[ 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: 296 KB, 1642x2560, eeee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17670848 No.17670848 [Reply] [Original]

Why did people say this is an easy read? You actually need an understanding of Kant and more than half the book is just him talking about metaphysics in a way that is not easy. I mean it's easy in comparison to Hegel but it's not even close to easy compared to analytic philosophers. This actually takes effort to understand a page. I thought it was just going to be easy aphorism kino like his essays

>> No.17670854

>>17670848
How hard is it compared to Critique?

>> No.17670884

>>17670854
It's really easy compared to basically all continentals but not close to as easy as analytics. It's like a midway point. I'm a retard but I could read the book with enough secondary sources and spending my time slowly on each page where as with analytics you don't need any of that shit they just explain everything clearly and you can just read the book. His essays are like analytics though. They're as clear as day.

>> No.17670905
File: 27 KB, 508x524, 1605153422943.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17670905

>>17670848
>You actually need an understanding of Kant
>2021
>more than half the book is just him talking about metaphysics in a way that is not easy. I mean it's easy in comparison to Hegel but it's not even close to easy compared to analytic philosophers
>Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, etc.
>I thought it was just going to be easy aphorism kino like his essays
>2021, not knowing how to read aphorisms
You're a lost cause, OP.

>> No.17670918

>>17670884
If it's really easy compared to Kant then I should be able to power through it. I don't really see what the problem is. I have to admit though, with most philosophers, I will usually spend more time on a single page than with other works, so I'm not sure why you would feel upset about that. If you're not thinking and questioning then you may as well not even be reading philosophy. Slowness is part and parcel of it.

That said, I've never read any analytics. I view them with the same disdain that they view continentals with.

>> No.17670947

>>17670918
“ Over the abstract representations, the concepts connected to judgements, the principle of sufficient reason certainly rules in such a way that each of these has its worth, its validity, its whole existence, here called truth, simply and solely through the relation of the judgement to something outside it, to its ground of knowledge, to which therefore there must always be a return. On the other hand, over real objects, the representations of perception, the principle of sufficient reason rules as the principle not of the ground of knowing, but of becoming, as the law of causality. Each of them has paid its debt to it by having become, in other words, by having appeared as effect from a cause. ”

vs

"In this chapter we shall look at three versions of the cosmological argument. The first I shall call the basic cosmological argument, because the other two are modifications of it. It goes as follows:
The basic cosmological argument
1 Anything that exists has a cause of its existence.
2 Nothing can be the cause of its own existence.
3 The universe exists.
Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence which lies outside the universe"

>> No.17670962
File: 73 KB, 692x800, 1607368829757.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17670962

>>17670947

>> No.17670991

>>17670947
this sentence structure makes more sense in German than in English. That's why the analytic way of thinking is more prevelant in Anglo countries, since English doesn't have any way to build syntactic structure without making Excel sheets

>> No.17671009

>>17670991
Sentence structure isn't what makes something easier to understand. Even Schopenhauer called out Hegel and other philosophers for obscurantism. Even though Schopenhauer tried to write clearer he was still writing in the same tradition of Kant.

>> No.17671746

bump

>> No.17671772

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc9Q3TBFMFs

>> No.17673346

i wanna read shoppinghour because i listened to 10 pages of good and evil by nihilism and he seemed to think that shoppinghour was based but I think i might be too stupid to understand anything therefore wasting my time!?

>> No.17673574

>>17673346
yes you seems retarded, but you might just play the roll of a fool too.

>> No.17673583

>>17670848
Are you Pewdiepie? I wont tell anyone.

>> No.17673653

easy is a strong word but it's not even remotely close to being a "hard book".
Schopenhauer's writing is very clear, it was entertaining, I was able to grasp quite a bit of it without having read kant previously, and not only that, it actually helped me in reading kant afterwards.
he also repeats some ideas so much you have to put in some effort in order to miss stuff desu

>> No.17673655

Someone post the official how to read it guide, il try to find it

>> No.17673698

>>17670848
Schopenhauer knew how to write properly unlike the other German idealists, so the clarity of his style makes it seem easier to understand than it really is.

>> No.17673714

>>17670991
It's ironic you should say that because Schop knew English fluently and admired English philosophers first and foremost for the rigor of their style. The thought is another story.

>> No.17673809

>>17673574
>Roll
based