/lit/ - Literature

His commentary on Kant is all he's good for. If he hasn't hated Hegel so much he could have been cooler, but he let himself be defined by ressentiment.

Gotta admire a guy ballsy enough to specifically demand that his reader read his 1300+ page book twice, plus his doctoral dissertation and "all of Kant's central works," in order to understand him.

arty shopkeeper was unfalsified goat tier

>>6260893

you haven't read Schopenhauer and you shouldn't try. eat shit.

>>6260880
>He insists again and again that it does not

This is a core part of Schopenhauer's break from Kant. Kant in his later revisions of the CPR continually failed to distinguish better mere sensibility and actual perception: the former is purely physiological (involving stimulation of the nerves and sensory organs), but the latter is intellectual (involing the understanding which applies the forms of the intellect --time, space and causality-- to the raw sensory data furnished by the senses.

>>6261231
>Kant in his later revisions of the CPR continually failed to distinguish better mere sensibility and actual perception

In what areas of the critical philosophy does this get Kant into trouble? If all Schoppy is accusing him of is not being clear about empirical intuition as a mental act of the subject versus the question of "how the manifold of representations is given," ie sensibility as such, when does that ever matter?

Doesn't Kant foreswear all interest in HOW the manifold of representations is "given"?

his work on art is taken very serious. But otherwise the HURR DURR SEXIZM crowd are doing a good job of ignoring all arguments and being hurt emotionally and overall proving his points very valid.

>>6261335
I thought he was most influential about the will and asceticism?

Did "On Women" actually damage his modern reception at all?

>>6261397

Well we should talk about the difference about his influence in the past and nowadays

in the past is work on will and asceticism was his big contribution, but now its mostly his work on art.

"on women" made any class he is taught in a clusterfuck where the proff has to apologize ahead of time, even when on women is not mentioned at all, so i'd say yes it kinda hurt him academically. But in terms of real philosophers i don't think it effected his legacy.

>>6261335
How can that be when his aesthetics are tied to his metaphysical interpretations of Plato (not taken seriously), the Upanishads (not taken seriously), and theory of the sublime (not taken seriously)?

>>6261335
>Can't acknowledge the sexism being a blight.
>"It must be everyone else!" 'tude.

What works of Plato and Indian philosophy should I know before reading him On the Fourfold Root of Sufficient Reason?

>>6261303

A failure to recognize that perception is an inherently intellectual, as opposed to a physiological process, is highly significant. Kant essentially misses a step in the translation of sensation to perception to knowledge. This opens the door to many subsequent errors. It is the first false step that affects everything after.

See here for simple summary of what Schopenhauer is explaining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Kantian_philosophy#Kant.27s_faults

>>6261397

The bad part about Of Woman is that it is probably his most widely read work, despite being one of his least characteristic and arguably worst productions. Of Woman is the main reason that most people are acquainted with Schopenhauer only through his controversial, inflammatory passages. Alongside some other sections of P&P which should be discarded, Of Woman has tended to overshadow much of his more serious thought. In all respects it is a ventilation piece and should probably have not been published.

>>6260880
Just bought pic related, its been a good read so far.

>>6261425
His stuff about sexism is in a collection of essays and aphorisms, you realize that? It's not really encountered in Fourfold Root or The World as Will and Representation. Also, I wouldn't expect you to know it, but he has made other more nuanced comments about women in addition to On Women.

Anyway do you have anything to contribute, or are you just here because you saw a "w" followed by an "o" and an "m" and decided to ram into this thread?

>>6261415
Forgot to add- which works of Kant should I read before schopey? Is Pure Reason enough?

Should I read Hegel first as well?

>>6261434

I wrote this in an early Schoppy thread:

>All of Schopenhauer's observations about women are essentially accurate. The conclusions he makes and the judgements he pronounces thereon are where the idiosyncrasies of his personal experience crop up.

>If he had simply said 'woman is thus and thus, she does this and this', there would have been nothing controversial. But he appends a moral evaluation to these facts that betrays a discreet effort to cast woman in a negative light, when in reality the very same things he points out with respect to woman could quite easily be used to portray women in a positive light, or at any rate not as mendacious little savages (which they are by all accounts, but not necessarily through any particular failing of their own).

>>6261457

Read Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and CPR. Penguin Books has a good English translation of CPR if you can't read German.

Never read Hegel.

>>6261434
I actually agree with one women. I believe there are both masculine and feminine vices. Of course this is just a generalization.

I think On Women does a good job of chalking down typical female vices. Anyway, I don't see why that little essay should hurt him today. Nietzsche said as much about women, and it hasn't damaged his reputation.

>>6261425
did you know Heidegger was a NAZI XDDDDDDDDDD

>>6261465

It really hasn't hurt serious interest in his philosophy, but it is used frequently by people who are not in earnest about philosophy to discredit Schopenhauer.

He was also far more anti-Semitic than Nietzsche, but he would certainly have reviled Hitler and abhorred the Nazi holocaust.

>>6261463
>Never read Hegel.
Kek I'm interested in his work anyway. Does Schopenhauer address it at all?

What should I read from Plato's works and Indian philosophy? Apparently Schopenhauer cautioned readers to be familiar with those as well.

>>6261475

>Does Schopenhauer address it at all?


If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.

Further, if I were to say that this summus philosophus [...] scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal before him, so that whoever could read his most eulogized work, the so-called Phenomenology of the Mind, without feeling as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less right.[102]

At first Fichte and Schelling shine as the heroes of this epoch; to be followed by the man who is quite unworthy even of them, and greatly their inferior in point of talent --- I mean the stupid and clumsy charlatan Hegel.[103]

>>6261467
Yes.

>>6261484

Really not bad for a female philosopher. Certainly more thoughtful than Ayn Rant.

>>6261484
The D was so authentic she forgave warcrimes

Eman in Jtown is a legit book though

>>6261446
I'm only here to post that actor in the gif.
And to ridicule the comment that anon made.
His approach to the issue was backwards imo.

>>6261167
He's got nothing on Heidy who said that in order to being to understand him you had to study Aristotle for 10 years first.