Our time has come, schoppybros./lit/ is now a full Schopenhauer board. Only today I read a bunch of schoppy threads. Great!
>>24717435Feels good
>>24717435Based
Cringe forgettable "philosopher"
>>24717625This is Schopenhauer's influence just on the surface:>Those who have cited his influence include philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche[26] and Ludwig Wittgenstein,[27] scientists such as Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein,[28] psychoanalysts such as Sigmund Freud[29] and Carl Jung, writers such as Leo Tolstoy,[30] Herman Melville,[31] Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse,[32] Machado de Assis,[33] Jorge Luis Borges, Marcel Proust,[34] and Samuel Beckett[35] as well as composers such as Richard Wagner,[34] Johannes Brahms,[34] Arnold Schoenberg[34][36] and Gustav Mahler.[34]>InfluencedAnjos, Assis, Bahnsen, Beckett, Bergson, Borges, Brahms, Brouwer, Campbell, Einstein[9], Fet, Cioran, Dilthey[10], Freud, Gray[11], Hardy, Hartmann, Hesse, Horkheimer, Huysmans, Jung, Reve, Kraus[12], Ludovici[13], Ligotti, Mahler, Mainländer, Majorana[14], Mann, Maupassant, Michelstaedter, Nietzsche, Proust, Rank, Reve, Rilke, Ryle[15], Santayana, Schlick[16], Shaw, Schoenberg, Schrödinger, Solovyov, Spengler, Tolstoy[17], Vaihinge,r Volkelt, Wagner, Weininger, Wittgenstein, Zapffe, Zola.>New additions James Joyce, Nick Land, Michel Houellebecq, Gilbert Ryle, Simone Weil.
recommend me a book as a first time read
>>24717630>those who have sitedthrow away lines do not an impact make.
>>24717648People who read his work do!
>>24717435Didn't he just rehash what the Indians said?
>>24717677No, he read Upanishads in his 30s after the publication of his magnum opus.
>>24717677no. However, there are overlaps between Schopenhauer and Buddhism including the idea that desire itself is a cause of suffering and the sentiment that it is better not to have been born in the first place.
>>24717106Schop bros need help disputing this. Mostly what this is in reply to, but the post itself contains the problems outlined that I need remedied.Does Schop still solve hume even tangentially, despite moving away from Kant?
>>24717677He rehashed the Indians AND Kant but with better prose than both
>>24717755>>He rehashed the IndiansThis has no basis in reality. See >>24717684
>>24717713He is a typical academic vermin, brainwashed by his careerist professors for his freshman courses so no amount of convincing will convince him.
I love when this happens
>>24717762He directly mentioned the Upanishads in The World as Will, along with other Hindu concepts like the Veil of Maya
>>24717771In first volume? Also he wrote "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" when he was 26 as his university thesis. All of Schopenhauer's basis of his later philosophy is in this work.
we won
>>24717777nta and I don't care about Schopy but quads of truth have decided you're correct
>>24717713Well spoken but he's the exact dogmatist he's describing. Either genuine midwit or witting sophist, just point and laugh.>>24717762>"In India, our religions will never at any time take root; the ancient wisdom of the human race will not be supplanted by the events in Galilee. On the contrary, Indian wisdom flows back to Europe, and will produce a fundamental change in our knowledge and thought"He simply thought ancient indians were closer to the mark than bastardizing jews and their offspring.
>>24717810>He simply thought ancient indians were closer to the mark than bastardizing jews and their offspring.Okay but still he came to those conclusions independently.
>>24717790>>24717435I'm disappointed that pragmaticism hasn't won yet however it is good to see that Schopenhauer's advocates have prevailed over the Hegelians and their ilk.
>>24717777>the Fourfold Rootwhat is it?
>>24717764>>24717810Guys I cant tell who or what youre responding to or criticizing. As an open minded anon who is a fan of Schopenhauer based on reading of his essays, the linked post was my post, trying to wrestle with the criticism of the post I was replying to criticizing Schopenhauer's understanding of Kant (which I dont even think in principle is necessarily ridiculous, but the anon contexualizing and reminding how Kant is a response to Hume and that not incorporating certain tenets of Kant leaves you open to the criticisms Hume posited that Kant was trying to escape from)So what are you guys responding to specifically?
>>24717837>Schopenhauer based on reading of his essays, Read "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" and then his main work until then you haven't read.
>>24717838Im currently reading something else I just browse these threads and this board to learn new concepts through osmosis to develop interest to read in the future in the first place. This was the first Schopenhauer criticism that made sense to me. I just want to know if it can even be addressed or if Schopenhauer even dodges the problem of Hume or if the criticism is apt
>>24717630I'm reading a book on Idealism, and the authors mention that F. H. Bradley's philosophy of the Absolute, despite its name, actually is much closer to Schopenhauer's Will than the other Idealists' Absolutes. I don't know if it's an influence, but it's interesting, nonetheless.
