/lit/ - Literature

>>11591868
How could one man be so based?

>>11591868
Yeah, but all of those are worth the read tho

>>11591892
Based and redpilled.

>>11591999
Trips of truth, can't argue with that. Schoppy was as based as it gets, apparently

just read his wikipedia bio, i do that for all philosophers and still actively discuss their works here

>>11591868
Not going to make it

>>11592053
That's because most people here don't even read the wiki, just the blurb about it on amazon

>>11592076
I thought that people just read what the universally established /lit/ opinions were of other philosophers solely through /lit/ approves memes and parroted them until it was ingrained in their own brains before passing on this useless information to others

>>11591868
just leave the board bro it's not for you

what version/edition of the upanishads is best?

C HESS

>>11592618
Patrick Olivelle's

>>11593054
Cringe

This is why lit is only capable of regurgitating memes about philosophers or engaging in ad hominem attacks against each other or against the philosophers themselves. Most young people can only approach great works ironically; they have to preemptively disqualify anyone who wants to seriously discuss something by implying that no one takes philosophy seriously, or that every philosophical argument can be boiled down to some psychological or somatic disposition of the writer or speaker, i.e., Schopenhauer sad "bad things" about women because he was bitter, hated his mother, never got laid, or whatever. I have yet to see a discussion, for instance, of whether or not Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's idea that perception is sensual rather than intellectual is correct. You will never see an actual philosophical discussion on this board, only ontological babbling and posturing by people whose attention span cannot survive a difficult text, and that is why they turn to here for immediate gratification in the form of semantic gladiator games which are of no consequence in the grand scheme.

>>11593121
I don't disagree but there's been great discussion on this board if you can find it, it just never happens in Schope threads because they're filled with babby's first philosopher pseuds

>>11593124
Yes and what does that tell you given that Schopenhauer is one of the few philosophers in the past few centuries who has any merit. I have never come across anything of substance here besides the occasional anon who understands an argument well enough to represent it here in a few paragraphs. An actual discussion between two of these I have never seen. there is generally no content here of interest if you are not in the mood to be cheaply humored.

>all that shit just to know someones opinion

yeah, nah... there are better opinions to waste my time with.

>>11591868
>read simultaneously

lost all credibility there

>>11593332
Philosophy isn't about opinions, anon. So either your assessment of the man is incorrect or you accuse him of being a bad philosopher.

>>11593333
Implying it had any from the beginning. Do you think you can intimidate us with your quads? Of course you can read both volumes of WWR without prior grasp in those texts mentioned and still have a solid understanding and engage in discerning discussions about his philosophy.
Sure, the works cited as vital and necessary are indeed extra content to deepen it.

>learning the Vedas from a white male

>>11593376
Eh, no, he specifically said that you should read them on your own because their wisdom is greater than his.

>>11593121
4chan doesn't work that way and that's all there's to it. Such a waste of potential. Memetic culture killed actual culture here, and I hope this site survives long enough to be studied in the distant future as an example of that

>>11593336
>Philosophy isn't about opinions,

lel made me chuckle. do you sill think, in this day and age, that philosophy deals with facts?

there is no such thing as a bad philosopher. if so then he isnt one. a philosopher is just someone who gives us a particular view about life. one that might come from a long experience or from anything else, but it remains just a view. of course one can engage in belief about it and take it to be a description, but thats just religion.

>>11593362
>extra content to deepen it.

nah. the guy is serious. which doesnt mean people cant just read the thing once or by itself, but they will be getting a false idea about it.

he says it himself at the end of his preface i think: those thinking these requisites are too much should leave it on the side, or can just go make a critical review about the book.

>>11593376
Congratulations on not knowing Indo-Aryan migration history, dipshit.

>>11591868
I skipped pretty much all of that stuff and still understood it. It's just a defense mechanism he's setting up for when he doesn't make any sense. If someone doesn't agree with him, that's only because they haven't read his whole bullshit list first and truly gotten on his level.

>>11593449
>philosophy is just opinions man
Jesus Christ you think you're pretty fucking smart don't you?

>>11593563
Thanks. I’m going to skip most of it too

>>11593436
To be fair, /lit/ did more than anything else ever did to make actually read these philosophers and try to understand them without just beging a poser, and I reach the same conclusion as you guys did. Nowadays discussion on Schopenhauer on here is worth nothing to me.

>>11593563
>skipped Kant

>>11591868

The Schopenhauer pill takes decades to swallow. It's worth it though.

>>11591868
Go fuck yourself. He says you should read critique of pure reason and preferably be familiar with plato. That's it.

>>11593721
Nah mate it's more like you don't need to read all of Kant to understand some idea of his that Schopenhauer will quote, explain, then argue against. It's good to know more about Kant, but it isn't necessary to know everything about his philosophy to understand WWR.

>>11593151
>one of the few philosophers in the past few centuries who has any merit
Your attitude is hardly any better. It seems you're cut from the same bitter cloth as old Schope. Asserting that the vast majority of (assumedly) known and studied philosophers from the "past few centuries" have no merit is infantile. Schopenhauer's fault of character was built into his philosophical system, so a psychological critique is entirely legitimate, given that an ideology is the construction of a psychology.

>>11593121
>no consequence in the grand scheme.
>implying there is a grand scheme

>>11591868
Get reading brainlet

>>11593684
Discussion as a whole on this entire website is worth nothing. We can agree that maybe, and just MAYBE, you might delight yourself reading or even participating in that 1/1000 polite, thoughtful exchange of words that rarely happens here. But seek no real and gratifying discussion on here. That's what you learn after a couple of years, that's what this site ingrains on you. There's a saying that goes like this: yes, 4chan is the "absolute" (gamergate cof cof) free-speech fortress on the Internet and that Reddit is some kind of a shameful "basedboy" website where you can only discuss a fraction of what you could do here. The thing is, even whit its restrictions, more discussion is done on Reddit than in here by miles, and on top of that, it happens to be more well structured, more readable and, I swear, definetely more POLITE, word that 4chan users tend to, well, simply not know. Politeness is never granted here nor enforced and I'm absolutely ok with that. But the ammount of ad hominens calling names responses that you'll get here will account as for much as 95% of (you)s. Damn, I realise that I hate this place. Everyone does, users and detractors alike. Now I'll by told to get back. Fuck you.

Where are you getting this from, did he really write "to-do" list for his work?
If so where is it?

>>11594101
The World as Will and Representation's Prologue by the author.

>>11594069
Reddit is just as cancerous as 4chan, just in a completely different way. Both of them are also worthwhile in their own way, if you use them right (i.e. in a way that benefits you and without letting the bile from 4chan and the faggotry from reddit get to you).

>>11591868
Don't be a little bitch and jump straight in.

>>11593121
haha get dunked nerd

>>11594069
>more discussion is done on Reddit than in here by miles
>tumblr filename
Is this guy fuckin serious? This is bait right?

>>11594109
Nice

>>11594185
Not bait by any means. I like the saga where that character appears. Searched for concept art, got it. Didn't realise it was from tumblr, to be honest.

>>11594192
Thanks>>11594127
I know

>>11594206
It just surprised me to see unironic whiny faggot redditors seriously effortposting here. Like why haven't you kys'd yourself yet?

>>11594127
Ignore the other post I made, fucking autopost. The thing is, yes, we all know that Reddit, with all its enforcings and other retardations, is sometimes an upvote grinder like Imgur and others. But if you look for specific subs, you can find something interesting. The philosophy sub is total self help brainlet tier garbage. The thing is, chan culture and Reddit-likes culture has dropped at such rate and at suh levels, that it might be dead by now and only kept alive as a form of irony. When your community opens to the filths of the outside world, shit happens.

>>11594214
4chan is completely ironic unless the opposite is stated. No, I did not tried to sell Reddit to anyone, just vague comparisons here and there, as for mods efforts, openess, politeness, things like that. One searches for certain kind of discussion here and another completely different on Reddit. It's no mystery that a lot of 4chan users are also Reddit users, but no viceversa.

Schopenhauer anime when!

>>11593121

Based and redpilled.

Are we really ok with people reading Schopenhauer's library records?

Shouldn't that info be private?
What if he had borrowed something embarrassing?

>>11594378
>Big Fat Anime Tiddies - 1813/07/19 - 1813/07/19 - some pages stuck together

>>11594378
>Reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in one month

Schopp der Übermensch

Hhhmmmmmmm

>>11594489
I think he already read it before he just needed for reference when writing his dissertation

>>11594615
Yeah, I was thinking that too

>>11593121
Is OP right in saying that all of those are prerequisites or will I be fine with the Greeks and Kant? If so, I'll be ready to discuss Schopenhauer with you in a year or so my nigga

>>11594815
You'll be fine as long as you understand Plato and Kant thoroughly. Otherwise, you might find it difficult, although Schopenhauer is not that hard to grasp. But yes, Plato and Kant are all you need.

>>11593121
You hit the nail on the head but there's no need to be so mad. /lit/ is a board for those who are interested in big ideas but who also happen to be too lazy to put effort into studying them.

>>11595110
I'll hear from you in a year or so then

>>11595475
Enjoy your journey, friend. Schopenhauer is one, if no the most, enjoyable philosophers to read. And his philosophy is something unique and fresh that, although it doesn't lead to the most satisfactory of conclusions nor to a happy life on its own, it's completely mindblowing and original. Again, enjoy.

>>11595166

Can it really be called interest if you're too lazy to pursue it?

>>11593121

>Entire point of the first critique is that it is impossible to know the thing-in-itself
>Schopenhauer: dude, the thing-in-itself is will, LMAO

I think Schopenhauer is of literary interest, not philosophical interest. I am currently re-reading the first critique, and I will flat out admit that I am not well-versed enough in Kant to discuss all the subtle points in which Schopenhauer misappropriates and misreads him. However, I just did finish the schematism today, and incidentally fell over a quote by Schopenhauer saying that this chapter, one of the load-bearing pillars in the entire Kantian architecture, is "an audacious piece of nonsense" and that "no one has ever been able to make anything out of it". Schopenhauer is a thoroughly shitty metaphysician, which is why he is not taught in philosophy courses.

>implying he understood Kant

>>11592618
Radhakrishnan Sarvepalli's edition. 18 principle Upanishads. Read only after completing all the 4 Vedas.

>>11595529

>implying anyone has

To this day, the scholarship is divided in profound ways my man.

>>11591868
our boy schope was dedicated son

>>11592062
Make what

>>11594495
Schopenhauer more like Goëthenhauer

>>11595504
Yeah sure. You can have an interest in a girl without going up to talk to her. You might spend the nights thinking what there could be after death but then finding yourself too dumb to comprehend what educated minds had written on the subject. Think of it that way, and you would see how people on /lit/ can end up reducing philosophers to silly caricatures instead of actually engaging with their arguments.

>>11591868
>kindly sagest a reading order that would be optimal to a sophisticated under standing to my work.
>tfw some autist 150 years later on a Chinese cartoon bored cant tell the difference between friendly advice from an order.
>tfw you realize you entire modern audience are autistic incels that just like you for your essay on women.

You just made mopenhaure cry in his grave I hope your happy with your self.

>>11591868
Is this the guy that said im a stupid cunt because i read all the books but do no thinking? very cheeky also name a good woman painter

>>11596242
Are you drunk perhaps? This post is atrocious.

>>11596503
>Mopenhaure

>>11596898
It’s called banter

>>11592062
>>11592598
>tfw you’ll never “make it” on lit by spending hours reading unneccessary material for weeks on end

Can someone give me a quick rundown on the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason? I can’t be fucked reading it

>>11596402

The point was that you should dwell on what you read. Time to think is important.