Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.17355333]

I’m a beginner when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics. Is The World as Will and Idea any good? I read some of his essays, like On Women, The Basis of Morality, his dialogue on immortality etc. He seems interesting.
Also, what are your favourite works by him?

[Anonymous No.17355342]

Retroactively refuted by Fichte.

[Anonymous No.17355354]

>>17355333
It's great. Vierfache Wurzel because it made me believe in reality (not joking)

[Anonymous No.17355364]

>>17355333
>like on women
eeeeh cringe

If you really want to then begin with him, but i would recommend Plato and Kant first at least.

[Anonymous No.17355370]

>>17355354
Do I need to read that one before reading WWR. I know it’s important, but I just figured that I can read the Wikipedia page of it before cracking open his central text.

[Anonymous No.17355398]

>>17355364
*If you really want to, then begin with him. But i would recommend Plato and Kant first at least for WWR, unless you are ok with missing most of the arguments.

[Anonymous No.17355406]

>>17355342
How?

[Anonymous No.17355409]

>>17355370
Actually yes and no. If you want to skim through World as Will to get a basic you can probably get by but if you really want to understand him you should reread it after doing his recommended reading.
Schopenhaier creates a systemic worldview. If you don't understand his logic his conclusions of the world as will, will not make sense to you.

[Anonymous No.17355422]

>>17355333
Anyone know any books in English that do a comparative study between Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard? Hell any book that deals primarily with these two I'd appreciate it. They are currently my favorite philosophers.

[Anonymous No.17355447]

>>17355406
Read Fichte

[Anonymous No.17355456]

>>17355447
Why? You have read him yet you seem to not be able to understand him. What makes you think I'll have any more success?

[Anonymous No.17355463]

>>17355456
>You have read him
No he hasn't

[Anonymous No.17355466]

>>17355456
You are younger and more willing to trust others than yourself.

[Anonymous No.17355467]

Read kant first

t. Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.17355484]

>>17355467
You’re telling me that I have to read Critique of Pure Reason before reading the World as Will and Idea?

[Anonymous No.17355504]

>>17355484
Well at the very least Prolegomena with a good commentary

[Anonymous No.17355517]

>>17355484
The Critique is one of the most important books ever written (along with Schopenhauer's book imo). But yeah, Schopenhauer presupposes some parts of the Critique in his book. If you want to just read Schopenhauer for now, you can read some secondary literature that explains the background. Bryan Magee's book is a good one.

[Anonymous No.17355536]

>>17355517
>The Critique is one of the most important books ever written
How so? What lasting impact did Kant have other than getting his ass handed to him by Nietzsche? Not joking please explain what punch Kant holds for our day

[Anonymous No.17355601]

>>17355536
Nietzsche was primarily opposed to Kant's ethics I think.
His epistemology could even be read as a neo-Kantian psychologism. But Kant's first critique changed the course of philosophy. You don't see people first proving god's existence then basing a defition of truth based on the said proof and then, at last, prove that the world exists. It was an attempt to make philosophy "scientific" (in the broad sense of the word) and it at least raised the bar.

[Anonymous No.17355613]

>>17355601
So where is his science of philosophy now? What are it's greatest achievements. What current problems do the Kantians solve?

[Anonymous No.17355625]

>>17355536
Kant is pretty much a before/after point of philosophy, you cannot really do philosophy now without acknowledging Kant in some way. When you study philosophy at uni, you use four times the amount of time on kant than any other philosopher in the history of philosophy course.

[Anonymous No.17355635]

>>17355613
If you are asking me, the greatest achievement was done by Schopenhauer (his true successor) who solved the riddle of the world.

[Anonymous No.17355638]

>>17355625
No I get that but I mean how valid/important is it in itself? not how much it changed history

[Anonymous No.17355653]

>>17355484
Schopenhauer says explicitly that before reading the world as will, you need to read the four fold root, and before reading his work fourfold root you are required to read Kant. Schopenhauer’s system is an elaboration upon Kant’s with slight modifications. According to Schopenhauer you have no business reading him if you haven’t read kant first. If anyone says otherwise, that’s well and good but this the literal word of Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.17355706]

>>17355536
>ass handed to him

Nietzsche is (even as a reaction ) ultimately a kantian, without kant there would be no Schopenhauerian will and thus Nietzsche couldn’t modify it

[Anonymous No.17355736]

>>17355706
See >>17355613

[Anonymous No.17355746]

>>17355653
Alright. But is Critique of Pure Reason the only Kant book that I should read before reading Schopenhauer?

[Anonymous No.17355747]

>>17355638
Many academics call themselves kantians without shame. On the other hand he made many philosophical positions shameful.
He is a damn big deal, but i don't want to write my bachelor in him, I'll tell you that much.

[Anonymous No.17355778]

>>17355613
New versions of deontology comes out all the time.
Kants first critique is more something people try to solve.

[Anonymous No.17355805]

>>17355778
I see. Thanks king. I read Prolegomena will I be able to understand Critique?

[Anonymous No.17355834]

>>17355805
Prolegomena is shorter but much harder than his first critique

[Anonymous No.17355920]

>>17355805
btw there's an academic disagreement between how to read the first critique:

Is Noumena:
1:there but we do not have access to it (the old reading fx. Hegel has)
2: an unknown we cannot posit if it is there or not (my favourite, the hackett translation fx. uses the word presentation instead of the more traditional translation representation to signify this point)
or
3: Not there and only phenomena is real (least popular of the three positions)

[Anonymous No.17355960]

Schopenhauer but with Tao instead of will as Ding an sich and mild apathy instead of pessimism.
Where do I come out?

[Anonymous No.17355971]

>>17355920
>this autist again

[Anonymous No.17355978]

>>17355971
???

[Anonymous No.17356201]

>>17355746
Schopenhauer kinda wants you to know all of Kant's philosophy, but reading the Critique + Prolegomena, and then reading Schopenhauer's critque of Kantian ethics in On the Basis of Morality would be enough in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.17356222]

>>17355920
I always used to think that he posits it clearly, but reading B344-B346 puts me really in doubt. I almost think that in what he was doing there he was a bit hyperfocused on opposing Leibniz and destroying monads, than positing his own clear system, namely that monads are this thought concept of general things, that can then be analyzed through concepts, and this he defeats by saying that no concepts really apply to it if you try to do that, so you can't. And thus mind has to limit itself to only positing a general noumenon that it assumes to be the cause of appearances, but we actually don't know anything, because asserting anything beyond the senses doesn't make sense, so we have to be aware of this stand-in as a nogo zone if we don't wanna be Leibniz.

[Anonymous No.17356462]

>>17355333
Read Nietzsche and Jung, avoid Camus and Sarte. And then if you care read shoppe, kant and aristotoles.

[Anonymous No.17356536]

>>17356462
Cringe. Worst take.

[Anonymous No.17356538]

>>17356462
How come?

[Anonymous No.17356598]

>>17356222
But then he has the category of the merely thinkable which allows for ethics - it's quite funny

[Anonymous No.17356652]

>>17356598
yeah that's because we as ethical beings all share that little bit of reason that tries to surmount the realm of experience and posits the noumenon. He puts it all on its head and then the pure reason that was thought to belong to the metaphysical is converted to practical reason that makes ethics even possible by being able to run free.

[Anonymous No.17356703]

>>17355333
WAWAI is really his ONE book, a 1,400 page big dicked treasury of timeless insights. I do think that he harmed his philosophy by his commitment to pessimism, even though he makes the case that that conclusion can be logically derived from his premises. It's like he baked this delicious pie and then took a huge shit on it. Once understood, this book will make everything make sense. It's like an experience I never had reading before or since.

[Anonymous No.17356791]

>>17356703
Literally how do you agree with him exceot on pessimism?

[Anonymous No.17357079]

>>17355364
What’s so cringe about “On Women?”

[Anonymous No.17357102]

>>17357079
You have to have some empathy for the women who read the essay. They probably feel their innerest cores threatened.

[Anonymous No.17357143]

>>17357102
>empathy for women
No.

[Anonymous No.17357315]

>>17357102
when doesn't he attack your innerest core in all of his other writings? Also I bet the number of times he personally insults Hegel throughout his work is larger than the number of women who read Ueber die Weiber and felt insulted.

[Anonymous No.17357332]

>>17357315
I feel invigorated every time I read him, but then again I'm not a woman or a H*egelian.