Is Schopenhauer a good starting point for philosophy?

...

No, because once you're done with him you'll kill yourself

The first two essays in Parerga and Paralipomena vol 1 are "History of the Ideal and Real" and "History of Philosophy." The headings of History of Philosophy are:

Pre-Socratic, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Neoplatonists, Francis Bacon, Descartes, Berkley, and Kant

I'd read the essays and look into the philosophy of Transcendental Idealism and Plato.

not really, but this book might be. it's easy, interesting, and it has a great introduction that'll set you on the right path.

yeah because he leads to nietzsche and wittgenstein and both of them will teach you philosophy is a crock of shit

The introduction to that book is really good.

If you don't understand the Empiricism vs Idealism dispute after reading it, there's no hope for you.

The essays here are from Parerga and Paralipomena. The introduction and translation are good, but the selection doesn't really represent his philosophy. In fact, I'd say this book is responsible for much of the misunderstanding of his work, especially the misleading label "pessimist." Again, great essays, but the selection makes it seem like Schopenhauer was nothing more than a sad Underground Man

T H E
G R E E K S

no

I generally agree with that, but I still think it might be a good way to get your foot in the door. OP can always swing back around and read more Schop later.

Yeah, but who the fuck's gonna read The World as Will and Representation nowadays?

I managed to find both volumes on Amazon, but still haven't started because Schopenhauer told me to fuck off and read Kant/On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason/Plato/Upanishads in the introduction.

I've read all two-thousand or so pages of his collected work, but never read Kant. Schopenhauer does a great job of distinguishing his importance and flaws. For me, the books that were rewarding to read along Schopenhauer include

-Plato dialogues and Republic
-Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita (Signet Classics translation for sure)
-Meister Eckhart
-Buddhism (Lankavatara Sutra, In the Buddha's Words, Lotus Sutra, Prajnaparamita, Shantideva, "Buddhist Scriptures" edited by Conze)

Oh and about the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The fucking Principle of Sufficient Reason. He employs it in his philosophy constantly. The translator introduction sums it up pretty well, bookmark that page!! Better still, write your own understanding of the Principle.

I would add to your list the complete works of Leopardi, since Schop took the whole pessimism thing from him

"Leopardi and Schopenhauer are one thing. At almost the same time the one created the metaphysical and the other pain poetry. Leopardi "saw" the world, did not know "why." This is why he found Schopenhauer with the discovery of Will."

Awesome, I'll look into this, thanks.

Here is the deal with old Schopenhauer; You read him when you are already in a deeply pessimistic mood; that way his observations seem almost comedic and somewhat pleasant. Maybe it's just the honesty which is refreshing.

You're welcome

Yes, it will make you realise that philosophy was done not by geniuses, but by bored, angry old fucks who had to fill their empty days by writing edgy nonsense.

>angry old fucks

Schopenhauer wrote his masterwork when he was 30

Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philodophy is a great starting point. True, Schopenhauer loathed him for his obscurity (read success), but, like the lectures on art and religion, the volume is compiled from notes students took while attending his classes-- amazingly, Hegel was a remarkably clear expositor. The difference between these lectures and, say, the mammoth Science of Logic is comparable to the difference between the Joyce of Dubliners to the Joyce of Wake. An added bonus is that a full two-thirds of the book concerns yes, the Greeks. FWIW.

For German philosophers is kinda true, but not for many others

>ehhh-- x Philosophy, rather.

descartes is better for the beginning

Is not.
Nietzsche actually rejected him and his nihilism and was not glad that he read him because he forever changed his view of the world for worse or something like that.

which part of "start with the greeks" don't you understand?

>or something like that

read a book

You, are one retarded user

This is Veeky Forums, we post exclusively about books and authors we haven't read.

Schopenhauer is not nihilistic, you dipshit. Nietzsche's "rejection" of Schopenhauer forms the whole of his philosophy (his last book, Antichrist, is a reference to a paragraph from Schopenhauer).

No, because he is building on the ideas of philosophers who were building on the ideas of philosophers who were building on the...you get the idea.

Start with the Bible and the Greeks.

Schopenhauer fanboys on suicide watch.

Is this a good way to get into Philosophy

Plato> Stoics > Kant> Schopenhauer >Nietzsche> Jung >Contemporaries

What about Wittgenstein though.

are you being serious. I honestly can't tell.

(moral) pessimism is incompatible with (moral) nihilism
Nietzsche was reacting to nihilism as a general cultural trend

>Jung
don't try to slip him in there
GET OUT

Actual best road to philosophy:
Greeks > Western Canon > Thinking for yourself

Yes I was being serious. Go ahead, chastise me.

Same happened to me. I got roasted for being a LARPER.

here's your chastisement: stop listening to blockheads on Veeky Forums

(Pre-Socratics -->) Plato --> Aristotle --> Descartes --> (Leibniz --> Spinoza -->) (Locke --> Berkley -->) Hume --> Kant

you'll be able to read freely after that. the dudes in parentheses are optional (in the sense that you'll probably be able to understand later guys w/o them,) but highly recommended (bc they're brilliant af.) supplement freely with secondary literature and lectures (there's lots of good stuff on YouTube.)

It isn't a bad way.

Here's how I'm doing it.

Presocratics>Plato>Aristotle>Augustine>Aquinas>Spinoza>Descartes>Kant>Hegel>Kierkegaard>Schopenhauer>Nietzsche (insert Jung and Freud somewhere around here)>Russell>Wittgenstein>Heidegger>Sartre>Beauvoir (inb4:she sucks)>Camus

I need more.

I'm still on Aristotle right now though. I'll be on Augustine soon.

What I'd really like to do is work in relevant portions of the canon, and flip-flop back-and-forth between literature, poetry, and philosophy within their respective historical contexts. That would be bauss.

Get rid of Nietzsche and Jung. Stoics aren't essential unless they're of personal interest. Add Hegel. Maybe Marx as well.

does this book have On Women

t. gril

yes edgelord

So it's a Yes then. (It's a joke, obviously, don't kill yourself, OP, unless you really want to)

>reading Sartre and Beauvoir without Marx
Why?

there's nothing edgy about describing nature of things, like nature of women for example

(‿)

>There are people on this board RIGHT NOW who read English translations of German philosophy
>These same people think they ""understood"" German philosophy

No. It honestly doesn't matter if you don't start with the Greeks, but if you want to start with modern thought, read Kant, then Hegel. Phenomenology of Spirit is basically incomprehensible without some sort of interpretation though so getting a Hegel reader or some secondary lit isn't that embarrassing.

From there, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Kierkegaard are all relatively natural next steps.

And don't trust anyone on this board that calls dissuades you from reading Marx because of the cultural Marxism stuff. Fundamentally, Marx's insight is that society has two levels: base and superstructure, and that pretty much all of the important things happen on the level of economy. Pretty much anyone with half a brain will agree with this, and worthwhile conservative thinkers have also taken this claim very seriously.

I've read Marx. Also, I'm less interested in Marx.

Hahaha, get rid of Nietzsche and Jung! What a pleb!

>pretty much all of the important things happen on the level of economy

I can't believe I need point out how incoherent this idea is. How can you recommend Freud and the existentialists under that proposition?

Literally where do I start reading philosophy, lads?
Do I start reading author biographies?
Wiki pages?
Just picking a random greek book?
Watching John Green crash course videos on YouTube?

This is literally the best starting point for philosophy, it's even better than starting with the greeks (but you'll have to read them eventually).

this

The existentialists (Sartre, Camus, Beauvoir etc) were Marxists though.

Figure out what questions you have about life and read about them.

I have, it's great. Read th fourfold root too

>reading Kant to start with

Are you a retard?

They thought they were. Sartre was more influenced by Heidegger and Nietzsche than anyone (and Heidergger was Nietzschean).

Are you? He created German idealism and most of continental thought has just been footnotes to the period.

Why are you afraid of reading texts that disagree with each other? Surface and depth is a very useful distinction, and yes, Freud deploys it in a different way from Marx, but the intersections of Marx and Freud have been the most productive in modern theory. Instead of being astounded at the stupidity of my post, perhaps you can explain why you find this to be an incoherent idea?

I had no problems learning Kant after the Greeks.

But I guess Descartes, Rousseau, Copernicus Darwin should be a great start...

Fair, but most of French existentialism is just reinterpretation of Heidegger, who was decidedly not a Marxist.

No shit, but he isn't an intro philosopher - most people won't even be able to understand him. Fucking goon.

>to start with

You seem to have had trouble reading my post though. Wew, lad.

No really, I learned Kant before all the ones I pointed out.

News flash: philosophy is difficult. When someone wants an introduction to the field, they should start somewhere worthwhile. Otherwise everyone should just post 8 bit philosophy videos.

And for the record, Kant is dense, but once you understand the system, he's not obscure. His rigorous logic is actually rather refreshing after reading a lot more obscure theory sometimes.

Just because you need to dumb down your reading doesn't mean everyone else does.

Most would say Descartes or Plato. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would recommend starting with Schop but do whatever you want. Don't get too caught up reading the entire western canon before reading what you're interested in.

t. guy who majored in philosophy

true.

This is what I mean. Do I just pick the most famous book from each of those and just roll with it?
How the fuck do I start?

Yeah, why not? There are also lots of universities that have online lectures. I'm sure you could find some intro the political philosophy/ literary theory/ intellectual history courses from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Berkeley in 5 seconds of googling.

And how do you fill your days that is so infinitely fulfilling? Working your job, coming home, and jerking off?

here's the list Russell gives at the end of "The Problems of Philosophy." so basically yes, but it might help to do a little online reading for each philosopher too. it's not hard to figure out in some cases (for Descartes you're going to read the Meditations, not The World,) in others you might have to dig a little deeper (e.g. Plato.)

is right too, look up syllabai if you really want to be sure you're on the straight and narrow.

news flash: if you are american, philosophy is difficult

if you are european, then it is just common sense

this is the ghost of Hilary Putnam. heard you was talkin' that shit.

Still worth reading.

Honestly imo anyone who doesn't put Marx in a list of "must read" philosophers is a dishonest hack. It's impossible to deny the impact he has had on philosophy.

True

skipping Hume is disrespectful to the discipline

Thanks lads

I don't know why, but it's a bit weird to go in so head on and delve into such a deep subject
Exciting, though

>stop listening to blockheads on Veeky Forums

But you are a blockhead on Veeky Forums, what do I do now?

Yea, I just forgot to put him on the list. I intend to read old-Humey-old-boy.

He had more impact on politics than philosophy, nub.

(And his work is really not that interesting.)

Dumb down? Damn you're an idiot.

YOURE THE ONE TELLING HIM TO SKIP MOST OF PHILOSOPHIC THOUGHT YOU TWAT!

Newsflash: YOU'RE A RETARD.

Having more of an impact on one thing =/= not having an impact on something else.

>(And his work is really not that interesting.)
pleb

I'm implying his impact on philosophy is negligible. Learn to read between the lines, dumbass.

>implying it is
pseud

Is it wrong to say Schoppy wanted some peace?

True, I can't understand being depressed after reading him. He doesn't even advocate suicide, he just understands it.

I'll be honest user. Looks like you're talking bs and just listing some random big name philosophers. There's no real focus.

>I need more.
Need less imo. Better to focus your efforts and get a full understanding of a few.

For what its worth here is what I hope to be done with in the next few years. I can't guarantee I'll do it but its the goal.

presocratics>some Plato>some Aristotle>the german idealists (Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer and maybe a few of their contemporaries)>Marx>Zizek

I've already some works by a few of them, Marx, Zizek and Hegel. Zizek obviously doesn't compare to any of the big names on the list but my primary interest is German idealism and he's a noteworthy (not necessarily good) thinker who touches on that tradition.

Nietzsche wrote an essay about his respect for him. Schopenhauer influenced him but like a good student, he doesn't wish to stay in his teacher's shadow.

>I'm implying his impact on philosophy is negligible.
And you would be wrong seeing almost all major philosophers after him were either from the marxist tradition or reacting against it. It cannot be avoided that his work represents a paradigm shift in modern philosophy.

>politics
>history
>philosophy
>economics
>not interesting
maybe this isn't the board for you user.

If your point is valid, why do you have to resort to all caps?

The guy asked for an introduction to philosophy. You admitted that you found Kant to be too difficult for an introduction. I really don't see the problem here.

Reminder that philosophy is incredibly difficult to self-study correctly. You can only learn the works and methodology of philosophers thoroughly and correctly with a teacher, or in an academic setting, or if you are an incredibly hard worker. Philosophy needs to be understood in a historical context, has to be analyzed very methodically, to show not only the meaning, but also the faults and/or merits of the argument at hand, the historical significance, the implications, and much more. Reading philosophical texts will most likely take a long time and lead to major misunderstandings. Even with secondary sources, the amount of time you put into "learning" a philosopher will not nearly be worth the most likely faulty and shallow understanding that you get out of it. That said, there are some philosophers that can be read easily, and Schopenhauer is one of them. I would say self-teaching philosophy to the point of a deep understanding of it is much more difficult than Veeky Forums thinks it is. Simply reading and pretending to understand it does not actually teach you much.

great philosophers have misread one another and first rate professional philosophers misunderstand things too. so hush tf up. your only point is that it's possible to get shit wrong, which everybody already knows.

Thanks for proving my point even further. Because even professional philosophers get things wrong, it is only natural to assume that truly understanding philosophy requires a lot more work than the laymen can usually do by himself. And no, my point wasn't "people get things wrong." It seems like you're not very good at reading. Maybe you should quit philosophy.

Sam Hyde-core

that's a cute routine you have there, warning people about how inscrutable philosophy is and patting yourself on the back for knowing better. you're obvs a lost cause, but don't shit on other people's aspirations.

This argument could be made about any discipline. I really don't see the point of this post other than to discourage. is right. Obvious point is quite obvious.

Okay, sure thing, buddy. Why don't you go back to misunderstanding Kant and Hegel and pretending to get something out of them while your eyes glaze over every paragraph? I'd just like to remind you that every single great philosopher in history had a teacher. You are not better then them, and your idiotic arrogance in believing that you can obtain a correct and deep understanding of philosophy without any help whatsoever is pretty laughable. I don't think I'm better than anyone (except for you), but just that philosophy is not a self-taught field.