>>9470081>i haven't read what i'm complaining about: the postyou are criticizing a strawman of schopenhauer if anything at all. your complaint is that they're "weepy," which does not characterize nietzsche ("--Her woe doth she ruminate over, in a dream, the old, deep midnight--and still more her joy. For joy, although woe be deep, JOY IS DEEPER STILL THAN GRIEF CAN BE") nor kierkegaard ("Most people live dejectedly in worldly sorrow and joy; they are the ones who sit along the wall and do not join in the dance. The knights of infinity are dancers and possess elevation. They make the movements upward, and fall down again; and this too is no mean pastime, nor ungraceful to behold...But to be able to fall down in such a way that the same second it looks as if one were standing and walking, to transform the leap of life into a walk, absolutely to express the sublime in the pedestrian–that only the knight of faith can do–and this is the one and only prodigy").
kierkegaard was a christian philosopher that talked about the importance and method of faith and righteousness. nietzsche was a critic of christian degeneration and supported the idea that man should strive to become better (surprise, he was a favorite of nazi leadership). much of racial philosophy and science developed after darwin (1860s) who was following ideas proposed throughout the century. poets that dabbled in philosophical ideas like tennyson and arnold wrote about maintaining faith in an age of increasing secularization
you throw a lot of unfounded criticism as the 19th century but i notice crickets at 18th century's voltaire and locke beginning liberalism and democracy and principles of egalitarianism, or 17th century philosophers dabbling in moral relativism and introducing cartesian skepticism (the beginning of solipsism, that started with descartes, not the 1800s)
here's a great quote from a 20th century philosopher:
>Whereof one cannot speak of clearly, thereof one must remain silent. 