First: the points in our relationship with others are 100% corect.

Second: The solution is not to avoid contact to society... that can only be accepted as extreme solution when anything else fails. Instead try not to expect anything from anyone : if you have high expectations from someone they always let you down. Instead expect the worst from them and accept them how they are. By doing this You accomplish two things: first, they will always try to show they're better side(s) , second, no matter what they do it would seem a good thing to you because you expected the worst and that is better.

Though the world is full of fools, it doesn't mean they cannot change, it only means they don't want to change, because they like this way.

Trying to change them, although sometimes is succesfull it takes to much energy consumption.

I am in many ways very similar in construct. His writing, like that of Pessoas, holds the attention by its lucid account of what we share as 'eccentrics', 'misanthropes', or just plain pitying the world that we have to endure.

As such, if you go seeking so called 'happiness' you will not in any Schopenhauerian sense 'find' it. Savouring a personality through the filter of his works seems to me, as an oddball, happiness personified. Until i move onto the next world-weary font of sensibility.

go thou unto Schopenhauer & Cioran will surely follow..

Although I know nothing of it, I do notice a passing resemblance to taoism and Buddist thought from your description, and a certain desire to judge and lead through the bad good continuum, which is one way to the right

Hi Yeo Zhiyuan, thanks for your comment. Philosophers can (and do) argue about the meaning of words forever. What Schalkx & Bergsma are trying to get at, though, is the spirit of Schopenhauer's advice. And the spirit of his advice is often mistaken when compared to modern psychological research on the conditions of happiness.

Due to our complex activities, human daily routine is not as straight-forward as a dog. But this do not change the fact that human's behaviour are instinctive too. Fundamentally, our basic instinct do not differ much from a dog(for instance: it is instinctive for human and dog to have babies to continue the next generation.)

Hence, the argument put fourth by Schopenhauer was - Instinct creates Desire and Desire brings Suffering.(Definition of Suffering - The absence of Absolute Happiness. That means, something as mild as boredom is an act of Suffering taking place within ourselves)

Therefore, Schopenhauer maintained that the rule Will(Instinct)->Desire->Suffering is the 'Truth' in our life. We can't change it. That's why, we are always never satisfied and keep chasing dreams and dwell in the past, hence the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That's why according to Schopenhauer, human endlessly seek Satisfaction (yes, Schopenhauer meant Satisfaction, not Happiness. The difference is, Satisfaction is more of short-term while attaining Happiness means having it in our mindset)

One pyschological condition of human being is that we always want to look 'politically correct' - basically we only want to associate ourselves with the good stuffs and subconsciously reject the bad stuffs(hence one of the reason why we always fool ourselves). Schopenhauer and Buddhism were merely bold enough to remind us, human, that our world is actually a world where Good and Bad stuffs co-exist together. We will have a better life and suffer less (physically and mentally) if we dare to face the reality of the ugly side of this world instead of remaining ignorant. We will also suffer less if we decide to understand and defy our Desire caused by our Instinct and stop chasing Satisfaction.

Example: Human has strong desire to gain wealth and power. But if we are never satisfied with what we have gained, we will forever go on and on chasing endless dream.

Last but not least, in your points of 'What Schopenhauer got wrong', i have never read before where he said to 'Avoid Problems' and 'Avoid People'. He definitely said something along the lines but i'm very sure it is not as how as you had interpreted.

For me, i would want to passionately read a philosopher's work first before writing a blog post. As Ludwig Wittgenstein mentioned before, confusion in philosophy is often due to wrong interpretation and definition of words.