/lit/ - Literature

>>4736672
>makes it confusing to read
The fuck

Schopenhauer is one of the most accessible Philosophers by his writing

>>4736672

Compared with Nietzsche he's still pretty hard.

>>4736672
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

>>4736686
How the hell do people find these hard

I don't understand how you can find Schopenhaier ,Nietzsche or Kant hard they're the easiest to get into next to 'The Greeks'

Read Parerga and Paralipomena instead. dunce.

Read dialogues by Plato but seriously, man, Schopenhauer really is an easy read compared to, say, Kant.

Don't dive headlong into the Republic obviously, try something like the Banquet, or the Phaedrus first.

Another easy-to-read and incredibly deep philosopher is Bergson. You could try to read his conferences or his small book called "Laughter"

>>4736672
Jesus. Any philosophy that is easy to read is fucking shit.

>>4736692

Now I just feel more stupid

I'm currently reading Rousseau's The Social Contract and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. His writing style is very fluent and he brings up a lot of interesting points that he is able to present with ease and with relatively few words. He may not be the most accessible, but I'm really enjoying it.

>>4736672
>>he takes entire paragraphs to say what can be explained in a sentence or two
You are a fucking faggot. Why are you even reading philosophy?

>>4736705
Not sure if you're retarded

Anyone who can't understand somone as basic as Schopenhauer or Plato,Aristotle and Socrates is possibly one of the most dumbest people on earth

>>4736702
>Being this pretentious

>>4736720
It's because he's a lazy fuck who wants to read one sentence instead of a paragraph.

>>4736702
That's as stupid as saying any food that isn't hard as bricks isn't worth biting into.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e49iVNXqiDI

>>4736702
>More complex words means the theory is complex and therefore valid

Fuck off you idiot

The World as Will, Stirner, Critique of pure reason and The Gay Science are all written clearly and are somone of the most exquisite Philosophies

>>4736722
By easy to read, I'm talking about something written on a basic ass level.

>>4736730
>critique of pure reason
>written clearly

nigger what is wrong with your head

>>4736698
Schopenhauer CAN be an easy read -- IF you read something like Parerga and Paralipomena.

The World as Will and Representation is pretty much a direct response to Kant, however, so it actually should probably be read after Kant if at all.

>>4736720
Recommending the Tractatus as well as putting Kant, Schopey and Nietzsche in the same difficult tier makes no sense. I must assume you are an undergrad or a troll. Honestly, being an undergrad is probably worse cause you're just trolling yourself.

Also, why would German philosophers translated into English be the easiest to read? Doesn't even make sense, bro.

>>4736730
I didn't say those books are easy, retard. I was saing that the type of writing he's looking for sounds retarded.

>>4736735
Or maybe they are really bloody easy
The Tractatus is simply stating that language plays mind games upon Philosophy and to break out fo this 'thin ice' one has to think beyond the limit of language and onto pure pictural thought

If somone doesn't get this then they should atleast start with 'The Greeks' , The Republic atleast , is what I would reccommend to OP

>Also, why would German philosophers translated into English be the easiest to read? Doesn't even make sense, bro.

Because they're translated well
What the hell are you babbling about

I don't even goto Uni and dont' aspire to wanting to

>>4736738
And niether did I you pleb

I was stating how they were written

>>4736757
you've never actually read the first critique have you

>I want the world to understand my words and use my wisdom to change their life
>So I'll write in the most convoluted and inaccessible method ever
Philosophy in a nutshell. Then you guys wonder why no one likes you.

>>4736734
Critique is simple

It's just reason and reasoning in relation to the other, you , for example

A confusing book would be anything by Hume, except you need to almost be Hume to see what he is explaining
He's great when you get his writing style

>>4736760
I've read all of them, have you?

ah reading Schopenhauer

the best way to catch depression

>>4736762
is this opposite day oh my god

hume is one of the most clear philosophers ever to write and one of the best writers
kant is one of the least clear and worst writers

there's no way you've actually read the first critique and treatise.

>>4736762
>It's just reason and reasoning in relation to the other, you , for example
explain to me the synthetic unity of apperception and how both the A and B deductions work and why the fourth postulate in the A edition does not contradict the refutation of idealism

>>4736772
I just said he's clear good greif

I even said that once you get into him he's amazing

And yes I have, how many times do I have to say it

>>4736775
To announce the Self is existing, objective motions are everywhere
Therefore the self is existing

>both the A and B deductions
Your turn

>>4736779
>>4736775
>>4736772
>>4736765
>>4736762
>>4736760
>>4736761
>>4736757
>>4736738
>>4736735
>>4736730
>>4736734

>>4736757
You're stupid as fuck. You obviously care little about helping OP. Instead you prefer to posture and namedrop to make yourself feel smarter than you really are. I'm out.

>>4736672


aquinas did a bunch of commentaries on aristoteles, you can start with those.

>>4736785
>You're stupid as fuck. You obviously care little about helping OP. Instead you prefer to posture and namedrop to make yourself feel smarter than you really are. I'm out.

>>4736702
Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water.

>>4736692
Kant is a bitch to read. I thought so, so I asked a couple philosophy PhD students and both of them find Kant way harder to read than most philosophers.

>>4736779
>To announce the Self is existing, objective motions are everywhere
so bad

you aren't the abras eyes poem guy right?

>>4736686
Nietzsche is probably the most entry-level after the greeks.

>>4736692

>take babby intro filosophee class
>read explanations in layman's terms of the metaphysics of morals
>wow, Kant is easy

why don't you pick up the prolegomena and then we'll have a conversation, big boy

>>4736866
Stay mad and trolled faggot
And Tractatus is a lot harder than the Prole

>>4736894

unless only a single element can fall under the category of "difficult", your comparison is irrelevant. no one said the Tractatus is more or less difficult. the point is: Kant is not easy.

no one's been trolled, bro.

>>4736923
>And Tractatus is a lot harder than the Prole
You've been trolled M8

>>4736735
>The World as Will and Representation

...is perfectly clear. Post a paragraph that is "challenging" from either volume.

>>4736939
>>4736923
>>4736894
>>4736861

>>4736866
>read explanations in layman's terms of the metaphysics of morals

Wait, your philosophy classes included layman explanations? All of mine simply used primary sources.

This thread is pleb as fuck

what are some self-contained works by Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and other post-Kantian philosophers?

>implying philosophers shouldn't strive for at least a degree of obscurantism

It's not meant to "look deep" you shallow cunts, it's a time-honoured strategy to make sure the wrong people won't bother reading you and arguing about stupid shit that is completely besides the point.

Look at Nietzsche and Marx, those two idiots actually tried to make their work clear and accessive and they're rewarded by having tons of dumbasses to this very day speed-reading through their shortest works and thinking THAT'S IT! I KNOW EVERYTHING!

Philosophy isn't difficult enough. It's not meant for the common man.

>>4736992
Yeah. I think OP seems to be missing the point of Schopenhauer. The reason he repeats his conclusions so often is so that people don't get confused as to what he means. Philosophers take great pains with language. Oftentimes a common term takes on a special significance. Arguments also build upon each other. Sometimes being too casual can lead to a loss of clarity.

bump

>>4736984
You can read Nietzsche without reading the entire history of philosophy. The Birth of Tragedy is most indebted to past philosophy (Schoopy's) but is still understandable without reading the World as Will and Representation. BUT you will not really understand why Nietzsche is revolutionary.

You should really have a grasp on the history of metaphysics. The Gay Science and The Genaology are about as self-contained as it gets though.

>>4736672
>I've already
>read stuff like Sophie's World and took an intro to philosophy class where we just read small excerpts of all the important guys.

>>4737236

If you find the works of a philosopher too hard, just look up for someone who wrote about it. It's usually simpler and you can still understand the essence of his ideas.

Did you skip the forward? Are you trying to blow through the work just to say you did?

>>4737289
No

>>4737262
I'll try that for TWAWAR, thanks.

>>4736775
The synthetic unity of apperception is, to my mind, and very much simplified and in brief, a convoluted but brilliant explanation for how your imagination grasps or synthesizes the contents on the world and creates out of them the world you understand. Like, the objects in the world don't tell you what they are or put themselves into your brain, there is a process in which the data is collected by your senses and converted into the world you experience. But I may be wrong.

>all these niggers read Schopenhauer and not for his trolling or jokes
I... I-I'm being trolled, right /lit? You didn't actually do that shit did you?

No wonder everyone hates philosophy students.

None of you have any idea what you're talking about.

>>4736854
>he never answered

you are. i can tell by your horrible english and christian bale reaction images.

Pandora -
Bound beyond iron,
a key I cannot find,
an odyssey
i’d take to fetch
thee obliged

A pedestal,
too high to see -
noticing would be
favor me ,
if only I begat
the useful key.
Slow and sure,
Pandora would know!
My ped will rise and
match its top!
Soon I will,
I know it true, not
too long before …
not much time left -
When I discover
the key I will push too see
with bemoaning dread
it’ll budge for me -
It may not nor will
i doubt it much.
I will look anew
with careful rush.
Hopefully the box may recognize -
I'm searching there for Abras eyes;

my fav anon <3 poet laureate of /lit/

>>4737236
What's wrong with Sophie's World?

>>4737757
It's overwhelmingly entry-level babby's first philosophy wishy-washy pseudointellectual New Age

>Reading philosophy

If it's important you'll have already intuited it.

>>4736672
read schoppy's essays instead of his patrician magnum opus then. wisdom of life and such, studies in pessimism.

>>4737780

This is the dumbest thing posted so far in this thread

>>4737792
>wisdom of life
Thanks anon, that looks interesting.

>>4737771
>muh buzzwords
retard

>>4737804
You are new here, aren't you?

>>4737797
you're welcom m8. it's a great work and practical wisdom for just about anyone.

>>4736720
Socrates is pretty difficult to read. Actually impossible.

bump

this is why you must start with the greeks

>>4738875
I tried with The Republic but it wasn't interesting enough. If I wanted to know what the ideal ruler is I would look at what our rulers aren't.

>>4738883
>wasn't interesting enough
>Plato's Republic

>to convoluted and difficult
>Schopenhauer

Are you sure you're ready for the Love of Knowledge?

>>4738883
what kind of philosophy are you interested in, if you dont care start with a history of philosophy

>>4736692
Kant makes me fall asleep

>>4739085
*all philosophy

>>4737389
Oh my

>>4736672
>he takes entire paragraphs to say what can be explained in a sentence or two and the way he structures his sentences makes it confusing to read

That's German in a nutshell.

>>4738883


ur a faget.
ps laws was better.

>>4736672
>hear Schopenhauer is supposed to be very readable
....of the German philosophers.
You must not have heard that latter part.

>>4739338
>thoroughness is longwinded

>>4736672

If you want to understand TWaWaR you need to read:
> Leibnitz, Descartes, Hume (empiricists and rationalists; it's important to read them, or at least acquaint yourself with them, in order to understand Kant)
> Kant
> Hegel, perhaps Fichte
> Schopenhauer

>>4736672
Althought /lit/ won't agree with me on this, the most readable books you'd want to read if philosophy interests you are

> Simulation and Simulacra
> Tractacus Logico-Philosophicus
> Phenomelogy of Spirit
> On Grammatology
> Anti-Oedipus

>>4736761
Philosophy is a socially accepted type of esoteric knowledge.

>>4739552
epik trollan

>>4736984
Kierkergaard although he also wrote quite some critique of Hegel.

>>4737757
its almost as bad of an introduction to philosophy as Russells histories

>>4736672

He really is one of the easiest to get into.

>he takes entire paragraphs to say what can be explained in a sentence or two

That's pretty much every philosopher ever. It's not a waste of words, though, because there is usually more to it than just long-windedness.

>>4738233
>Socrates is pretty difficult to read. Actually impossible.

>>4738883

Why don't you just not read philosophy? I'm sure you're a nice guy and all, but Schopenhauer is pretty fucking easy to read. Easy enough that I'm wondering if you've even read a book of any kind written over 100 years ago. Have you read Moby-Dick? Schopenhauer is no harder to read than Moby-Dick is.

>>4738233
hehe

Why don't you read pic related? It was written in the 70s, is pretty easy to read, and respectable.

>>4739602
Fucking Peter Singer guilt tripping me into giving money to Oxfam

>>4739602
>eating animals is wrong
>raping them is okay

peter singer, everyone.

>>4739646
do you even preference utilitarianism bro? raping them is wrong because it does not consider what they would prefer

>>4739646

It actually makes sense. Animals like to fuck. Also, they rape each other all the time. There are plenty of animals that still exist because of rape like ducks and cats.

>>4739652
>>4739654
Animals can't give consent, therefore fucking animals is like fucking children. Don't be speciesist brehs.

>>4739646
>tender love
>rape
get fucked

>>4739654
"It's okay to rape rapists. Rapists like raping".

>>4739662

They love it. Plus they can give more consent than a retarded baby. Deal with it.

>>4739669

But that also makes sense. Raping rapists sounds like a great solution to our rape problem. Also, raping animals is another solution.

>>4739674
And we burn the arsonists
Shoot the gunmen
"Relocate" the kidnappers
Take home and board from thieves
And the world is left blind and toothless
Here we are today

>>4739569
Why do people always recommend those two then? Just trolling beginners?

>>4739589
I've read Candide and Don Quixote. Loved them both.

>>4739695
>And the world is left blind and toothless
Why exactly would you be "blind and toothless" in that case unless you did something like that yourself?

>>4740076

TL;DR - Two wrongs don't make a right

Because it isn't just. This eye for an eye approach to a criminal justice system would uphold the idea that if someone wrongs you, you have fair leave to wrong them back, which is silly. It glorifies revenge, I mean in the sense that getting even is what matters, not getting on with your life or even getting along. It's how little kids think.

So someone rapes a little girl. Instead of addressing the root psychological issues that could lead up to that behavior, we look only at the effect, the tip of the iceberg, and decide to reciprocate. So now someone already very kicked in the head has (more?) trauma to deal with, how are they going to take that out? Rape again? Kill themselves? Then who suffers, and what has this system done to fuel that suffering? It's circular. We would perpetuate the problem instead of preventing it.