This Is Why People Get Offended... (According to Schopenhauer)

SUPPORT US ON PATREON:

WATCH: Schopenhauer: How to Be Happy (all parts):

SCHOPENHAUER'S WORKS:

[Mantras-and-Mystics]

"When everything is personal - anything can offend."

[jbrennan]

I used to believe this, but I have family members who are extraordinarily intelligent but toxically involved in their opinions. I think this can be observed in many instances

[thedow]

Completely agree when I get too stressed I look to the moon, always puts my transient fears in perspective.

[computergamescritical]

I feel like notions like this just breed in otherwise rather philosophical and intelligent people, a sentiment of contempt and superiority towards “common people” by just presuming that one being offended at a particular viewpoint is of some kind of minimal or negligible worth, especially if that person cannot articulate a proper reason for their offense. Even if said person is being irrational, unreasonable, and refusing to listen or be charitable, that person should not be looked down upon, nor their anger be unsympathized with, but rather they should be viewed as equals. Be loving towards all, but spend your time with people mostly wiser than yourself.

[SameAsAnyOtherStranger]

Good job of making detached apathetic people feel smart.

[dominiknewfolder]

From my experience it's not true.
The difference is in the way in which inteligent person express their feelings.

Best predictor of being offended is perceiving someone as lower being (morally or social position).
It works in reverse. If someone is offended there is high likelihood that this person is perceiving offender as lower in some way.
That's how racism works.
In both directions.
You can be sure about that 😄

[Pensnmusic]

"could"

Important word you got there. Intelligent people can also produce a better defense of a subjective viewpoint, and often this is what they do. They fool themselves better than anyone else ever could.

[shamaniccolonic]

What I get offended at is having to deal with unconscious hateful people throughout my entire life. I've always been able to view situations & people objectively; fully understanding the pain & insecurity behind their petty actions. What really pisses me off is the sheer ignorance & lack of empathy of most people. I suppose I'm more so angry at God for bringing me into this situation in the first place. The worst part is that you can't even begin to open someone's eyes when they believe they're already seeing clearly!! Lord help us. This place could be as beautiful as you intended if you would just help us help ourselves. Maybe you already are & I'm more of a blind fool than I realized. Maybe nothing matters at all. Not in a nihilistic sense, but rather that everything is perfect the way it is. I can see how beautiful & seamlessly the individual props & actors in this production support & play off each other, but at the end of this performance will you really be able to say "Yeah, that was totally worth it. Lots of fun. Pretty colors. Let's sleep for a bit & run it back." What is the fucking point you jackass!? Just go to bed & don't wake up dude. Or at least leave me out of this fucking shitshow next time around. I beg of you.

P.S. I actually really love life. But I don't at the same time. Funny, isn't it? I'm eternally grateful for the love & pain I've experienced here. Is pain even real? Or is it love in disguise?? Is love real? Am I real?? Is anything? Is God real? Assuming they are, I swear this is all just a dream inside a dream in the mind of God. The purpose? Couldn't tell ya fam. Maybe it's just God splitting into many bodies so they can diddle themself to their heart's content for all eternity. If that is the case, I feel you dawg.

Edit: The answer to all of our problems is very obvious. You can't be offended if there is no one there to offend. & the same goes for suffering in all it's forms. Realize the illusion of your ego & to transcend suffering.

[xpanda]

From the objective dimension the eternal soul reaches the mortal body that comes and goes as a guest with the eternal masters, the true owners of reality.. Therefore, life and death are in the imperfect place where everything is personal and worthy of complaints.

[Nyconbr]

That's why I think the concept of a Personal God can cause more harm than good. Sure, assuming the God is all loving can have a therapeutic and humanitarian effect, but if something is not agreeable in the eyes of a believer, he can justify his aggressive acts because God didn't like it. Not only it removes self responsibility, it's also deeply contradictory.

The belief of an impersonal God (and that reads a higher deterministic force that acts beyond morality) doesn't face that issues. Plus it doesn't imply the lack of order since we can verify it in nature. Objectively speaking, order is real, love isn't.
That said, it can be extremely possible to live rightfully and virtuously in a world without the belief of a personal God, contrary to what theists says.

[harshkumar]

Well this comment section proved that point I think 😂😂

[edistrakais]

"So if we sum everything up, the more unintelligent and dumber a person is, the more often and harder person gets offended."

[ProNice]

Ho boy ... ok. Let's count the logical fallacies right from the beginning:

(1) You propose a False Dilemma: The statement presents a false dilemma between being intelligent and having a subjective view versus being a common man and having a personal view. It suggests that there are only two options available and that one cannot have both intelligence and a personal perspective.

(2) You use a broad Ad Hominem: The statement makes a derogatory remark about common people, implying that they lack the intelligence to take an objective view and are therefore stuck viewing things subjectively.

(3) Adding a Sweeping Generalization: The statement makes a sweeping generalization that all intelligent people take an objective view, and all common people take a subjective view. This is a hasty generalization that does not consider the individual differences and unique perspectives of each person.

(4) Begging the Question: The statement begs the question by assuming that an objective view is superior to a subjective view without providing any evidence or justification.

(5) Post Hoc: The statement suggests that intelligence is the cause of an objective view, and lack of intelligence is the cause of a subjective view, which is a post hoc fallacy. There is no evidence to support this claim.

And not to the rather problematic implications that your statement involves:

Your statement implies that intelligence is the only factor that determines one's perspective, which is not true. Factors such as culture, upbringing, and personal experiences can also influence one's perspective. You also suggest that having a personal view is inferior to having an objective view, which can lead to the dismissal of valid personal experiences and emotions.

Your statement also implies that intelligent people are less likely to be offended, which is not necessarily true. Intelligent people can still be offended by things that violate their values or beliefs. Also, you suggest that people who get offended are not intelligent, which is a harmful and offensive stereotype. Offense can be a valid emotional response to a wide range of experiences, and it does not necessarily reflect one's intelligence.

This is definitely not worthy of Schopenhauer.

[kf]

And yet here he was, taking up the view of the non-common, the "objective" special people. One cannot escape being someone. There is no objective view, by virtue of being a view. Zizek's "The Parallax View" bodies Schopenhauer's words here.

[JJ-uiph]

The dumb see the world as how they want it to be. The rest of us see it for how it is. One believes in religion, myths and stories. The other believes in facts, rationality and reason. Guess which one is which?

[MrSwac]

Funny enough Schopenhauer ignores his subjective attitude the most, to the point where his philosophy, if anything, is really only a reflection of his own life and attitudes.
This is the tale that Carl Jung often noted, a man blinded by the pursuit of the Objectif will trip all day on his Subjectivity (think of classicism, positivism, etc.).
Opposite to that, a subjective thinker with time and dedication can reach the universal (think of poetry and romanticism).
Nietzche's use of judging the individual to assess the ideas is a good counter-example to Schopenhauer's attempts at self-denial.



On the note of psychological types, stupidity/intelligence is really an "eye of the beholder" issue.
Each type tends to define it in a different manner.

An extroverted thinker would judge Schopenhauer stupid. Someone stuck in useless considerations that lived a pitiful-life of failures.

[ReinertZerker]

I don't necessarily agree with this, too many "Intellectuals" invalidate their own existence with objectivism, it completely negates the ability to lead into retaliation. A healthy balance of subjectivity and objectivity is needed, just because you understand you're small doesn't mean you don't have a right.

[mack]

People get offended because of their ego's

[kangarooninja]

I've always thought it was because people identify with their opinions. That it's not so much a matter of intelligence or lack of perspective, but because they started off on poor developmental footing while discovering themselves.

[stevolution]

This is why there’s too many of us. Because people can’t get over the idea that they are not a good idea.