/lit/ - Literature

what is Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant?

ITT: discuss metaphysics

What literature would explain to me why the moderators and jannies of /lit/ conspire to spam terrible threads, and also why they're all trannies?

Kant is Schopenhauer's master the same way Schop is N's master.

ITT: we discuss Metaphysics, and works pertaining to it.

>>20380546
These two
>>20380566
wrong

Help, I have no place online to talk about these two wizards.

Are these two the endgame of philosophy?

I'm halfway throughout the book and it has convinced me to a point where I failed an exam on Kant because I don't find him logical anymore. I need something to counter this book, because I just read Schopenhauer thinking it wouldn't affect my personal opinion on things ; I need something to remind me I can be wrong AND that Kant can be right. I've only read excerpts from Kant for now. Should I start reading the Critique of Pure Reason?
I'm especially sceptical when it comes to the concept of morality. To me, it's always been a borderline spook/social construct/forced thing. The categorical imperative is what I struggle the most to understand from Kant's works.
Suggestions?
Also you should read Schopenhauer, it's good nevertheless. I'm just too biased in my own opinion.

Bought Tge world as will and representation.
Should I read a bit of Kant before starting?
He's boring but apparently Schopenhauer continued by following where Kant left.
If so what should I read, maybe some sec lit.

He was too late.

I'm building a team

La chose en soi.

Who looks more like a troll ?
Kant or Shoppie ?

>>11647403

> Not understanding the thing-in-itself meme in the first place

It’s not a causal relation, kid.

In Kant, it’s a logical relation of ground/consequence. In Schopenhauer, it’s a metaphysical identity.

>philosopher's shouldn't prescribe anything or ask "why," only examine "what"
>character is unchangeable and there is no such thing as habituation
>the past and future are dead concepts. only the present is alive
>everything is determined and nothing can be willfully changed that wouldn't already have been necessary

Is there any question why Hegel won? Progress and politics don't exist whatsoever in Schopenhauer

"I here express my opinion that a white colour in the skin is not natural to man, but that by nature he has a black or brown skin, just as had our forefathers the Hindus; consequently, a white human being has never sprung originally from the womb of nature, and therefore there is no white race, however much this is talked about, but every white human being is bleached. Driven into the north, which is strange and foreign to him, and in which he exists only like exotic plants, and like these requires a hothouse in winter, man became white in the course of thousands of years. The gypsies, an Indian race that immigrated about four centuries ago, show the transition from the complexion of the Hindus to our own. Therefore in sexual love, nature strives to return to dark hair and brown eyes as the archetype; but the white colour of the skin has become a second nature, though not so that the brown of the Hindus would repel us."

- Arthur Schopenhauer, The Metaphysics of Sexual Love

I have an actual scholarly question so this thread will probably bomb, but maybe some Germanophile can help.

What are the most scholarly, seriously cited collected editions of these German authors in the original language?

Kleist
Holderlin
Heine
Novalis

Nine and a half out of ten times Schopenhauer is quoted out of context. This is not merely because few people bother to read his WWR, but also because the indespensable fundament of this work, Kant's transcendental idealism, is notoriously hard to grasp. Luckily, I'm well familiar with both Kant's CPR and Schopenhauer's WWR, partly because I've read philosophy at an esteemed university. If you have questions, submit them, for I've got some time to kill today.