea' tells me that Schopenhauer has Nietzsche beat; not that this is a competition or anything!
Still, when comparing the two and their respective philosophies (as far as I grasp them with my limited intellect) Nietzsche, for all his admiration of Schopenhauer, doesn't seem to have really grasped what he was about, and did misunderstand and misinterpret him in some key ways which has, from the looks of it, led to this mischaracterisation of the man's philosophy; at least in parts (again, I am only familiar with this one book), and I would not pretend to comment upon his actual personality or lived life (for that I'd need to refer to a biography of some description). Basically, for all I know Schopenhauer might well have been a miserable, lonely git, and to all outside appearances perhaps that was the case, but perhaps beneath that crusty exterior, and based only on the intellectual and spiritual insights represented in his crowning philosophical work, any potential curmudgeonly attitude might not have appeared too dissimilar to a Zen Buddhist’s somewhat impenetrable shell, seemingly cut off from the worldly concerns of those still caught in the round of samsara, as indeed Nietzsche indubitably was. Indeed, unlike Nietzsche who revelled in realising his and mankinds greatness in the world, albeit in a subtle way (and such ubermensch aspirations were no doubt part of his self-destructive neurosis and, even more unfortunately, grossly bastardised by his sister and her Nazi followers) Schopenhauer appears much wiser than that - he well understood the illusory nature of existence, which is certainly a key reason why he doesn't appear to revel in it the same way! This is not to say however he considers it meaningless or without purpose - only that the meaning is found somewhere beyond the basic will to life itself which drives all apparent material form, and which any kind of criticism of can be almost half-dismissed as a pessimistic view!
In sum, I got very little of the so-called pessimistic attitude from at least this one book, and I suspect that’s because what we often consider ‘pessimistic’ in the West is better understood as ‘acceptance of what is’ in the East (to be grossly reductive myself, but this is a UA-cam comment!), and it is to the great Eastern traditions, particularly Hinduism and Advaita Vedanta, which Schopenhauer clearly holds his most heavy intellectual and spiritual debt. This is a point that, whilst acknowledged by Nietzsche in his interpretation of Schopenhauer the times I recall him mentioning him and his work, still doesn’t seem to me to have been fully understood because Nietzsche’s ideas, or criticism of Schopenhauer’s ideas or concepts, don’t appear to have grasped the non-dualistic thinking of dependent origination in the same way Schopenhauer clearly did, probably because (from what I've been able to research online about what we know of Nietzsche's own education) Nietzsche never delved very deeply into this whole other world of thought and indeed 'no-thought'!
It is thus easy to see why the short-hand label of 'pessimism’ which Schopenhauer has been brushed with, seems to be a general reading of his philosophy today, borne of a lack of understanding or appreciation of what the man explored philosophically in a rationalist Western way via strongly-held Eastern influences. If I was writing a dissertation, this contention of mine would no doubt make for a fine point of philosophical debate - Schopenhauer re-interpreted in the 21st century with a deeper understanding of his Eastern philosophical roots - but I'm no academic, and all that citation busyness would only drive me up the wall! Someone of a more academically rigorous bent should get on it!
Amazing. You definitely seem to be an example of an educator talked about in this video.
I love your passion and how much you care about this. You make for a great educator 😊
You are amazing, I really enjoy watching you talk about philosophy in such a bright way.
I'm cramming for an essay on Nietzschean critique of Hegelianism in the context of graphic novels. Thanks for the quick and insightful explanations of both, while I'm sure they're imperfect due to short length, it helped me with my assignment.
I really love the way you approach complicated philosophical issues, thanks professor Anderson🌹
You are an example on how to present philosophy. The core ideas of complicated texts, in presentations that are actually smaller than most video essays. I am really greatly surprised.
Dr E is one of the finest humans alive right now
I have studied philosophy for a long time and your videos are so helpful. Thank you!
I do get the onion analogy but as someone who likes to cook and also as someone who has a strong interest in botany I want to point out that onions do have a kernel. It's the bud and that is how they actually start to grow. The outer layers are just used to support the growth with sugar and so forth.
These videos are just fantastic. You and your young mate are brilliant educators in this field. 8:22
If Nietzsche learned from Schopenhauer not to be isolated, then why was Nietzsche so isolated? He also talked about the value of isolation.
Or maybe the world he threatened that time was the isolated one not Nietzsche.
Nietzsche in "ecce homo" said he's talking about himself, not Schopenhauer. This book (educator), the most personal among his books.
Thanks for the superb information and commentary.
thank you ! interesting!
A very mature assessment, of these giants.
Prof. Anderson, after you recommended Nietzsche's Untimely Meditations (it goes by a number of different names), I read the essay on Schopenhauer as Educator. One of the ideas which struck me, but which you didn't touch on was that in order to reach this higher level of one's self, one must suffer. And that reaching a certain greatness within oneself requires this sacrifice and suffering. Am I reading that wrong?
Mam I m extremely found of philosophy suggest me some books for study Fredrick nietshay and sophrnhavour r my favourite philosophers
Page 175 of what book?????
Nietzsche, "Schopenhauer as Educator"
@@enesdogu4222 sounds good. Another book I should read.
Great video. Since I found out your videos, I`ve been watching them all time. Would you consider to analyze some Ayn Rand´s ideas?
"... but one thing that Shrek doesnt mention" oh the wise words of that ancient philosopher truly sing from the pages! /s
Nietzsche is indeed one who you want to hug than at another moment want to take his own philosophers hammer to . Here from my own experience i found his points interesting .A existential therapist once said to me " your obsessed with the mind and genius 'adding i pick up a good old fashion novel and loosen up . Than when you do you hear ' you have to take things more seriously " hmm dammed if you do dammed if you dont .
i do believe in the idea that one should read and learn from good teachers than forget it all when. walking through the battlefield of words letting your self emerge from the storm ..
Again thanks for your brief, spirited yet informative lecture.!
Great video thank you.
Actually, Buddha (as he did with most philosophical concepts) got there before Shrek and Nietzsche (and Schopenhauer obviously) when he said the self was like a banana tree for the same reasons
Excellent!!
I admire Nietzsche's insights into Schopenhauer's psychological makeup, and thank you very much for the clear explanation. I wonder, though, whether it is fair or even practical to strip Schopenhauer's "honesty, cheerfulness, and steadfastness" from his "isolation, melancholy, and hardening," as Nietzsche suggests. Is it possible to conceive the growth of a rose without the stem's thorns? Besides, how does it rhyme with Nietzsche's other polemical work of going "Beyond Good and Evil," where he attacks all kinds of moralizing like considering "this is good" or "that is evil"?
On the other hand, looking beyond oneself to become oneself is like looking into a mirror to know who you truly are. While a mirror unveils how tidy, fat, etc., one looks, it can never point beyond aesthetic appearances that can be manipulated at will without ever getting to the core. One can only become what one truly is, not what one likes to appear, which could be anything, really.
Young made a point that Nietzsche lost his mind by saying Thus Spoke Zarathustra was Nietzsches many archetypes wrestling one another. I didn’t think of it like this until I came across this by Young. If correct maybe it is very scary to look within too much.
And they say I couldn't find the teapot. Well, here it is
Cool video!
Though with the way Nietzsche orders his books, wouldn't it be more convenient to say what part and section you are quoting from rather than the page number? It would make it easier for people to search up those sections and read them for themselves even though they might be reading in a different language.
This video was originally made for a class in which we all used the same edition ;)
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Hi! Can you please specify which edition you used in your class? Thanks!
The onion thing is groddecks idea maybe
Nietzsche got to it before Shrek might be my favorite quote.
I’ve watched philosophy explanation videos for nearly, 6 years perhaps. At least. Got into philosophy properly in ‘16, having gotten into Buddhism to try and cure my angst and nihilism in ‘14. Wrote a book called The Ecstasy of Nothing in ‘20.
Anyway, with philosophy teaching videos. I discovered you last week. You’re the best one. Hands down.
Pdf I have of essay "Schopenhauer as Educator" has only 99 pages.
I wonder what Nietzsche would think the initial layers built from within from early life in their role to bias who we see as models in the first place.
If you have no choice in whom you'll define as a model then what free will is there to choose the right one in the first place.
I'm not saying success of model cannot me measured but that in what characteristics are measured over others determine what the outcome of success of imitation will be.
Hey, We could do a Zoom chat on Strauss or Heidegger or Dugin or some other thinker. Let me know.
the Universe peeled the layers of the onion back and forced me to look into the abyss.
Love it
Ironically, neither Nietzsche or Schopenhauer is known for their cheerfulness, perhaps the opposite of cheerfulness, and lots of isolation😅
The onion metaphor comes from Ibsen's Peer Gynt.
as a troll comment must add . if the multiverse exists, eternal return could occur wout violating laws of physics
The philosopher Shreik. tell me more
good
She is mentioning the P175 several time, wish to know P175 of which book of him.
3:56 RIENDO A CARCAJADAS CON ESTA ACLARACION
OK. LOL THE PARENTHESIS XD
Great video. Didn't Nietzsche eventually abandon Schopenhauer though?
He never escaped Schopenhauer, nor did others, we're just denying him one way or another to avoid the depressing nature of reality.
Whatever works for you, good fortune! :) as long as you at least try not to cause harm.
Napoleon, an Ubermensch, was not a good guy at all, so please don't try to imitate him. We've already got a Putin on our hands, and a Xi Jinping and many others unfortunately.
Plz guide me I m from pakistan
Hi fellow Pakistani. I think I understand your struggle. We live in society where it is impossible to find someone who is willing to have philosophical discussions with us. Such discussions are dangerous in Pakistan and can get us murdered, think Mashal Khan. Throughout our formal education, we hardly study one course that helps us think critically, and that's it. These are all the reasons we find philosophy particularly hard. I get ridiculed I when I share philosophical ideas with friends, because our entire south Asian culture is based on blind obedience. So when I come across someone like you who is trying their ass off not to be a blind follower, I immensely respect it.
I do have one or two friends who are open minded, I do not deserve them they are brilliant people. So if you find such people in Pakistan, hold onto them and do not let them to. They are extremely rare to find. Also it isn't necessary to listen to philosophers' history like we do on this channel, you could listen to people like Sam Harris, Cosmic Skeptic, who simply discuss philosophical ideas, not the philosophers. Syed Muzamil Shah, Faisal Warraich, Taimoor, are also good people. And try not to discuss such ideas on public profiles, only with extremely close friends. Take care man.
People escape their own existence because they know not themselves.
So we'll articulated. Stimulating
Hume has the same idea of no real Self at the core.
So, on the one hand, no core self, on the other hand, dangerous content, best to stay away from. Which content could therefore only be the result of acculturation. Of course, Nietzsche did look a little too hard and seems to have had intimations about what would transpire. Nowadays, we would say that he fell prey to unresolved inner conflicts.
How does one read philosophy and not become miserable?
It would be great that you dedicate a whole series of lecture to Nietzsche.
Nietzschean voice and strength!
Mam, I have a crush on you.
enjoy these content blurbs a lot. short and pithy.
Nietzsche and Shrek. 😁
I like philosophy, but at the service of humanity and society, apart from that, I see no point in it.
books organized by color, immediately clicked off