In what ways is a massive book of philosophy like this beautiful?

Nietzsche is pretty nice, try TSZ first. then id move on to Albert Camus

then maybe Heidegger if you want.

>>9488485
Worst advice possible

OP start with the greeks

>>9488276
heraclitus
parmenides
that book about the pre socratics
plato
aristotle
the bible
plotinus
augustine
avicenna
anselm
averroes
maimonides
aquinas
machiavelli
bacon
hobbes
descartes
spinoza
locke
leibniz
berkeley
voltaire
hume
rousseau
kant
hegel
schopenhauer
emerson
stirner
darwin
kierkegaard
marx
spencer
james
thoreau
nietzsche
frege
freud
saussure
dewey
husserl
whitehead
santayana
russell
jung
buber
heidegger
wittgenstein
carnap
hayek
fromm
gadamer
lacan
heisenberg
popper
adorno
sartre
arendt
goodman
godel
quine
beauvoir
merleau-ponty
levi-strauss
camus
barthes
danto
deleuze
foucault
chomsky
pirsig
baudrillard
derrida
bergmann
bourdieu
rorty
searle
kripke
dennett
singer
zizek

File: 1386760260983.jpg (32KB, 250x250px)

32KB, 250x250px

>>9488485
>try TSZ first

File: IMG_1367.png (94KB, 500x522px)

94KB, 500x522px

>>9488685
Im new to philosophy and TSZ is the first ive read. Am i doing something wrong?

Schopenhauer is great. He is the first philosopher that fucked my shit up. I would recommend him highly. I know he has some stuff on Kant, and Hegel (which is hilarious) in Vol 1. So if you have a lot of free time read Critique of Pure Reason first; otherwise, just jump in and use Wikipedia/whatever when you get lost and you'll be fine.

>>9490391
Could you please tell me what you ´got´ from TSZ? Especially seeing you´re new to philosophy.

>>9488647
this

File: IMG_0018.jpg (81KB, 578x800px)

81KB, 578x800px

>>9488276

If you don't thoroughly understand transcendental idealism, I think you'll miss out on a lot of Schopenhauer's beauty. One of the things I found so enrapturing about Schopenhauer's philosophy is the feeling it gave me of looking upon the universe from a timeless perspective - imagining cycles of growth and decay, birth and predation, insight and obliviousness, without beginning or end - combined with sobering reflections upon death and a dignified rejection of the universe's flawedness.

The full story is more complicated than that, of course - Schopenhauer's account isn't totally dignified, since I think he exaggerates and complains more often than is called for, and his philosophical system probably isn't perfectly consistent - but these are the complexities and intricacies that you can't understand without actually reading all of the details, and following his advice regarding what writings to prepare with. Despite the imperfections, it's very gratifying to see a complex system of concepts coalesce within your mind, understanding how one notion links up with many other notions, like the cells and tissues of a living organism, all operating cooperatively - which is also an aspect of Kant's philosophy that I found so impressive and entertaining.

But Schopenhauer is also capable of glowing rhetorical beauty, as I tried to celebrate once in a thread - without much help: https://warosu.org/lit/thread/8627576

>>9490416
Im not finished yet, but i really love the book. Im reading the Norwegian translation so perhaps its easier too understand.