/lit/ - Literature

>>20819985
/lit/'s full of /pol/tards who don't read anything, and just shitpost about whether authors they haven't read are "based" for being racist.

Schopenhauer actually confronts you in serious ways about the purpose of life. It's too important for your average /pol/tard.

>>20819992
/pol/ is pathetic and /lit/ being illiterate is pathetic, too

it's still the best board on here, tho. maybe /g/ too. but that's not saying much

>>20819985
Because people are generally hopeful ignorant pussies

>>20819985
Schopenhauer is pretty much right about everything, it's ridiculous how right he was. Of course nu/lit/ doesn't care about understanding metaphysics or epidemiology in general so of course nobody has discussions about philosophy on here.

Schopenhauer was very straight-forward in his philosophy while Nietzche was much more layered and abstract. I agree with pretty much everything Arthur said (except for his writings on women and a few other topics, shoo, /pol/cels), but also agree that there is not nearly as much to discuss about Schopenhauer as there is about Nietzche. Furthermore, discussing Nietzche inherently becomes a discussion of Schopenhauer due to his inherited topics.

But most of all, /lit/ don't actually read. Nietzche is currently very popular on social media, and that's why he's popular on here.

>>20820088
>there is not nearly as much to discuss about Schopenhauer as there is about Nietzche.
the only thing Nietzsche gets debated about are his various critiques, his actual philosophy is rarely brought up and usually raped in one way or another

so I see plenty of things to debate about when it comes to Schopenhauer. his critiques, of Hegel, idealism, his general pessimism, cold and realistic outlook on life

>>20820088
>except for his writings on women

>>20819985
>Why is Schopenhauer so underrated on /lit/?
There are always at least 2 threads shitposting about his views on women and other irrelevant stuff like this. He is not underrared, he is underread, because despite all the threads, nobody discusses his actual philosophy, because nobody here reads

>>20820064
It would be nice to discuss philosophy on here, if it was even fucking possible.

Threads get shit up instantly by retards who don't read, based on their gut reactions against five minute youtube videos on the topic.

Just look at every Nietzsche thread. It's pure shit.

>>20819985
Nietzsche is edgier and easier to read (not even an actual philosopher), Schopenhauer requires (if you want to read on the fourfold root, which is his best work) you to have a minimum understanding of Plato's, Aristotle's, Descartes', Spinoza's and Kant's philosophies.

>>20820064
He's right about all the "zen" stuff, and above all about his connection between aesthetics and ethics. In a way is an improved version of Spinoza's project.

>>20820273
>on the fourfold root
>which is his best work
You misspelled On the Freedom of the Will

>>20820273
>Schopenhauer requires (if you want to read on the fourfold root, which is his best work) you to have a minimum understanding of Plato's, Aristotle's, Descartes', Spinoza's and Kant's philosophies.
This is retarded, it's basically only Plato, Aristotle and Kant who you need to be familiar with.

>>20820287
In a way you're right. But I think everyone should be aware of Kant's changes on the KrV about the sense giving actual knowledge to living non-human beings. I think this is crucial to understand what went wrong with the Aufcklarung. And his critique of Spinoza's translation of Aristotle (cause/principle of knowledge confusion) is necessary to be taken into consideration too.

I'd say, to anyone who isn't interested into studying philosophy, freedom of will does the job, to anyone interested in the details, the fourfold. But both are necessary imo (more than wille und vorstellung).

>>20820295
Sorry, I expressed myself poorly. Not necessary to understand his "system" but crucial to understand where he comes from and where he (goes) aims for.

>>20819985
Nobody thinks schopenhauer is underrated, you just interact to much with poltards

>>20820322
Academia does not care for him either. Maybe... because he solved philosophy... Really makes you think.

>>20820088
>except for his writings on women
he didn't right enough

>>20819985
i thought you didnt like Schopenhauer and solved philosophy by merging Plato, Hegel and Heidegger, what happened, zoom zoom?

>>20820162
Responding with that image says a lot more about you than it does about anyone else.

>Responding with that image says a lot more about you than it does about anyone else.

>>20819985
wasn't based enough

>>20820162
Why would someone take as factual/sensible the writings of a man who was known to seethe about his lack of bitches. Couldn’t have been that clear headed about it.

>>20820354
Actually because he hated academy ... represented by Hegel himself.

>>20820478
you thought wrong, and I do not worship any philosopher fully, Schopenhauer's critique of Hegel is valid

>>20820530
/qa/ lost

>>20820702
>who was known to seethe about his lack of bitches
He pointed out the flaws in the western worlds views on women. The west allowed women to become degenerate and promiscuous which is leads to lower birth rates and collapse.

Have sex incel isn't a argument.

>>20820702
>I love Lovecraft... except the part where he is racist.
Yeah these types of posts only belong on Reddit.

>>20819985
He's not underrated, /lit/ always liked Schopes. Nietzsche is the more comprehensive thinker and therefore more referred to thinker, though.

>>20819992
>POL POL POL
Talk about obsession.

>>20820702
>old well-renowned philosopher has an opinion that goes against 21st century post-post-modern dogma
>immediately the only resort faggots use to criticize him is the one of ad hominem fallacies

>>20823258
I think part of my desire to read things "off the beaten path" of normie socially acceptable consensus was sparked by seeing similar reactions to Schopenhauer's On Women essay over ten years ago. I just hate laziness and punching down so much, they make me sick, so as soon as I saw people using a lazy excuse not to read something or give something a fair hearing I assumed he must at least be more noble and thoughtful than they are.

I wonder if normies know how many people they turn into radicals in the long run by trying to use social policing and conformity enforcing techniques on them that really only work on fellow normies. To people who aren't already with the program, it's just sickening.

>>20823228
/pol/ shits up everywhere it touches. you being a pissy bitch about that fact doesn't mean anything

>>20823286
Anti-/pol/ hysteria is stupid, I am very "/pol/" and have never posted on /pol/. I don't think anyone posts there anymore except boomers.

>>20823295
thanks for your diary. start reading books instead of shitposting about shit nobody cares about

>>20823298
You shouldn't be so petty, bitter, and mean-spirited just because you don't like someone else's politics. It's very womanish. Thousands of such encounters with unpleasant, disingenuous whiners like you are what entrench people like me in our views, not browsing racist /b/ in 2016.

>>20823266
Mein Kampf is a pretty good read.

>>20819985
Part of it I think is because Schopenhauer is very anti-modern, unlike Nietzsche. You could read Nietzsche in the modern world and pretend to be muh uebermensch while in reality being another soulless opportunistic corporate wageslave but if you want to carry out Schopenhauer's philosophy to its conclusions, you would end up in a monastery. Nietzsche is also anti-metaphysical but Schopenhauer is very much metaphysical, which adds to the appeal of Nietzsche in the modern world but detracts from Schopenhauer's.