this is all you will ever need really

this is all you will ever need really

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I raise you this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      why not both?
      actually, take machiavellianism too and you got it made. pessimism of schopenhauer enables you to see objectively, the will gives you purpose (to eliminate it or reduce it) and machiavellianism gives you strategy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'll add The Art Of War is a necessity for anyones literary tool box. Bataille is useful as well

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Best philosophical texts of the last 300 years

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      In my honest opinion Nietzsche's most insightful writings are in this book but academics claim his sister wrote much of it so I'm not sure what to think. To me it seems quite clear that Nietzsche was becoming way more aggressive and anti-liberal at the end of his life.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's a dangerous text, atheistic, experimental, and potentially inhuman. The possibilities contained within that book are immense, and the best workshop for conceptual understanding I've ever come across. To discredit is as being fascistic or bastardized is a good sign it's a threat to someone

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I also question the narrative of Nietzsche’s illness at the end of his life. Something is real fishy about how academia rehabilitated him after WW2.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Her additions have long since been removed. There weren't many. What she was mostly responsible for was its layout, since the book is just a compilation of unpublished drafts (many of which can be found reworked in his published works). However, in Kaufmann's version, he omits some extra writings of Nietzsche's that he thought were irrelevant, that the Colli-Montinari edition kept in (an example of one being where Nietzsche basically calls his mother and sister a couple of morons whose mere presence leave him feeling debased).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >(an example of one being where Nietzsche basically calls his mother and sister a couple of morons whose mere presence leave him feeling debased).
          i can relate somewhat

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      cringe

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nope, but nice try. Schopenhauer himself says "Among people untrained in philosophy -- which includes all who have not studied the philosophy of Kant..." You really can't have a good grasp on Schopey's metaphysics without having read Kant first, and in order to truly understand Kant there are a mass of earlier philosophers you need to be familiar with first.

      Hahahahahahahha

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Philosopher priest spotted.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I don't know what this means but I assume it's an insult, in which case cope, seethe, dilate, touch grass, have a nice day, etc etc

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The forces of the anti-christ approach to trample on your dogmas and rip apart your lies.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is not a videogame, and you are not a brightly colored talking lock; blocking me from completing the level. What makes me NEED to read one, before the other???

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No one is saying you absolutely need to read all of Schopenhauer's predecessors before you read him, but I can guarantee you will get much more out of your reading because you have a much deeper understanding of his influences. There are two paths you can take here:
          >Start reading Schopenhauer without reading prior philosophy, understand a few but certainly not all of his points, go back and read earlier philosophers, read Schopenhauer a second time with a better understanding of the foundations of his philosophy
          Or, you can skip having to reread Schopey and do as follows:
          >Start with the Greeks, work your way through the Western canon, eventually reach Schopenhauer prepped with all of the knowledge of the preceding philosophers
          Do whichever one you want.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm gonna attack this frickin' conga line of frackin' books, just to learnm at a deep ldevelopmental level, what a thought is agreed to be?

            This is no different than higher-level minecraft or a MMO, and I can only be entertained by it. Thank you for replying; I might need to try this.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's entirely your own fault if you just jump into primary philosophical texts without having knowledge of philosophy in general. Just spend a year following Oxford/Harvard philosophy 101 lectures online or actually study philosophy at uni. It's true you need a general background of Kant and philosophy in general to fully understand Schopenhauer but people will take this too far and insist you become a scholar of the CPR before attempting a single page of Schop, which is simply moronic and is just meant to signal elitism or whatever. Watch a few online lectures on Kant and you know enough, especially since Schopenhauer critiques Kant and in the process of doing so even explains Kant's philosophy better than Kant himself ever did.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The main reason to read Kant is to get ready for Schopenhauer. Then read Hegel so that you'll understand Schopenhauer's critics of Hegel.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Then read Hegel so that you'll understand Schopenhauer's critics of Hegel.
          That's moronic, you don't need to read Hegel. To Schopenhauer Hegel's philosophy means nothing and says nothing, using empty concepts like "the absolute" and an unnecessarily obscure style to hide the meaninglessness.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        he explains all the Kantian concepts relevant to his philosophy in TWaWaR, and has an appendix were he goes more into detail on what he takes from Kant and what he rejects. Realistically you don't need Kant to get into Schopenhauerian metaphysics and ethics. That being said, you are a moron if you don't read Kant or other philosophers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You meant to post the Bible and Republic, but you posted slop instead.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You meant to post the Bible and Republic, but you posted slop instead.

          Samegay

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      From what I gathered by reading both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, their metaphysics aren't really at odds with each other. The great difference between both lies in the ethics each one proposes, with Schopenhauer elevating the denial of the will (asceticism) above everything else and Nietzsche elevating the affirmation of the will (will to power) instead.
      Any philosophychads care to correct me on this or give your take?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ge literally says you need Kant as a prereq on the first page.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm reading Plato's complete works right now, and this book is my end goal. Planning to read some selection of Aristotle next, then Hume, Kant, and finally Schopenhauer. Am I missing anything vital?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just Plato and then the appendix Critique of Kant in World as W&R vol 1, the n go to Schopenhauer.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only a basic understanding of Plato's and Kant's main ideas are really necessary.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I thought it was pretty kino.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Shankara >>> Schopenhauer

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >In his Autobiographical Essay, written in 1970, Borges confesses: “At some point while in Switzerland, I began reading Schopenhauer. Today, were I to choose a single philosopher, I would choose him” (Borges “Autobiographical” 216).
    Borges is in agreement.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Schopenhauer made me a better Catholic. But honestly you get the same and more out of Jung. This year I reread Instinct and the Unconscious, Answer to Job, and book 4 of WWR, and it will help you understand God better than most anything else

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you are moronic, probably a follower of Barnardo Kastrup.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *