/lit/ - Literature

Probably bait but worth answering nonetheless. The second volume is necessary for the development of any kind of critique of Schopenhauer. Consider the way that Chapter 49 deploys Christian imagery, if you've read Nietzsche, or the wholly sentimental appeals to the morality of compassion found elsewhere in the book. Of course, be glad that you are moved by such a wonderful writer in any case.

It's better than the first volume. Read "On Will in Nature" first though if you haven't already. def worth it

in which of his works does he give his views on women?

>>18481425
It wasn’t bait I was genuinely curious. Thanks for your insightful response.
>>18481617
“Will” do.
>>18481626
That’s in a collection of his essays and aphorisms I believe.

>>18481366
Schopie was a brainlet.

>As we return home through the palace gardens, he says: “It does not say much for Schopenhauer that he did not pay more attention to my Ring des Nibelungen. I know no other work in which the breaking of a will (and what a will, which delighted in the creation of a world!) is shown as being accomplished through the individual strength of a proud nature without the intervention of a higher grace, as it is in Wotan. Almost obliterated by the separation from Brunnhilde, this will rears up once again, bursts into flame in the meeting with Siegfried, flickers in the dispatching of Waltraute, until, we see it entirely extinguished at the end in Valhalla.” At supper he returns to this and says: “I am convinced Sch. would have been annoyed that I discovered this before I knew about his philosophy—I, a political refugee, the indefensibility of whose theories had been proved by his disciple Kossak on the basis of his philosophy, since my music is supposed to have no melody. But it was not very nice. It’s the way Goethe treated Kleist, whom he should have acclaimed, as Schumann acclaimed Brahms—but that only seems to happen among donkeys.”

bump.

>>18481425
Why would his post be bait lol

>>18481626
how about you read some actual philosophy

>>18481626
Parerga & Paralipomena has a bunch

I've been planning to read this for quite some time for either lack of will and/or time. I've haven't read much philosophy (very little, to be honest); so, can I grasp most of it without reading supplementary sources and jump right into it or do I have to read other materials (if yes, such as?) before I read it?

>>18483915
*planning to read but haven't

>>18481366
>tfw you realize pokemon red and blue were based on the world as will and representation covers

>>18483915
Other people may disagree with me, but I would say you could understand almost all of his works with only a working knowledge of Plato’s Forms and Kant’s transcendental aesthetic. So read some dialogues like Phaedo, Symposium, and certain parts of the Republic; then Kant’s prolegomena (it’s short). If you understand those then you’ll get his most important points with ease.

>>18481644
>>18483883
thanks
>>18482847
dabbing on women is actual philosophy.

>>18484949
>Kant’s prolegomena
It's fucking hard to understand. I don't have enough autism power for that.

>>18484966
If you can’t understand the Prolegomena then maybe philosophy isn’t for you

>>18484972
Well, I understood Stirner

>>18485047
Just give it another try then, this time use some secondary source or Wikipedia if need be. Kant’s ideas in that book aren’t really that complex, it’s just his language that might be tripping you up. I guarantee you can understand it if you put some effort in.

>>18484949
>but I would say you could understand almost all of his works with only a working knowledge of Plato’s Forms and Kant’s transcendental aesthetic
You can understand him even without Plato. But you NEED his earlier work on the Principle of Sufficient Reason

>>18485174
I will give it a try

>>18481626
The essay is called "Über die Weiber"(On Women). just google for it.