This is a very Mainländerian episode. Beings that arrive at the perfect state, free from any suffering and in absolute control of their destiny will eventually choose death because boredom cannot be overcome in such a state.

To rationally end your life you have to work against your brain using every mechanism it has to prevent you from going through with it: panic attacks, starting to hope, delusion, changing your mind at the last moment etc. It's not peaceful unless you don't actually know you're dying at that right moment.

The only way i can see anyone pushing forward, rationally, is if they somehow do not actually have a fear of death and do not really associate it with ceasing to exist. More like having a subconscious hope that there is something more (or better) after death and a curiosity to find out what it is.

My question is, presuming his suicide was rational, what did he think death and dying meant? What did he convince himself he would experience by ending his life? Is there any indication in his writings about these things?

[edit] sorry for the typo in the title

Hey everybody,

It's still not clear to me, did Mainlander think that early buddhism did in fact teach litteral rebirth but was mistaken, or that it didn't teach such a doctrine to begin with ?

Thanks in advance.

His works are unavailable in portuguese, which i find absurd

Can some of you please send me his works in german, spanish, french and english?

Everyone needs to know this man's pure and noble heart

I'm planning on writing a paper on Phillip Mainländer but I can barely find any secondary literature. I'm not sure where to look because I've searched almost all relevant phillsophical databanks with little succes.

I need at least 25 good sources. Could I find these somewhere and if yes, where? Or would I be better of choosing a different subject?

I only read philosophy of redemption and a Pessimist at war (his solider memoir). Does he have any other works? Even if its articles or something to that effect?

Thanks xx

In his philosophy, the universe is not omnipotent in a metaphysical sense and can only achieve it's goal through processing. I think that would be enough to regard Mainlander as a process philosopher but how do you guys think about it?

Hello, everybody,

since I first discovered Mainlander and read an anthology in Spanish, I've also found out that it is actually pretty difficult to find him in other languages as for the complete works. Not even being fully available in English when it comes to physical versions. Although I highly appreciate the efforts of the community to bring him to light online, I really need to feel the paper in my hand personally to enjoy it.

As a language learner lover, interested in philosophy like you all here, I believe that learning German not only to read Mainlander, but Goethe, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche which I'm also interested in is almost mandatory for my brain at this point. So, I've started, I know I'll take years of painful yet joyful lessons of grammar and so, to be able to read it with understanding and pleasure, but I had to start at some point.

I'm curious. Have any of you considered learning German to read Mainlander or other philosophers in its entirety?

If someone is actually thinking in doing it, I invite you to follow my path because to fully appreciate it that's what, I think, we should do.

Thanks for reading!

Hello all. I'm new to Mainlander, am just working my way through Christian's translation. I just finished Analytics and ran into a few parts that I couldn't quite wrap my head around. If I could spare a moment of your time, it would lend me a lot of confidence moving forward.

Section 33 - Mainlander argues that "the present floats on top of the point of motion... If in contrast, the present had primacy and so the point of motion stood on it, then my essence during every intermission of my consciousness (in fainting, in sleep) would have to rest totally, i.e. death would touch my essence and it would not be able to rekindle its life." He calls this assumption, the primacy of present, absurd but necessary for the "developmental course of philosophy" - just as the false assumption that "space lends extension to things-in-themselves".

Could someone just break this down like I'm 5:

What is the different between "point of motion" and the "present"?

Why is this distinction important in the first place?

Why is the primacy of the point of motion important to Mainlander, in general?

Finally, why was the false assumption - of the primacy of the present - important to the development of philosophy? How exactly is it similar to assuming that extension follows from space?

I'm guessing this all serves to clarify the fact the "present", and indeed time itself, as simply a consequence of cognizing real succession, but I don't really understand the specifics of this claim, why its important, or how it has been developed historically.

Sorry if I'm missing basic things here.

Hello everyone, I hope you are all doing well.

I have thoroughly translated and formatted the entirety of the second volume of "The Philosophy of Redemption" from German into English. It is free to read on archive.org (https://archive.org/details/the-philosophy-of-redemption-volume-2-philipp-mainlander); I hope it proves helpful to all of your philosophical endeavors and gives you much food for thought.

As you may imagine, the process was very time-intensive (particularly the formatting part), but I trust it to be entirely and not just simply worth it due to Mainländer's intellectual brilliance and his deserving to be (much) more well-known.

Anyhow, thanks to all of you for being a part of this fascinating community, have a pleasant day, and stay safe.

Best regards,

A fellow fan of Mainländer

That death is the end, not as in some entity/ego/personality surviving, transmitting, flying over etc, but that the same situation that obtained before "our" existence wouldn't obtain again ? The same situation we just "spawned" from ?

I'm not asking if it is the most plausible view, but can we ever be sure ?

Also, what difference does it make if one has a kid ? Morally, ethically i do understand the difference, i'm an antinatalist myself, but in a phenomenological way, does it make any difference ?

Hello, everyone. I've been reading the Philosophy of Redemption, and it has been a very unexpected reading, when I heard about it being the most radical system of pessimism, I was expecting a big dark poem upon life's challenges something like Cioran, but not an extremely deep and objective analysis of the human condition and the universe going through various fields. And I just love it. It makes so much sense in many ways. I like how, at least in the first volume he doesn't talk about his life at all, it's straight up facts upon life and its eventual conclusion. So I can't help but wonder why Mainlander is more widely known, read, discussed? I mean, for what I know the first english translation of the first volume was made this same year and in other languages like french he doesn't even have a translation. In spanish there are anthologies of one editorial only and one full of the first volume, but still, his works seem rare to find and seldom spoken about. Everybody that is a bit into pessimistic or philosophy in general knows Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Cioran, but nobody seems to talk much about Mainlander. Perhaps is it because his thoughts and his solutions are too much extreme for the general public and its somewhat shadowbanned? I would like to hear from you guys. Thanks.

This is a little tidbit about Mainländer's life that I stumbled across in Lucia Franz's "Über Schopenhauers häusliches Leben" ("Schopenhauer's home life" – a pretty entertaining read on its own!) a while ago, and which has just been floating around in my notes till now. Lucia Franz, who lived in the same house as Schopenhauer and often visited him when she was a child, briefly talks about Mainländer on p. 87:

One of his [Schopenhauer's] greatest admirers was a cousin of my mother, Philipp Batz from Offenbach, who wrote the "Philosophy of Redemption" under the pseudonym Philipp Mainländer. He always asked me what it was like at Schopenhauer's and how he treated us. He did try to make a visit downstairs^(1) a few times, but was never admitted, because Schopenhauer was already very ill at that time.^(2) Philipp Mainländer later died by suicide, just like his sister Mina who helped him finish his work; both had such tragic ends. My mother used to say that Schopenhauer was to blame for that because of his doctrine.

(Zu seinen größten Verehrern und Bewunderern gehörte ein Vetter meiner Mutter, Philipp Batz in Offenbach, der unter dem Pseudonym Philipp Mainländer die „Philosophie der Erlösung“ schrieb. Der wollte immer von mir wissen, wie es bei Schopenhauer sei und wie er zu uns wäre. Er selbst machte ein paarmal Besuche unten, wurde aber nicht angenommen, da Schopenhauer schon schwer leidend war. Philipp Mainländer endete später durch Selbstmord, ebenso seine Schwester Mina, die ihm half, sein Werk zu vollenden; beide endeten so tragisch. Mutter behauptete stets, daran sei Schopenhauer schuld durch seine Lehre gewesen.)

So, Mainländer and Schopenhauer nearly met!

^(1) At the time, Schopenhauer was living on the first floor of the house Lucia Franz lived in.

^(2) This was likely near the end of Schopenhauer's life (around 1860); he soon died of pneumonia.

Hello, a few days ago I gave this conference on Analytic of the Cognitive Faculty, unfortunately it is in Spanish, but you can turn on the english subtitles on Youtube (obviously they are not so accurate as they are generated automatically). In the video I explain and comment on each paragraph of this section.

Here is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6jwhBVM1Tc

Hello all,

My copy of The Philosophy of Redemption has just arrived in the mail, and I am very eager to read it. However, I am still quite new to philosophy and not well-versed with all the fundamental philosophers. Given this, which philosophical works, philosophers, or philosophical concepts should I learn before reading The Philosophy of Redemption in order to properly understand it*?* Mainländer mentions in the foreword that this text is a "continuation of the doctrines of Kant and of Schopenhauer," so would that be a good place to begin? Which texts or coined concepts by these philosophers -- or other philosophers -- should I read before starting? Because it all seems quite complicated without some background knowledge.....

Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you all.

In the Analytics section, paragraph 28, Mainländer presents a logical argument for the finite nature of the universe. He even says it's easy to prove logically! I'm not sure I understand the logic behind it. It seems like there are some conceptual ambiguities and question-begging moves.

“And, in fact, it is extraordinarily easy for logic to prove the finiteness of the world.

The universe is not a single force, a simple unity, but a totality of finite spheres of force. Now, to none of these spheres of force can I give infinite extension; for in doing so I would firstly destroy the concept itself, then I would turn multiplicity into unity, i.e., I would be striking experience in the face. Alongside a single eternal sphere of force there is no room for any other sphere of force, and the essence of nature would simply be done away with. A totality of finite spheres of force must, however, necessarily be finite.

It could here be objected that, although in the world only finite forces are to be met with, infinitely many finite forces may be present, such that the world is no totality, but is infinite.

The response to this must be: All of the forces of the world are either simple chemical forces or compounds of the same. The former are countable and, furthermore, all compounds can be traced back to these few simple forces. No simple force, as elaborated above, can be infinite, if we are also to be allowed to designate each one summarily as immeasurably large. Consequently, the world, at bottom, is the sum of the simple forces, which are all finite, i.e., the world is finite.”

Maybe one of you can see the logic in this.

I saw this list of Mainländer's works and was wondering if there is a complete list of every book that mentions him in the English language. Here is what I am aware of, please let me know if anything is missing. The titles of all items on the original list are in bold in this list.

Primary Sources:

• The Immanent Philosophy of Philipp Mainländer (First Version): Mirror of YuYuHunter's Translation of Philipp Mainländer’s Works as of 2018-07-30, translation by YuYuHunter, 2018.
• The Philosophy of Redemption, Volume 1, translation by Christian Romuss, Irukandji Press, 1876/2024.

Secondary Sources:

• The Conspiracy Against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror, Thomas Ligotti, Viking Press, 2010.
• Weltschmerz: Pessimism in German Philosophy, 1860-1900, Frederick C. Beiser, Oxford University Press, 2016.
• Infinite Resignation, Eugene Thacker, Repeater Books, 2018.
• On the Verge of Nothing: Pessimism’s Impossible Beyond, Gary J. Shipley, Nine-Banded Books, 2021. Suggested by u/spookyghostmeat.

Brief Mentions:

• Kappa, Ryūnosuke Akutagawa, 1927 (various translations in English).
• The Gay Science, Friedrich Nietzsche, 1882 (various translations in English).

From where I can get The Philosophy of Redemption pdf ?

It has been released months ago, why still no one have uploaded it on 'internet archive' or 'library genesis' ?

Hello friends!

Firstly, apologies for what may be a simple question- I've only very recently discovered Mainländer's writings and ideas!

I've become obsessed with his idea of God's death being the birth of this world ever since reading about it in Thomas Ligotti's 'The Conspiracy Against the Human Race'. I wanted to read Mainländer's words directly and was thrilled to discover there is a recent english translation of Philosophy of Redemption, but wanted to check before I go diving in that this recent translation actually includes his writings on this idea. Any help much appreciated.

Thanks so much :)