Thread 24807813

Have you guys actually read this? or do you just know Schop from memes on lit or maybe a couple of essays? It is making a lot of sense. I Just finished book one. He is really laying it all out. He is also pretty funny and curmudgeonly. I am actually understanding what he is writing and am feeling enlightened and a certain feeling of consolation. It is changing the way I see reality. I implore you to read it.

>>24807813 (OP)
>feeling enlightened
Baby's first philosophy book? All this shit is just speculation by mere mortals. I commend you on reading anything at all. But I do suggest you be more charitable toward folx like Hegel whom he disses rather than take Shoppy at face value.

>>24807828
filtered and unenlightened

superfluous book by a superfluous man about superfluity

>>24807813 (OP)
I gave it eighty pages, about ten years ago. He went over perspective, if my memory serves me, subjective and objective, and how neither is sufficient. It bored me to death, but that's philosophy.

It's a field improved by paraphrases, simplification to its essence takes nothing from it. First hand sources are often intellectual masturbation veiled as something while being nothing.

I think Camus is fine, Satre's acceptable. But, it is only interesting to ones pondering life instead of living. Seeing through Stephen Daedalus' nurtures the soul. Reading Kant kills it.

it's my all time fav book. even though I don't necessarily accept every premise.

>>24807842
This is probably why Goethe wanted to do science instead of metaphysics. (Not science as we understand it, he sought to make science an art form.) Goethe was writing essays about phenomenology and dialectics a decade before Hegel even started working on POS without systematizing his thoughts. You cannot point to a single one of Goethe's works and say "this is his main philosophical treatise" like you can with Kant or any other philosopher. You find his ideas through his fiction, memoirs, essays, and his biography

>>24807813 (OP)
For whatever reason, despite this being a much more comprehensible book, I’m getting through it slower than I did with Critique of Pure Reason.
Maybe it gets good after the appendix but the appendix is just his critique of Critique and it’s just boring

>>24807957
I can't imagine that you're good at parties.

Dull, dull.
Your life is in a lull.
You are intellectually full —
But oh, so dull.
Your dull life is in a lull,
Yet intellectually full.
Dull, dull.
Intellectually full.
But so dull.

A poem for you, dear. Free of charge.

>>24807971
Science is science and art is art. Science tries to frame the objective and art the subjective. Philosophy is of a twin humanity, it's neither. We can speak of artistic philosophies or scientific philosophies, of logic and empiricism. But why study the principles? Only a man thinking that he's better than, would waste their time on that.

Philosophy or rather ideas are better served through literature. It may not be as clear, it may leave room for interpretation. But it respects the reader, it doesn't lecture. You let the reader observe and make up their own mind. For science of course there's a need for rigid structure at its foundation.. but eh, that foundation was finalized long ago.

Bro we’re not trolling you, if you understand the tradition he’s coming from he looks like a complete retard. Read Kant (not just the cpr for fuck’s sake), Fichte, Schelling, Hegel.

Be sure to read the second volume, in which Schopenhauer demonstrates the application of the system.

>>24807828
>hegel

>>24808629
Fichte is a moran

>>24808659
That’s a kek. Confirmed kek. Saved

>>24807996
>full
That doesn't actually rhyme, does it?

>>24808678
Based.

>>24808629
They're dogmatic retards