/lit/ - Literature

>>12192249
I started with his essays on various topics and then I moved on to The World as Will and Representation.

>everything sucks
>roasties are disgusting
>reading makes you dumber
>my feet hurt
>I wish I was at home being dead now
There, I saved you a good chunk of time.

>>12192290
Could you elaborate more? I'm sure there's more to it.

>>12192290
Yeah I heard this guy is a bit of a partypooper.
>>12192278
Yeah that is my default plan right now

>>12192297
there's also a bit of, selfless moralism and don't be a stupid cunt, being a smart cunt is unreal

>>12192290
forgot the bit about killing old women and fucking hoes

>>12192330
So is there anything to take away from his work?

>>12192334
Of course

>>12192334
Schop's right about almost everything.

>>12192334
Embrace your Todestrieb and overdose on hookers. Schoppy is just Tyler Durden with cooler haircut.

counsels & maxims and wisdom of life are good too,easy reads

>>12192290
Also
> I read Kant wrong
> Fuck Hegel

>>12192356
sounds extremely gay to me

>>12192249
>Where do I start with this dude?
with the greeks

>>12192376
He loathed homos, so no.

Bryan magee's schopenhauer

Schopenhauer claimed that all you need to have read to fully understand his philosophy is Plato and Kant. He also said you should begin by reading his essay on The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Reason.
Most of his works contain lots of phrases in French, Spanish, Latin, and Greek. Get yourself a good edition that provides a translation for them. Even though the Cambridge edition of his works is pretty expensive, it's the only proper academic edition. The alternative is to read public domain translations available for free on Project Gutenberg.

imagine being this butthurt about being wrong
>>12192290
>>12192363

>>12195357
Thanks for that extensive reply, man

>>12192290
>>12192363
Plus,
>I hate mainstream culture
>Westernized Buddhism just works

>>12195464
He CREATED the western interpretation of buddhism dumbass

>>12192290
>I haven't read Schopenhauer
>the only reading I do is on /lit/
>I fall for memes consistently
>my conception of major philosophers are based solely on their easiest texts, to the exclusion of their major works and ideas if they are phrased in anything but the simplest prose
damn it feels good to be a pleb

>>12195474

>>12195511
He's obviously not a retarded stoner who only reeks of vulgarity when he talks about buddhism, pretending that reading the sutras by themselves and not having some crossover point that is genuine is the definition of retarded

>>12195511
pretending that reading the sutras without anything else is making yourself not only subservient to schopenhauer's interpretation but also the lowest form of it

>>12192290
proof you've never read Schopenhauer

>>12195508
>implying /lit/ memes don't perfectly encapsulate great thinkers' entire body of works
>implying toiling through heaps of obscure semi-coherent ramblings brings any additional insight
>unironically falling for the "reading the source material" meme

>>12195567
>implying /lit/ memes don't perfectly encapsulate great thinkers' entire body of works
>implying toiling through heaps of obscure semi-coherent ramblings brings any additional insight
kind of contradicting yourself buddy
>unironically falling for the "reading the source material" meme
reading books on a reading book board WOW? how suprising

>>12195590
>kind of contradicting yourself buddy
Not in the slightest.
>reading books on a reading book board WOW? how suprising
Not an argument, my good chap.

>>12195611
>frog posts while also quoting stefan molyneux

>>12195523
>>12195536
What's your point? So, do you think seriously we should escape from our own "will"?

>>12195622
No, where in Schopenhauer or in buddhism is that implied lmao? Stop reading wikipedia pages and try a real book. If you really cared enough about any man's opinion about that subject I'd recommend the source: world as will and representation

>>12195616
>redditposts while having no actual point

>>12195639
What about my post is redditposting lmao, good projecting ""funny junk pepe the frog...jpg"

>>12195653
>>12195639
All frog posters bro

>>12195567
>implying the substance of great philosophical works consist in their "insight"
>implying these insights can be captured, summarized, compressed, etc.
>implying that the argument is not learned by summoning within the reader
>implying the entrance into dialogue with a philosopher through his work is replaced by the consumption of secondhand signs on a laputanian phylarchatry board

>>12195662
>the real philosophy were the friends we didn't make all along

Bump

>>12195753
>bumping on a 1 post/hour board
Is that you again, redditbro?

>>12195762
I’m so sorry that the “f Scot Fitzgerald dressed as a trap” has to die for this

>>12195714
>Philosophers having friends
My dude, do you even hear what you are talking?

>>12195810
Yes. Do you?

>>12195821
Yes, and you are wrong. True philosophers have no frens.

>>12195545
Nietzsche completely invalidated the existence of Schopenhauer mere decades later.

>>12195878

>>12195905
Nietzsche literally built off Schopenhauer numbnuts

>>12195936
You wanted me to prove I never read him, fucktard.

>>12192249

Essays and Aphorisms

>>12192249
Maybe a summary about what he believes in, so all of 4chan can discuss this topic.

>>12192249
Do as >>12192278 and >>12196135
did. Or, have a cursory background in Plato and Kant and S's essay On the Fourfold Root. You could go into TWAWAR raw but the first seven chapters will be a heavy turnoff if you're not semi-familiar with the enlightenment. Beyond that--even if you didn't read Plato or Kant before, you'll want to read them, because Schopenhauer's genius will convince you that he was right in the beginning to do so. For motivation, read Schopenhauer as Educator by Nietzsche. There's a reason Tolstoy and Borges loved Schopenhauer. He covers what Montaigne doesn't.

>>12192290
>Schopenhauer is optimistic by offering art as an option, and he acknowledges this
>using roasties in such a simplified manner as if a schoolgirl using the world incel
>the topic is interesting when it comes to reading, but S, along with Nietzsche, Martial, Montaigne, and Wordsworth, all said the same thing, AND YET they all read. S actually says: read, but make sure to think afterwards.

>>12195955
If you think nietzsche invalidated him instead of making advancements in his philosophy and criticizing him for that then you haven’t read Schopenhauer

>>12195910
This is the peak of philosophy, more people you make angry or upset, the wiser you are.

>>12192290
This honestly