Honestly, he makes A LOT of sense sometimes, but it's mostly funny to see how someone could be such an edgelord

>>7738255
Are there any other writers at the same level?

>>7738294
Schoppy perhaps?

>>7738294
Nick Land kinda.

>>7738255
It's easy to understand, if he suffered insomnia as bad as he supposedly did. Severe sleep deprivation will fuck you up.

So would you ascribe the ideas in his work purely to the mental stress generated by his insomnia or do you think that elements of his thought have an objective quality to them?

is it worth trawling through the entirety of "The World as a Will and Representation" or would an abridged version/ condensed collection of essays such as Penguin's "Studies in Pessimism" suffice?

>>7738738
>>7738255
I do suffer from this shit too. And I often get the feeling that his writings are just what I ever wanted to write...
In On the heights of despair he writes that suicide is not a logical conclusion. That there is always a biological/psychological for it (I can exactly recall what the word was). He is right: when, by chance, I can get enough sleep for a long enough period of time, I just forget suicide. It just seems a droll and strange idea. But when the insomnia kicks in again, it's just hell... I can do nothing but slowly watch myself collapsing in a terrible sea of infinite darkness. But killing oneself is hard as fuck, and deep down you know you don't want it. But it the end you just resent yourself.
I'm just waiting for a "bath of fire" as he says.
I know I just sound edgy as fuck, and I'm probably laughable, but you should never forget that sleeping is a divine bliss.

>>7738782
It is at least interesting from a literary viewpoint. You should try to read The trouble with being born.

I read On the heights of Despair and A Short History of Decay. The latter I thought was better. Is it worth looking at some of his other works? e.g. the temptation to exist, the trouble with being born etc? I wondering if he continues to have anything original to offer after reading two of his books. It all seems slightly repetitive to me.

>>7738791
read world as will and representation. all those collections of essays and aphorisms give a totally one-sided and discordant view of schopenhauer, you cannot fully grasp the ideas of schopenhauer until you read him develop his thoughts into a systematised whole. his ethics and aesthetics are totally derived from his metaphysics and epistemology. plus its one of the greatest philosophical works ever written as well as being presented in lucid prose

>>7738824
Could you give me an example of what some of these philosophical distortions are? In what way are they one sided; too pessimistic, not pessimistic enough, or something else entirely? I totally take your word for reading the whole thing through btw. I'm just curious as to how, and to what extent, the full portrait of a philosopher is distorted in layman versions of the text

>>7738251
Albert Caraco is somewhat similar to Cioran.
>Nous tendons à la mort, comme la flèche au but et nous ne le manquons jamais, la mort est notre unique certitude et nous savons toujours que nous allons mourir, n'importe quand et n'importe où, n'importe la manière

dude depression lmao

>>7738855
Not the anon you are replying to but It should be noted that the peguin collection is not parts of his major work. Rather eassys he did later. In other words read both.

>>7738855
the main problem is focussing on his pessimism, as if that was the defining feature of his philosophy. his main goal was to build upon and improve kants idea of the ideality of space and time and how that gives us representation. also he thought we could know the thing in itself which kant didnt. the thing in itself for schopenhauer is Will, and as humans are the highest form of objectified Will. This is where his pessimism comes in. he believed will would always be striving and therefore becoming and not being. as soon as we satiate one desire we need desire something else etc. this isnt a new idea in philosophy, ie the endlessness of desire. what is new is how schopenhauer explains the fact. his aesthetics is the idea of purely knowing subject contemplating objects not in regards to how the objects can serve the will but purely as objects. or representations of Ideas in the platonic sense. what im trying to get that is the pessimistic facets of schopenhauers thought are secondary and cannot be fully understood without knowing in his terms where they come from.

>>7738251
I really like him, he's very comforting. I prefer his aphorisms which I find to be more powerful, going straight to the point without any disguise. I prefer his later work than his earlier, as he quite came out of some considerations which I think were non-relevant to his work (in particular the essentialist sides, which sometimes still are in his later work, but rather less than in his earlier)

He's the Andy Weir of /lit/