/lit/ - Literature

>>3577281
I would suggest you reading this book first. It a good overtire. Apart from "Parega and Paralipomena" most of his work is quite difficult to stomach, it gets tiring at times. At times you think that he complains a lot. That aside, i believe i've went through the stages that every existentialist philosopher has gone through. I agreed with Schopenhuaer to no end, everything he said rang the bells of Notre Dam (and to top it all off i have the same aversion to Hegel as he did). Down the line you almost feel that its left unfinished, the base was set but it was barren. Nietzsche' affirmation solved this. And thats why i thank myself from time to time for reading Schopenhauer and then Nietzsche. IMO, the should be coupled together at first. If thats what you wanted to know, if your interested in my own "feelings", that is a different story.

I can recommend the books you could/should read as far as Schopenhauer is concerned.

I practice, my life closely resembles the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer.

When I read his works I saw part of my self. It wasn't intentional.

Fuck everyone.

I live in the Chicago area, which is largely Catholic as a general rule. But I've seen religion around here more as an expression of fierce anti-materialism than anything. There's a huge amount of agnostic theism going around. My atheist friends are usually pretty quiet about their beliefs except when asked specifically. People around here won't get upset at you for not believing in their god, but they're likely to think you shallow or callous if you don't believe in anything at all. That's just the kind of association atheism has from a social perspective.

I love hypothetical people and hate the real ones.

You mean philosophy? You're asking us if we've read philosophy?

It is natural for a feeling of mere indifference to exist between men, but between women it is actual enmity. This is due perhaps to the fact that odium figulinum in the case of men, is limited to their everyday affairs, but with women embraces the whole sex; since they have only one kind of business. Even when they meet in the street, they look at each other like Guelphs and Ghibellines. And it is quite evident when two women first make each other’s acquaintance that they exhibit more constraint and dissimulation than two men placed in similar circumstances. This is why an exchange of compliments between two women is much more ridiculous than between two men. Further, while a man will, as a rule, address others, even those inferior to himself, with a certain feeling of consideration and humanity, it is unbearable to see how proudly and disdainfully a lady of rank will, for the most part, behave towards one who is in a lower rank (not employed in her service) when she speaks to her. This may be because differences of rank are much more precarious with women than with us, and consequently more quickly change their line of conduct and elevate them, or because while a hundred things must be weighed in our case, there is only one to be weighed in theirs, namely, with which man they have found favour; and again, because of the one-sided nature of their vocation they stand in closer relationship to each other than men do; and so it is they try to render prominent the differences of rank.

Arthur Schopenhauer - 'On Women'