[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 19 KB, 250x328, Fmmlod r.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11603238 No.11603238 [Reply] [Original]

I want to read Schopenhauer without reading every book on this list: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

The problem is it's fucking huge and would take me a lifetime. Is it possible to get a tr;dl on the most necessary philosophers and their books to read to understand Schopenhauer fully without having their thoughts fly over my head? The alternative is I read every single book and get to Schopenhauer by about the year 2030.

>> No.11603251

History is full of famous babbies with third-rate understandings of Schopenhauer and tenth-rate understandings of philosophy outside Schopenhauer so you might as well just go for it

>> No.11603262

Just get a reading guide nigga. If you ever just wanna jump into some complex shit get a reading guide.

>> No.11603272

>>11603238
>The problem is it's fucking huge and would take me a lifetime.
That's not a problem, that's the point.

>> No.11603294

Philosophy is a waste of time. It's no different than being a yelp reviewer or an amateur movie critic. It's no different than being a glutton, or a drunkard. It proclaims itself to be the love of knowledge, but in reality it is the love of the consumption of knowledge. The end of philosophy
is not the attainment of knowledge. When a person eats cake, they inevitably consume the cake. Likewise, when a person reads philosophy, the end result is not gaining
knowledge, but rather the destruction of knowledge. At the end of the day you may get a few quotable passages, and the ability to sound smart in conversation. But you gain nothing substantial.

>> No.11603314

>>11603294
painfully true if taken with a grain of salt

>> No.11603332

>>11603294
pretty much this

just read schopenhauer if you want to read schopenhaeur... There is no reason to read all this bullshit you will still get the core of his ideas just by reading him and perhaps some summaries or watch some videos.

Unless you love reading dense garbage philosophy is mostly a waste of time

>> No.11603356

>>11603238
I haven't gotten to Schoppy yet, but that guide is wayyyyyy too much. You're better off getting a history of philosophy volume (I am constantly referring to my Kenny's New History of Philosophy and Stanford's encyclopedia as I read about works, authors, ideas, and their impact) and reading the essentials: the major works of Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine are all you need to read from antiquity.

Obviously the more you read the better, but I've been reading through Spinoza on the rationalist and Berkeley (haven't touched Hume yet) on the empiricist side and there's not a single idea from a secondary or tertiary philosopher or school of thought that I've recognized that was not stated more eloquently and briefly in either of my two major secondary resources, especially considering the long-winded introductions of almost every text you'll buy that explains the context and intricacies surrounding a work and it's author.

Even the Penguin books I've read have great introductions (the Penguin Descartes' Discourse was so good that I read the intro to Penguin's Communist Manifesto to make sure it wasn't a farce, and it wasn't: the intro was infinitely more illuminating than the text of the work itself)

Tldr the guide is too autistic, there are prerequisites but they are not anywhere near as laborious as most people here will autistically spout (can anyone here actually post a picture of their complete collection of the texts recommended by that guide?)

>> No.11603372

>>11603294
>>11603314
>>11603332
Its why I want to read only the most crucial philosophy books starting with the greeks in order to understand the later western philosophers like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kant. If philosophy is a waste of time and I gain nothing than what else is there to read?

>> No.11603381

>>11603372
The major works provide extremely interesting and compelling ideas, minus Aristotle aka Dr. "Semen creation and the (moistest of all animals) human brain causes baldness" aka Dr. "Stifle science and philosophy at the start of the scientific revolution"

>> No.11603409

Ok OP here me out on this:
If you want to read Schopenhauer, you MUST read Kant. If you want to read Kant, you must know WHY Kant is writing in the first place. For the latter you're gonna want to:
1. Read about his influences: Aristotle's Logic, Spinoza's Ethics, Descartes' Epistemology, Hume's problem of induction and empiricism (use the Stanford Encyclopedia).
2. Read Leibniz's Monadology, it's pretty short and will serve as a foretaste for Kant.
Then read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. I would recommend to read his other Critiques, but you may not want to. In that case just go for Schoppy once you're done with CPR.

I would recommend to read Spinoza's Ethics in it's entirety since it's a really substantial text, but do whatever you want.

>> No.11603410

Schopenhauer himself only requires you to read Kant before him.

>> No.11603412

>>11603372
Do you realize you actually dissuade people from helping you with these posts? No one is going to write up a list for you, knowing you're not even going to read it. You're a high school girl who's just after the SparkNotes so she can get back to texting/letting her brain rot. For you it's reading just enough philosophy to be able to get back to being a pseud on /lit/. Imagining you reading Kant gives me a hearty chuckle. You're a child. A woman. You've got your pillow, and your cell phone, your sodie pop and video games and your 4chan. I bet you masturbate. No one's going to hoist responsibility on you if it passes through you like a ghost.

>> No.11603425

>>11603412
Yes OP is a baby since he already a post like this the other day, got responses, and still decided to post again. At this rate he's just gonna keep posting and never read.

>> No.11603436

>>11603409
>Spinoza's Ethics ... it's a really substantial text
You did this on purpose.

>> No.11603489

>>11603238
College undergraduate here, who read "The World As Will and Representation" for school. It's useful to have read Plato (especially on the forms and ideas) and Kant's first critique, but outside of that his major work is very approachable. (Leibniz is entirely optional Imo.) I recommend reading his essay on the principle of sufficient reason before reading before reading Will and Rep.

>> No.11603521

>>11603238

Read whatever you want, think for yourself man goddamn.

>> No.11603559

Read a biography of Schopenhauer, which should give you a nice overview of his thought and influences. If it's obvious he's responding to another thinker (e.g. Kant) then read a biography of Kant. Then go back to Schopenhauer and read him. Then read the commentaries on his work. Then go back to Schopenhauer or maybe back to Kant or forward to Nietzsche.

This is how to read philosophy. Work outwards from what you find interesting.

>> No.11603568

>>11603489
>its useful to have read Plato and Kant
Why would you say such a disgusting thing like this as though to haphazardly handle the breathtaking work of such minds? When I look at my printed copy of the first critique, I am first filled with a trembling that reaches to my core, matched only by a divine awe that binds fast my will and saves me from being sundered right then and there. I then look over to my printed copies of Schopenhauer's work, and after having paid reverence, I give Schopenhauer's picture a stern glance and stoically reprimand him in thought for destroying the Categories. Yet the same feeling as for Kant suddenly overcomes me as I think of his progress in the investigation of the thing-in-itself. Made dumb and overwhelmed by all this, turning my gaze to the floor, I timidly feel for my printed copy of Aristotle's complete works, opening to the first chapter yet again, to dutifully start the whole work anew, knowing I am not yet worthy to spar with the Transcendental Analytic.

>> No.11603578

>>11603559
What are the pre-recs of Nietzsche? I was under the impression he was widely independent in thought

>> No.11603597

>>11603578
>I was under the impression
Is that what you come here for? Impressions? So you can sound intelligent when you show off your knowledge of the prerequisites for reading Nietzsche?

>> No.11603618

>>11603597
Uhhh nah i came to ask that question lol, contain your autism you sad faggot. Recs being recommendations

>> No.11603687

>>11603618
I am to understand you meant "pre-recommendations" then? Well forgive me since there's no such thing as a pre-recommendation.

>> No.11603715

>>11603578
You should be familiar with the Greeks, specifically the works of the three great tragedians (Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides). Knowing about Aristotle's ethics and Kant's ethics, although not essential, might be good as background material for The Genealogy of Morals. Being familiar with the spirit of German Romanticism, and having read works like Goethe's Sorrows of Young Werther and Hoelderin's Hyperion could give you an idea of what to expect out of Nietzsche. Schopenhauer did greatly influence the young Nietzsche, but not having read him will not be too much of an obstacle so as to limit one's understanding of Nietzsche. I'd say Nietzsche was probably more influenced by art than he was by academic philosophers.

>> No.11603745

>>11603715
Nietzsche's philosophy was a psychologist's bastardization of Schopenhauer and Mainlander.

>> No.11603766

>>11603294
Utter ignorant bollocks

>> No.11603773

>>11603412
Are all Schopenhauer fans like this. I swear, he attracts the absolute most bitter incel losers in existence.

>> No.11603817

>The problem is it's fucking huge and would take me a lifetime
Consider for a moment that your solution is to spend your lifetime making these threads instead.

>> No.11604229

>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

Why are all the images in such low resolution (120x99 seriously)? Not even ants would be able to read the text, you only would be able to recognize some of the covers if you are already familiar with the book.
Does some anon have a correct version of the images, at least the first greeks' one so I can start reading?

>> No.11604839

>>11603410
ye but kant requires X that requires Y that requires Z that requires A that requires B that requires C that requires D that requires Augustine that requires Neoplatonics that requires Aristotle that requires Plato that requires Presocratics

>> No.11604847

>>11604229
images are merely for reference for editions, below it there are the names and ISBN code for each book

stop being lazy and read the guide nigger

>> No.11604850

>>11603372
there are no crucial philosophy books

>> No.11604881

>>11603294
then there is another perspective, reading for enjoyment just like you read any novel or poem?

>> No.11604889

>>11604881
yes. Why is this a question?

>> No.11604895

If you can't understand the essence of the first chapter of the WWR without prior reading, then you're NOT gonna make it.

>> No.11605108

>>11604229
>Remember to follow the lines in the image and read in order!
>The books listed after the image are the author's recommendations to read instead of reading everything listed in the image
I did read it, maybe (you) didn't, nigger.

>> No.11605112

>>11605108
meant for
>>11604847

>> No.11605757

>>11603294
What isn't a waste of time to you then? What do you read?

>> No.11605786

>>11603294
This sounds like something an American brainwashed to major in business would say. Sad to see my countrymen think this way. No wonder this country has fallen on dire times. It's headless.

>> No.11605869

>>11603294
No one is without a philosophy. It may be primitive and grown from only your experiences and those of others around you, without ever having laid eyes on anything like a philosophical work, but it's still there underlying everything you think and have to say about the world, including the line of reasoning of your post. Even any moron you could think of is acting on a system or code that they think will get them to where they want to be, and that they hope, or maybe think they "know", is ultimately right, leaving room for corrections of future experience. The great philosophers were gifted in that they sat down and worked at articulating and theirs and their corrections for mostly their entire lives. While a lot of the works of earlier philosophers may not stand up today for what we've learned in the past few centuries, and which I'd readily agree are a waste of time to pore over, there are a great many from that pool that still do and you shouldn't pass them over. They're of much more use that the great majority of fiction anyway.

>> No.11605896

>>11605786
>"we live in a society"
gb2reddit

>> No.11607602

bump