/lit/ - Literature

>>19928673
Stirner and Nietzsche.

>Kant
Possibly
>Schopenhauer
Not even close

>>19928692
Curious as to why you would praise Kant but reject Schopenhauer.

>>19928815
he's coping

>>19928815
Name one thing Schopenhauer accomplished besides butchering Kantian philosophy publicly.

>>19929148
Schopenhauer is a cope

>>19929162
Cope

>>19928815
Schopenhauer doesn't hold a domination over Kant, he misunderstood a lot of him and quite self-consciously rejected a lot (which can sometimes make it comical that he considered himself his heir), but in historical importance he's more cumulative than purely original and cannot compare with Kant who created modernity.

>>19928673
Kant and Hegel. Reading anything else in philosophy is a waste of time and energy.

>>19928673
Schopenhauer is one of the greatest minds the West has produced, but philosophy has no endgame.

>>19929225
Seethe

>>19929233
>"created modernity"
>Who is Descartes?

>>19928685
Their own philosophies would root them out first.

>>19928673
Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty.

>>19929158
>publicly
What does this even mean?
He inspired artists (Wagner, Tolstoy, Mann etc). Wagner gave primacy to libretto instead of music in his until he read Schopenhauer. Even thematically, Wagners operas changed, much to the seethe by Nietzsche.

>>19929233
>Schopenhauer doesn't hold a domination over Kant
I didn't say that.
>he misunderstood a lot of him
He always claimed to strictly follow the transcendental aesthetic, which he did.

They are complementary authors.

>>19929392
>Wagner gave primacy to libretto instead of music in his until he read Schopenhauer.
Common misconception, Wagner maintained the essential principles of the balance between word and music in Opera and Drama until the end of his life, he just just realised the music could do more for the libretto than previously it had been allowed.

>>19928673
No, Husserl is, by being a synthesis of Kant, Schopenhauer and to a certain degree Hegel (and Frege) despite transcending each.

>>19928673
No.
Schopenhauer in particular isn't so much the "endgame of philosophy" as he is catnip to sadfags in their early twenties.
It's very, very gay.

>>19930158
>Husserl
>influenced by Schopenhauer
Sauce?

>>19930171
/thread

>>19930158
Can you elaborate?. What does Husserl take from each of these philosophers?. Is Husserl compatible with traditional metaphysics? (Aristotle and Plato).

>>19929276
You’re thinking of Nietzsche here. I guess you haven’t read Stirner.
Your assertion is irrelevant though.

>>19930393
Stirner too. Both are hypocrites who enjoy pros of society they live in no matter what they claim.

>>19930401
Stirner tried making a living in a dairy. He didn’t mean to unwisely invest in it anymore than he meant to sleep in a spider infested attic to avoid the creditors. He genuinely would have liked the working class to understand that they should be every bit as bold as the “middle class” sociopaths that run this world to this day. No. I don’t think you have read Stirner. Or you didn’t understand him.

>>19930158
>tfw being filtered by Cartesian meditations
How do I into Husserl anon? I'm not stupid; I've read Kant and Schopey (and Hegel).

>>19929238
The problem with this is that those two are some of the most philoso-historic reliant philosophers in human history, you can't read Hegel without having read the entirety of the western canon, Greek tragedies and medieval scholastics included.

>>19930436
>that they should be every bit as bold as the “middle class” sociopaths that run this world to this day
And that was the cause of the problem in the first place and having working class be like that would solve the problem, yeah? Except that if it was employed by the working class individuals, they might as well fuck over each other and instead of just middle class.

>>19930436
>as bold as the “middle class” sociopaths that run this world to this day
What is this cope?
>"I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"
So it's bad when middle class society does same to you because...

>>19928673
That's Nagarjuna and Heraclitus.

>>19930496
>The Canadian truckers are literally fascists broski!
You’re a fool

>>19930543
>what cope
What? You have misread the man and conjured up a world where we continue to write laws only to break them and no equilibrium is ever made. He does skim over the line “union of egoists” quite briefly, but it’s still a famous line.

Anyway, it’s still irrelevant

>>19930173
The three conference's he gives in 1917 and repeats in 1918, where he constantly quotes Schopie, Hegel, Fichte and Schelling. You can find the transcript online.
>>19930219
It isn't so much a question of "taking" anything, except perhaps the vocabulary, which he appropriates and uses in his own ways anyways. Husserl's own method led him, after roughly 20 years of internal work, to see the value of post-kantian german idealism, especially when it came to ethical questions. The main theme of the 1917 conferences is the fichteen conception of humanity. He (much) later did the same with buddhism when Fink introduced him to them.

>>19930575
As soon as you have this union, you have a spook and aren't self-serving individual.

>>19930575
>strawman
"Let's be egoistical but not really"
What a genius.

>>19930611
t. Scared liberal
Okay Trudeau

>>19930624
You haven’t read it.

>>19930655
I'm talking about the union of egoists, dimwit.

>>19930575
>m-misread
Cope. If your own idea bites you in the ass, maybe it's a stupid idea.

>>19930683
>Still misreads.

>>19930687
>still copes

>>19930451
Don't start with Cartesian Meditations, start with Philosophy as rigorous science, the 1910 Logos article. Alternatively you can jump into the deep end to get a feel of what it leads to, since 99% of what Husserl does is preparatory. For that I'd recommend tye third section of Ideen 1, starting with .63 and especially from .76 on. Do not stop and worry about understanding everything or even most of it. Just use this as a reference point to where you are ultimately going.

>>19928673
Nah, it's Lao Tzu.

>>19930610
>>19930219
>It isn't so much a question of "taking" anything, except perhaps the vocabulary, which he appropriates and uses in his own ways anyways. Husserl's own method led him, after roughly 20 years of internal work, to see the value of post-kantian german idealism, especially when it came to ethical questions. The main theme of the 1917 conferences is the fichteen conception of humanity. He (much) later did the same with buddhism when Fink introduced him to them.
I see, thank you anon, but you didn't answer the other question:

"Is Husserl compatible with traditional metaphysics? (Aristotle and Plato)."

Let's say the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition and the Theory of Forms.

>>19930904
>Is Husserl compatible with traditional metaphysics? (Aristotle and Plato)."
Very much yes, but also very much provisionally. The provision being that you approach ontological questions as such only after having done an important and very lengthy work of neutralization for your ontological biases. The terms of general ontology are available to you throughout the entire process however.
The center of the issue is that Husserl considers that philosophy must remain, to be true to its own spirit, a descriptive practice of essences. Philosophers have traditionally betrayed that spirit by trying to turn their science into an arithmetic of essences. This is why Husserl tendentiously claims that all philosophy only find its rigour through Phenomenology.
Given that Husserl's objective is to found a science of pure essences, and that intentionality is a scholastic concept at its heart, there is a definite and privileged relation with Plato, which is never really thematized directly however, possibly because "Platonist" was an insult in the philosophical circles he was educated in.
As far as strong compatibility, at least with D'aquinas there is this core difference that they take different stances on the Pure Self and consciousness. Pope John Paul II wrote a lot on it, iirc.

>>19930872
>ideen 1
>.63
>.76
Are these just page numbers or his system of sorting? What's ideen? How do I understand what the words he uses actually mean?

It's strange, for everything else I've read I can quite easily immediately ascertain what the author is actually trying to lead to (and thus, to an extent, the pathway), yet with Husserl, it's quite different. He jumps around to different things that I simply can't put together, even if the terminus of transcendental objective descriptions seems simple enough.
Thank you for the (hopefully better) starting points. Can you give me a short list of the route I should take through Husserl? When, for instance, I should read Ideas, which I've heard to be a controversial realist turn.