/lit/ - Literature

yes, but obviously not fully.
If you are interested in it, just read it now, if you don't understand 100% of it, what's the big deal? you can read him again after having read kant, and in this case, schopenhauer will actually help you understand kant, and when you read it a second time after having read kant, you'll already have a good notion of what schoppy talks about, and it will allow you a deeper understanding.
I read world as will and representation before having read kant and it was thoroughly interesting and enjoyable.
Schopenhauer made it a point to write as clearly as possible, and he repeats his points quite a lot.
I don't get these people, you don't have just 1 shot at reading and understanding a book, actually, for books like schoppy's magnum opus it's mandatory at the very least a couple readings.
sure having read kant previously would make more sense and would significantly improve your understanding, but if you really want to read schoppy now, it's not worth it putting it aside just so you could go read kant strictly for this reason. Everything in its time, if you can read something you want, why not go for it?

this is just a hunch, pls don't stone me, i haven't read either, but: is evola somewhat similar to plotinus and neoplatonism? as in theism+mysticism+magic? if not, are there some more contemporary writers in the vein of neoplatonism?

>>13572905
Hey /mu/cat you're not supposed to be here.