/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11548608]

>he didn’t start and finish with Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.11548615]

i'm using a ;library mouse rihgt now and there is a finger-shaped white congealment on the mouse button where this person's finger left an entir eimpront of something unidentifiable and i've been touching it for 5 minutes..

[Anonymous No.11548710]

>he didn't start with Nietzsche and work his way back

[Anonymous No.11548759]

I want to but it seems you need to at least understand kant pretty well before reading his shit. But I could be talking bs idk

[Anonymous No.11548762]

>>11548608
>he didn't start and finish with Henri Bergson
It's almost like you guys want to be like other people. disgusting

[Anonymous No.11548766]

>he didn't start with Finnegans Wake and get brought by a commodious vicus of recirculation back to passencore rearrive at Finnegans Wake

[Anonymous No.11548794]

>he didn't start with heidegger and developed his own unique style of hermeneutical ontological phenomenology

[Anonymous No.11548876]

>he didn’t start jerking and end with cumming.

[Anonymous No.11548877]

>he didn't start with Hofstadter and start with Hofstadter and start with Hofstadter and start with Hofstadter and start with Hofstadter and start with Hofstadter and start with Hofstadter and start with Hofstadter and start with Hofstadter and start with Hofstadter and start with Hofstadter and start with Hofstadter and...

[Anonymous No.11549025]

>>11548759
What’s the minimum Kant I should know before diving into Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.11549028]

>>11548608

>finishing with Schopenhauer instead of moving onto the texts that Schopenhauer stated were higher wisdom than his own or anyone else's

Take the indo-european primordial wisdom-pill

[Anonymous No.11550118]

>he didn’t finish where he started by not reading at all

[Anonymous No.11550128]

>>11548608
Sorry I like Hegel more :)

[Anonymous No.11550148]

>>11549028
Do you have any recs other than Shankara? I'm so bored of him

[Anonymous No.11550175]

>>11549025
>minimum Kant
If Schopenhauer were here he would tell you to nobly put an end to your miserable fate for uttering such a despicable transgression. There's no "minimum" understanding of the greatest philosopher known to mankind, you absolute pseud. You either understand what Kant means by the form of intuition, synthesis of the manifold, etc, or you don't.

[Anonymous No.11550208]

>>11550175
What? Literally he spends half of the Word as Will and Representation shitting on Kant.

[Anonymous No.11550246]

>>11548608
I agree with Schoperhauer for the most part, other than his atheism and life denying philosophy. We are a dream of god in self experience and should therefore accept our will with pleasure to create the diversity of experience, Schoperhauer failed to realize that he simply succumbed to the will of asceticism.

[Anonymous No.11550363]

>>11550208
That’s just how Schopie expresses his love

[Anonymous No.11550367]

>>11550363
“No”

[Anonymous No.11550372]

>>11548877
Kek

[Anonymous No.11550380]

>>11550372
I don’t get it

[Anonymous No.11550417]

>>11550148
Venkatesananda's two-part 780-page translation of the Yoga Vasistha, which is on amazon.

[Anonymous No.11552104]

>>11550208
Ik this is bait but to any naive onlooker, in the beginning Schopenhauer says one should be familiar with Kant before reading him. Even in the beginning of his first essay in 1813 he praises Kant as immortal. But it doesn’t stop there. Throughout his main work he praises Kant. Any time he says Kant does something wrong, Schopenhauer says it out of the respect. Then, in the end, at the beginning of the appendix where he dedicates 50-odd pages to criticizing Kant’s philosophy, he literally stumbles upon refusing to begin, because he loves Kant so much. Two or three times he says okay, now on to the criticism, before saying: but you know, he was damned good. Hell, the opening of his criticism is a Voltaire quote that says “of course the best geniuses make faults.” Nietzsche in On S as Educator says S used Kant’s rhetoric for his own purpose—and to the extent that’s true you can see it whenever Kant in CPR steps back from being dry and talks like a poet, like when he talks about the skeptical mode or what makes idiots idiots (good understanding but bad judgment). If you would’ve watched your Sam Hyde you would’ve known all this by now.

[Anonymous No.11552118]

>>11552104
Implying Sam has read any philosophical text in his life

[Anonymous No.11552127]

>>11552118
Sam is definitely the type of pseud to have read Schopenhauer and not much else.

[Anonymous No.11552212]

>>11548762
>Bergson
>Robert de Ropp
>Tom Campbell
welcome to the ubermensch

[Anonymous No.11553054]

>>11552104
>Sam Hyde
Wtf are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.11553281]

>>11550380
Hofstadter coined the term “strange loop,” where passing through levels in some sort of hierarchy (loosely applied) counter-intuitively lands you right back where you started, forming a paradoxical loop. Examples include the impossible staircase illusion, Efron dice, and the Epimenides paradox. Hofstatder introduced the concept in his book Godel Escher Bach and further addressed it in I Am a Strange Loop

[Anonymous No.11553286]

>>11550417
Really appreciate this rec anon

[Anonymous No.11553303]

>>11552127
Actually he was shilling King, Warrior, Magician, Lover for awhile which really disappointed me.

[Anonymous No.11553352]

>>11550175
If your mom was here she would be embarassed to read your post and tell you to stop spending so much time on the internet.

[Anonymous No.11554653]

>>11553352
This

[Anonymous No.11554658]

>>11548608
>living pessimistically when you have a literal choice in the matter

[Anonymous No.11554676]

>>11554658
This.

[Anonymous No.11554759]

>>11548608
>>11549025
I did start with Schopenhauer's "the world as will and representation", it wasn't a bad thing to do.
Though he tells you to read Kant before, also you have to read his book twice.
Also clean your room