Has anyone here read this?
What did you learn from it?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Has anyone here read this? What did you learn from it?
Has anyone here read this?
What did you learn from it?
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Schopenhauer has arguably the best prose in philosophy and there's some hidden gems in here. This is not a book you read to "learn something"; you can read plenty secondary literature for that and Schopenhauer's actual arguments here are clearly dogshit if you know the first thing about Kant.
As a historical document, it's the first great meeting of Eastern and Western philosophy and a huge inspiration for Nietzsche (The Apollonian/Dionysian distinction is just renamed from Schopenhauer and Nietzsche is very upfront about this).
If interested in the history of philosophy or great writing you should give it a go but if you're a brainlet who just wants to "learn something" pick up a How to Win Friends and Influence People book or some shit.
Also The Third Section on Aesthetics is my favorite and I would recommend but it may just be personal preference.
>Schopenhauer has arguably the best prose in philosophy
Nope, Nietzsche does. He also BTFOd Schopenhauer and completely surpassed him.
I knew one of you morons was going to say this because none of you know what "arguably" means. I'd probably agree that Nietzsche has much better prose but his style was deeply influenced by Schopenhauer. Also I know for a fact you have not read The World as Will and Representation.
My doctoral dissertation was on Schopenhauer. Try again
I'm noticing the prose of Nietzsche proponents in this comes across as worse.
Nietzsche did surpass Schopenhauer but he is indebted to him.
Philosophers think it's cool for some reason to pretend like Schopenhauer had no influence
Nietzsche wristes like a woman. He's boring
The common view in the literature is that Nietzsche cannot successfully argue against Schopenhauer's pessimism. I mean, how the frick does he top him? Schopenhauer always has a point. Nietzsche not even that, b***h contradicts himself all the time.
Schopenhauer's genius is not in responding to Kant, moron. He has his own ideas.
Like what? He bases his entire system upon misunderstood Kantian metaphysics. He makes one mistake by assuming that there cannot be a plurality of things in themselves and another by assuming that we have access to the one thing in itself through reflection on ourself, even though Kant shows that reason cannot prove a unified self.
Schopenhauer took these blatant mistakes in metaphysics and built all of his major claims out of them. True, his pessimism was quite original and he came up with a very interesting system but this was all a response to Kant.
It doesn't even seem like you've read him. There are countless extremely interesting ideas of life that he brings, and if they are mistakenly based on Kant it in no ways degrades their worth on their own. For the most part his justification on the basis of Kant was almost secondary to the development of his own ideas. Part of his entire point was that access to such ideas worked on an entirely different process to Kant's logic, as if its newness would make it almost seem illogical. Carl Jung is an entire area of thought developed out of Schopenhauer's comparison of the psyche with a tree, and unexplored roots.
>He makes one mistake by assuming that there cannot be a plurality of things in themselves and another by assuming that we have access to the one thing in itself through reflection on ourself, even though Kant shows that reason cannot prove a unified self.
Where exactly is the mistake and where does Kant prove this?
Very simply put the mistake is in assuming that plurality must only come from the 12 categories and that because the 12 categories do not apply to the thing in itself by definition there cannot be a plurality of things in themselves.
Kant shows that there cannot be a proof of a unified self as a substance in the four paralogisms in the Critique of Pure Reason.
He didn't misunderstand Kant, he completely rectified his system, read the fourfold root you fricking moron
What does botany has to do with philosophy?
Reading it right now after almost every book of Nietzsche, most of Plato, a book about the presocratics, some of Spinoza and some of Aristotle.
It is amazing, I'm currently finishing the Epistemology book and it's exactly what I was looking for, it shows the framework Nietzsche used to develop his perspectivism.
You shoulda at least read the prolegomena first my guy
Nah, I'm trying to avoid Kant at all costs. Deep down I know I'll eventually read him as well, but I have a superstition whereby the most important years for philosophical development are from 17 to 25 years old. It may be as far as 30, but for some reason I'm more certain about the 25 year mark.
So I want to deeply understand those books I consider to be the most important works of knowledge before that age, and I don't think Kant is THAT important.
>I don't think Kant is THAT important
He's defined the terms of discussion for all philosophy after him
He's important as Aristotle is, obviously one of the greatest genius in history but not perennial. That's Plato, that's also Nietzsche, for instance. And Nietzsche didn't even read Kant but studied Schopenhauer intensively.
Nietzsche owned Kant's books and referenced reading them in certain letters.
That's what we call "signalling". No, but seriously, as far as I know, he owned just the CPR and I doubt he even read much of it anyway.
He owned the books, said he read them, and explicitly referred to Kant and his philosophy in his books but you don't want to believe he read them? You sir, are a moron
No, Kant gets stuck at trying to understand metaphysics. He's midwit bait.
>Nah, I'm trying to avoid Kant at all costs
>reads Schopie
my guy...
It actually makes Kant's CPR practical and complete. Recognizing that multiplicity is intrinsically tied to space, time, and causality lets you fully understand the consequences of monism. One can draw many ontological and psychological insights from this alone. I do, however, think that Schopenhauer can be murky with his "resolutions" of "escaping the Will." How can you escape something that is ever pervasive, even for the brief moment. Neither his aesthetic not religious path are entirely satisfactory.
Yeah the ontology is very clear and once you read it it is impossible to think outside of his (correct) framing of the world.
What he builds on that ontology is a bit shaky. A good read, and he makes some good points, but very debatable, and his terminology becomes increasingly murky and hand-wavy.
He is a fun misreader of Kant and ironically more intredasting from the lens of Hegel for it
It retroactively refutes half of philosophy written after it.
It makes the other half redundant.
Do you really need to read Kant to read TWaWaR...german idealism isn't really my favourite and Kant in particular always came off like one of the driest and most robotic philosophers in existence.
Schopenhauer is to Kant what tripping on mushrooms is to sobriety. Order doesn't matter, but you may want to try both.
Yeah it saved my life after my mother died from cancer.
Schopenhauer didn’t know himself and it shows in all he writes. A man that does not know himself can not be a philosopher, all his presumptions part from ignorance. There is no salvaging this.
>The outcome of the Schopenhauerian philosophy, to the shame of every earlier philosophic system, is the recognition of a moral meaning of the world; which crown of all Knowledge might then be practically realised through Schopenhauer's Ethics. Only the love that springs from pity, and carries its compassion to the utmost breaking of self-will, is the redeeming Christian Love, in which Faith and Hope are both included of themselves,—Faith as the unwavering consciousness of that moral meaning of the world, confirmed by the most divine exemplar; Hope as the blessed sense of the impossibility of any cheating of this consciousness.
>GREAT KANT taught us to postpone the wish for knowledge of the world to criticism of man's power of knowledge; if we thus arrived at the most complete uncertainty about the reality of the world, Schopenhauer next taught us to draw the most infallible conclusions as to the world's In-itself from a farther-reaching criticism, no longer of our mental faculties, but of that Will in us which goes before all knowledge. "Know thyself, and thou hast read the world"—the Pythia said; "look round thee, all of this art thou"—the Brahmin.
Just started this by reading the preface. How autistic is this dude?
>puts up demands for the reader before starting reading
>read this book twice
>I could not be bothered to repeat myself so read my other book
>if you want to read this book read the hack Kant
>read the addendum first to understand what I am saying
>read the addendum twice because you need to reread it while reading this book
>finishes with a toilet joke
Seems like a fun dude. Is any prior knowledge really necessary ?
Just read his essays and maybe a few youtube videos. But seriously read his essays they are a treat
The way Schopenhauer writes about women is the way Schopenhauer understands the World. How he understands life. How he understands the Object upon which we project or cast our Subjectivity. When Schopenhauer writes about the unaesthetic sex, he is in a sense calling Reality itself unaesthetic. She exists independent of the ectoplasmic emulsion of the Philosopher's Subjectivity. Woman does(not) Exist. Compare Schopenhauer's writings about women to his perspective on life. "Life presents itself as a continual deception, in small matters as well as in great. If it has promised, it does not keep its word, unless to show how little desirable the desired object was; hence we are deluded now by hope, now by what was hoped for. If it has given, it did so in order to take. The enchantment of distance shows us paradises that vanish like optical illusions, when we have allowed ourselves to be fooled by them. Accordingly, happiness lies always in the future, or else in the past, and the present may be compared to a small dark cloud driven by the wind over the sunny plain; in front of and behind the cloud everything is bright, only it itself always casts a shadow. Consequently, the present is always inadequate, but the future is uncertain, and the past irrecoverable.”
He writes of woman without the ardency of the lover’s gaze. In circumstance as a type, refracted from the unifying and oppressive field, of convention and its totalizing or homogenizing character. This lack which begets the lucid cruelty. The philosopher’s idiosyncratic desires. To speak of what he does not perceive in one, to see and speak of this object free from the ecstatic poesies of love and the mechanical or fetishistic habit of custom received, preserved, and transmitted. It is a lonely consciousness needed to access audacious insights. To view a woman without this congealing force that transforms her into the aestheticized object.