Reminds me of something Neech said in twilight of the idols, about becoming a good educator: First you must learn to see patiently without judgment. Then one must learn to think about the observations; being able to grasp it from all sides. And then one must learn to speak, and write to communicate the thoughts - clearly and concisely.
aw thanks dude! i was going to share my hypothesis on literature which is a mix of Schop et Kafka, but I might find more time next week. thanks again x
Nah you’re right. I’m just learning him in French cause I’m in studying philosophy in Paris. I’m a1 in German so maybe come back in a few years and I can deliver you the info from the source :)
@@slowboy9674do you mean like a “entry into france uni” coach? Because I’m absolutely not qualified to teach French nor can guarantee any results other than what I’ve personally achieved. But if you mean some kind of advice / coaching (campus France) or reading or accountability buddy, I can definitely help with that. I’ll have to just be creative with my hourly rate and the structure etc. But if you’re down to experiment and to trust me enough to pay for my time - email me via my bio 🤝
existentially a writer does not exist without a reader. and yeh, we’re on the same page. I’m learning German so I can read him directly as well as another favourite, Wittgenstein. they’re pretty awesome.
If by academic, you mean methodic, then I agree. If you mean that it only concerns « intellectuels », I don’t. To go back to the hunter analogy, it’s just someone who with logic has mapped out the most efficient and pleasurable way to get what they want. The first copies, the second is figuring it out, the third has figured it out. There’s a difference between enjoying an action (the act of writing) and enjoying it’s finality (what is written).
Yes I mean methodic. Is academic writing not usually planned/fleshed out prior to writing (what i'm interpreting as type 3)? Or am I missing the point (the types are differentiated by process and/or enjoyment of the stage of writing?) @@woanologue
Yup I’d agree and say that methodical is academic. Funny thing is that I feel that a lot of people watching start turning implication to equivalence. Having thought prior implies a method, which is in my opinion not equivalent to having everything figured out. I think it’s important to qualify at least my interpretation as it ending at “having thought before the acting of writing / having corralled prior to pulling the trigger”. The rest is supplementary association. The distinction made of enjoying or doing it FOR the hunt / the process of writing vs what is hunted/written, is reference to type two, who hunts for the adventure.
Hi :) I want clarify if I get what you are saying here. From what I understood, you (and Schopenhauer) are saying the rare writer ONLY writes after thinking about what they will write? Thus making the act of writing more sacred. Because my understanding of your argument is: there's a difference if the writer puts out all their ideas on paper without much forethought and then refines these ideas into thoughtful text, as compared to writing only after thinking it through. Or are we talking about the thoughtfulness of what we write, not caring about how the text was written?
hello! i like how you did « you (and Schopenhauer) ». it was funny because in my class presentation someone said that they didn’t agree with a point I was making, and I had to remind them that i was just presenting another thinker’s work. (also me and this classmate were in agreement). - I close this tangent! I think how I framed it was « what MAKES a rare writer ». I wouldn’t say that a rare writer only ever writes after all their thoughts are thought out. Even so, I don’t think it makes writing more sacred. It just more ‘thought-full’. I hesitate saying more « profound » since I think spontaneous thoughts could also have deep meaning. (but under certain conditions, like training the body and the mind to be open and receptive to inspiration). The imagery that he evoked was of having the animals already in sight and that all he had to do was aim and shoot. You can then say that not having thought the thought would just mean that you have no idea where the animals are. And again with the idea of, are you in it simply for the activity or for what you end up bringing home. Also, this suggests an elevated game of the hunt because you’re no longer busy figuring out where the animals are but instead you play the game of strategy, what next, what’s the most fruitful chain of events, because once you shoot, i wouldn’t imagine that the animals would stay put. And going off the idea of the chain of events, when we describe a story or write an argument, one phrase follows after another, in other words, we make choices. Having the animals in front of you just means that your choices are much more intense and interesting because there is a consequence of getting animal ‘a’ meaning letting animal ‘b’ escape. Whereas if there was nothing in front of you, one, you wouldn’t really have anything to bring home or if you find one animal, that’s all you got. There’s no real game in a way. No stakes. No stakes usually implies no interest. What you’re suggesting is interesting, my response would go two ways: 1. If what you’ve written down is unthought, you’re working with ‘lower quality’ material, hoping to make it better. Refinement of something rich and dense over scraps pulled together. If you’re thinking about freeform writing and refining that, there’s a higher interest in an informed meaningful content and one that is just a stream of words without meaning. 2. Refinement rarely lead to something ‘easy’ or ‘inspired’. Something that flows naturally one after another without intervention, without afterthought because everything is right in front of you and you just had to make your best moves. Think simple and complex, singular and composed. Sure there are beautiful compositions, but a good composition is a simple whole, complete. About your last question, it could be up to semantics. Thoughtful, 1. as in careful/ premeditated? 2. rich and profound (again full of thought, not empty of meaning) Caring, 1. consciousness (spontaneous or reflective)? 2. consideration (refined or unrefined)? In the end, something lacking thought, lacks meaning and if someone writes thoughtlessly their work lacks meaning, and so, what is there even to care about, what is even worth considering? I just wouldn’t confuse spontaneity with inspiration (nor spontaneous) … there are a lot of conditions that comes into play to achieve inspiration, not to be mistaken for impulse. i hope this answers your question, even if it’s only a sketch. thank you for your comment! made me think. x
@@woanologue I think I get you now. Thank you too, for the thoughtful response. :) In reading it, I thought of something another philosopher (James Ellis) said in this book Only Ever Freedom. Only this time, from the consumer's side. Wherein we should be more thoughtful as well of what media we consume. Interesting to think about, isn't it? And I appreciate the tangent at the beginning HAHA
My pleasure! Oh 💯- I deleted instagram off my phone the start of 2024 and it’s been a game changer. If you follow Plato, he believes that feeding the soul with unbridled passion or anything that deforms truth (through illusion) deforms the soul. And closer still, with Spinoza if one desires or searches for perishable / ordinary goods, like honor, wealth or pleasure, the soul perishes along with it. Closer closer still, with Žižek, images carry affects. Bref, one should not take lightly every second given to ‘mindless’ scrolling. Or to put it differently, it’s literally harmful to absorb mindless ideas mindlessly.
@@woanologueExactly! Looks like even way back then, we've been thinking about how to practice thoughtful creating and thoughtful consuming. --- And about removing Instagram being a game changer, Right?? :D It really is. And if you're happy to share, how would you describe the difference in your life now without it?
let's be honest, no matter what I say, it'll just come off as cliché. what would be more interesting is if you deleted it for a week and let me know how it was for you when the week is up ;)
smirked when i saw this question and immediately thought it implied my channel, but then i realised that that didn’t matter because like everything in life, the answer is : to reach its full potential. thank you for the question.
Why does Schopenhauer believe the rare type of writer is the third? Maybe there is a tension in the action of translating thought into the written. It could be said that every writer also knows how limited words are, and the form they should take to represent our ideas is abstracted. The words we use might never attain the pure quality of thought. It becomes an act of bravery to face the consequences of your thoughts on a page after you’ve already thought them. Maybe it is another way of saying that the best writer hasn’t started writing yet because they are still thinking, or that the words they are using are not fully rendered yet.
so fun reading your thoughts. The first is answered by your last. Imagine getting to the point of « having thought » and never making it pass to action. But in terms of the « best writer hasn’t started writing », that is a paradoxe, you can’t be a writer without having written. Also Sartre would say that potential unrealized dies with the person, and therefore, the potential no longer exists, and therefore this « best writer » never existed. Oh a 100%. I’m working my way through epistemology and there are a bunch of white men going around in circles trying to standardize the evaluation of a scientific hypothesis. We can take this as an analogy of trying to find the best way to describe facts of life with the best way to transcribe, describe and transfer « life ». Schopenhauer had a beautiful passage paying homage to grammar which I couldn’t fit into the video. But in essence it is about how all our grammatical modalities enables the transcription of the nuance of life. But life is life and words are words. I think we should enjoy the areas where they don’t correspond, rather than force a parallel. I’d need to have your definition of « pure quality of thought. » Is it because you think that the rare writer is able to transcribe this? To me what Schopenhauer is highlighting is not this capacity, but just the separation of act of thinking with the act of writing. In that way, yes, pure writing but only to serve our capacity to place thought to paper, but not the purity of thought itself. RE the act of bravery : yes, i think coming to terms with one’s thought, especially realized in the material world takes an act of bravery, from oneself and from those around the writer.
@@woanologue Maybe I could amend my first point to say that the best piece of writing hasn’t been written yet. I only say this because of the way I’m receiving your presentation of Schopenhauer. Great writing, or the best writing, comes from great thought. The writer then is not someone who writes, but is capable of writing. So pure thought is the seed, the prime mover before the thinking. Thinking is just a process of translating a thought into an coherent internal picture, writing turns that picture into a recognisable form. As in A Midsummer Nights Dream, “Imagination bodies forth the form of things unknown” and “the poets pen… gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name”. That airy nothing is the pure thought proceeding the written or even conscious words. So maybe I can preserve my original remark and say that a great writer is still thinking their way into being. Maybe it is also true that great writing requires great thinking on behalf of the readers before the text itself can be recognised as great.
interesting last remark (i agree). maybe me mentioning the hierarchy implied that great thought lends itself to great writing. let me clarify : the rare/best writer is one that « has thought » prior to writing. i’m still unclear on your definition of pure thought. also, if one writes, one IS capable of writing, here is where the distinction is stylistic and not so much the ability in and of itself, it’s mode. one can have a can have a recognizable form of ‘ideas’ without any representation (words). the greeks shared ideas orally, it was Plato who started writing down the thoughts of Socrates. love Mr. Shakes but if we are talking in philosophical terms, thought and imagination are separate. thought comes from reason and imagination from perception (images we attain from sight) ((i do wonder then what it means for a blind person - a person who has never had any capacity for sight - to imagine)). i think it’s then important to clarify that these « unknown » might be more so hallucinations than insight. A poet’s pen gives us his opinion, not a universal designation.
Reminds me of something Neech said in twilight of the idols, about becoming a good educator:
First you must learn to see patiently without judgment.
Then one must learn to think about the observations; being able to grasp it from all sides.
And then one must learn to speak, and write to communicate the thoughts - clearly and concisely.
P.S. great video. Keep ‘em coming. I love Schopenhauer.
omg, i’ve never seen Nietzsche spelt that way, fking love it. yeh these German thinkers rly had something you know?
aw thanks dude! i was going to share my hypothesis on literature which is a mix of Schop et Kafka, but I might find more time next week. thanks again x
This video reminds me to dig into Cioran again, one of the rare writers of Schopenhauer's 3rd type.
Excellent video. I foresee that your channel will grow by quite a significant amount in the near future
oh thanks so much :)) wishing you a lovely day/night ahead !
Did Schop write this in French? I had always assumed he wrote everything in German
Nah you’re right. I’m just learning him in French cause I’m in studying philosophy in Paris. I’m a1 in German so maybe come back in a few years and I can deliver you the info from the source :)
@@woanologue Oh thats awesome I'm learning Serbian right now living in Belgrade. I can hardly imagine being a1 lol. Are you American?
Schopenhauer was lowkey the thinker. This gives me a new perspective on what it means to be a good writer.
hi keyyyy - and I’m glad ! It definitely shifted my perspective
@@woanologuecan you help me please ,to enter bachelor's degree in Belgium or France with Delf B1
@@slowboy9674do you mean like a “entry into france uni” coach? Because I’m absolutely not qualified to teach French nor can guarantee any results other than what I’ve personally achieved. But if you mean some kind of advice / coaching (campus France) or reading or accountability buddy, I can definitely help with that. I’ll have to just be creative with my hourly rate and the structure etc. But if you’re down to experiment and to trust me enough to pay for my time - email me via my bio 🤝
Not a writer but like me some Schopenhauer…
existentially a writer does not exist without a reader. and yeh, we’re on the same page. I’m learning German so I can read him directly as well as another favourite, Wittgenstein. they’re pretty awesome.
The third sounds like academic writing
If by academic, you mean methodic, then I agree. If you mean that it only concerns « intellectuels », I don’t. To go back to the hunter analogy, it’s just someone who with logic has mapped out the most efficient and pleasurable way to get what they want. The first copies, the second is figuring it out, the third has figured it out. There’s a difference between enjoying an action (the act of writing) and enjoying it’s finality (what is written).
Yes I mean methodic. Is academic writing not usually planned/fleshed out prior to writing (what i'm interpreting as type 3)? Or am I missing the point (the types are differentiated by process and/or enjoyment of the stage of writing?) @@woanologue
Yup I’d agree and say that methodical is academic. Funny thing is that I feel that a lot of people watching start turning implication to equivalence. Having thought prior implies a method, which is in my opinion not equivalent to having everything figured out. I think it’s important to qualify at least my interpretation as it ending at “having thought before the acting of writing / having corralled prior to pulling the trigger”. The rest is supplementary association.
The distinction made of enjoying or doing it FOR the hunt / the process of writing vs what is hunted/written, is reference to type two, who hunts for the adventure.
Hi :)
I want clarify if I get what you are saying here.
From what I understood, you (and Schopenhauer) are saying the rare writer ONLY writes after thinking about what they will write? Thus making the act of writing more sacred.
Because my understanding of your argument is: there's a difference if the writer puts out all their ideas on paper without much forethought and then refines these ideas into thoughtful text, as compared to writing only after thinking it through.
Or are we talking about the thoughtfulness of what we write, not caring about how the text was written?
hello! i like how you did « you (and Schopenhauer) ». it was funny because in my class presentation someone said that they didn’t agree with a point I was making, and I had to remind them that i was just presenting another thinker’s work. (also me and this classmate were in agreement). - I close this tangent!
I think how I framed it was « what MAKES a rare writer ». I wouldn’t say that a rare writer only ever writes after all their thoughts are thought out. Even so, I don’t think it makes writing more sacred. It just more ‘thought-full’. I hesitate saying more « profound » since I think spontaneous thoughts could also have deep meaning. (but under certain conditions, like training the body and the mind to be open and receptive to inspiration).
The imagery that he evoked was of having the animals already in sight and that all he had to do was aim and shoot. You can then say that not having thought the thought would just mean that you have no idea where the animals are. And again with the idea of, are you in it simply for the activity or for what you end up bringing home. Also, this suggests an elevated game of the hunt because you’re no longer busy figuring out where the animals are but instead you play the game of strategy, what next, what’s the most fruitful chain of events, because once you shoot, i wouldn’t imagine that the animals would stay put. And going off the idea of the chain of events, when we describe a story or write an argument, one phrase follows after another, in other words, we make choices. Having the animals in front of you just means that your choices are much more intense and interesting because there is a consequence of getting animal ‘a’ meaning letting animal ‘b’ escape. Whereas if there was nothing in front of you, one, you wouldn’t really have anything to bring home or if you find one animal, that’s all you got. There’s no real game in a way. No stakes. No stakes usually implies no interest.
What you’re suggesting is interesting, my response would go two ways:
1. If what you’ve written down is unthought, you’re working with ‘lower quality’ material, hoping to make it better. Refinement of something rich and dense over scraps pulled together. If you’re thinking about freeform writing and refining that, there’s a higher interest in an informed meaningful content and one that is just a stream of words without meaning.
2. Refinement rarely lead to something ‘easy’ or ‘inspired’. Something that flows naturally one after another without intervention, without afterthought because everything is right in front of you and you just had to make your best moves. Think simple and complex, singular and composed. Sure there are beautiful compositions, but a good composition is a simple whole, complete.
About your last question, it could be up to semantics.
Thoughtful,
1. as in careful/ premeditated?
2. rich and profound (again full of thought, not empty of meaning)
Caring,
1. consciousness (spontaneous or reflective)?
2. consideration (refined or unrefined)?
In the end, something lacking thought, lacks meaning and if someone writes thoughtlessly their work lacks meaning, and so, what is there even to care about, what is even worth considering?
I just wouldn’t confuse spontaneity with inspiration (nor spontaneous) … there are a lot of conditions that comes into play to achieve inspiration, not to be mistaken for impulse.
i hope this answers your question, even if it’s only a sketch.
thank you for your comment! made me think. x
@@woanologue
I think I get you now.
Thank you too, for the thoughtful response. :)
In reading it, I thought of something another philosopher (James Ellis) said in this book Only Ever Freedom. Only this time, from the consumer's side. Wherein we should be more thoughtful as well of what media we consume. Interesting to think about, isn't it?
And I appreciate the tangent at the beginning HAHA
My pleasure! Oh 💯- I deleted instagram off my phone the start of 2024 and it’s been a game changer.
If you follow Plato, he believes that feeding the soul with unbridled passion or anything that deforms truth (through illusion) deforms the soul. And closer still, with Spinoza if one desires or searches for perishable / ordinary goods, like honor, wealth or pleasure, the soul perishes along with it.
Closer closer still, with Žižek, images carry affects. Bref, one should not take lightly every second given to ‘mindless’ scrolling. Or to put it differently, it’s literally harmful to absorb mindless ideas mindlessly.
@@woanologueExactly!
Looks like even way back then, we've been thinking about how to practice thoughtful creating and thoughtful consuming.
---
And about removing Instagram being a game changer,
Right?? :D
It really is.
And if you're happy to share, how would you describe the difference in your life now without it?
let's be honest, no matter what I say, it'll just come off as cliché. what would be more interesting is if you deleted it for a week and let me know how it was for you when the week is up ;)
How big do you plan to get?
smirked when i saw this question and immediately thought it implied my channel, but then i realised that that didn’t matter because like everything in life, the answer is : to reach its full potential.
thank you for the question.
Your explanations and comments are so unnecessary. But overall pretty good video:)
Why does Schopenhauer believe the rare type of writer is the third?
Maybe there is a tension in the action of translating thought into the written. It could be said that every writer also knows how limited words are, and the form they should take to represent our ideas is abstracted.
The words we use might never attain the pure quality of thought. It becomes an act of bravery to face the consequences of your thoughts on a page after you’ve already thought them.
Maybe it is another way of saying that the best writer hasn’t started writing yet because they are still thinking, or that the words they are using are not fully rendered yet.
so fun reading your thoughts.
The first is answered by your last. Imagine getting to the point of « having thought » and never making it pass to action. But in terms of the « best writer hasn’t started writing », that is a paradoxe, you can’t be a writer without having written. Also Sartre would say that potential unrealized dies with the person, and therefore, the potential no longer exists, and therefore this « best writer » never existed.
Oh a 100%. I’m working my way through epistemology and there are a bunch of white men going around in circles trying to standardize the evaluation of a scientific hypothesis. We can take this as an analogy of trying to find the best way to describe facts of life with the best way to transcribe, describe and transfer « life ». Schopenhauer had a beautiful passage paying homage to grammar which I couldn’t fit into the video. But in essence it is about how all our grammatical modalities enables the transcription of the nuance of life. But life is life and words are words. I think we should enjoy the areas where they don’t correspond, rather than force a parallel.
I’d need to have your definition of « pure quality of thought. » Is it because you think that the rare writer is able to transcribe this? To me what Schopenhauer is highlighting is not this capacity, but just the separation of act of thinking with the act of writing. In that way, yes, pure writing but only to serve our capacity to place thought to paper, but not the purity of thought itself.
RE the act of bravery : yes, i think coming to terms with one’s thought, especially realized in the material world takes an act of bravery, from oneself and from those around the writer.
@@woanologue
Maybe I could amend my first point to say that the best piece of writing hasn’t been written yet. I only say this because of the way I’m receiving your presentation of Schopenhauer.
Great writing, or the best writing, comes from great thought. The writer then is not someone who writes, but is capable of writing. So pure thought is the seed, the prime mover before the thinking. Thinking is just a process of translating a thought into an coherent internal picture, writing turns that picture into a recognisable form. As in A Midsummer Nights Dream, “Imagination bodies forth the form of things unknown” and “the poets pen… gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name”. That airy nothing is the pure thought proceeding the written or even conscious words.
So maybe I can preserve my original remark and say that a great writer is still thinking their way into being. Maybe it is also true that great writing requires great thinking on behalf of the readers before the text itself can be recognised as great.
interesting last remark (i agree). maybe me mentioning the hierarchy implied that great thought lends itself to great writing. let me clarify : the rare/best writer is one that « has thought » prior to writing. i’m still unclear on your definition of pure thought. also, if one writes, one IS capable of writing, here is where the distinction is stylistic and not so much the ability in and of itself, it’s mode.
one can have a can have a recognizable form of ‘ideas’ without any representation (words). the greeks shared ideas orally, it was Plato who started writing down the thoughts of Socrates.
love Mr. Shakes but if we are talking in philosophical terms, thought and imagination are separate. thought comes from reason and imagination from perception (images we attain from sight) ((i do wonder then what it means for a blind person - a person who has never had any capacity for sight - to imagine)). i think it’s then important to clarify that these « unknown » might be more so hallucinations than insight. A poet’s pen gives us his opinion, not a universal designation.