>Start to read Schopenhauer
>"First Aspect: The idea subordinated to the principle of sufficient reason: The object of experience and science"
u wot m8
Plato and Aristotle -> Descartes -> Hume -> Kant -> Schopenhauer
Start with the Greeks as always.
>>8210084
u thought you where a focken genius m8?
Schopenhauer is a big boy philosopher, not entirely sure where the "he hates big words" meme comes from.
>>8210084
I happen to be reading The World as Will and Representation as well.(Volume 1) The first book (he divides the volumes up into "books", I know, books inside of books) is dedicated to the world as Representation, that the world is a presupposed object seen through the subject, that every object implies a subject, and vice versa. He then goes on to make arguments against Materialism and Idealism(I think Fichte's version?) that would both claim only one exists, the former object only, the latter subject only. After his arguments(which are pretty good), he goes on to say how this world as representation is limited and bounded in the Kantian style, that representation is bounded a priori by time, space, and the law of causality. These, he explains, are all manifestations of the principle of sufficient reason, which is the subject of his essay"On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason"(which I havent read but should). The entirety of representation has time and space and causality necessarily and before experience. The rest of the "book" goes on to continue arguing why this is so, mostly appealing to natural science and his principle of sufficient reason essay.
And thats just the first 90 pages or so.
>>8210249
Yeah thats basically the foundation of a skyscraper he is constructing. I just finished volume 1 and cracked open volume 2. Its good stuff though.
>>8210084
Haven't read schoppy but I can tell that you havent read kant or leibniz
>>8210084
Heh, I know that feel OP.
I bought pic related, and actually had a good laugh during Schopenhauer's prefaces. Particularly this bit:
>"The reader who has got as far as the preface and it put off by that, has paid money for the book, and wants to know how he is to be compensated. My last refuge now is to remind him that he knows of various ways of using a book without precisely reading it. It can, like many another, fill a gap in his library, where, neatly bound, it is sure to look well. Or he can lay it on the dressing-table, or tea-table of his learned lady friend. Or finally he can review it; this is assuredly the best course of all, and the one I specially advise."
He was a (dry) witty motherfucker, but in a way I admired and respected how demanding he was throughout. It amounts to:
1) You will read my book twice.
2) Read my dissertation piece, 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason', and also 'On Vision and Colours'
3) Don't even start until you're familiar with Kant's work (and maybe Plato/Descartes). Don't you even thinking about learning Kant's ideas second-hand either: read The Critique of Pure Reason directly.
So here I am now, painstakingly working my way through 'On the Critique of Pure Reason' - although I confess to betraying Schopenhauer by using the following to help me along:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kant-Complete-Introduction-Yourself-Philosophy/dp/1444191268
Needless to say the lesson is learned; you don't just jump into this stuff, it's a commitment.
If you like the Schopenhauer memes, then by all means pick up his 'Essays and Aphorisms', which is 99% 'Realphilosophie' (in the sense of Realpolitik) and requires no in-depth philosophical understanding (beyond his occasional mention of Will/etc).
>>8210339
Wrong pic.
>>8210339
>My last refuge now is to remind him that he knows of various ways of using a book without precisely reading it. It can, like many another, fill a gap in his library, where, neatly bound, it is sure to look well. Or he can lay it on the dressing-table, or tea-table of his learned lady friend
Kek.
>>8210339
>Needless to say the lesson is learned
Well at least you learned.
I think this board's prime achievement is tricking people into jumping into some of the most demanding literature without any of the necessary preparation.
Published must love /lit/
>>8210387
We tell people start with the Greeks. Retards don't lurk and think they can skip the "meme instructions"
Then they see a word like noumenon and chimp out when they can't even understand the definition.
Philosophy might be ivory tower but at least there's no elevator
>>8210399
In fairness, I do think /lit/ recommends too many Greeks.
Perhaps that puts people off.
Anything beyond Plato (and by extension Socrates) and Aristotle is largely superfluous to the Western philosophical tradition.
>>8210419
this
you can read the tragedians+homer if you're into literature, but for general philosophy plato/aristotle (+ historical context) is sufficient.
>>8210490
Nietzsche was a bit of a contrarian who was naturally drawn to all of those Greeks whom we rightfully left behind.
Given that Heidegger is essentially Nietzsche's heir, it's not surprising that he does the same.
Otherwise yeah, Plato's a must. I actually find myself agreeing with Schopenhauer that you can 99% 'get by' on Plato and Kant.
>>8210093
This. It is no meme advice, yet people tend to threat it that way. The more accustomed you are to the philosophical history leading up to Schop, the more you'll get out of it (it goes without saying that this is true of almost every other philosopher as well). Don't expect to understand or gain much insight from the more philosophically heavy sections of his work if you're unfamiliar with the philosophical debates of his time.
Damn /lit/ is retarded
I'm out.
>>8210490
>Especially for people like Nietzsches
yeah, if you're a philologist you will have to come back
>>8210502
>I actually find myself agreeing with Schopenhauer that you can 99% 'get by' on Plato and Kant
If you mean that much of philosophy consists of reactions to problems and themes they put forth first, then you may well be right. If you (also) think they solved them, I'm afraid you're way to optimistic.
>>8210535
>mfw i think plato was 95% right
:/
>>8210535
Nah, Plato and Kant didn't solve the problems of philosophy.
Schopenhauer did :^)
>>8210502
>Given that Heidegger is essentially Nietzsche's heir
WHAT given by who??? this is rt one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on lit. and the competition is fierce.
"Essays and Aphorisms" can be read without any preknowledge. It's a good read for anyone.
>>8210570
agreed, and Hollingdale's into is cash money
>>8210166
I know what all of those words mean, they aren't really "big". The problem is that I don't know what they mean when put together...
>>8210339
>The reader who has got as far as the preface and it put off by that, has paid money for the book, and wants to know how he is to be compensated. My last refuge now is to remind him that he knows of various ways of using a book without precisely reading it. It can, like many another, fill a gap in his library, where, neatly bound, it is sure to look well. Or he can lay it on the dressing-table, or tea-table of his learned lady friend. Or finally he can review it; this is assuredly the best course of all, and the one I specially advise.
Why were Schopenhauer and Nietzsche the kings of bantz?
U dint red his prieiz ese did u?
wtf even if it's plato he has like 9000 books/dialogues how the fuck am I supposed to read all that shit
>>8212141
>post on lit
>doesn't want to read
people like you are the reason everything is bad
>>8210093
bonus points for Hobbes, Berkeley, Spinoza
>>8213205
he was a pretty funny boel tbqh
Read pic related. It's the best introduction to Schopy.
>>8215010
I've been interested in that book for awhile, but it's expensive af new. good shit? how much knowledge of German Idealism does Magee assume?
