/lit/ - Literature

I believe the man [Schopenhauer] was not seeking to insult women at all, but only hoping to qualify their intelligence. Only in America could this be considered an insult, with its foolish assertion that woman is also another man.

ITT: we give a tl;dr on any philosopher's position.

Anyone who says "but that's impossible for this particular philosopher because his concepts were too profound and his mind too vast" or anything of the like, simply doesn't fully understand his concepts. You have the entirety of the word-limit to use; surely we can get a thread in which various philosopher's positions can be adequately summarized.

Why is everyone who even dares to talk about "great men" and what makes these men "great" immediately discarded as some reactionary retard who needs to stop his teen edginess?

Why would these things be of no value to anyone anymore?

Which dude made you go 360 degrees?

Mine was Schop about women.

>When he was forty-three years old, seventeen-year old Flora Weiss recorded rejecting him in her diary

Literally our guy

Reading a lot makes you dumber.

>2013
>not being an antinatalist

Cruel motherfuckers.

What is /lit/'s opinion on Schopenhauer?

>implying anyone after Schopenhauer matters

What are /lit/'s favourite philosophers?

Should I read Schopenhauer /lit/?

anywway
Let's make a lit of attributes that we can collectively agree upon to help us grade writing as good or bad
i begin
bad:
continuously stringing together clauses using one repeated conjunction.

http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html

Why didn't you guys tell me Schopenhauer was such a badass?

>>3156227

Only women and cowards cringe.

>>3047552
>Was Hope, who was the last spirit to leave the vessel, not a gift to mankind at all, but in fact the greatest evil, sent to trick men to persevere in spite of all the other cruelties released?
I think so.

Broest of the bro

>depressed but don't value happiness


You're on my level, bro.

>mfw authors frequently and pedantically refer to literature, philosophy, religion, and psychology.
>mfw authors almost never show that they have an understanding of physics, mathematics, technology, and mechanics.
Why is the intellectual background of so many writers so predictable?

>audiobook
>audio
>book

choose one

hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster hipster

Repetitio est mater studiorum . Any kind of important book should immediately be read twice, partly because one grasps the matter in its entirety the second time, and only really understands the beginning when the end is known; and partly because in reading it the second time one’s temper and mood are different, so that one gets another impression; it may be that one sees the matter in another light.

I wanna read something from Schopenhauer. What should I start with?

>>1752603
oh hey.