/lit/ - Literature

No, because once you're done with him you'll kill yourself

The first two essays in Parerga and Paralipomena vol 1 are "History of the Ideal and Real" and "History of Philosophy." The headings of History of Philosophy are:

Pre-Socratic, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Neoplatonists, Francis Bacon, Descartes, Berkley, and Kant

I'd read the essays and look into the philosophy of Transcendental Idealism and Plato.

>>9151113
not really, but this book might be. it's easy, interesting, and it has a great introduction that'll set you on the right path.

yeah because he leads to nietzsche and wittgenstein and both of them will teach you philosophy is a crock of shit

>>9151157

The introduction to that book is really good.

If you don't understand the Empiricism vs Idealism dispute after reading it, there's no hope for you.

>>9151157

The essays here are from Parerga and Paralipomena. The introduction and translation are good, but the selection doesn't really represent his philosophy. In fact, I'd say this book is responsible for much of the misunderstanding of his work, especially the misleading label "pessimist." Again, great essays, but the selection makes it seem like Schopenhauer was nothing more than a sad Underground Man

>>9151113
T H E
G R E E K S

no

>>9151187
I generally agree with that, but I still think it might be a good way to get your foot in the door. OP can always swing back around and read more Schop later.

>>9151187

Yeah, but who the fuck's gonna read The World as Will and Representation nowadays?

I managed to find both volumes on Amazon, but still haven't started because Schopenhauer told me to fuck off and read Kant/On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason/Plato/Upanishads in the introduction.

>>9151208

I've read all two-thousand or so pages of his collected work, but never read Kant. Schopenhauer does a great job of distinguishing his importance and flaws. For me, the books that were rewarding to read along Schopenhauer include

-Plato dialogues and Republic
-Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita (Signet Classics translation for sure)
-Meister Eckhart
-Buddhism (Lankavatara Sutra, In the Buddha's Words, Lotus Sutra, Prajnaparamita, Shantideva, "Buddhist Scriptures" edited by Conze)

>>9151208

Oh and about the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The fucking Principle of Sufficient Reason. He employs it in his philosophy constantly. The translator introduction sums it up pretty well, bookmark that page!! Better still, write your own understanding of the Principle.

>>9151232
I would add to your list the complete works of Leopardi, since Schop took the whole pessimism thing from him

>>9151252

"Leopardi and Schopenhauer are one thing. At almost the same time the one created the metaphysical and the other pain poetry. Leopardi "saw" the world, did not know "why." This is why he found Schopenhauer with the discovery of Will."

Awesome, I'll look into this, thanks.

>>9151125
Here is the deal with old Schopenhauer; You read him when you are already in a deeply pessimistic mood; that way his observations seem almost comedic and somewhat pleasant. Maybe it's just the honesty which is refreshing.

>>9151259
You're welcome

Yes, it will make you realise that philosophy was done not by geniuses, but by bored, angry old fucks who had to fill their empty days by writing edgy nonsense.

>>9151290

>angry old fucks

Schopenhauer wrote his masterwork when he was 30

>>9151113
Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philodophy is a great starting point. True, Schopenhauer loathed him for his obscurity (read success), but, like the lectures on art and religion, the volume is compiled from notes students took while attending his classes-- amazingly, Hegel was a remarkably clear expositor. The difference between these lectures and, say, the mammoth Science of Logic is comparable to the difference between the Joyce of Dubliners to the Joyce of Wake. An added bonus is that a full two-thirds of the book concerns yes, the Greeks. FWIW.

>>9151290
For German philosophers is kinda true, but not for many others

>ehhh-- x Philosophy, rather.

>>9151113
descartes is better for the beginning

>>9151113
Is not.
>>9151169
Nietzsche actually rejected him and his nihilism and was not glad that he read him because he forever changed his view of the world for worse or something like that.

which part of "start with the greeks" don't you understand?

>>9151400
>or something like that

read a book

>>9151280
You, are one retarded anon

>>9151443
This is /lit/, we post exclusively about books and authors we haven't read.

>>9151400

Schopenhauer is not nihilistic, you dipshit. Nietzsche's "rejection" of Schopenhauer forms the whole of his philosophy (his last book, Antichrist, is a reference to a paragraph from Schopenhauer).

>>9151113
No, because he is building on the ideas of philosophers who were building on the ideas of philosophers who were building on the...you get the idea.

Start with the Bible and the Greeks.

>>9151501
Schopenhauer fanboys on suicide watch.

Is this a good way to get into Philosophy

Plato> Stoics > Kant> Schopenhauer >Nietzsche> Jung >Contemporaries

>>9151591
What about Wittgenstein though.

>>9151591
are you being serious. I honestly can't tell.

>>9151400
(moral) pessimism is incompatible with (moral) nihilism
Nietzsche was reacting to nihilism as a general cultural trend

>>9151591
>>9151604
>Jung
don't try to slip him in there
GET OUT

>>9151591
Actual best road to philosophy:
Greeks > Western Canon > Thinking for yourself

>>9151604
Yes I was being serious. Go ahead, chastise me.

>>9151208
Same happened to me. I got roasted for being a LARPER.

>>9151669
here's your chastisement: stop listening to blockheads on /lit/

(Pre-Socratics -->) Plato --> Aristotle --> Descartes --> (Leibniz --> Spinoza -->) (Locke --> Berkley -->) Hume --> Kant

you'll be able to read freely after that. the dudes in parentheses are optional (in the sense that you'll probably be able to understand later guys w/o them,) but highly recommended (bc they're brilliant af.) supplement freely with secondary literature and lectures (there's lots of good stuff on YouTube.)

>>9151591
It isn't a bad way.

Here's how I'm doing it.

Presocratics>Plato>Aristotle>Augustine>Aquinas>Spinoza>Descartes>Kant>Hegel>Kierkegaard>Schopenhauer>Nietzsche (insert Jung and Freud somewhere around here)>Russell>Wittgenstein>Heidegger>Sartre>Beauvoir (inb4:she sucks)>Camus

I need more.

I'm still on Aristotle right now though. I'll be on Augustine soon.

What I'd really like to do is work in relevant portions of the canon, and flip-flop back-and-forth between literature, poetry, and philosophy within their respective historical contexts. That would be bauss.

>>9151591
Get rid of Nietzsche and Jung. Stoics aren't essential unless they're of personal interest. Add Hegel. Maybe Marx as well.

>>9151157
does this book have On Women

>>9151956
t. gril

>>9151960
yes edgelord

>>9151125
So it's a Yes then. (It's a joke, obviously, don't kill yourself, OP, unless you really want to)

>>9151927
>reading Sartre and Beauvoir without Marx
Why?

>>9151975
there's nothing edgy about describing nature of things, like nature of women for example

>>9151969
(‿)

>There are people on this board RIGHT NOW who read English translations of German philosophy
>These same people think they ""understood"" German philosophy

>>9151113

No. It honestly doesn't matter if you don't start with the Greeks, but if you want to start with modern thought, read Kant, then Hegel. Phenomenology of Spirit is basically incomprehensible without some sort of interpretation though so getting a Hegel reader or some secondary lit isn't that embarrassing.

From there, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Kierkegaard are all relatively natural next steps.

And don't trust anyone on this board that calls dissuades you from reading Marx because of the cultural Marxism stuff. Fundamentally, Marx's insight is that society has two levels: base and superstructure, and that pretty much all of the important things happen on the level of economy. Pretty much anyone with half a brain will agree with this, and worthwhile conservative thinkers have also taken this claim very seriously.

>>9151982
I've read Marx. Also, I'm less interested in Marx.

>>9151956
Hahaha, get rid of Nietzsche and Jung! What a pleb!

>>9152155

>pretty much all of the important things happen on the level of economy

I can't believe I need point out how incoherent this idea is. How can you recommend Freud and the existentialists under that proposition?

Literally where do I start reading philosophy, lads?
Do I start reading author biographies?
Wiki pages?
Just picking a random greek book?
Watching John Green crash course videos on YouTube?

>>9151113
This is literally the best starting point for philosophy, it's even better than starting with the greeks (but you'll have to read them eventually).

>>9152319
this >>9151887

>>9152213
The existentialists (Sartre, Camus, Beauvoir etc) were Marxists though.

>>9152319
Figure out what questions you have about life and read about them.

>>9151208
I have, it's great. Read th fourfold root too

>>9152155
>reading Kant to start with

Are you a retard?

>>9152391
They thought they were. Sartre was more influenced by Heidegger and Nietzsche than anyone (and Heidergger was Nietzschean).

>>9152577

Are you? He created German idealism and most of continental thought has just been footnotes to the period.

>>9152213

Why are you afraid of reading texts that disagree with each other? Surface and depth is a very useful distinction, and yes, Freud deploys it in a different way from Marx, but the intersections of Marx and Freud have been the most productive in modern theory. Instead of being astounded at the stupidity of my post, perhaps you can explain why you find this to be an incoherent idea?

>>9152577
I had no problems learning Kant after the Greeks.

But I guess Descartes, Rousseau, Copernicus Darwin should be a great start...

>>9152391

Fair, but most of French existentialism is just reinterpretation of Heidegger, who was decidedly not a Marxist.

>>9152689
No shit, but he isn't an intro philosopher - most people won't even be able to understand him. Fucking goon.

>>9152703
>to start with

You seem to have had trouble reading my post though. Wew, lad.

>>9152729
No really, I learned Kant before all the ones I pointed out.

>>9152723

News flash: philosophy is difficult. When someone wants an introduction to the field, they should start somewhere worthwhile. Otherwise everyone should just post 8 bit philosophy videos.

And for the record, Kant is dense, but once you understand the system, he's not obscure. His rigorous logic is actually rather refreshing after reading a lot more obscure theory sometimes.

Just because you need to dumb down your reading doesn't mean everyone else does.

>>9151113
Most would say Descartes or Plato. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would recommend starting with Schop but do whatever you want. Don't get too caught up reading the entire western canon before reading what you're interested in.

t. guy who majored in philosophy

>>9151157
true.

>>9152358
This is what I mean. Do I just pick the most famous book from each of those and just roll with it?
How the fuck do I start?

>>9152758

Yeah, why not? There are also lots of universities that have online lectures. I'm sure you could find some intro the political philosophy/ literary theory/ intellectual history courses from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Berkeley in 5 seconds of googling.

>>9151290

And how do you fill your days that is so infinitely fulfilling? Working your job, coming home, and jerking off?

>>9152758
here's the list Russell gives at the end of "The Problems of Philosophy." so basically yes, but it might help to do a little online reading for each philosopher too. it's not hard to figure out in some cases (for Descartes you're going to read the Meditations, not The World,) in others you might have to dig a little deeper (e.g. Plato.)

>>9152788 is right too, look up syllabai if you really want to be sure you're on the straight and narrow.

>>9152736
news flash: if you are american, philosophy is difficult

if you are european, then it is just common sense

>>9152926
this is the ghost of Hilary Putnam. heard you was talkin' that shit.

>>9152583
>>9152705
Still worth reading.

Honestly imo anyone who doesn't put Marx in a list of "must read" philosophers is a dishonest hack. It's impossible to deny the impact he has had on philosophy.

>>9152926
True

>>9151927
skipping Hume is disrespectful to the discipline

>>9152788
>>9152880
Thanks lads

I don't know why, but it's a bit weird to go in so head on and delve into such a deep subject
Exciting, though

>>9151887
>stop listening to blockheads on /lit/

But you are a blockhead on /lit/, what do I do now?

>>9153029
Yea, I just forgot to put him on the list. I intend to read old-Humey-old-boy.

>>9152999
He had more impact on politics than philosophy, nub.

(And his work is really not that interesting.)

>>9152926
I'm American, and it has been just as easy for me. Granted, it has not been easy for me to explain it to other Americans, so you may be onto something.

>>9152736
Dumb down? Damn you're an idiot.

YOURE THE ONE TELLING HIM TO SKIP MOST OF PHILOSOPHIC THOUGHT YOU TWAT!

Newsflash: YOU'RE A RETARD.

>>9153374
Having more of an impact on one thing =/= not having an impact on something else.

>(And his work is really not that interesting.)
pleb

>>9153401
I'm implying his impact on philosophy is negligible. Learn to read between the lines, dumbass.

>implying it is
pseud

Is it wrong to say Schoppy wanted some peace?

>>9151280
True, I can't understand being depressed after reading him. He doesn't even advocate suicide, he just understands it.

>>9151927
I'll be honest anon. Looks like you're talking bs and just listing some random big name philosophers. There's no real focus.

>I need more.
Need less imo. Better to focus your efforts and get a full understanding of a few.

For what its worth here is what I hope to be done with in the next few years. I can't guarantee I'll do it but its the goal.

presocratics>some Plato>some Aristotle>the german idealists (Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer and maybe a few of their contemporaries)>Marx>Zizek

I've already some works by a few of them, Marx, Zizek and Hegel. Zizek obviously doesn't compare to any of the big names on the list but my primary interest is German idealism and he's a noteworthy (not necessarily good) thinker who touches on that tradition.

>>9151400
Nietzsche wrote an essay about his respect for him. Schopenhauer influenced him but like a good student, he doesn't wish to stay in his teacher's shadow.

>>9153411
>I'm implying his impact on philosophy is negligible.
And you would be wrong seeing almost all major philosophers after him were either from the marxist tradition or reacting against it. It cannot be avoided that his work represents a paradigm shift in modern philosophy.

>politics
>history
>philosophy
>economics
>not interesting
maybe this isn't the board for you anon.

>>9153388

If your point is valid, why do you have to resort to all caps?

The guy asked for an introduction to philosophy. You admitted that you found Kant to be too difficult for an introduction. I really don't see the problem here.

Reminder that philosophy is incredibly difficult to self-study correctly. You can only learn the works and methodology of philosophers thoroughly and correctly with a teacher, or in an academic setting, or if you are an incredibly hard worker. Philosophy needs to be understood in a historical context, has to be analyzed very methodically, to show not only the meaning, but also the faults and/or merits of the argument at hand, the historical significance, the implications, and much more. Reading philosophical texts will most likely take a long time and lead to major misunderstandings. Even with secondary sources, the amount of time you put into "learning" a philosopher will not nearly be worth the most likely faulty and shallow understanding that you get out of it. That said, there are some philosophers that can be read easily, and Schopenhauer is one of them. I would say self-teaching philosophy to the point of a deep understanding of it is much more difficult than /lit/ thinks it is. Simply reading and pretending to understand it does not actually teach you much.

>>9153560
great philosophers have misread one another and first rate professional philosophers misunderstand things too. so hush tf up. your only point is that it's possible to get shit wrong, which everybody already knows.

>>9153578
Thanks for proving my point even further. Because even professional philosophers get things wrong, it is only natural to assume that truly understanding philosophy requires a lot more work than the laymen can usually do by himself. And no, my point wasn't "people get things wrong." It seems like you're not very good at reading. Maybe you should quit philosophy.

>>9151157
Sam Hyde-core

>>9153594
that's a cute routine you have there, warning people about how inscrutable philosophy is and patting yourself on the back for knowing better. you're obvs a lost cause, but don't shit on other people's aspirations.

>>9153560
This argument could be made about any discipline. I really don't see the point of this post other than to discourage. >>9153578
is right. Obvious point is quite obvious.

>>9153621
Okay, sure thing, buddy. Why don't you go back to misunderstanding Kant and Hegel and pretending to get something out of them while your eyes glaze over every paragraph? I'd just like to remind you that every single great philosopher in history had a teacher. You are not better then them, and your idiotic arrogance in believing that you can obtain a correct and deep understanding of philosophy without any help whatsoever is pretty laughable. I don't think I'm better than anyone (except for you), but just that philosophy is not a self-taught field.

>>9153641
It's true that it can be made for most fields, but the thing is, with philosophy, unlike many fields, there are a lot of people assuming that they can understand it by just reading it on the side. I don't think it's a bad thing to be curious about it and to try to get an okay understanding of it, but a lot of these people tend to think that they have a deep understanding of philosophy while having a lot of misunderstandings about it. You wouldn't see someone trying to self-teach themselves all the way up to advanced theoretical physics, because it's already assumed that assistance is needed, but with philosophy, it seems like people don't have the same impression.

>>9153672
Cogent reply. Yeah you're on the mark with the advanced physics comparison but I'm not going to stop doing the autodidact thing. But I'm very aware that I'm never going to "get it" the way someone who has studied it formally would.

>>9153374
"I don't understand philosophy well enough to truly appreciate the insights of the 1844 manuscripts"

>>9153411
his impact on philosophy was negligible? I mean, ok, sure, you could make the argument that he wasn't a *philosopher*, in the traditional sense, but how can you deny that politics is philosophy in concreto?

>>9153458
wtf do you mean no focus? is the history of philosophy not a focus? did you truly understand whatever hegel you read? judging by your eagerness to write off another's surveying the history of philosophy, i'd wager you did not.

>need less imo
fucking dilettante

>>9153736
the manuscripts aren't really that historically important because of how late they were published

ON WOMEN
RITE GUYS
HE DIDNT GET LAID xD

>>9152999

he had zero impact on any meaningful philosophy...i can't believe i came back to this thread and these guys are still defending Marx

>>9153736

Marxism will forever consist of intellectuals believing their version of Marxism is correct

>>9153762
was moreso referring to their interest, but I also think they're seeing a resurgence in popularity that ultimately will impact philosophy long-term. his criticisms of hegel, for example, are actually very good. one could argue that we've already moved beyond hegel, but i don't know if I'd necessarily agree with that. i'm not too well read on my analytic philosophy, but if you're able to point me to any works where his dialectic is critically addressed vis a vis modern logic, I'd actually really appreciate you sending that my way! from what I've gathered, most have ignored Hegel on the basis of his denying the principle of excluded middle.

You can start with anything you want, don't let this garbage dumpster board tell you otherwise.

>>9151501
>schopenhauer is not nihilistic

'For one in which this will to live can look upon itself and deny its own existence, this world - real as it is - with its suns and galaxies, is just, nothing.'

>>9153759
>wtf do you mean no focus? is the history of philosophy not a focus?
A person studying the history of philosophy would not be literally reading every bit of philosophy. Not that such a task is impossible, just unlikely unless it is someone's full time job.

also

>wanting to focus your studies is dilettantism
ok m8.

>>9153774
>philosophy will forever consist of intellectuals believing their version of philosophy is correct
wow guess philosophy is bunk guys. good job anon.

>>9151113
You should start and finish with Immanuel Kant.

Kant is the greatest philosopher who ever lived and really the only one whose ideas are worth study.

>>9154809
>implying

>>9154809
Not even the best German idealist

>>9154809
Idiot.

>>9153748
I don't. My argument was that he was a force in politics more than mainstream philosophy.

Anon is arguing against that because he is stubborn.

>>9153519
I can resort to all caps because I want to.

Obviously my point is valid. If you don't know that, you don't know what valid means.

Not only is it valid, it is sound.

I'm not merely suggesting Kant is too difficult an introduction, I'm outright stating that anyone who would recommend a student begin his or her foray into philosophy with Kant is a pretentious fool.

>>9151956

>Maybe Marx as well

Fuck off. We don't like ressentiment around these parts.

>>9153560

>You can only learn the works and methodology of philosophers thoroughly and correctly with a teacher, or in an academic setting

People who make this point are invariably stupid, and it is easily demonstrated. Think of it this way: At one point in time, every philosopher/philosophy was new. Ergo, someone had to be the first student - and ergo the first teacher - with no support or higher authority to appeal to, beyond themselves.

Philosophy is only really meaningful/worthwhile when studied as an autodidact.

>>9154891
I know this post is a troll since it was the same person trolling in another thread, but the bait was too juicy. Asides from the very obvious fact that the premise has nothing to do with the conclusion we can see that anon's fallacious arguments also lead us to
>Philosophical arguments have nothing to stand on beyond appeal to authority
>someone had to be the first American Civil war historian
>Therefore... the first person was making it up?

>>9151113
Schopenhauer is just Kant, but angry and poodle-y.
Probably don't want to start with him, but the core idea in, "The World as Will and Representation," SeemsGood

>>9154776

He's talking about the thing-in-itself. It is spaceless, timeless, essentially nothing. If he's nihilistic, so are Kant and Plato