/lit/ - Literature

schopenhauer is a lot more entertaining than kant, so yes, you can skip kant

>>16516212
Based. Just read one of those Very Short Introductions maybe

>>16516196
So how does Schopenhauer actually square morality in his system? Does he believe in a selfless ought of love like Wagner, or does he consider that just a characteristic of moral action?

>>16516196
schoppy is eternally malding

>>16516196
schopy was a bro and hated wahmen so it's a must read imo

>>16516212
>>16516196

A lot of things are more interesting then Kant. Matters what you want to get out of it. if you just want to read it to be entertained, then sure go ahead, but if you want to honestly engage in deeper concepts of philosophy you should be familiar with Kant so that you understand his basis as well as the potentiality of routes outside of shopenhaur as well as seeing schopenhaur in context.

It wouldnt do to turn yourself into an author worshiper simply because you are not grounded in his feild of inquiry to begin with.

You dont want to be like one of those neitszche fanatics who have only read neitzche and literally treat him like christ.

>>16516196
>And Schopenhauer looks like he’s seething in this pic
Because he is, at Hegel

>>16516196
Kant is a pain to read. They didn't have wikipedia in those days anon you can search Kant and his philosophy online now to get an understanding before reading schoppy

Schopenhauer was retroactively refuted by Nietzsche. He’s still based though

>>16516196
Literally no, at least if you intend to read his major works.

He literally tells you to read Kant first in the books intro. Wtf. Retarded /pol/ posters.

Schopenhauer said reading is basically a waste of time and that you should think things through yourself instead of just letting other people think for you, so fuck Kant

>>16516389
>muh /pol/
Never gonna make it if you can’t power through through your own will alone

>>16516196
Should of started with Marx instead. Metaphysics is spook

>>16516415
Don’t read Jews, sorry

>>16516196
is reading only his side works based and redpilled?

>>16516596
Isn't this a character from one of those Japanese fighting games?

>>16516596
The Essays and Aphorisms book was actually pretty good

>>16516596
The two essays he wrote on ethics are pretty good reads

>>16516658
Reading it now

Compared to Nietzche it's really clear and concise. Fred is a chore to read

>>16516824
Nietzsche gives me a headache. Half of it seems like hardly related rambling, untranslatable wordplay and occasional moments of lucidity and insight.

Bump