Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.23452740]

Is he worth reading? Wittgenstein said he was a shallow philosopher:
>One could call Schopenhauer an altogether crude mind. I.e., he does have refinement, but at a certain level this suddenly comes to an end & he is as crude as the crudest. Where real depth starts, his finishes. One might say of Schopenhauer: he never takes stock of himself.
but Tolstoy loved him, War and Peace is based entirely on The World as Will and Representation apparently. What are your thoughts on him?

[Anonymous No.23452786]

>>23452740
He says in the beginning you need to read Plato and Kant before starting this, have you done so?

[Anonymous No.23452804]

>>23452786
I doubt that’s the case.

[Anonymous No.23452818]

>>23452740
Don’t take anything Wittgenstein says about other people too seriously. He was majorly influenced by Schopenhauer when he was young but later repudiated his ideas. At the very least you can benefit from reading Schopenhauer when you’re young and just getting into philosophy like he did.

[Anonymous No.23452832]

>>23452740
kek

As if Wittgenstein was in any position to say that.

[Anonymous No.23452902]

>>23452740
>GREAT KANT taught us to postpone the wish for knowledge of the world to criticism of man's power of knowledge; if we thus arrived at the most complete uncertainty about the reality of the world, Schopenhauer next taught us to draw the most infallible conclusions as to the world's In-itself from a farther-reaching criticism, no longer of our mental faculties, but of that Will in us which goes before all knowledge. "Know thyself, and thou hast read the world"—the Pythia said; "look round thee, all of this art thou"—the Brahmin.

[Anonymous No.23452970]

>>23452902
Why did you post a mediocre opera composer?

[Anonymous No.23453003]

>>23452970
Seethe more, Wagner was the greatest artist of his time, an expert on Schopenhauerian philosophy, and no one seriously thinks Verdi or Rossini were better composers.

[Anonymous No.23453037]

>>23453003
Opera as a whole is trash. Read Tolstoy.

[Anonymous No.23453089]

>>23452740
>psychologist/philosopher of music

He's more British than German-- and his deliberate mis-reading of Kant is in-itself bad and beside the point-- but he remains nonetheless interesting as a prose stylist and massive influence on Wagner/Nietzsche, Tolstoy, et. al.

[Anonymous No.23453109]

>>23453089
There are no wrong interpretations, every interpretation is a valid one as long as it backed up by proper arguments.

[Anonymous No.23453191]

>>23453037
If you dislike opera you're just a musiclet, it's as simple as that. 99% of opera is just a crutch for the music, and many of the greatest composers wrote some of their greatest music for operas.

>Read Tolstoy.
Tolstoy completely misunderstood Wagner. He thought he was just like any other operatist and went to see a shitty performance in Russia, while it was precisely opera that Wagner rejected and was not trying to create. More to the point, Tolstoy also thought Aeschylus, Dante, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Michelangelo and a great deal else were trash. His aesthetic opinions are only interesting for the light they shine on his own life and art, they should never be taken seriously in regard to other artists.

[Anonymous No.23453260]

>>23453191
They shouldn’t be taken seriously because they don’t agree with yours? Lmao how many levels of entitlement do you have to be on to think your opinion has more weight than Tolstoy’s?

[Anonymous No.23453299]

picrel is the superior translation

[Anonymous No.23453325]

>>23453299
>Reading translations
Lmao brainlet

[Anonymous No.23453328]

>>23453260
How many levels of entitlement do you have to be on to think Tolstoy's claims about Wagner, Aeschylus, Dante, Shakespeare, Beethoven and Michelangelo have any merit? His views go against the entire history of art, including against his own works which people love Tolstoy for.

An especial irony here, in accusing me of entitlement, since you're only using Tolstoy as a battering ram for your own views. Which leads to the obvious question: how entitled do you have to be to call Wagner 'mediocre'? How would you react if I called Tolstoy a mediocre artist?

[Anonymous No.23453333]

>>23453325
do you want me to say mean things to you? no? ok then don't say mean things to me

[Anonymous No.23453353]

>>23452740
Tolstoy seems to have done a 180 on Shopenhauer. In his Confession he says he was initially taken in by Shopenhauer's philosophy but later attributes it and philosophies like it as driving ultimately towards suicide or misery due to their views on agency and the death of the soul.

[Anonymous No.23453365]

>>23453353
Then did Tolstoy reject what he wrote in War and Peace later in his life? He said that what he wrote in War and Peace was basically what Schopenhauer wrote in Will and Representation.

[Anonymous No.23453371]

>>23453365
NTA but yes, Tolstoy quite famously repudiated his greatest works.

[Anonymous No.23453402]

>>23453365
Yeah both with War and Peace and Anna Karenina

[Anonymous No.23453419]

>>23453371
>>23453402
Source? Never heard of that before.

[Anonymous No.23453422]

>>23453419
As I said originally, read his Confession. He details essentially all of his philosophical growth since childhood.

[Anonymous No.23453551]

>>23452804
NTA, but he does say so. It was what made me drop the book and instantly go finish the Trial of Socrates back when i was 19.

[Anonymous No.23454394]

>>23452786
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (at least up to the end of the transcendental aesthetic) and Schopenhauer's dissertation on the Principle of Sufficient Reason, are, in that order, the two essential prerequisites for the WaWR. You don't need anything else to take on this beast of a book, thankfully.

[Anonymous No.23454430]

>>23452740
He was one of us.

[Anonymous No.23454727]

>>23454430
An idiot? I agree
T.retard

[Anonymous No.23454927]

Isn't denying your will ultimately willed by your will? How does Schoppy deal with that? Or is it like Buddhism where your rejection of desires is also a desire, but which disappears along with your every desire during your process if enlightenement?

[Anonymous No.23454999]

>>23454927
You completely misunderstood buddhism.

[Anonymous No.23455014]

>>23453353
He never fully rejected Schopenhauer. He basically just fused Schopenhauer with his brand of rationalist Christianity. He did emphatically deny Schopenhauer's atheism but totally embraced his asceticism. For all his life he considered him to be the greatest genius of the modern world

[Anonymous No.23455042]

>>23453328
I have to say the chapter where Tolstoy shits on Wagner is hilarious because you can tell he was watching some shitty cheap performance of Wagner in Moscow and he was a cranky old man dumbfounded at the stupid costumes and off-key music like he was watching Teletubbies or something. Ironically both of their artistic works were largely influenced by Schopenhauer.

>>23453419
He talks about all of this in What is Art?

[Anonymous No.23455063]

>>23453325
How different can the meaning of a translation be from the original exactly?

[Anonymous No.23455108]

>>23452740
>Is he worth reading?
yes
>Wittgenstein said he was a shallow philosopher:
please stop seeing philosophy as a collection of celebrities

[Anonymous No.23455112]

>>23454999
Elaborate?

[Anonymous No.23455248]

>>23455112
He won't. Welcome to /lit/

[Anonymous No.23455349]

>>23454927
>ultimately willed by your will
To quote Schopenhauer:
>Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills
Short answer: no.

[Anonymous No.23455381]

>>23455112
>>23455248
There are hundreds of thousands of books on the subject out there, if you’re genuinely interested in it go read those books instead of begging strangers online to educate you, I have no reason to do so.

[Anonymous No.23455412]

>>23455349
But doesn't Schopenhauer insist on denying your will as a salvation from suffering?

[Anonymous No.23455526]

>>23455412
It's a negation, but not a positive denial. He aligns with buddhism in that desire is suffering, and his will-to-life is that which wants in all living things.

[Anonymous No.23455553]

>>23452740
>I.e.
>&
You're too much of a retard for philosophy in general

[Anonymous No.23455568]

>>23455526
Is the negation itself not part of the will? Since he says you cannot cannot will what you will?

[Anonymous No.23455580]

>>23455553
It's a direct quote. You're calling Wittgenstein a retard :o

[Anonymous No.23455586]

>>23455568
The will-to-life is either affirmed or it is not affirmed. The negation is simply the latter.

[Anonymous No.23455597]

>>23455580
Yes.

[Anonymous No.23455600]

>>23452740
Wittgenstein is just a faggot with nothing to say, A fucking faggot who hated Schopenhauer because he was better than him and Schopenhauer's ideology is still being applied adn studied nowadays meanwhile Wittgenstein's philosophy is just plain garbage and immanent.

[Anonymous No.23455615]

>>23455600
No use getting mad at pseuds, Anon. Nice digits.

[Anonymous No.23455660]

>>23455586
Did Schoppy believe in free will? His "On freedom of the Will" seems to suggest he does not believe in free will. Maybe I am just retarded but I don't see not affirming your will is also not a part of your will?

[Anonymous No.23455704]

Basically the only things worth keeping from Wittgenstein are what he took from Schopenhauer. And he took a lot.

See Chapter 14 (p. 310): Schopenhauer's Influence on Wittgenstein:

https://www.docdroid.net/ER9hZXg/computer-science-homework-cs206a-pdf

[Anonymous No.23455718]

>>23455660
He doesn't believe in free will. He says pretty clearly in volume one

[Anonymous No.23455959]

>>23455718
Then how can you deny will if you don't have free will?

[Anonymous No.23455996]

>>23455660
>Did Schoppy believe in free will
You should try reading the essay you mentionned. You might not be retarded.

[Anonymous No.23457239]

>>23455996
Sure. But I just want to know how he deals with the contradiction of there being no free will, yet suggest that people should deny the will?

[Anonymous No.23457263]

>>23457239
NTA but IIRC Schopenhauer believed in a transcendental freedom, just not freedom in practice. I suppose the closest thing for practical freedom would be in denying the will, perhaps it's a blurred area, but I suspect that he didn't completely deny the possibility of free will as Richard Wagner, his disciple, claimed that freedom only arises in history through denial of the will.

[Anonymous No.23457398]

>>23452740
Vital to understanding Nietzsche, and he was very insightful.

[Anonymous No.23458752]

>>23452740
>Shitgenstein said some stupid shit about someone who has actual merit
kys lmao

[Anonymous No.23459353]

>>23452740
more like wittlesstein

[Anonymous No.23459389]

>>23452740
Why are two middle name authors/translaters so smart?

[Anonymous No.23459409]

I've listened to a good a good few operas can someone be kind enough to recommend some more in list form? Also I like Schopenhauer, he's a good gateway into philosophy. Although the Greeks are the ultimate gate, especially Plato

[Anonymous No.23459544]

>>23452740
Sounds like Witt was just aping Aristotle's remarks about Melissus being crude. So Witt is derivative faff, Copenhauer is a bald retard, and Aristotle a dimwit who couldn't wrap his mind around gigachad Melissus

[Anonymous No.23460134]

>>23459409
>I've listened to a good a good few operas can someone be kind enough to recommend some more in list form?
La vestale
Jessonda
La muette de Portici
Der Templer und die Jüdin
Zar und Zimmerman

[Anonymous No.23460256]

>>23460134
Do you speak German or Italian

[Anonymous No.23460386]

All philosophy is cringe. Everything you read in those books can and should be learned with life experiences if you're not a complete moron. People who write philosophy learned it all through experience and contemplation and then they share their insights in a book thinking other people will have the same experience but it doesn't work like that. All philosophy is shallow. Have you actually ever read anything in a philosophy book and thought "hmm i've never thought about it like this before"?

[Jon Kolner No.23460396]

>>23452740
Schopenhauer is just Christianity-lite so I wouldn’t venture it. Not worth the paper it’s printed on.

[Anonymous No.23461577]

>>23454394
I just started World as Will and Representation and then stopped to go read the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Got back to the book and then saw I need to read Kant. Guess it's as good an excuse as any to finally read him, but damn I feel like I understand Schopenhaeur's writing so much more than Kant's so far (still in the preface which I have been told is not the difficult part).

Wish me luck bros

[Anonymous No.23461584]

>>23461577
Read Schopenhauer first before Kant, it'll make Kant, so much easier

[Anonymous No.23461622]

>>23460386
>implying reading books isn't a life experience in itself
Begging the question

[Anonymous No.23461627]

>>23461577
You only need the gist of Kant to work with Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer throws out much of Kant.

[Anonymous No.23461651]

>>23454927
>Isn't denying your will ultimately willed by your will?
Yuppp that's why Nietzsche called bullshit on all world-deniers. They never gave up pleasure, just settled for less. "Sneaking, slinking pleasure-cats," he calls them.

Schopenhauer proposed to a teen qt when he was 42. He bragged of his sexual conquests. He ate in nice restauarants all the time. I think he wrote in his diary about how full of shit he was and his admiring editor destroyed it (it was revealed to me in a dream).

[Anonymous No.23461676]

>>23461651
Don't post disgusting landwhales, mutt.

[Anonymous No.23461678]

>>23461676
get over your disgust bub. read Zarathustra

[Anonymous No.23461680]

Schopenhauer just had soul.

[Anonymous No.23461684]

>>23461678
no

[Anonymous No.23461862]

>>23461627
>>23461584
I considered this, but I am nervous about disregarding Schope's advice in the preface. Like I said, reading Kant is a good opportunity in and of itself. If it becomes too dense for me and I feel like I am not getting anything out of it I will certainly consider bailing though, so thank you for the advice.

[Anonymous No.23461890]

>>23461862
Stop larping faggot. I read Kant exhaustively and as long as you understand the gist of his ideas you'll get wawar.
It's the internet era if you don't get something look it up.
Fags who brag about all the smart boy boxes™ they check off usually have a very surface level of understanding and are just insecure about getting their conclusions refuted.

[Anonymous No.23462011]

>>23461890
Don't listen to this pseud intellectually posturing. It's a difficult book, Kant's lectures on Metaphysics and the progolemena will help you through it. I'm a midwit and got Kant. I will reread it at some point as I've forgotten some parts