/lit/ - Literature

>>16337909
Gustavo Bueno

>>16337909
to my cock

Nietzsche obviously, and then you go into deep Jung/Lacan psychoanalytic theory.

Then once you have ultimate knowledge of humanity, you can decide whether you want to down the marxist postmodern route and autistically screech about institutions of power or the CHAD DIONYSUS route and bend them to your will.

>>16337909
unironically you go to the gospels

He says repeatedly in WWR that you need to read his works twice, so after Schopenhauer you read Schopenhauer.

>>16337909
Nietzsche, and you stop there, since there's no end to Nietzsche.

>>16337909
You read this chart

>>16338517

>>16338517
f

>>16337909
The Greeks, Christians and Heidegger. That is, "Ἐξαίφνης".

>The dialogue Parmenides concludes with these astounding words of Parmenides:
>>Let this therefore be said, and let us also say the following, as it seems appropriate.Whether or not there is a unity, the unity itself and the manifold otherness, both inrelation to themselves as well as to each other—all this, in every way, both is and is not,appears [phainetai] and does not appear. —This is most true [alēthestata].59

>The concluding word is the character Aristotle’s grandiose alēthestata: “This is mosttrue.” The most profound articulation of reality as one-in-many, as identity-in-differentiation, as presence-by-absence, has been attained. Heidegger concludes hisseminar with the following words:
>>Maximal truth has been attained when appearance and Non-being have been includedwithin truth and Being. The dialogue literally leads to Nothing [Nichts]. . . . Thereby thequestion of Being has been transformed, everything is now otherwise. The on is both hen and polla, and it is hen, insofar as it is polla and vice versa. The One and the Many are only insofar as they are in themselves negative [nichtig].

Kierkegaard along with Hegel also raised the focus onto the "Instance" in Plato.

>>16338517
You are gay

>>16337909
Nietzsche

>>16337909
He is the only logical conclusion after Schopenhauer.

>>16337909
The Greeks, Christians and Heidegger. That is, "Ἐξαίφνης".

>Unlike the temporal “now,” understood as a point in time, the “instant” is not in time—it is not “temporal” in the ordinary sense. However, in Heidegger’s reading, the “instant” is not within time, but rather manifests the essence of the temporality of Being as such: “As to the exaiphnēs, we say it is time itself. Time is not eternity, but rather the instant [Augenblick].”"Unlike the temporal “now,” understood as a point in time, the “instant” is not in time—it is not “temporal” in the ordinary sense. However, in Heidegger’s reading, the “instant” is not within time, but rather manifests the essence of the temporality of Being as such: “As to the exaiphnēs, we say it is time itself. Time is not eternity, but rather the instant [Augenblick].

>The dialogue Parmenides concludes with these astounding words of Parmenides:
>>Let this therefore be said, and let us also say the following, as it seems appropriate.Whether or not there is a unity, the unity itself and the manifold otherness, both in relation to themselves as well as to each other—all this, in every way, both is and is not,appears [phainetai] and does not appear. —This is most true [alēthestata].59

>The concluding word is the character Aristotle’s grandiose alēthestata: “This is most true.” The most profound articulation of reality as one-in-many, as identity-in-differentiation, as presence-by-absence, has been attained. Heidegger concludes his seminar with the following words:
>>Maximal truth has been attained when appearance and Non-being have been included within truth and Being. The dialogue literally leads to Nothing [Nichts]. . . . Thereby the question of Being has been transformed, everything is now otherwise. The on is both hen and polla, and it is hen, insofar as it is polla and vice versa. The One and the Many are only insofar as they are in themselves negative [nichtig].

Kierkegaard along with Hegel also raised the focus onto the "Instance" in Plato.

>>16337909
This: >>16338684
The answer is basically Wagner, Nietzsche, and Jung. A Wagnerian anon on /lit/ introduced me to a series of essays by Wagner (the first of which is linked below), in which he, among other things, builds a political philosophy based on Schopenhauerian doctrines. He believed the very nature of the will makes it so that it always continues to degenerate, unless something is done to prevent it. He showed how modern culture has degenerated since the ancients, and then outlined a political program to regenerate culture. Another underrated work of philosophy which builds up on Schopenhauer is Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy (Nietzsche was still a Schopenhauerian when he wrote this). In that work, Nietzsche builds up on Schopenhauer's aesthetics as it relates to opera, and also expounds on the "heroic path" to salvation (as opposed to renunciation) which Schopenhauer first introduced. He then related this to an analysis of modern culture, which he believes is weak and misguided compared to the heroic culture of ancient Greeks.

As for Jung, If you noticed, Schopenhauer argued that everything in phenomena has a subjective aspect and an objective aspect, and these two are correlates; and also that the phenomena in general conforms to platonic ideas. But his analysis of these platonic ideas were mostly focused on how they appear in nature or works of arts (i.e., the objective side of phenomena), or how the aesthetic experience comes from the subject perceiving these forms, which means there is room for investigation of the subjective side as they appear in the mind. This is for the most part what Jungian psychology does. If you look closely, every basic concept that Jung introduces and then builds further is the psychological or the subjective side of Schopenhauer's system. The collective unconscious is the psychological aspect of the noumenal Will, instinct or libido is the phenomenal Will, the archetypes are subjective aspects of platonic ideas, etc.

And don't forget the relevant works of art. If you haven't already, read Faust, Tristan and Isolde, Zarathustra, etc.
http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wlpr0126.htm

>>16337986
Also don't listen to this. Marxism/Postmoodernism and Lacan are the anthithesis of everything Schopenhauer believed.

>>16338847
Postmodernists were influenced by Nietzsche who was influenced primarily by Schopenhauer and are therefore necessary if one is to understand the full scope of his thought.

>but that's not what he meant NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST INTERPRET THINGS AND COME TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS

Author is dead.

>>16338847
Which volumes of Jung in particular would be an extension of Schopenhauer?

>>16338875
This isn't wikipedia, merely citing names isn't enough. If you want to be taken seriously, make arguments. Late Nietzsche had a relativist/perspectivist view regarding epistemology that is exact opposite of central claims of Schopenhauer. These so called postmodernists built up on that aspect of his thought and made it even more ridiculous. It won't be too much of an exaggeration if I say you when put a negation side before The World as Will and Representation, you derive postmodernism.

>>16338979
Since Jung is a systematic thinker, it would be difficult to pin down one volumes, as everything is connected together. I'd recommend starting with Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. Also I don't want to say Jung is just an extension of Schopenhauer, since he has many of his own novel contributions and other authors influenced him too, but the Schopenhauerian influence is particularly strong.

>>16337909
I just read Confessions by Tolstoy where he explains how Schopenhauer affected him during a suicidal existential crisis. Its a short PDF. Very relatable. It made me interested in his interpretations of the Gospels.

>>16338847
Was Nietzsche really a Schopenhauerian in Birth of Tragedy? Where does Nietzsche directly confront Schopenhauer? Is there a moment or is there a work where he breaks from it?

>>16338847

Which works by Wagner? I’ve studied Jung and Nietzsche but I’ve never seriously examined the work of Wagner.

>>16339018
>Was Nietzsche really a Schopenhauerian in Birth of Tragedy? Where does Nietzsche directly confront Schopenhauer? Is there a moment or is there a work where he breaks from it?
Yes, he admits it at the start of the work he is continuing the work of Schopenhauer. My understanding is that he started to distance himself from him since his break with Wagner in 1878.
>>16339060
It's a series of essays known as "regeneration writings". As far as I know there isn't any edition in print, and the only translation in English was done in 1890s, written in archaic style. This is the link of the first essay:
http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wlpr0126.htm
And the rest are available on the same website.

>>16339265

Thanks I don’t mind the archaic English I actually find it comfy.

>>16338517
fag

>>16337909
Go back to Kant's 3 critiques and realize that he had already refuted Schoppy's whole philosophical system by the time Arthur came out of middle school

>>16339287

>>16338757
The Greeks proactively refuted the Christians and Heidegger retroactively refuted the Christians.

You're right on the Greeks and Heidegger though.

>>16338517
No

>>16338847
Hey Wagner friend, good to see such good writing on him being posted.

>>16339060
What this anon said>>16339265

But it should be noted the English translation is not only archaic, it can be quite bad at times. To such a degree that it can interfere in properly understanding what Wagner is saying, but overall it works and is fine. The regeneration writings collect most of Wagner's most important beliefs and ideas, but some other very good ones you should read are also:

>A Pilgrimage to Beethoven(and the other two short story sequels if you want to)
>Judaism in Music(it's actually an artistically serious and sound work)
>What is German?
>Modern
>On Poetry and Composition

And countless others too.

>>16339302
In the same essay and subject which those quotes are from as I said Kierkegaard and Hegel raise the same focus.

>>For the “instant” [to exaiphnēs] seems to indicate precisely something out of which transition [metabolē] takes place into either direction [that is, becoming or static presence]. .. . Precisely this odd, instant kind of reality [physis] is posed in between becoming [kinēsis] and static presence [stasis]. Itself it is not within any time; what is in the state of becoming passes over into it and out from it into static presence, and what is static passes on to becoming.

>Heidegger is one of the few interpreters to lay great weight on this notion of the instant, and apart from Hegel and Kierkegaard he is perhaps the only one to find here the solution to the entire problematic of the dialogue and a peak within Plato’s thinking as a whole. Kierkegaard, in The Concept of Anxiety (1844), sees the “instant” of Plato’s Parmenides as radically prefiguring the Christian experience of the paradoxical mediation between the immanence of temporality and the transcendence of eternity in the incarnation of Christ, and derives thence his own concept of the “instant” or of the “glance of the eye” (Danish Øieblikket, German Augenblick). Although Heidegger does not mention Kierkegaard here, he also translates to exaiphnēs with Augenblick—a concept that plays a central part in the analysis of temporality in Being and Time. It must be noted that in his lectures from 1929–30, Heidegger makes the following enigmatic remark:

>>What we here designate as the “instant” [Augenblick] is what was really comprehended for the first time in philosophy by Kierkegaard—a comprehending with which the possibility of a completely new epoch of philosophy has begun for the first time since antiquity.

You find similar things with many, such as Schmitt.

>>16339302
Also Heidegger said in the famous Spiegel interview a few years before his death, only to be released after it, that "God has always been with me", which though he considers it the true nature of God, in the Gottefrage, this is the God of his Catholic youth. Though he now stands in a truer relation to it.

>>16338517