/lit/ - Literature

For the blind, He is the vision. For the hungry, He is the chef. For the thirsty, He is the water.
>If Schopenhauer thinks, I agree
>If Schopenhauer speaks, I listen
>If Schopenhauer makes mistakes, I >forgive him
>If Schopenhauer thinks, I agree
>If Schopenhauer has ten fans, I'm one of them
If Schopenhauer has a fan, I am that fan
>If Schopenhauer has no fans, I don't exist

Today we celebrate not only the birth of a unique philosopher, but the legacy of a thought that has transcended centuries. His philosophy continues to be a lens through which we contemplate the complexity of human suffering, the intrinsic will that drives us and the search for ephemeral tranquillity in an ever-changing world.

In the modern world, his notion that reality is strongly influenced by our will acquires a new layer of relevance. We live in the age of information and instant gratification, where our desires seem to multiply exponentially, often leading us into an endless cycle of seeking satisfaction.

>>22449019
mfw there will never be another Schopenhauer

Nietzsche got close but is way more neurotic and schizo

>The Will is a mindless, aimless, irrational impulse at the foundation of our instinctual drives, and at the foundational being of everything.
>The Will is the root of all suffering and vain striving.
>You have to WILL not to Will in order not to suffer.
Can any schopenfag please explain how one can will not to will?

>>22324541
based schopenchad, the greatest philosopher of all time

A man can apply himself of his own free will to reading and learning, while he cannot to thinking. Thinking must be kindled like a fire by a draught and sustained by some kind of interest in the subject. This interest may be either of a purely objective nature or it may be merely subjective. The latter exists in matters concerning us personally, but objective interest is only to be found in heads that think by nature, and to whom thinking is as natural as breathing; but they are very rare. This is why there is so little of it in most men of learning.

The difference between the effect that thinking for oneself and that reading has on the mind is incredibly great; hence it is continually developing that original difference in minds which induces one man to think and another to read. Reading forces thoughts upon the mind which are as foreign and heterogeneous to the bent and mood in which it may be for the moment, as the seal is to the wax on which it stamps its imprint. The mind thus suffers total compulsion from without; it has first this and first that to think about, for which it has at the time neither instinct nor liking.

>>22247936
If you want to be brief, you are going to completely fine reading World as Will and Representation Vol. 1 without any background reading, as long as you familiarize yourself with Kant’s transcendental idealism in general and Plato’s world of forms. A very crucial concept to research is the Principle of Sufficient Reason, especially the way Schopenhauer lays it out, there is a really good video that actually reflects what the book says and is not just Wikipedia tier explanation from the channel Evers Brothers Productions on the PSR. He also has good videos on Kant and the WAWAR as well that are concise.

Schopenhauer himself will rattle on and on in his Preface how you NEED to know Kant and Plato, this is not true if you are able to be diligent with stopping and looking up terms and ideas while reading. Do listen to his instruction to read the Kant Appendix in the back of WAWAR Vol. I however, it is a total slog if you don’t know any Kant but he will walk you through Kant so it serves as a good introduction.

Once you read Schopenhauer there is no going back, the man was incredibly intelligent and profoundly touching.

>>22214852
>Schopenhauer and Nietzsche in German
So fucking based, are you a native speaker or did you learn German?

The will is a relentless, blind force that dominates not only our desires and behavior, but also the nature around us. The will is insatiable, and the search for satisfaction only leads to more desire and frustration. Man is therefore doomed to live a life of constant struggle, anxiety, pain, and disappointment.

Can Schopenhauer be called an Idealist? I don't think so, because he doesn't dive into transcendental worlds like the other German idealists, but there is still some doubt. If someone can enlighten me, I will be very grateful.