/lit/ - Literature

Stay away from that book until you've read Kant. His essays are very accessible.

the farther you go back, the less scientific knowledge they have, so the less understanding they will impart to you.
What do you think Schopenhauer can help you understand?

>>415753
All understanding is not scientific understanding.

>>415762
do you have an example?

As influential as the early Greeks were, they were severely lacking the scientific knowledge that would have debunked a majority of their claims.

Schopenhauer was a pessimistic philosopher, so unless you want to douse your brain in a 'life is pointless' shade of fuck, i'd leave him off for a while. Introducing Philosophy books are probably the way to go, as you'll get the general gist of the main school of thought, Dualism, Materialism, Idealism, Spinozism, Existentialism..it goes on and on.

If you are serious about getting deep into it, then i'd recommend Kant's 'The Critique of Pure Reason' as a starting point, as most philosophers spent alot of time either trying to disprove, or trying to reinforce Kants ideas.

Good luck young one

>>415771
Is there a reason to think contemplating and arguing over Kant is anything other than mental masturbation?

>>415795
No more or less of a 'mental masturbation' then Philosophy in general.

There ya go, OP. Are you looking to mentally masturbate or are you looking to understand people and their place in the world?

>>415771
That's it really, I often feel like life is pretty pointless. I wouldn't say that I'm depressed, but I find myself wondering if the troubles of everyday life are really worth it. I'm finding it harder and harder to be motivated, so I'm interested about his thoughts on human motivation in a world of nothingness.

>>415861
Oh I see. Well then forget my question >>415857
I would like that answer too, OP. Very much.

>>415861
You may also want to read Kierkegaard.

Either/Or and Concluding Unscientific Postscript are IMO probably the best place.

>>415861
You need you some Sartre and Camus, mah boi.

>>415892
>implying Sartre and Camus are any good

>>415861
Well then I suppose if you want to reinforce your depression and justify the 'pointlessness' then yes, Schopenhauer is your man.

It isn't really poignant however to seek out Philosophers who you think will agree with your state of mind. The reason we philosophy is so wide spread and useful is because there are so many varying degrees to it.

Are you searching for meaning to existence? To better yourself as a person? To understand reality? Or are you simply searching for someone who you can quote from to tell your friends and family when they ask why you are so miserable all the time.

>>415909
Yes.

>>415927
This. That's why I suggested Kierkegaard. He has an excellent understanding of the sort of state of mind the OP is experiencing, having dealt with it himself, but also tried to move beyond it.

As a result, he doesn't handwave the OP's problems, but he will offer a possibility of moving beyond them.

>>415945
Sartre and Camus also offer this, and were helpful in my personal experience. I don't know why they get a bad rap.

>>415945
Kierkegaard is brilliant, no doubt. I just find it a little strenuous to suggest one off philosophers to people aren't even really familiar with the philosophic discourse.

Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Satre will hopefully give you the tools you need to carve your own path.

>>415970
>I just find it a little strenuous to suggest one off philosophers to people aren't even really familiar with the philosophic discourse.

Despite Kierkegaard being a reactionary against Hegelianism, he's very accessible to even non-philosophers, which is why I suggested him.

>>415970
No Aristotle? No Socrates?

Son, I am disappoint

>>415927
I guess I'm just looking to be at peace with myself. I haven't heard much about Schopenhauer, although I was under the impression that he begins with the assumption that life is meaningless and explores human will from there. I'm not looking to reinforce my beliefs, but to use philosophy as part of a foundation to come to terms with life on my own.

>>415984
read OP's post..hes already read them.

>>415988
If you have a thinking, pontificating mind, then you'll get to read Schopenhauer, theres no need to rush.

I've posted on this thread enough, so i'll finish by saying get some standard 'Introducing Philosophy' books, keep in mind every single one of the people you will about is just as confused as you, and yeah, enjoy.

happy thinking

>>415738

Take a look at some of the Kant stuff here first
http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

Make sure to 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason' before checking out 'The World as Will and Representation.' The latter depends on the former.

>>415984
I've read some dialogs where Socrates was a character, but I'm pretty sure those where written by Plato for the most part.

>>416011
I hope you aren't the OP.

Socrates, for all we know, never existed. He never wrote anything down and the only evidence we have of his existence is through Plato and some of his other students.

That being said, its rather irrelevent in the grand scheme of things whether Socrates existed, as opposed to say, Jesus. As it was the ideas and perspectives he conveyed that are most important.

>>416049

No one denies that Socrates existed......

>>416056
I just did.

>>416056
"As one recent commentator has put it, Plato, the idealist, offers "an idol, a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of the 'Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his teachings as a heretic."Yet, the 'real' Socrates, like many of the other Ancient philosophers, remains at best enigmatic and at worst unknown."

case is rested

Kierkegaard might offer a way out of depression and meaninglessness, but he's religious, so isn't the way out going to be unsatisfactory to any intellectually honest person?
The best address I've ever read of the question of the meaning of life was Camus' The Myth of Sysiphus.

>>416117

That's fine
as long as you don't deny that a man called Socrates existed

OP here
>>416049
Yes, I posted that. I was just responding to the anon who was disappoint at "no Socrates." But like I said, the dialogs I read which included him as a character were written by Plato.

>>416122
And yes, I should have pointed out that any religious approach is not going to fly with me.

Read Varieties of the Religious Experience by William James

also, read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

>>416150
Actually, that's not 100% true. I read Siddhartha a few months ago which turned me on to Buddhism a little bit. I'm not about to go acetic, but some of its core beliefs appeal to me.

>>416150

>I should have pointed out that any religious approach is not going to fly with me.

Schopenhauer might not be for you then....

>But while philosophy can speak only of relative nothingness, Schopenhauer raises the remarkable claim, in the light of his atheistic reputation, that it is at precisely this point that “the mystic proceeds positively”. In illustration of this claim, he cites Meister Eckhart and implies that both Eckhart and the great religions of the world (at their mystical apotheoses) proceed beyond what can be articulated by philosophy.

>>416150
Don't pass off great thinkers just because they were theists.

When you read abit more about philosophy, you'll discover almost everyone is a theist to some degree. Schopenhauer, Nieztsche and Sartre weren't, but reading about Schopenhauer's 'Will' carries a quasi-religious sentiment to it, as does Nieztsche's 'Eternal Return'.

I'm an atheist, and yet I would've been the highest calibre of fool for passing Descartes off as a Catholic nutjob. You are familiar with Cogito Ergo Sum? I think, therefore I am.

His second claim was something along the lines of 'Since I can formulate and clearly see the idea of God in my mind, that proves his existence'

Its about sifting through the shit and finding contextual relevence.

>>416122
>Kierkegaard might offer a way out of depression and meaninglessness, but he's religious, so isn't the way out going to be unsatisfactory to any intellectually honest person?

Ok, well in the first place the notion that intellectual honesty and religiousness are mutual incompatible is either trollbait or idiocy.

Secondly, no. The way out isn't necessarily religious. If that were the case, Heidegger and Sartre wouldn't have been so heavily influenced by Kierkegaard. In the first place, there is the post-meaningless ethical stage which has not yet passed in to the religious. And what is important about the religious stage is certain key psychological elements regarding the relationship a self has with itself which, while for Kierkegaard are grounded in God, do not structurally necessitate God.

>>416127
I wasn't, I was stating the irrelevence of his existence in regards to the ideals and manner of questioning that take place in Plato's text, supposedly from the mouth of Socrates.

If I was to deny his existence, however, I would be perfectly capable of doing that, and I doubt you or anyone else could provide some empirical evidence to support the claim that he did exist.

>>416186

Don't accounts of his existence account for something?

>>416122
By the time Kierkegaard hits the religious part of his thought, he plunges BACK into absurdity and out of meaning.

This was probably by the person suggested Concluding Unscientific Postscript and Either/Or, which don't attempt to carry completely into the religious unlike Fear and Trembling or The Sickness Unto Death.

>>416192
No more then the Bible 'accounts' for the existence of Jesus.

and by that, I mean no, they don't.

>>416201

So we have no proof for the existence of Julius Caesar then?

>>416201
What about his appearance as a character in comedies as well? More than one kind of source references him.

>>416206
Caesar wrote his own shit down, led an empire that shaped the face of the humanity, you would have be completely retarded to compare the question of Caesar's existence to that of Socrates.

I think you are missing my point, I personally believe that Socrates did exist, though not to the extent of influence that Plato, Aristotle and Xenophon made him out to be.

Why are you so desperate to claim Socrates existed anyway? Isn't it enough that his Method lives on, as does his teachings?

>>416174
I'm completely fine with this. I really meant that I didn't want people to recommend joining a church or looking to a god as a way to fulfillment. I had enough of that in my upbringing and think it's a dead end for me.

>>415892
>>415861

Sartre is one of the darkest writers to have written in the 20th century. Even if philosophy were the sort of self-help bullshit that you cretins obviously seem to think it is, Sartre would definitely not be the place to begin.

>>416220

I'm just really tired of hearing people claim that Socrates and Jesus were entirely made up.

>>416224
Definately, organised religion has absolutely no idea about anything.

Kierkegaard was differant, he was an independent thinker and sewed the seeds of existentialism for future thinkers

If you want "pessimistic" philosophy, make sure to check out Emil Cioran.

>>416220

Er... his influence lies in precisely the fact that those people wrote about him. The very fact that they all consider him to have been such a big influence is proof that he was indeed such a big influence.

>>416232

>has absolutely no idea about anything.
To claim that something has no value at all is going too far, regardless of what you are talking about.

>>416232
>Kierkegaard was differant
>differant

Indeed.

>>Why are you so desperate to claim Socrates existed anyway?

STAND BACK, SHIT'S GETTING WELL PHILOSOPHICAL NOW.

>>416230
and I get really tired of morons thinking they definately weren't.

Especially in the case of Jesus. If you want to take the idea that he lived as truth, then you must accept he was completely insane, running around saying hes the Son of God, or maybe you want to take the further step and agree with those claims?

As for Socrates, I suggested his existence as an irrelevent aspect because his teachings were so much more important then his life, and since there is no historical evidence that he lived, one could say he didn't live at all.

>>416232
The great thing about Kierkegaard is he has no intention of converting atheists. He is not an apologist. In fact, he's kind of the reverse. He wanted to 'deconvert' the fashionable Christians of his nation where one was a Christian simply by being a citizen of Denmark. As he put it, he felt his task was to make Christianity difficult (or more accurately, reveal it in its true difficulty). Christianity was only true subjectively, insofar as it had concrete meaning in an individual's life. It has no objective meaning.

If anyone is intellectually honest about their religion, it's Kierkegaard.

>>416245
>there is no historical evidence that he lived
>no historical evidence

Testimonia is considered to be historical evidence by historians.

What kind of evidence would you like? How does one prove that someone existed 2000 years ago?

>>416253
Lol Government records. hurr durrr.

>>416226
I'm aware that philosophy is the basis for things like science, politics, and ethics, and isn't there solely as a self help tool. You can't tell me that it doesn't also lend itself to that purpose, though.