Do I need Kant to read Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.16291492]

I jumped into The World as Will and Representation but he keeps referencing Kant, what is the bare minimum I need to understand of Kant to continue

The only thing I have gathered after reading the first few pages of the first chapter is that the world described as an idea exist of two things, objects which exist and subjects that represent our perception and thus understanding of them, and that these perceptions exist as a chain of increasingly abstract subjects, say why H2O is something that, try as we might, ultimately can only be described in a chain of perceptual meanings, like the classification that it is a molecule formed from one part oxygen and two parts hydrogen, and that molecules represent bonds between elements, and that elements represent varying formations of proton, nucleons and electrons... untill we reach the abstract definition of matter.

[Anonymous No.16291515]

>>16291492
Yes, you need to know Kant to understand what Schopenhauer is doing.

Volume 1 of the World as Will and Representation has an appendix at the end called Critique of the Kantian Philosophy, which will give you some background on what Schopenhauer is doing to Kant.

[Anonymous No.16291518]

>>16291492
Of course. Schopenhauer's entire philosophy is largely a reaction to Kant. Throw in Reinhold and Schulze, since Reinhold is a major proponent of early German Idealism and Schulze's skepticism of the Critical Philosophy offers the basis upon which Schope builds his own theory of Representation and Will.

[Anonymous No.16291558]

>>16291515
Is the appendix enough? Or do I need to know more of Kant? This won't become of chain of required readings will it

[Anonymous No.16291738]

>>16291558
Honestly you don't even need to read the appendix. Just read the first 50 pages or so of CPR (the Transcendental Aesthetic section). That's all Schopenhauer formally takes from Kant, the rest he critiques and modifies in his own works. But make sure to read Schopenhauers first work, the Fourfold roots...

[Anonymous No.16291847]

>>16291738
>the Fourfold roots

but y

[Anonymous No.16291854]

>>16291847
It's his epistemology. He's going to reference it thousand times in WWR and you'd be wondering wtf he's talking about if you don't read it.

[Anonymous No.16291865]

>>16291854
Alright, so CPR (first 50), fourfold roots then WWR?

[Anonymous No.16291877]

>>16291865
Yeah. But note that by 50 pages I meant until the end of the Transcendental Aesthetic section. Obviously I don't know what page it is exactly in your particular edition.

[Anonymous No.16291893]

>>16291877
ehhh i'll just read it

[Anonymous No.16292288]

so you just skipped his preface, huh?

why do people do this?

[Anonymous No.16292617]

>>16292288
I read it and was glad i downloaded it as a PDF