What do I need to read before I can understand this?

The World as Will and Representation

>>9665187
Plato, Kant, and the Upanishads

>>9665187
Plato and Kant, although I read neither and understood it fine.

>>9665192
This plus the Bible between Plato and Kant

>hurrburhurrhurdurr Plato and Kant

just dive in homeboy, you'll be fine rt

>>9665187
Honestly Schopenhauer wrote well enough that he can be understood without anything else. Though a knowledge of Kant is what you need if you want a more in-depth reading, but he has helpful appendices in the book that can help you understand what Kant was saying anyway.

>>9665528
>Honestly Schopenhauer wrote well enough that he can be understood without anything else.
This.

Assuming you have a basic grasp of the fundamentals of philosophy you should be fine. Probably read the plato.stanford page on Kant to be safe.

You should at least be pessimistic. I was naturally drawn to his work because I am very pessimistic.

The Fourfold Root

File: 1498080594773.png (152KB, 319x282px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 319x282px

Barely nothing. Schops was very clear writer.
but it's a book that's wrong about things

like was said by:
>>9665515
>>9665528
>>9665761
>>9665797
you don't really need to read anyone before Schopenhauer to understand him, rather you should read some philosophers who critique him after, my guess is that you'll be able to prefigure many criticisms.

Kant. Not much, just understand his epistemology and other major points and maybe read him yourself a bit to understand Schopenhauer's literary decisions. Nothing you can't get within a day or so.

The question is: aside from /lit/ memes and his misogyny, what makes you want to read Schopenhauer if you haven't read far superior philosophers like Plato and Kant, who, while not necessary, are the two philosophers he exclusively read while forming his own philosophy?