/lit/ - Literature

>>7539479
>Babbies first edgy philosopher

>>7539493
That's not Nietzsche

>>7539493

Nice bait. Everyone knows Nietzsche is babies first philosophy. Unlike him, Schopenhauer isn't a tool.

>>7539493

Also in order to understand Schopenhauer, for the most part, you have to understand Kant first.

>>7539513
Schopenhauer is more capable of explaining Kant to the reader than Kant himself

>>7539545

Well I suppose that's fair

>>7539513

i dont get this, how do you have to understand X in order to understand something else that should be standalone? arent you dumb if you cant understand it standalone?

i dont get this. explain to me.

>>7539479
"I believe with Schopenhauer that one of the strongest motives that lead men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one’s own ever shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from personal life into the world of objective perception and thought; this desire may be compared with the townsman’s irresistible longing to escape from his noisy, cramped surroundings into the silence of high mountains, where the eye ranges freely through the still, pure air and fondly traces out the restful contours apparently built for eternity."
-- Albert Einstein

>>7539654
Einstein contributed not positive to the world

>>7539551
most philosophers wrote in response to someone else , not to educate plebs like you.

>>7539783

Don't be so hard on him everyone has to start somewhere

>>7539479
>mfw he had mommy troubles and fucked women out of spite

You people think this man is legit?

>>7540414
Ad hominem, post disreguarded.

>>7539479
>tfw shopenhauer lived alone with his dogs and all the neighbours called the dog "mrs. schopenhauer"
;_;
>>7539733
>nuclear fission
>not a positive contribution to the world
gas yourself

>>7539479
>This man is right about everything
Did you just get redpilled by "On Women"? In that case, opinion descarted. Try again next year.

>>7541058

Top cuck

No. I just finished pic related. And while I agree with his essay on women I think he's right about everything else. Contrary to what you might think I actually read a philosophers works and then form an opinion on them.

>>7541063
hey I don't make assumptions, and I'm not the one saying X is right about everything. anon out

>>7541058
agreed
>not being redpilled by the world as will and representation
>mfw

>>7539479

>anon in philosopher form
thanks but no thanks senpai

>>7541063
Anything in specific that impressed you? Your OP is silly.

>>7541063
Kek, go read "World as Will and Representation" or "On the Freedom of the Will", not some silly collection of random thoughts and one-liners. That essay on women is a product of one of many men of science/art/philosophy who had little to no contact with females, i.e. projection and drivel. Schopenhauer was an extremely frustrated man when it came to his personal life, don't forget that.

>>7541689

Nonsense. Schopenhauer was the olden day pussy magnet. You think the guy was some fedora tipping virgin? Wrong. Guy was loaded with cash, had a big female circle of friends and fucked like a rabbit. He wrote down his observations and was smart enough to not let a woman in because he knew it was useless. Your whole argument is that he was projecting and a loner and that he was romantically, perhaps sexually frustrated yet you're a total hypocrite.

>>7541689

>Some of the key writings where a historically, world renowned philosopher expressed his sincere thoughts and opinions is "silly"

Oh fuck me, /lit/ has truly become shit. Here is one of my favourite quotes from the book and it really does apply to people like you

"People who pass their lives in reading and acquire their wisdom from books are like those who learn about a country from travel descriptions."

You'll always be a pleb, no matter how many books you read. You probably think Moby Dick is a good book.

>>7541689
>is a product of one of many men of science/art/philosophy who had little to no contact with females
what nonsense, the tradition itself originates with the just the opposite sort of person.

>>7542281
>You probably think Moby Dick is a good book.
>doesn't like moby dick
How's middle school?

>>7542306

There is a reason it failed miserably when it first came out and only got popular when the 1900's version of pretentious fucks like you decided to make it "popular" fucking moron.

>>7542313
Modern /lit/, everyone.

>>7542313
>There is a reason it failed miserably when it first came out
His first few books were basically shitty versions of it, and they turned him into a minor celebrity. But I'm sure the generation that worshiped The Vicar of Wakefield had superb taste.

>>7542313
<actually believing this

>i agree with this man, therefore he's a god
>nah, he sucks
>no you suck
>cu ck
>middle school
>moby dick meme
>"modern lit" meme

this thread is garbage and you are all small men with big egos

>>7542329

>Liking Moby Dick
>But complains about a philosopher essays and dismisses it as rubbish

Yeah I'm really the modern /lit/ I've been here all Summer, you're totally not from reddit and you totally loved Moby Dick from the very beginning and you're totally not just meming because of all the hype that In the Heart of the Sea has generated.


Honestly, just fuck off.

>>7542362

>Small men with big egos

Uh oh someone's been reading Freud. Someone get the cocaine and armchair for this pleb.

>>7542362
you forgot one
>I'm a small man, but If I don't take a side I can pretend to be superior and guard my big ego

>>7542364
>all the hype that In the Heart of the Sea has generated.
/lit/ has been memeing moby dick for years now
jesus christ you're new

>>7542384
>memeing
>implying it isn't the apotheosis of american literature

>>7542393
It really isn't tbqh
Hawthorne and Henry James are just as good

>>7542281
Isn't it really ironic to quite that though? I think Schope's distinction between reading and reflecting is the most useful advice he's given on how to read. His critique on reading bad books is sort of useless, as you can't know a bad book till you read it, and claiming that books have "done the thinking for you" doesn't work for most literature written after the 19th century, or even during his own time, with writers like Kierk who forego authorial authority.
>>7542313
Moby-dick's initial failure is over emphasized, and his letters and other stories proved he is one of, if not the best writer of the 19th century. Also the Brit edition lacked the epilogue.
>>7542332
Wakefield would be 18th not 19th century. There's about a century of time between the two.

>>7542433
>Wakefield would be 18th not 19th century.
I never said otherwise.

>>7540468
>>tfw shopenhauer lived alone with his dogs and all the neighbours called the dog "mrs. schopenhauer"
Fucking kek.
source?

>>7539783

those 2 sentences have no correlation you dumb fucking cuck

His metaphysics are kinda meh desu. Then again, metaphysics don't do much for me in general.

His ethics though are great and insightful.
In general I think he was right about what life is and how we should go about it.

>>7540414
a lot of /lit/ is the slightly literate lather on top of /r9k/

>>7543145
>His metaphyics are kinda meh desu.

Except that it is the indispensable basis for his whole system of thought, including the ethics that you praise.

Philosophy belongs on /his/.

Make a thread about a book of his or fuck off to /his/

His idea about people following their emotions and desires being the same as suffering, or something to be lamented, is stupid. There's nothing more enjoyable than pursuing a long-term dream, and if it's a good dream it autimatically transcends into a new one upon reaching it, because it opens up possibilities.
And his idea of matter as non-existent is just baseless, you don't KNOW that there isn't a particle that can no longer be broken down. I fail to see why it matters, anyway, but Shopenhauer seems determined to find tragedy anywhere in the world.
And then there's the fact that he gives Kant too much credit, and Kant is definitely flawed in that he considers math to be some sort of higher truth rather than just another useful categorizing system developed by humans (which is what Hume argued).

If you want a philosopher without embarassing mistakes like this, Hume is your best bet.

>>7544116
Good lord. Must I conclude that you haven't read a single line the man wrote or that you're just a bit dense?

>>7543145
Every aspect of his thought is dependent on his metaphysics. His ethics is perhaps the least interesting part of his philosophy.

>>7542584
this