jueves, 7 de agosto de 2014

La cortesía, según Schopenhauer

La cortesía, es el gesto de ignorar la miserable constitución intelectual y moral del otro y no tenerla en cuenta. 

8 comentarios:

  1. Y lo peor de todo (y teniendo en cuenta también su apunte anterior) es que la cortesía es un bien tan escaso que uno tiene que hacer esfuerzos hercúleos para no darle la razón a Schopenhauer.

    ResponderEliminar
  2. Igual que la diplomacia, es la consideración que tiene el fuerte con el débil.

    ResponderEliminar
  3. Por algún sitio escribe Nietzsche que probablemente Atman, el perro de Schopenhauer no hubiese querido cambiarse por su amo.

    ResponderEliminar
  4. Pero -¡ya lo verán ustedes!- Shopenhauer está de vuelta.

    ResponderEliminar
  5. Y, para muestra, un botón:
    http://flavorwire.com/471276/no-true-detective-didnt-plagiarize-thomas-ligotti-hume-schopenhauer-or-anyone-else

    ResponderEliminar
  6. Y bienvenido sea! Disfruté mucho con "True detective".
    El plagio de que habla el artículo da risa. Me gustaria verlos buscándose la vida en la Edad Media y defendiendo el derecho de autoría.

    ResponderEliminar
  7. Otro enfoque sobre la "cortesia" de Schopenhauer seria el que da Georg Lukács en The Destruction of Reason. 'Lo cortés no quita lo valiente'

    "....The current attempts to dissociate Nietzsche from Schopenhauer’s irrationalism, and to connect him with the Enlightenment and Hegel, I regard as childish, or rather, as an expression of history-fudging in the service of American imperialism on the lowest level yet see. Of course there exist differences between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, growing ever deeper as Nietzsche clarified his efforts in the course of his development. But they are more in the nature of differences of period: differences in the methods of combating social progress.

    From Schopenhauer, however, Nietzsche took over the principle of the methodological coherence in his intellectual structure, merely modifying and extending it to suit the age and the opponent. It amounted to what we identified in our second chapter as the indirect apologetics of capitalism. Naturally this basic principle partly assumed new concrete forms in consequence of the conditions of a more acutely developed class struggle. Schopenhauer’s struggle against the progressive thinking of his times could be summed up by saying that he condemned all action as intellectually and morally inferior. Nietzsche, on the contrary, called for active participation on behalf of reaction, of imperialism. This in itself obliged him to cast aside the whole Schopenhauerian duality of Vorstellung and Wille, and to replace the Buddhist myth of will-power with the myth of the will-to-power. Similarly, a further consequence of the heightened class struggle was his inability to make anything of Schopenhauer’s abstract rejection of history in general. A real history, of course, did not exist for Nietzsche any more than for Schopenhauer, yet his apologetics of aggressive imperialism take the form of a mythicizing of history"

    ResponderEliminar