Schopenhauer

Plus he got recognized like 10-15 years before his death. I would be pretty pissed of as well. That's also why he hated academics.

His ONE major work, perhaps??

He started a large anti Hegelian movement. Kierkegaard (the first existentialist and a strong anti Hegelian) cited Schopenhauer as his only influence. The entire existentialist movement was very anti Hegelian (and still is). Hegel went on to get BTFO by a bunch of the coming existentialist's, and in his own way Schopenhauer started the existentialist train of thought.

>Wisdom of Life
what about the world as will and representation

Wisdom of Life probably.

go on

can you consider Schopenhauer an existentialist?

Thank you. I've learned something new today.

I don't understand him. He was born in a rich family, he could've lived a nice and peaceful life.

On Women, his best work.

>he could've lived a nice and peaceful life.
Will doesn't work like that

No, Schopenhauer was a highly original thinker, but not an existentialist. Schopenhauer cited no philosophical influences, then Kierkegaard cited Schopenhauer as his only influence. I think Schopenhauer was almost an existentialist, he was very close to hitting the idea's Kierkegaard came up with but wasn't quite there. Metaphorically, Schopenhauer was the spark and Kierkegaard was the flame.

poodles

Doesn't he cite Plato and Kant as major influences to his thought?

>Schopenhauer was the spark and Kierkegaard was the flame
really nicely put, thanks user

Does someone need a good understanding of the philosophy before him to read him?

He says so himself. Plato, Hume, Kant, Upanishads

OK thanks

start with kant

wtf of course he's an existentialist. Book II of WWR is ontology...

Fourfold root then wwr

I'd read WWR vol I and II, and while reading tackle Plato, Kant, and Indian philosophy. There are really valuable resources online for Plato and Kant. For Indian philosophy read the Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita in the Signet Classics translations. Almost all Buddhist literature is worth reading as a companion to Schopenhauer, he read a wide range of texts from the different schools; a little from the Pali canon, lots of Mahayana mythology.

upvote me!

Read his preface to The World as Will and Idea. he says everything you need to do so you can begin with his philosophy.

>Kierkegaard cited Schopenhauer as his only influence

Now I know you're talking out your ass. Kierkegaard was very forward about being indebted to Hegel.

Take the time to read 'the world as will and representation'. You can skim for a long time while he is talking the german idealism crap and paying lip service to the kant & hegel mad men who essentially functioned as his bosses at the time. If you have wasted enough time reading kant & hegel that you know what he is talking about, good for you. Otherwise just try and get a vague idea. Around book 2 he will start talking about pain and suffering and from there on out he is telling it like it is. Everything beyond that point is the most penetrating and concrete insight into the nature of consciousness that we have

Kierkegaard read Schopenhauer in the end of his life. He first reads him in 1853 though he must have known him from before but only by name since he is briefly mentioned by Poul Martin Moller in his essay on immortality in 1837. Kierkegaard admired Moller a lot and dedicated his work on anxiety to him. But Kierkegaard was n e v e r influenced by Schopenhauer. He only complains about not having read him before.

This was his own fault as he insisted on his lectures being at the same time as Hegels. They only met once as far ad I know. Hegel attended the trial lecture of Schopenhauer as he at that time was headmaster of the university of Berlin. He only spoke once, criticizing something about Schopenhauer's concept of causulality in nature. Schopenhauer refuted him and was supported by the head of the faculty of medicine.

What is Kant's definition of enlightenment?

Nobody on this board actually knows Schopenhauer or they'd recommend the Fourfold Root

Could you elaborate on your last point

I think I understand the very basics of his reasoning but what is it that brings him to conclude that the Will is more real than the representation (or at least that's what I feel is implied when I read about him)

Not him, but the Will is monistic which means that it is everything. It wills itself and nothing else, but it is also blind. But it wills everything, and the representations is only the Will in a different form.

On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason first. It's the key to his philosophy.

Then Essays and Aphorisms. It's his distilled thought. Reading the World as Will and Representation doesn't provide much further insight, though it is entertaining.

As a philosopher, Schopenhauer is honestly not the greatest. His entire metaphysical thought is based on a catastrophic misreading of Kant.

>No, Schopenhauer was a highly original thinker

Nah. It's basically just a mash-up of Plato, misread Kant, Schelling and Hinduism.

But I thought schoppy said the Will was blind and devoid of meaning
Why does it will what it wills, is it random?

On the Will in Nature. If you like it then the rest in chronological order.

Yep. btw I think the user you reply to is wrong, Schoppy is a Panentheist, not a Monist nor a Pantheist.

But that would make the will divine, which isn't the case at all, since Schopenhauer doesn't operate with a conception of an absolute or god.

Still curious, where exactly does my consciousness fit into the Will, and what happens after death

Everything is you as far as you are the will, but everything is the will. Your consciousness is also the will, as the will wants to expirience ever more and therefore seperates everything it can, which is possible through you. After death you are 'reborn' as the will which you are, is eternal. Therefore suicide is stupid as far it doesn't solve anything.

He tells you everything you need in the forewords (All three of them) of "The world as will and representation"

So therefore there's no such thing as a real individual, correct? My consciousness is the product of the Will like everyone else's, but does that mean consciousness is limited only to humans or do animals (or even objects) experience similar things?

These questions might sound stupid but I find this very difficult to get my head around (although it is fascinating)

Oh man, real is a property of the Will, but no, the individuel is only as far as it is a representation of the will itself. And when you say everyone else, it is actually only you projected, which in the end is the will. "Die Welt ist m e i n e Vorstellung" The world is my representation, which means that everyone else only is as far as you are. In this way we can call the philosophy of Schopenhauer Solipsism.
And consciousness is limited to humans as we are the only product of the Will which have reason - this also means that our suffering is even greater.

Would you say that The World as a Will and Representation is accessible or does it require heavy studying of other concepts beforehand (such as platonism which I assume is important to this)

What do those words matter? Fuck them.

"On Women" will help you truly understand roasties. Changed my life.

It is quite accessible even without any deep knowledge of platonic and Kantian philosophy. I read it before having acquired any significant understanding of neither Plato nor Kant and understood it well enough. He writes clear and is easy to follow, especially when compared to Hegel, shelling or even Fichte. I would say go for it, even though I think that the English translation doesn't do justice to his eminent German prose some of the key concepts like Vorstellung and Erfahrung is a bit harder to grasp in the English language.

This. He considered him a genius but disagreed with him on almost every single conclusion.

>he was rich what did he have to complain about lmao
Simpleton, being elevated above the problem is not significant reason to ignore it or worse, pretend it doesn't exist. This is as bad as gated-community democrats and celebrity establishment mouthpieces "pontificating" about, "Since when was America not great?"

he was also against Descartes as fuck becouse he loved animals and Rene was cutting their bodies

and wagner

"On Women"

he considered doubting Descartes the "father of modern philosophy"

he despised Hegel, yes, but imo the other moderns received justified and accurate refutations

The Gay Science

That's awfully Spinozian. Just replace the Will with the Substance

>suicide is stupid as far it doesn't solve anything.
I don't think suicidal people are looking for a solution to anthing inasmuch as an end to whatever is grieving them

Where do I log in?

Yes yes, but as far as Schopenhauer is concerned this would not put an end to the misery and suffering, only confirm it, and it wouldn't end with your death as you are actually eternal. Everything comes back again.

You begin on women then since you're no longer a loser after getting laid you have no need to read this bitter virgin

Why? A substance is not a will. As I said before Schopenhauer don't have any concept of an absolute or of a god.

Know your Plato, then your Kant, then start with "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung".

He wrote the World as Will and Representation in his mid '20s. He warned his old grump fame in his late pamphlets, which were mostly polemics he was writing for money.

He lived a peaceful life. He spent all of his time reading, playing the flute, hanging out with his puddles, going to the opera, eating tasty food and conversating with friends. That's pretty much all he did until he died.

Don't begin.

>A substance is not a will
That's why I said "replace"
>Schopenhauer don't have any concept of an absolute or of a god.
I know. I didn't mean to say that he's Spinozian because believes in one true God. Really, are you misinterpreting this on purpose?

No I'm trying to understand what your point is. If you replace the Will with a spinozian substance you get something meaningfull or purposefull, but the Will is the opposite of that, it is blind and without any meaning. So I don't get what you're hinting at?