/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18842959]

Started reading WWR.
Foreword:
>hey guys, before you start I have to tell you somethings
>to really get this book you have to read it twice
>also i published "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" 5 years earlier and is required reading to really get this book...i really didn't want to write everything again in other words, so pls go read that
>ah also the first chapter of "On Vision and Colours"...pls read
>other than that...to really appreciate me, go read kant, he's like the best since 2000 years, so i just assume you read him
>altough he's so great i discovered some errors in his philosophy, i wrote it in the appendix. pls read that twice too
>and yeah also read plato ok?
>ok and it would be could if you also read the vedas
>if you do all this you will really understand me
Is he serious?

[Anonymous No.18842982]

>>18842959
Also recently started WWR
You really dont need to read the other stuff he mentions. He spells it out pretty well, but if you dont feel like you completely get what he is talking about then look up a summary of the essay because its honestly all you will need. (even though he mentions the principle of sufficient reason every other page.)

As for the reading twice bit you also probably dont need to do that. Schopy is unique in that he is pretty explicit in what he wants you to "get" from his book. If you dont understand a section read the next one because he'll say it in a different way or expand on the idea so you can get the previous part. Have fun with WWR

also it doesnt get fun till the world as Will

[Anonymous No.18842997]

>>18842959
yes, you do know that most of these works are read by people who already read philosophy of the time? You should not be reading schop before Kant, I mean you can but it'll have you seeing less of his additions to Kantian philosophy.

>>also i published "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" 5 years earlier and is required reading to really get this book

Yes, unfortunately this is probably the only MUST I'd say as it literally rehashes Kant and goes over everything again. Even in the intro he says that it is the FOUNDATION of what will soon be WWR.

>>ah also the first chapter of "On Vision and Colours"...pls read
Not necessary goes over it in Fourfold
>>and yeah also read plato ok?
you should have read this already
>>ok and it would be could if you also read the vedas
not necessary

Summary:
Plato = Yes
Kant = Yes
Fourfold = Yes
Everything else = no

You can probably read the book without any of that stuff but the former is just stuff you should have read already.

[Anonymous No.18843003]

>>18842959
You need to read Kant before Schopenhauer only for better understanding of his epistemology. But you can get the concept of will with his ethics, aesthetics and pessimism without any preliminary literature.

[Anonymous No.18843030]

>>18842997
>>18843003
Ok, my plan now is:
I will read Fourfold first, then WWR, then Plato and Kant and then WWR a second time. This way I did everything, but also don't have to wait to long to read what I really want.

[Anonymous No.18843049]

>>18843030
Patrician
make sure to read his section on physiognomy to properly make fun of Hegelfags

[Anonymous No.18843062]

>>18843030
Yea, for sure this can work and honestly if you just remember the most important passages you don't have to read the whole thing again. Also fourfold is very comfy there is a section where he talks about animals and brings up his poodle, peak comfy

[Anonymous No.18843068]

>>18843049
>section on physiognomy
Is it in WWR?

[Anonymous No.18843083]

>>18842959
That wouldn't have been an unreasonable request at the time, actually.

Most of his readers would've been educated in philosophy themselves, which means they would have:
>competency in classical languages
>a thorough knowledge of the entire history of Western thought
>at least some familiarity with major Oriental texts
>19th-century technology, and thus higher cognitive capabilities
>a circle of like-minded people they could discuss philosophy with
>a fair amount of free time in their hands

Same thing with others like Hegel or Heidegger. Today, the amount of context required to read them seems absurd, but it wouldn't have seemed that way back then.

[Anonymous No.18843125]

>>18843068
Yes. Its mentioned several times at complete random

[Anonymous No.18843134]

More philosophers should do this. If you want people to understand you after you die and can't explain yourself any further, you ought to leave behind some notes.

[Anonymous No.18843203]

>>18842959
The foreword was so funny. He just BTFOs Jacobi in a single sentence and basically says close the book if you're a brainlet. Kek I love this guy

[Anonymous No.18843423]

>>18842959
>to really get this book you have to read it twice
He says that expecting that you take him seriously and read the book as a philosophy book. If you want to read it as a curiosity, you can read it just ightly and once.

>also i published "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" 5 years earlier and is required reading to really get this book...i really didn't want to write everything again in other words, so pls go read that
There were no internet back then, so take it easy, is not that necessary if you read it for your own sake.

>ah also the first chapter of "On Vision and Colours"...pls read
not necessary

>other than that...to really appreciate me, go read kant, he's like the best since 2000 years, so i just assume you read him
just give an eye to some good introductory video on the structure of kant's philosophy

>altough he's so great i discovered some errors in his philosophy, i wrote it in the appendix. pls read that twice too
You should seriously read that, its gold

>and yeah also read plato ok?
not necessary; Plato's philosophy is part of our cultural background (and unconscious)

>ok and it would be could if you also read the vedas
not necessary

Go on, that book is gold.

[Anonymous No.18843513]

>>18843423
>just give an eye to some good introductory video on the structure of kant's philosophy
Isn't that the opposite of what Schopy said? He said never read a third-party opinion about the work of a philosopher, especially of great minds like Kant.

[Anonymous No.18844015]

>>18843513
>Isn't that the opposite of what Schopy said? He said never read a third-party opinion about the work of a philosopher, especially of great minds like Kant.
Yes, I know, but you want to read WWR, not CPR.

[Anonymous No.18844215]

The first 4-5 chapters are a bit harsh and dry in the first book. For a casual reader I think the 3 and 4 fourth books are truly independent on themselves. Somewhere I read that for some people to get the flavor is just enough.

[Anonymous No.18845273]

>>18842959
Seems like a lot, but to be honest:

- Understanding Kant (at least CPR) is pretty much mandatory for every piece of philosophy that comes after

- On the fourfold root can be read in an afternoon

- Every book that's worth something will repay a second reading with deeper insights