ooh boy cant wait to read about all this cool pessimistic shit

File: 1483862106898.jpg (193KB, 1023x953px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1023x953px

>fun
>schopie

>>8945589
On Women is the greatest achievement in the history of philosophy. Changed my life. The rest is dogshit

It's the way he writes that is most important to absorb. Even though his philosophy is unique, especially his positions on suicide and antinatalism. He's among the clearest and best philosophical writers.

>>8945596
hes just bastardizing kant philosophy, theres a beauty in kants obscureness that this idiot took away.

>>8945594
TL: I only read On Women
>On Women is the greatest achievement in the history of philosophy.
Retarded af my man.

>>8945611
I don't need to read continental cuckery. Just the stuff where he says women are stupid. Like Nietzsche. Amazing minds on women

>>8945607


He's a clearer thinker and his writing is proof. Kant was wrapped up in over-analysis of fluffy concepts which have no real basis in reality. Schop is all about keeping a sober mind.

>not wanting to read corrections of kant
it's like you don't understand fun. i bet you bitch about end notes too, like a loser

>>8945629
to me he just sounds redundant, kant probably takes as half -and does so better, brings that memorable and very lively imagery - to say what shop would

>>8945642
>redundant
Schop's pretty important (more so in his earlier works) for correcting Kant- most of that is boring because it's point by point but since you're supposed to read Kant before or alongside it, it's not like you're missing out on Kant by reading it. If anything, because of Kant's comments on style re:Hume et al, Schoppy should be commended for that follow through

Schopenhauer was x1000 times the better writer than Kant could ever be. He was a philosopher that could actually write prose.

Schopenhauer is literally rationalism taken to it's logical conclusion, e.g a mode of being indistinguishable from nihilism.

There's a reason Schopenhauer is a footnote in most university philosophy departments, and the only reason people even mention him is his relationship to Nietzsche.

>>8945642
Kant also builds tons of pages on things that are basically mistakes, he's so wrapped up in his over-analysis that he builds on glaring flaws.
Like his idea that math is somehow innate to the mind (rather than a taught definition). Or his needless distinction between analytic and synthetic when you can make due with just a priori and a posteriori (or reverse).

Needlessly complicated, one almost supposes it is intentional to cover up the flaws in his views.