Who should read Schopenhauer?

[Anonymous No.19179014]

Really I'm asking, what can I hope to glean from reading him? Pretty much all I know about him is his reputation for being rather curmudgeonly, and his interest in Eastern teachings which might influence what some have called his Pantheistic Metaphysics.
Not sure if that's for me, so shill me on schoppie

[Anonymous No.19179228]

I take it I shouldn't read him then... phew

[Anonymous No.19179237]

>>19179014
Read Nietzsche, he's like Schopenhauer but better. He is also entertaining. Start with The Gay Science.

[Anonymous No.19179265]

>>19179237
Sure but only if you can explain: why? What can I expect to get out of reading the Gay Science?
What will I learn about myself or the world from it that I will not or find a harder time learning from Schopie?

[Anonymous No.19179272]

>>19179014
I’ve never read a single word by Schopenhauer but his fans are whiny, annoying faggots. Something to think about. Similar to Nietzsche and Cioran, seems to attract undisciplined thinkers.

[Anonymous No.19179282]

>>19179014
>Pantheistic Metaphysics.
Not exactly, where every idealist and pantheist used the word God, Schopenhauer used the word Will for his metaphysics. And where pervious pantheists/idealist implied that their God is good or indifferent or rational. Schopenhauer presented a neo-Darwinist metaphysics for him the Will is irrational, dumb and has no purpose.

Read his essays and see what do you think about them.

[Anonymous No.19179288]

Scophie unironically says you shouldn't kill yourself because wanting stuff is bad.

Really makes you think

[Anonymous No.19179334]

>>19179272
I try to avoid conflating the writer with their fans, but what you say is noted
>>19179282
To be honest I'm not really interested in metaphysics, it just happened to be the only thing about him I knew. Maybe I should have asked more about his take on the soul and motivation...
>>19179288
kek, I mean he's not wrong: if you want to die, that's bad because wanting shit is bad, so you shouldn't do it.
I can't refute that

[Anonymous No.19179337]

>>19179272
>but his fans are whiny, annoying faggots
It's fascinating how someone can become a receptacle of another's profundities. Admiration is one thing, dogmatic adherence is another. Are such people weak minded, or cognitive misers, unwilling to spend the necessary energy to cogitate for themselves.

[Anonymous No.19179389]

>>19179337
not sure if you're quoting, but could be neither - motivation reasoning, people will expend huge amounts of mental energy to reconcile their currently held beliefs. i don't think it's being a cognitive miser, if anything it's a surplus.

[Anonymous No.19179462]

>>19179228
Read his Essay on reading and you will never again wonder if something is worth reading or not. You will have solid criteria from a man who spent his whole life reading and writing and doing little else.

[Anonymous No.19179503]

>>19179462
Now we're getting somewhere! Thank you!
What is his goal with reading? Like what does he argue makes something worth being read?

[Anonymous No.19179675]

>>19179337
I think it's a consequence of monkey brain tribal dynamics. Being a rabid Schopenhauer fan is a legible identity which you can build a coalition around. Believing in the truth of some ideas that you happened to encounter via Schopenhauer, not so much. Worst for building stable coalitions is presenting yourself as some kind of self-righteous lover of "wisdom" whose beliefs risk changing at any time. Keep that up, and you'll end up pissing off enough different people that they'll gang up and kill you. This is literally the creation myth of Western philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19179692]

>>19179675
>This is literally the creation myth of Western philosophy.
Based Socrates, inspiring over two millennia of victim complex

[Anonymous No.19179992]

>>19179692
>Kanye "West"
>ideas "new" but also "again"
Feels like there's pottery in here somewhere but I can't quite piece it together

[Anonymous No.19180006]

>>19179992
See, I took it totally literally, that he has a narcissistic impulse to say unpopular or contrarian things to get attention, these publicity seeking missives he calls "new ideas".
Incidentally, considering the nature of the thread, what does old man A. Schopp have to say about such acts?

[Anonymous No.19180008]

>>19179692
>nigger says thing
>amerishits: omg yaaaaaaass!!!
nuke USA

[Anonymous No.19180012]

>>19180008
fuck nietzschebronies

[Anonymous No.19180084]

>>19180008
Where does Schoppie discuss this phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.19180116]

>>19179265
>>19179503
lazy piece of shit, you don't deserve any answer

[Anonymous No.19180123]

>>19180116
>You should read it because it's good because... it's...IT'S JUST WORTH IT... fuck you, if you don't read it your loss!
Anon there's thousands and thousands of books, after all there's a board for it. Why should I give priority to Schoppie. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask. And you're not helping your case by being so cryptic and antagonistic.

[Anonymous No.19180234]

>>19179272
He's one of the easiest philosophers to get into and he's also one of the easiest to misunderstand if you only read the wikipedia, which is what 80% of /lit/ did anyways.

[Anonymous No.19180258]

>>19179014
Have you read Plato? Spinoza? Kant? Anyone? Or is Schopenhauer just a meme you've inhaled from the miasma here?

[Anonymous No.19180278]

>>19179389
>people will expend huge amounts of mental energy to reconcile their currently held beliefs
Thing is, the people you describe find reconciliation in the works of others still; biblical text, philosophers, history books, comments sections, so forth. Strenuous as it may be, no thinking is done on their part - research more like. An endless cycle of defensive posture, for the adaptations of another.

[Anonymous No.19180292]

>>19180258
Of the one's you've listed? Only Plato.
Do you want me to give you a pedantic rundown of all the philosobros I've read? I'll do it.
But the reason I ask about Schoppie is because I'm interested, and I think Kierkegaard might be good on this as well (I've only read a bit of him), like discussions of sort of motivations for doing things, of things people feel. I'm not so interested in metaphysics but like wants and fears work.

[Anonymous No.19180296]

>>19180278
Makes sense. I honestly don't have an opinion, I was just trying to imaginatively bump the thread!

[Anonymous No.19180312]

>>19180292
Ah so you're looking to end up in psychology. Schopenhauer is a link between philosophy and what eventutally buds off into Nietzsche and his "genealogy" or Freud's psychoanalysis or D&G schizoposting. Schopenhauer is going to tell you to read Kant though. He invented "start with x"

[Anonymous No.19180323]

>>19180312
Yes, you got it. I didn't want to say "psychology" because obviously that word carries a lot of baggage.
Is Schopenhauer worth reading in that regard, what can I reasonably hope to get out of reading him? Even if I have to start with Kant?

[Anonymous No.19180915]

>>19180123
That anon harsh but right. You're suggested Schopenhauers reading essay and you immediately ask to be spoonfed like a child. The essay is free online and like 3 pages. How about you put in some work?
From the discussion it seems that you would get more out of reading a philosophically-inclined psychologist like Jung for example. He was strongly influenced by Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. I'd suggest his essays "modern man in search of a soul", especially the last few chapters.

[Anonymous No.19180988]

>>19180323
>what can I reasonably hope to get out of reading him
Modified Kant and Plato with a pinch of Indian monism, frequent contempt for Hegel, proto-Nietzschean aphorisms, consistent anti-abrahamism

[Anonymous No.19181094]

Terrible "convince me to read x" thread, but whatever. You won't be able to read much of World as Will if you don't care about metaphysics/epistemology. You could read his Parerga and Paralipomena and choose essays you find interesting.