/lit/ - Literature

What Schelling books should I read? He has so fucking many, I am reading the Critical-Historical Introduction to Mythology, because I like thinking about myths, and it is interesting, but I would like to know more about his more general thought.

Like his metaphysics, his views on various mythologies and things like The One, which he has mentioned in this book.

So out of the like 30 possible books which are good ones to start with?

>>18129593
I thought he meant Libgen or Z-Library, not archive.org lmao. You eventually have to digest the text on your own. I don't care about social history or whatever. Also:

>'When I spoke earlier of primary works, I indicated fully that I do not consider daily lectures to be beneficial to scientific studies—as little as the idle talk of the day that is heard today and forgotten tomorrow, without leaving behind a trace in our souls. There is, however, yet another distinction between scientific works and those that are only incidentally serious: not all have flown forth from their source in the same way and not all are equally original. If the secondary works are not absolutely necessary for one to understand the primary works, one would do very well indeed to stick exclusively with the originals, so that one may thereby dedicate to them even more time and effort. To exhaust the depths and very soul of a single dialogue of Plato, such as the Sophist or the Philebus, will certainly yield each of you much more significant results than an entire army of commentaries. From the truly original works, there always comes to us a uniquely invigorating spirit that incites our own productive powers, whereas with other works it falls asleep. Also from a moral perspective, what one reads is far less insignificant than one would think. In life, it is not always in our control to determine to whom we will allow access to our soul. All the more diligently then should one study these original works, so that one accustoms oneself early on to that which is eternal, unchanging, and enduring, and thereby learns contempt for what is here today and gone tomorrow.'
>>To read all kinds of expositions of the doctrines of philosophers, or generally the history of philosophy instead of their own original works, is as if we wanted to have our food masticated by someone else. Would anyone read the history of the world if he were free to behold with his own eyes the interesting events of ancient times ? Now as regards the history of philosophy, such an autopsy of its subject is actually accessible to him, thus in the original writings of philosophers wherein he may still limit himself, for the sake of brevity, to the main and well-chosen chapters, the more so as they all teem with repetitions which he can spare himself. In this way, he will become acquainted with the essentials of their doctrines in an authentic and unadulterated form, whereas from the half-dozen histories of philosophy that appear annually he obtains merely what has entered the head of a professor of philosophy, and indeed in the form in which it there appears.

LMAO imagine reading secondary sources in philosophy
>'When I spoke earlier of primary works, I indicated fully that I do not consider daily lectures to be beneficial to scientific studies—as little as the idle talk of the day that is heard today and forgotten tomorrow, without leaving behind a trace in our souls. There is, however, yet another distinction between scientific works and those that are only incidentally serious: not all have flown forth from their source in the same way and not all are equally original. If the secondary works are not absolutely necessary for one to understand the primary works, one would do very well indeed to stick exclusively with the originals, so that one may thereby dedicate to them even more time and effort. To exhaust the depths and very soul of a single dialogue of Plato, such as the Sophist or the Philebus, will certainly yield each of you much more significant results than an entire army of commentaries. From the truly original works, there always comes to us a uniquely invigorating spirit that incites our own productive powers, whereas with other works it falls asleep. Also from a moral perspective, what one reads is far less insignificant than one would think. In life, it is not always in our control to determine to whom we will allow access to our soul. All the more diligently then should one study these original works, so that one accustoms oneself early on to that which is eternal, unchanging, and enduring, and thereby learns contempt for what is here today and gone tomorrow.'

t. FWJ von Schelling

How do I make sure I understand the philosophy I'm reading? Do I make syllogisms out of the arguments in the text?

Post underrated/obscure philosophers you find interesting.
Hardmode: Nobody after WW1
Gigahardmode: Don't name anyone after the Reformation

Can someone show me the true nature of horror?

OP is right

When will Schelling finally enter the /lit/ pantheon? All this Kantposting got me thinking metamodern German Idealism is going to be the next big thing here after Guenon and Land, and Schelling's just the man for that.

*blocks your path*

>tfw you long for the day when based Schelling becomes a household name on /lit/

if it happened with Guenon, Plotinus, and Land, why not him?

>>11175048
>that intensity in his eyes

you never see fire like this in the eyes anymore, we live in an age of neuters

>>8091962
>>8091991
>bad subjectivity vs. good objectivity
Shut the fuck up

Newfag to German here (I'm learning it so I can read German Philosophy like Hegel and Schelling properly) do I need to learn the International Phonetic Alphabet? Will it help? Also is learning grammar the most important thing?