The place of rage and hate

[Mudhammam]

I hate reading philosophy books from their original authors. There is too much jargon and run on sentences. So, thank you for summerizing.

Schopenhauer position would say any re-examining of your choices will always lead to the same conclusion unless something caused the desires to change. Lets say say, for argument sake, we controlled for the emotion state and the any addition of knowledge but still got different conclusions. Schopenhauer would state some other factor changed the desires. This makes Schopenhauer position unfalsifiable.

I can think of another selection process where the decision is made at random. (see my responce to BennyBoy)

If someone held a long, thin pole standing upright and asked you to predict which direction it would fall when they let go, assuming there is no wind and everything surrounding it appears perfectly symmetrical, would the ensuing results be random? Or would there be, in principle, determinants that might allow an intelligence privy to the current state of every atom in the area to accurately predict the outcome? I don't see any major difference in this scenario and yours involving decisions that will be inevitably influenced one way or another by a multitude of factors that we are unable to consider.