/lit/ - Literature

His essays are rather short and nice to read.

>>2188670
>the world is just a representation product of our will

The will is not ours. More the other way around. Enjoy your Schopenhauer though, he's very nice to read if you can stand the pessimism. Also, he's funny as hell.

Here are the essays: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/ The Emptiness of Existence touches on his major themes and is worth a look in particular.

Really, though, TWAWAR is superb and absolutely worth reading if you are up to it. Both volumes. If you read and understand the first volume - which you pretty much will because Schopenhauer is a clear and very powerful writer - you will be excited to try volume two.

There are people here who have read way, way more philosophy than me and will probably say he's crap or something, but I think he's fantastic and these are easily my favourite books. Read and enjoy.

>>2189004

Not OP here, but what does The World As Will and Representation talks about? What is the major theme it discuss?

>>2189068
mostly it discusses the world as a representation of the will

>>2189078

What exactly does that mean?

>>2189094
i'm not going to type out a full explanation of something that dense but basically: the world as we perceive it is fundamentally a representation of an ideal, platonic world, and how we see this is determined by an essential life-force, 'the will'.

all relations are possible only through the will and thus this is true of all representations; he then goes on to attempt the development of a systematic and near-total philosophy, but it's only really worth reading for the bits on aesthetics imo.

>>2189102

That sounds retarded.

>>2189117

All philosophy does.

>>2189123

All philosophy is*

Is it necessary to read Kant before reading The World as Will and Representation?

>>2189220

Don't bother, both books suck.

>>2189220

No, but you should be reading kant anyway.

>>2189295

No sane person would lose time with his bullshit.

Some areas of philosophy hold great relevance for other fields of knowledge, such as moral and ethics (important to politics and law), the identity of the self (important to neuroscience and AI computation) and the nature of knowledge (important to physics, specially). Do The World as Will and Representation and Critic of Pure Reason hold any pragmatic relevance? Are they applicable in any way in real life?

I swear to God this isn't a troll question, I'm honestly curious.

>>2189395

>Kant
>Schopenhauer
>Relevant

Pfffffhahahahaahahahha!

>>2189395
>>2189395
>>2189395
>>2189395
>>2189395

Bump for answers!

>>2189395

I have the same doubt as you.

>>2189395
MY GUESS IS YOUR EITHER STONED OR IGNORANT OR BOTH

>>2189395
>such as moral and ethics (important to politics and law)
This was a good first clue that you're an idiot.

>Are they applicable in any way in real life?
What the fuck does "in real life" mean? Where else would it be applicable to?

>I swear to God this isn't a troll question
yep

>>2189440

My guess is you don't know how to answer my question.

>>2189458

I dare you to explain how my analyses was wrong. Just try.

Also, you're either playing retarded or are really stupid to don't understand what I meant by "real life". In other words, do those books provide any insight that could be useful in a pragmatic way?

>>2189466
both the books you're asking about delve fairly deeply into all the issues you mentioned. kant and schopenhauer both try and sketch out theories of epistemology, ethics and aesthetics

your question is pretty damn retarded

>>2189472

>both the books you're asking about delve fairly deeply into all the issues you mentioned

Except they don't. Critical of Pure Reason provides a dispensable (to not say retarded) thought on moral, and barely touches the surface of the nature of knowledge and the identity of self. The same goes to TWAWAR. Have you even read the books?

Do I need to have any previous knowledge of other works to understand Kant or Schopenhauer?

>>2189479
>>2189479
>>2189479
>>2189479

This, could anyone please answer?

>Before the time of Kant, it was generally held that whatever knowledge was a priori must be of the nature of an analytic judgment, that is, what is stated in the predicate must already be present in the subject and it is therefore, independent of experience (e.g., "An intelligent man is intelligent" or "An intelligent man is a man"). In either case, the judgment is analytic because it is arrived at by analyzing the subject. Before the time of Kant, it was thought that all judgments of which we could be certain a priori were of this kind: that in all of them there was a predicate that was only part of the subject of which it was asserted. If this were so, we would be involved in a contradiction every time we would try to deny anything that could be known a priori (e. g., "An intelligent man is not intelligent" or "An intelligent man is not a man"). Thus according to the philosophers before Kant, the Law of contradiction is sufficient to establish all a priori knowledge.

How is this useful in any way?

Critic of Pure Reason deals with:

>a priori versus a posteriori
>Analytic versus synthetic
>Appearance
>Category
>concept versus object of sense perception
>Empirical versus pure
>intuition
>Manifold of the appearances
>Object
>Phenomena versus noumena
>Schema
>Transcendental idealism
>variant translations of Vorstellung: presentation or representation

None of these hold any pragmatic value.

Oh, and by the way, several branches o philosophy have been rendered practically useless with the advances of physics, mathematics and technology. For instance, one who wants to understand the nature of knowledge will learn much more by studing neuroscience than epistemology; one who wants to understand the chracter of space and time should study Physics, not philosophy, and the list goes on and on and on...

>>2189511
>something cutting-edge 200 years ago has been superseded by the latest advancements

Yet Shoepenhauer's thoughts on human will and the nature of evil are more relevant today than Newtonian physics, the theories of the æther or Paley's natural theology.

>>2189565
though, in general, i agree with the poster you responded to, yours is also a great point. newton was a retard

>>2189565

>Shoepenhauer's thoughts on human will and the nature of evil are more relevant today than Newtonian physics.

Wow.

Just... Wow.

ignore the /sci/ troll, please.

philosophy isn't "useful", that's the entire point.

>>2189586

Yes, and?

>>2189575
Are you in high school or something? Newtonian physics have been superseded entirely by quantum physics and special relativity. It is entirely incorrect and disproven.

Newton's theories are only taught still because they are dumbed-down estimates which nearly describe the physics with which we most commonly deal with on this particular planetary body. They are like finding the area under a curve by using Euclidian geometry instead of Leibniz's calculus.

skip schopy
read "hegel" by peter singer
its under 100 pages and written by a good communicator and ethicist

>>2189586
philosophy is not useful, it is necessary.
it is the software of our minds.