[ 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: 219 KB, 800x1000, Arthur-Schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17835150 No.17835150 [Reply] [Original]

Has anyone made a chart of required readings to understand Schopenhauer?

>> No.17835166

>>17835150
He did it himself in the preface of his book.
Required: Kant
Helpful but not necessary: Plato and the Upanishads

>> No.17835171

>>17835150
Kant, Feuerbach, Leopardi. That's it.

>> No.17835176

>>17835150
not even kant. you need innate qualities like sensitivity for beauty and intelligence.

>> No.17835177

That bloke, Wazzface McGee.

>> No.17835178

>>17835166
Is there a brief on kant?

So far I've understood it to be:
Pre-socratic > Plato > Aristotle > plotinus & st aquinas? > Descartes > spinoza > locke > Berkeley > hume > kant

Is there a way to shorten that list though?

>> No.17835189

>>17835171
why the fuck would you need Feuerbach? Feuerbach was 15 when WWR was published.

>> No.17835193

>>17835178
You could do just Descartes > Locke > Leibniz > Hume if you really want, or even shorter than that. But all of those philosophers are worth reading so I'd advise not worrying about shortening it.

>> No.17835196

>>17835189
>muh required reading is what the author read and quoted
The retard's mindset. Feuerbach helps you understand Schopenhauer.

>> No.17835202

>>17835196
Feueurbach has nothing to do with Schopenhauer.

>> No.17835203

>>17835178
>Is there a way to shorten that list though?
Yes, read secondary introductions to Kant who give expositions on the philosophical context. I can't think of any off the bat but they're guaranteed to exist.

>> No.17835206

>>17835178
>5 centuries missing between Aquinas and Descuckrtes
Is this a joke?

>> No.17835213

>>17835206
Sorry anon, nobody cares about Scholastic autism.

>> No.17835216

>>17835202
>Feueurbach has nothing to do with Schopenhauer.
The absolute state of /lit/

>> No.17835224

>>17835216
Pray tell, make an effortpost and explain what Feuerbach has to do with Schopenhauer. He was a H*gelian and it's doubtful that he even read Schopenhauer.

>> No.17835229

>>17835213
So you don't realize that between Aquinas and Descuckrtes there have been Humanism, the Renaissance and the Baroque?

>> No.17835235

>>17835229
Yes, but no particularly important or enlightening philosophical systems.

>> No.17835245

>>17835224
I'm not here to give you philosophy lessons to fill the gaps that your anglocuck education left you. But especially I'm not here to teach you the subtleties of philosophical works.

>> No.17835253

>>17835235
HAHAHAHAHA alright dude

>> No.17835260

>>17835245
It would be even better if you weren't here at all. Go back immediately.

>> No.17835261

>>17835253
>still hasn't named anyone

>> No.17835278

>>17835261
Marsilio Ficino
Nicholas of Cusa
Meister Eckhart
Giordano Bruno

Seethe, subhuman scum

>> No.17835279

>>17835253
Name seven

>> No.17835285

>>17835278
I'm sure they are great, but would you argue they are necessary to understand Kant?

>> No.17835292

>>17835278
None of them proposed systems which were epistemologically or metaphysically relevant to the Western canon up to that point. Admittedly, I find Eckhart and Bruno interesting for other reasons, but they didn't really contribute anything of note to the idealism vs rationalism vs empiricism debate which was the main question of worth around that time. This question required critical investigations into the nature of knowledge and rational justifications for conclusions.

>> No.17835312

>>17835285
I didn't mean that, but if you are the typical /lit/ idiot who thinks he need to place his foot in every single step of Western civilization to understand something *that came after*, then you wouldn't want to skip them. I'm not saying you shouldn't skip them, but if you are that kind of braindead soiman, you should definitely put them in your silly map.

>muh essential readings
I have been able to read Heidegger without anything more than my high school education. Fuck this board.

>> No.17835317

>>17835150
What do you not understand? "Dont be a normie, spend your time with the arts ok thanks" thats it.

>> No.17835328

I read Schopenhauer without having read any philosophy whatsoever and i understood him just fine

>> No.17835333

>>17835292
>None of them proposed systems which were epistemologically or metaphysically relevant to the Western canon up to that point
This is the epitome of stupidity, also
>the western cannon
Fucking KEK.

>they didn't really contribute anything of note to the idealism vs rationalism vs empiricism debate
If only you knew how wrong you are.

What am I even doing here, discussing with people who have ignored and misunderstood both the Renaissance and Mediterranean schools of thought for centuries? I'll leave you to your analytical nonsense, farewell dear puppy.

>> No.17835366

How can I read Kant without actually reading Kant?

>> No.17835408

>>17835366
Just pretend you have.

No one here has read Kant, let alone understood him.

>> No.17835413

>>17835333
Throw a few names, claim they're relevant and then sperg out when I call them for what they are. Cool discussion.

>> No.17835418

>>17835366
Read the Prolegomena is the objectively valid answer

>> No.17835472

>>17835366
You read the Stanford article and if something isnt clear you look up where you he wrote about e.g. the Categorical Imperative and you read that. If you like you read more of his works.

Anything else is a typical /lit/ pseud answer.