[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 9 KB, 201x314, the-world-as-will-and-representation-vol-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16026204 No.16026204 [Reply] [Original]

Bros, is this a trap?

I just spent a year reading Hegel and I'm pretty sure philosophy isn't supposed to be this enjoyable to read.

>> No.16026240

>>16026204
It's not a trap. You are reading Kant's true successor - the long-belated European counterpart to the Yogacara school of Mahayana buddhism. let no commie call it kleinburgerlich or whatever. Read Horkheimer's essay on "Schopenhauer Today".

>> No.16026246

>>16026240
Based, Schopie and Neetche are the real endgame of German philosophy

>> No.16026263

>>16026204
>>16026204
I love Schopenhauer so much, but I'd probably be more Hegelian. Heidegger had a point in saying he wasn't even a philosopher, though he was, he mainly just has some very interesting ideas which can be extracted, but his whole system seems as useless as every other reader comes to the conclusion of.

>> No.16026416

>>16026204
Schopenhauer is one of a kind. 0% pseud. All killer no filler. When someone is trying to communicate an idea instead of sound smart it's always enjoyable reading.

>> No.16026432

Where does one start with Heg or Schop?

>> No.16026500

>>16026240
I hear people call it religious all the time but then where are the devotees? Where are the grand works of art that naturally flows from its truths? Where is the religious fervor which burns through civilizations and converts heads of state? Where are the zealots that brings the sword to the unbelievers? Where are the ascetics on the mountaintops producing beautiful bardic poems of its doctrines?

>> No.16026505

>>16026432
Schopenhauer basically tells you in his introduction to WWR to understand Kant first and read his earlier work On The Fourold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

>> No.16026526

>>16026505
Thanks

>> No.16026547

>>16026263
>Heidegger had a point in saying he wasn't even a philosopher
That's rather ironic coming from Heidegger of all people, whose philosophy is borderline pure charlatanism.

>> No.16027058

>>16026432
Schopenhauer gives you the reading list.

This guy:
>>16026505
Is right. I think you should read Plato before Kant though....not sure if Schop or Kant says it thouh...

>> No.16027088

>>16026204
He's the only philosopher worth reading

>> No.16027098

I've never read Schop (or Kant,) how is his Essays and Aphorisms? From what i've seen of him he seems to have great observations, is that where they mainly are? I don't really want his system yet.

>> No.16027105

>>16027088
Isn't his antinatalism more than enough reason to reject his philosophy?

>> No.16027111

>>16026204
Nah, he's one of the few popular philosophers with any real substance.

>> No.16027131

>>16027105
Why would you want to reject truth?
Breeding is for the reckless and ignorant.

>> No.16027144

>>16027131
based

>> No.16027146

>>16027131
We're rational animals. Anyone who rejects the animal part is just as wrong as he who rejects the rational part.

>> No.16027172
File: 1.09 MB, 1280x3857, DOTE Schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16027172

>>16027146
But to what degree are we animal (subconscious of our actions; deterministic in our behaviour) and to what degree are we rational (conscious of our decisions; controlling of our fate)?

>> No.16027214

Would Schopenhauer be a good one to read if I'm trying to move on from a lot of guilt and regret in the hopes of living a better life? I've heard that he's pessimistic, but I also get the sense that there's something comforting about him.

>> No.16027240

>>16026263
100 percent agreed.

>> No.16027287

>>16027214
he's proto western buddhist

>> No.16027313

>>16027172
that guy is fucking annoying. Now I know what Nietzsche was talking about

>> No.16027845

>>16026240
Mind linking me Horkheimer's essay?

>> No.16028090

>>16026204
>I'm pretty sure philosophy isn't supposed to be this enjoyable to read.
If you are "pretty sure" about that, perhaps you are either a pseud or a brainlet.
Every work of philosophy I've read was enjoyable, from studying to presocratics to reading plato and aristotle, the neoplatonists, romans, early christians, early muslim theologians, empiricists, rationalists, there is not one work so far I read because I somehow ""had to"" read.

>> No.16028351
File: 71 KB, 986x1024, 1596159666751.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16028351

>>16028090
You're just a nigger

>> No.16028417

>>16027146
The animal drive is to have sex, the babies are just a byproduct. There's nothing "unanimal" about antinatalism, the same way there's nothing irrational about it.

>> No.16028750

>>16028417
>The animal drive is to have sex, the babies are just a byproduct.
jesus christ, imagine actually believing this

>> No.16028809

>>16028750
but that's actually true
animals don't have the cognition capability of planning and anticipating gestations, they are just controlled by instincts