/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8574256]

> Searching for The World as Will and Representation on the internet
> 1440 pages
> one thousand four hundred forty pages

Should I bother? Can autists understand it or do I have to read half a dozen other books to have context.

[Anonymous No.8574269]

>he wants to read german idealists without reading tens of thousands of pages

[Anonymous No.8574280]

Most of the time he quotes his references, and gives the book's title, page number and even the edition. I hope that you're not allergic to Greek, French, Italian and Latine though, cause you're gonna eat a lot of it.
And yeah, you should bother.

[Anonymous No.8574291]

>>8574256

In the Preface, Schopenhauer absolutely insists that you have a good familiarity with Kant, his dissertation piece and a passing familiarity with the Bhagavad Gita.

Realistically though, this is not necessary. Schopenhauer was speaking mainly in reference to the 'study guides' of his day regarding Kant/etc, which were terrible (hence why he advises reading CPR directly/etc).

They've improved a lot since then, however. You should still read CPR and WWR at least once in your life, though.

[Anonymous No.8574313]

>>8574256
>do I have to read half a dozen other books to have context
>half a dozen
>HALF A DOZEN

you fucking idiot, read the entire philosophical canon up until the book you want to read and then you can understand it.

[Anonymous No.8574317]

[Anonymous No.8574351]

You don't have to read shit. This is philosophy we're talking about. The field of pseuds and armchair 'intellectuals.' Just look it up on Wikipedia and you'll have the jist of it.

[Anonymous No.8574463]

>>8574313
where are you at right now in the reading of the entire philosophical canon?

[Anonymous No.8574483]

>>8574463
sam harris

[Anonymous No.8574534]

>>8574483

kek

[Anonymous No.8575283]

>>8574256
Read "The Philosophy of Schopenhauer - Bryan Magee" and go from there. It will outline his philosophy and if you don't understand a certain aspect, research it prior to reading WWR.

[Anonymous No.8575437]

>>8574256
That's the two volumes together you only really need to read the first one

[Anonymous No.8575516]

>>8575437

Nah, the second volume includes important elaborations and developments of the first volume's concepts and arguments. The second volume gets kind of tedious in places (like his investigations of anatomy), but it also contains many of his most radiant and profound passages.

>>8574291

You're right that some scholarly summaries of Kant's system would probably suffice these days, though I absolutely agree that the first critique should be read; however, I think Fourfold Root is pretty essential, not merely as preparation for World as Will and Representation, but even for its own sake - it doesn't require nearly the commitment of any of Kant's critiques, of course.

Also I'd probably recommend some key Upanishads over the Bhagavad Gita, if you had to choose.

>>8574256

Depends. What are your goals? To what degree do you want to understand Schopenhauer's system, and how many months are you willing to dedicate to it as a labor of love?

[Anonymous No.8575529]

>>8575516

Wait, so is /his/ a board that talks about philosophy/etc?

I've been using /lit/ for that purpose, all this time.

[Anonymous No.8575578]

>>8575516
You went all the way, I see. Nice. As to 'The art of being always being right': I have always found it silly that it was precisely Schopenhauer that wrote it, given his hate for sophistery. It is also a shame that you don't read German (although the translations are fine).

[Anonymous No.8575599]

>>8575578

In fairness, Schopenhauer pretty much disowned the work in his later years due to having no more interest in "petty arguments", or something to that effect.

[Anonymous No.8575628]

>>8575529
You can still talk about particular books or authors on /lit/, /his/ is for general questions and ideas.

[Anonymous No.8575630]

>>8575516
To be honest, I don't have any goals, regarding it. I already have a "solid" life philosophy and worldview. Since it's mostly pessimistic, I wanted to know Schopenhauer's take on it. Technically I have a lot of time, because I'm a lazy, smelly NEET, but I have absolutely no interest or drive to do anything. I'd start reading it when and if I get better, sometimes I have a good day or two when I actually do something else than waiting for the day to end. I don't think I know, what I hope to get from it.

[Anonymous No.8575647]

>>8575630
ITT: Bubba's first existential crisis.

[Anonymous No.8575652]

>>8574483
You've reached the epitome then.

[Anonymous No.8575953]

>>8575578

>You went all the way, I see. Nice.

Appreciated - but I can't fully agree, since I'm saving these for far into the future:

https://www.amazon.com/Manuscript-Remains-Early-Manuscripts-184-1818/dp/0854965386
https://www.amazon.com/Manuscript-Remains-II-Critical-189-1818/dp/0854965394/ref=pd_bxgy_14_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=ZHEFHFQ64RCK432TJG04
https://www.amazon.com/Manuscript-Remains-III-Manuscripts-1818-1830/dp/0854965408/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=2W47JA5PESCT2HKGC8F8
https://www.amazon.com/Manuscript-Remains-Vol-1830-1852-Manuscripts/dp/0854965416/ref=pd_sim_14_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=4G9QQQ24TFM30FA0036A

> As to 'The art of being always being right': I have always found it silly that it was precisely Schopenhauer that wrote it, given his hate for sophistry.

I think he presents it as a guide for recognizing and avoiding such fallacies, maybe for exposing them too; but it's also largely written in his biting, joking style, and I believe he let it sit in his notebooks for a while before deciding to not even publish it.

> It is also a shame that you don't read German (although the translations are fine).

I would love to be able to - to unpack (hopefully) more of the technicalities and subtleties of the German idealists, and to see for myself how beautiful Schopenhauer's writing is in his native language. He actually could have written an English edition of any of his works, in all likelihood (he thought for a while about translating the Critique of Pure Reason into English) - imagine!

But if I ever put in the effort to learn a language, it will probably be after I read a lot more philosophy and decide which works I'm most desperate to understand in the originals.

[Anonymous No.8575969]

>>8575529
Yeah, but they suck at it.

[Anonymous No.8577076]

>>8575630
Your lifestyle suggests you do not have a "solid" life philosophy and worldview.