/lit/ - Literature

What Kant, Plato and Veda do I need before I start Schopey? I've only read Plato's Republic so far.
Should I hold off on Schopey until I'm done with all of Kant's critiques and have flipped through some of the Gita?

>>18160485
Flutes are based. "Based on what?" you will inevitably ask. Based on the Will.

Which school of Hinduism or Buddhism is most similar to the philosophy of Schopenhauer?

Did Schopenhauer believe in reincarnation? He seems to reference it several times throughout his work, but he never directly states that he believes in reincarnation.

>The individuality disappears at death, but we lose nothing thereby for it is only the manifestation of quite a different Being — a Being ignorant of time, and, consequently, knowing neither life nor death… When we die, we throw off our individuality like a worn-out garment, and rejoice because we are about to receive a new and better one

>Were an Asiatic to ask me for a definition of Europe, I should be forced to answer him: It is that part of the world which is haunted by the incredible delusion that man was created out of nothing, and that his present birth is his first entrance into life

>Through this sleep of death it (the individuality) reappears refreshed and fitted out with another intellect, as a new being… Its fresh existence is paid for by the old age and death of a worn-out existence which has perished, but which contained the indestructible seed out of which this new existence has arisen; they are one being

>>17851639
It's no wonder.

>>17851230
Good job.

If Schopenhauer believed the key to ending suffering is asceticism, why did he not living ascetically?

>>17430288
INFJ

>I believe that when death closes our eyes we shall awaken to a light, of which our sunlight is but the shadow.
What did he mean by this?

What do you like or dislike about him?

You're gonna get a lot of hurtful and degrading remarks, but that ain't what I'm about. Let me just say, you are perfect the way you are. You hear me sugar? PERFECT. Don't ever change. You deserve anything and everything you want.

Now give your fucking kid away

what was his problem?

>Directly after copulation, the devil's laughter is heard
Has he been refuted?

>man's will is the source of all misery in the world.
>but he is still in need of salvation and grace
>but this is not to come from god, but from...
what? how can the salvation which schopenhauer argues is necessary for man's redemption come from the very same will (his) which is the source of all sin and misery?

>>16013256
yes, i would agree he is at his strongest in his critical mode. original contributions to aesthetics, as well. i believe the subtleties of his conception of the will as a metaphysical category are flattened by the conceptual scheme he adopted and, possibly, his own disposition and what are essentially aesthetic preferences. i am not sure how to explain what i mean, but that is my feeling. he is often described as a precursor to vitalist theories of nature which i think further clouds the picture, even when it is accurate. misinterpretations of vitalism do not help. i see in him some intimations of whitehead which i hope to develop with more study.

Was he right about women, /lit/?

>>15881697
Filling your head with other people's ideas, probably has resulted in you being more un-thinking, as a result, than before. Everything you need is within, books should only be used to offer more stimulation for true internal thought, you might say like overfeeding a stomach without letting it aptly digest its contents

>When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. It is the same as the pupil, in learning to write, following with his pen the lines that have been pencilled by the teacher. Accordingly, in reading, the work of thinking is, for the greater part, done for us. This is why we are consciously relieved when we turn to reading after being occupied with our own thoughts. But, in reading, our head is, however, really only the arena of some one else’s thoughts. And so it happens that the person who reads a great deal — that is to say, almost the whole day, and recreates himself by spending the intervals in thoughtless diversion, gradually loses the ability to think for himself; just as a man who is always riding at last forgets how to walk.

>Such, however, is the case with many men of learning: they have read themselves stupid. For to read in every spare moment, and to read constantly, is more paralyzing to the mind than constant manual work, which, at any rate, allows one to follow one’s own thoughts.

"The reader who has got as far as the preface and is put off by that, has paid money for the book, and wants to know how he is to be compensated. My last refuge now is to remind him that he knows of various ways of using a book without precisely reading it. It can, like many another, fill a gap in his library, where, neatly bound, it is sure to look well. Or he can lay it on the dressing-table or tea-table of his learned lady friend. Or finally he can review it; this is assuredly the best course of all, and the one I specially advise."
- Schopenhauer, WWR, preface to the first edition

kek based and the only funny german

>Dude...what if like, everything is just spacetime n shit, and we all just like, make shit up in our heads

>In the end, the real world was the representation we made along the way.
Damn.

Just read the first two chapters of TWAWAR. What’s he talking about? Collective consciousness? Keep in mind I haven’t read Kant so help me out.

>violent
>misogynistic
>racist
>antisemitic
>death worshiper
Why was he such an awful person?

>>15714678
>misogyny
>not real
Anon...

>>15612811
>Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.

>Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.