/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15484846]

Was he really just full of shit, or did he get unfairly sidelined because he took on the sacred cows of Hegel and Kant?

[Anonymous No.15484873]

>>15484846
Schopenhauer is generally considered Kant's heir...

[Anonymous No.15484925]

>>15484846
he is really great, but he is just a bitter man throwing tantruns compared to Hegel

[Anonymous No.15484932]

>>15484873
gonna need a citation on that my king

[Anonymous No.15484942]

>>15484932
You skip prefaces a lot, don’t you?

[Anonymous No.15484953]

>>15484932
>he just wrote half his books telling people to read Kant because he hates Kant
>he calls himself Kant's only real heir because he meant it was opposite day
I'm gonna have to cite you for not reading, my son. His corrections on Kant are still used even though his personal philosophy strays a lot from it.

[Anonymous No.15484954]

>>15484942
the reduction of reality as Wirklichkeit does not seem very Kantian to me

[Anonymous No.15484958]

>>15484846

>But that call of the trumpets crossed the times and suddenly, you or I, overcome by grief, we heard them and we understand that, due to that unfortunate person, we have to respond with some sign that indicates that we understood him.

Not the most influential or reknowed, but he's the best to have ever been.

[Anonymous No.15485005]

>>15484873
He thought Critique of Pure Reason was good but everything else Kant wrote was garbage

[Anonymous No.15485034]

>>15485005
He thinks all of Kant has errors, but singling out CoPR as what he liked best is weird because Schopenhauer's work on the sublime from CoJ is probably where he furthered Kant's work the most.

[Anonymous No.15485043]

>>15485034
'Garbage' is probably an exaggeration, but he seemed pretty dismissive of CoJ in The World as Will and Representation

[Anonymous No.15485061]

>>15485043
He wrote entire books that nitpick CoPR though. His picking over Kant is often mistaken for dismissal, but it's because he thinks Kant is worth autistically going over line by line to amend errors that he does it. He doesn't do that for anyone else. His criticism of Fichte basically amounts to "never read Kant or just can't read" and his criticism of Hegel is equally vague and far more dismissive. He loves Kant though. He's just correcting shit he sees as wrong so people don't dismiss Kant over errors.

[Anonymous No.15485072]

>>15485061
That's a good point, actually, I suppose if he's spending all that effort on Kant he must see something in it. I should go back and read both of them again if I can ever finish getting through Being and Time

[Anonymous No.15485073]

>>15484873

>dot, dot, dot

AH YES! THE CLUMSY EFFETE ELLIPSIS

CLEVER IMPLEMENTATION

[Anonymous No.15485112]

Schopenhauer's a strange fork in the history of western philosophy. He completely dissociated himself from the institutions, published his own books, and lead a private and solitary existence. It's extremely rare for this kind of thinker to have such a profound impact on thought.

Schopey's work wasn't that influential in itself. He wasn't popular until he was like 70, he never taught a class again after the infamous Hegel incident. Few philosophers today or really give him any direct attention to him too, in regards to metaphysics, logic, epistemology.. the "core" of philosophy. But, there is one disciple of Schopenhauer's who does. Nietzsche.

Nietzsche was a huge Schopenhauer fanboy when he was younger. Have you ever read his essay "Schopenhauer as Educator" - 70 pages about that man, he wrote it when he was like 27. And it was an influence he would take to the grave. The Will to Power was his most mature and profound idea - and its metaphysics its distinctly Schopenhauerian.

All of Nietzsche's philosophy, in its profound challenges to epistemology, logic, and metaphysics can be traced back to Schopey. And Schopey was a profoundly Kantian thinker. To Schopenhauer, Kant was infallible.

Even to this day Nietzsche is a profoundly important thinker to philosophy. His thought is so deeply ingrained into both German philosophy (through the Frankfurt school), French philosophy (through Bataille and Deleuze), and now slowly creeping into Anglo philosophy, especially as Americans remember their Kantian roots viz-a-via Peirce, all of those Anglos who grew up idolizing french celebrity thinkers, and the burgeoning discourse around accelerationism.

Nietzsche finds his way into any question philosophers still pose to this day, because he's just that important relevant still. Nihilism is still an open question.

So the question was Schopenhauer unfairly sidelined? He wasn't. He's still alive in a certain way. He is alive in the only way he ever could have been. His philosophy was always destined to be underground. He was dark, he was personal, he was reductive, he was too sure of himself. It's made for a special kind of thinker who is sensitive, aloof, extremely self-reflective.

[Anonymous No.15485115]

>>15484873
>Kant
>Having just one heir

[Anonymous No.15485129]

>>15485073
>>15485115
The Art of Being Wrong

[Anonymous No.15485383]

>>15484958
This is beautifully written. Where is it from?