[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 286 KB, 1225x1357, Schelling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18024123 No.18024123 [Reply] [Original]

LMAO imagine reading secondary sources in philosophy
>'When I spoke earlier of primary works, I indicated fully that I do not consider daily lectures to be beneficial to scientific studies—as little as the idle talk of the day that is heard today and forgotten tomorrow, without leaving behind a trace in our souls. There is, however, yet another distinction between scientific works and those that are only incidentally serious: not all have flown forth from their source in the same way and not all are equally original. If the secondary works are not absolutely necessary for one to understand the primary works, one would do very well indeed to stick exclusively with the originals, so that one may thereby dedicate to them even more time and effort. To exhaust the depths and very soul of a single dialogue of Plato, such as the Sophist or the Philebus, will certainly yield each of you much more significant results than an entire army of commentaries. From the truly original works, there always comes to us a uniquely invigorating spirit that incites our own productive powers, whereas with other works it falls asleep. Also from a moral perspective, what one reads is far less insignificant than one would think. In life, it is not always in our control to determine to whom we will allow access to our soul. All the more diligently then should one study these original works, so that one accustoms oneself early on to that which is eternal, unchanging, and enduring, and thereby learns contempt for what is here today and gone tomorrow.'

t. FWJ von Schelling

>> No.18024250
File: 219 KB, 800x1000, Arthur-Schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18024250

>>18024123
>To read all kinds of expositions of the doctrines of philosophers, or generally the history of philosophy instead of their own original works, is as if we wanted to have our food masticated by someone else. Would anyone read the history of the world if he were free to behold with his own eyes the interesting events of ancient times ? Now as regards the history of philosophy, such an autopsy of its subject is actually accessible to him, thus in the original writings of philosophers wherein he may still limit himself, for the sake of brevity, to the main and well-chosen chapters, the more so as they all teem with repetitions which he can spare himself. In this way, he will become acquainted with the essentials of their doctrines in an authentic and unadulterated form, whereas from the half-dozen histories of philosophy that appear annually he obtains merely what has entered the head of a professor of philosophy, and indeed in the form in which it there appears.

t. Arthur Schopenhauer

>> No.18024266

Retard.

>> No.18024268

>>18024123
>>18024250
b-based
except Kant and Hegel though, no one reads their original works

>> No.18024312

>>18024268
LOL the next paragraph in the lecture out of which the OP was taken from literally tells you to diligently study Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

>> No.18024324

>>18024250
>is as if we wanted to have our food masticated by someone else
Watching other people eat is enjoyable when I'm starving myself.

>> No.18024334

Yeah? Well that's just like, your opinion, man.

>> No.18024399

>>18024250
>Philosophy is like eating
based fatass

>> No.18024401
File: 11 KB, 266x400, spinozasethics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18024401

>>18024123
Call me stupid but I am about to finish an introduction to Spinoza's Ethics (picture) and I feel really good about it. I care to much about Spinoza to care about this secondary source purity test. I don't want to miss anything in the Ethics and I don't trust myself to be able to completely understand everything in Spinoza's original text. I am going to read the original ethics next but i think reading a secondary introduction was super helpful.

>> No.18024544

>>18024401
Never really felt the need to check secondaries for Plato or Kant. I think once you know enough philosophy, you won't have any use for secondaries, except if you're thinking like a historian amd not a philosopher, i.e. you're interested in reading about the author's life and their social context. What's your background?

>> No.18024630

>>18024544
I have no formal education in philosophy (yet!) so I am still pretty new to this. I'm sure your right that I will feel more confident after my Phil classes and I gain more experience.

>> No.18024703

>>18024123
> son of a chapelain and some indigenous farmer
> von
pathetic

>> No.18024721

>>18024123
Schelling was always based.

>> No.18024740

>>18024123
ohnonono youtube/podcast/patreon bros...we got too cocky...

>> No.18024741

>>18024703
He bought the title late in his life

>> No.18024749
File: 31 KB, 511x524, 1617896964008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18024749

>>18024740
>tfw this is the secret passage which Kantbot didn't want anyone to know about

>> No.18024770

>>18024741
i know
even im this he has been a pathetic little petty hack

>> No.18024827
File: 106 KB, 612x491, confused apu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18024827

>>18024123
For what reason did Schelling identify evil as something substantial?

Pls help.

>> No.18024895

>>18024827
Source? Where did he do this?

>> No.18024899

>>18024895
It's essential to his entire philosophy of freedom.

>> No.18025565

>>18024899
But where does he state this

>> No.18025594

>>18024268
Kant is perfectly readable.
Hegel I can understand because the man himself admitted to be deliberately obtuse and obscurantist. Some will claim it's part of the charm or even doctrine but fuck him. Translations/commentaries by Jean Hyppolite are unironically superior to Hegel and several German Hegelians have recognized it.

>> No.18025595

>>18025565
I don't know. I just heard it in a Youtube video.

>> No.18025607
File: 8 KB, 250x247, 1593718095980.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18025607

>>18025595

>> No.18025608

>>18024401
>I don't trust myself to be able to completely understand everything in Spinoza's original text
He literally spells it out as clearly as possible.

>> No.18026639
File: 6 KB, 179x250, 1594061111515.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18026639

>>18025595
kek

>> No.18026900

>>18024250
What is this from please? introduction to the World?

>> No.18028300

>>18026900
Parerga and Paralipomena, specifically Fragments on the History of Philosophy. It's right in the beginning of it or so.

>> No.18029255

>>18025595
Sounds about /lit/.

>> No.18029269

>>18024123
Holy shit Schelling was a genuine goblin.

>> No.18029296

>>18025594
>the man himself admitted to be deliberately obtuse and obscurantist
Source

>> No.18029583
File: 55 KB, 550x700, 1583613679904.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18029583

>>18024250
Babybirding is a patrician fetish. Schopey is peak life denier desu.

>> No.18029845

>>18028300
Danke schoen

>> No.18029899

>>18025595
>>18025607
>>18026639
>>18029255
No I didn't stop lying about me.

>> No.18029925

>>18024250
based but you should read introductory works except AFTER you're done with reading on your own. the most important works you should read three times:
1) read the book
2) read the book and check references and books which the work in question was supposed to refute/vindicate (with Schopenhauer that would mean reading Kant, Berkeley etc.)
3) read the work and check out secondary sources first to take a look at the insanity of modern academia (although you may find a gem from time to time) and second to see what is missing from your interpretation

>> No.18029931

>>18025595
based and pseud-pilled

>> No.18030775

>>18029899
Then give us the source bro

>> No.18030783
File: 21 KB, 306x306, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18030783

>OP is still bumping this shit thread

>> No.18030839

>>18030775
Wikipedia.