[ 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: 5 KB, 192x263, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17754631 No.17754631 [Reply] [Original]

Is it possible to read and understand Schopenhauer without having read Kant first?

>> No.17754639

>>17754631
Possible? Yes
Likely? No

>> No.17755156

>>17754631
Maybe, if you read the Kant's critique in WaWaR and Safranski's biography

>> No.17755244

Why would you want to read Schopenhauer without reading at least some secondary source about Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? I don't get it. Schopenhauer is responding almost directly to Kant's system.

>> No.17755558

yeah just read the principle of sufficient reason book before WWR

>> No.17755735

>>17754631
If you want to read his essays sure

>> No.17755751

>>17754631
Just read Kant

>> No.17755859

You'll appreciate him more if you put in the work. Schopenhauer literally tells you what to read before reading his principal text

>> No.17756007

>>17755859
this. he tells you the 3 steps:
>read Plato and Kant
>read the principle of suffient reason
>read the book twice

>> No.17756357
File: 170 KB, 618x634, 1569067800916.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17756357

yes, but obviously not fully.
If you are interested in it, just read it now, if you don't understand 100% of it, what's the big deal? you can read him again after having read kant, and in this case, schopenhauer will actually help you understand kant, and when you read it a second time after having read kant, you'll already have a good notion of what schoppy talks about, and it will allow you a deeper understanding.
I read world as will and representation before having read kant and it was thoroughly interesting and enjoyable.
Schopenhauer made it a point to write as clearly as possible, and he repeats his points quite a lot.
I don't get these people, you don't have just 1 shot at reading and understanding a book, actually, for books like schoppy's magnum opus it's mandatory at the very least a couple readings.
sure having read kant previously would make more sense and would significantly improve your understanding, but if you really want to read schoppy now, it's not worth it putting it aside just so you could go read kant strictly for this reason. Everything in its time, if you can read something you want, why not go for it?

>> No.17756374

>>17754631
You don't have to read the entire CPR to get the gist of what Kant is on about, just the first 100 or so pages. I recommend doing that.

>> No.17757111

>>17755859
>>17756007
Holy based

>> No.17757435

>>17757111
He never misses, does he?