/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10024244]

Friendly reminder Schopenhauer is the only philosopher worth taking seriously

[Anonymous No.10024248]

>>10024244
>t. unloved loser

[Anonymous No.10024256]

>>10024244

He's one of the best for sure, but certainly not the only one.

[Anonymous No.10024279]

While your post is intentionally provocative, I'll add that Schopenhauer would disagree with you. Just for another seven (that are all quoted throughout Schopenhauer's works): Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Horace, Shakespeare, Goethe, Cicero. That being said, I've been going through Schopenhauer for the first time in a while and God is he great.

I've gone through him in a reverse order, starting with On Women (go figure), and then finishing his essays. Volume 3 of TWaWaI I've also finished, and holy shit is he spot on on so many points. The Metaphysics of the Love of the Sexes is a precursor for Darwinism but for me it goes further than that. I'm not gonna pretend I have more than a rudimentary knowledge in evolution, but Schopenhauer attempts to describe love, and fuck does he nail it. I honestly can't do it justice since I've only read it once and today, but it's a must-read. I love how he mentions that rarely has a philosopher tackled "Love," and never accurately, quoting Plato as someone coming close but only using myths, and then Spinoza as someone entirely off altogether.

>>10024248
I wouldn't necessarily call OP that. In the beginning of On Women Schopenhauer quotes Byron and Schiler of the praise of women and what our life would be like without them. He is obviously aware of their attraction.

Also, I'm a big fan of stoicism and it was great to see Schopenhauer discuss the true, practical merits of Stoicism, and then attack its critical flaw: one becomes wooden (and the philosophy is altogether highly incompatible with Love).

[Anonymous No.10024377]

>>10024244
fanboy detected

[Anonymous No.10024832]

>requesting Butterfly

[Anonymous No.10024890]

>>10024279
>Just for another seven (that are all quoted throughout Schopenhauer's works): Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Horace, Shakespeare, Goethe, Cicero. That being said, I've been going through Schopenhauer for the first time in a while and God is he great.
How the fuck do you not say Kant?

[Anonymous No.10024896]

>>10024890
It's a pseud tradition to either not acknowledge or possibly even not understand that Kant is the single most important philosopher of all time and quite literally the apex of Western (in a Spenglerian sense) thought and aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.10025323]

>>10024244
if i was a necromancer i would bring back schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.10025328]

>>10024890
>>10024896
fuck, my bad bros. I'll read him next.

[Anonymous No.10025334]

>>10024279
>Shakespeare
>Cicero
>Seneca

Good writers, but hardly interesting philosophers. The latter two are only of interest for historical reasons, because they preserved Hellenistic doctrines. Shakespeare is totally irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.10025913]

>>10024248
He actually got more pussy than you ever will.

[Anonymous No.10025921]

>>10024279
>God
Why the capitalization my friend?

[Anonymous No.10026087]

>>10025921
Because it's a fucking name you spastic, do you write Santa without capitalisation?

>>>/r/atheism

[Anonymous No.10027215]

>>10025328
How did you not read him first? Schop even basically says right in the intro to Will and Representation that "anyone who doesn't read Kant first, and actually read his actual books, is a fucking pseud that won't understand my thought".

[Anonymous No.10027242]

daily reminder that he was so often right that he made it an art

[Anonymous No.10027255]

Schopenhauer was a complete pseud, and jealous of Hegel.

[Anonymous No.10027394]

>>10024244
Thats like...your opinion bro

[Anonymous No.10027758]

>>10024244
No philosopher is worth taking seriously. Read the guy and move on.

[Anonymous No.10027975]

>>10025334
Shakespeare is the ultimate relativist. By saying he's totally irrelevant I take it you're either baiting or you have no soul, which is something Schopenhauer (idk if you're a fan) would have qualmed with. I suggest critically reading a selection of Shakespeare's plays (i suggest specifically, as a starting point Hamlet, Shrew, Henry IV [emphasis on CRITICALLY and as a START), and tell me he's not a philosopher (even if that doesn't mean in the strict sense [i.e., he defined himself as such]). Regarding Cicero and Seneca, they're interesting because they teach you a practical way of life--a practical wisdom if you will-- which, according to me, Schopenhauer, and many others, is valid and interesting philosophy. You're telling me that achieving happiness through life is not interesting? Well, then we better write away some of Plato and Aristotle and Schopenhauer and the Romans and God(>>10025921) knows who else. Plus, how are De Amicitiae, De Senectute, De Officis, De Natura Deorum not interesting? What kind of philosophers do you get down on? Read Seneca too, anon:

>Nemo tam praesentibus miser est.
>Nulli potest secura vita contingere qui de producenda nimis cogitat.

>>10027215
Like I said, I started with his essays. Kant is not required at all to get into these, just like The Organon is not required to get into Aristotle's Ethics or Poetics. Even less so, actually.

[Anonymous No.10027983]

>>10024248
fpbp

>>10024244
>he doesn't understand women, and allows himself to be bitter about this
Schope is the patron saint of 4chan.

Thread theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APyl6Cnbfzw