![serveimage[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/EabXw3e.jpg "serveimage[1].jpg")
Which Books by Kant do i have to read until im allowed to read/able to understand "The World as Will and Representation" (as you englishfags apparently call it)?
Would "Critique of Pure Reason" be enough or what? Please bear in mind that i know absolutely nothing about Philosophy.
Anything else i should read beforehand?
P&P>TWAWAR
>>7890506
You could get away with some Plato & a gloss on Kant. Though strictly speaking, a familiarity with both is required.
However, as anon suggests above, his philosophic system is largely of scholarly / historical interest at this point. You're better off just reading the later essays and aphorisms, which don't require background reading. The commonly available abridged editions will be fine.
>>7890567
Thank you, but im going to read "The World as Will and Representation" anyway. What works exactly by Plato and Kant do you recommend to get a reasonable grasp on their respective views?
>>7890506
Kant - Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics
Kant - Critique of Pure Reason
Henry E. Allison - Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense
Christopher Janaway - "Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction"
Paul Guyer - "Schopenhauer, Kant, and the Methods of Philosophy" in The Cambridge Companion to Schopenhauer
>>7890578
Was thinking Plato might provide some basic grounding, as you say you are coming from nowhere.
Symposium would be a fair starting point in this context.
COPR is unlikely to provide the most congenial introduction to reading philosophy.
List above is a thoughtful one.
>>7890685
If you are literally starting from zero, then I suggest warming up with a broad historical survey. I recommend Anthony Kenny's "A New History of Western Philosophy" (OUP, 2012).
It's important to note that the World as Will and Representation is also partially an aesthetic work, for Schopenhauer incorporates art and its appreciation into his metaphysical theories. Therefore, one must really read BOTH the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Judgment. Also the Phenomenlogy of Spirit is necessary. You don't have to read these entire works, just make sure you're acquainted with the big ideas (Kant's Sublime, Kant's transcendental idealism, Hegel's dialectic, Hegel's absolute knowing and how it is achieved, etc) before jumping into TWaWaR.
>>7891889
No, Schopenhauer discarded all of Kant apart from his metaphysics. He explicitly states this in his introduction.
And forget reading Hegel. Schopenhauer didn't even regard him as a real philosopher.
>>7891889
>Also the Phenomenlogy of Spirit is necessary. ... Hegel's dialectic, Hegel's absolute knowing and how it is achieved
Schopenhauer had no use for Hegel...
"If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right." - Arthur Schopenhauer
>Wittgenstein was highly dismissive of Schopenhauer, describing him as an ultimately "shallow" thinker: "Schopenhauer has quite a crude mind... where real depth starts, his comes to an end.
>>7891923
Another of Schopenhauer's anti-Hegel rants:
"Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation."
>>7891923
Absolutely and eternally wrecked.
Philosophy student here, also about to start with Schopenhauers Die Welt
I've read Kants Prolegomena and Groundwork for (...) [Can't remember the english title, it's the one about the kind of ethics that Hegel spergs over], and Hegels Rechtsphilosophie in class.
I think I've heard and learned more about Schoppy from external sources, like commentators coming after, and contemporary secondary literature on him and so on, than I have from class in that time period.
It seems like he's one of the greatest overlooked authors in the recent history of philosophy, and even if you disagree with him, I think it's important to see where Kierke, Nietzsche, Husserl and Wittgenstein (etc) comes from
>>7890506
recall Darwin, read the pre-Socratics, understand Kant's main ideas, peruse the eastern/Indian teachings.
>>7891941
Wittgenstein is shallow. Muh logic. Muh language games. Muh beating children with sticks.
It's philosophy, not rocket science. Schopenhauer writes clearly enough. Just read the work and try your best to enjoy it instead of getting locked into paralysis of analysis. That can come afterward.
>>7890515
first post best post
But seriously, Perpetual Peace has to be the best Kant. And much of it is still very pertinent to modern political rhetoric. It's a must-read
>>7891941
should have remained silent t.b.h.
>>7892310
parerga and paralipomena
>>7890607
>Henry E. Allison - Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense
There is no point in reading this one. Schopenhauers interpretation of Kants transcendental idealism isn't Allison's.
>>7891941
Take this with a large grain of salt. Wittgenstein stole more from Schopenhauer than any other philosopher did after him.
He once said one needs Kant, Platon and the Upanishads. He also said one needs to read stuff at least 3 times.
>>7893030
this made me remember where i heard it. he said: one needs to read the book at least twice, to have read his book on sufficient reason, to have read and understood kants main works and be familiar with Plato and The Upanishads. If one thinks this too heavy, he says, one can simply leave the book aside because it will be more useful to fill a void in the shelf than anything else.
the last two minutes: http://www.college-de-france.fr/site/jacques-bouveresse/seminar-2009-02-11-16h30.htm
