Need

[over0]

Rid yourself of need tbh

become a stoic and shitttt

 

[rovea]

Sum niche cult ? I wanna join

 

[over0]

Sum niche cult ? I wanna join

Read child

 

[rovea]

Read child

It’s all here ————->

 

[thisisretard]

based

 

[thisisretard]

schopenhauer was also based

 

[Spuffy]

just buddhism lol

 

[Schizotypalcel]

schopenhauer was also based

i don't really know about him, what was he known for?

 

[IMPORTANT:]

Not possible

 

[over0]

I'm a cuck, use me!

 

[thisisretard]

i don't really know about him, what was he known for?

he mixed buddhism with kantianism.
buddhism is almost 100% similar to stoicism or cynicism

 

[IMPORTANT:]

r****d

 

[over0]

Degrade me!

 

[Schizotypalcel]

he mixed buddhism with kantianism.
buddhism is almost 100% similar to stoicism or cynicism

What reads should i pick up by him?

 

[IMPORTANT:]

@over0

 

[thisisretard]

What reads should i pick up by him?

idk i think it's better to watch a lecture than read it. also to understand him you need kant, and to understand kant you also need bunch of previous philosophers (empiricists and rationalists)

 

[David🦢]

@over0
View attachment 214877

Ture gymshark athlete

 

[Spuffy]

idk i think it's better to watch a lecture than read it. also to understand him you need kant, and to understand kant you also need bunch of previous philosophers (empiricists and rationalists)

to understand kant you need none of that honestly. no need to make a rabbit hole, as hes one of the best entry level philosophers for people in my opinion

 

[thisisretard]

to understand kant you need none of that honestly. no need to make a rabbit hole, as hes one of the best entry level philosophers for people in my opinion

you need the context to understand him and it was rationalists vs empiricists
kant was delusional btw it's quite easy to debunk his epistemology and ethics, so as metaphysics although he'd say that it's not metaphysics

 

[Spuffy]

you need the context to understand him and it was rationalists vs empiricists
kant was delusional btw it's quite easy to debunk his epistemology and ethics, so as metaphysics although he'd say that it's not metaphysics

i mean technically yeah you need a lot of context to understand his more major works, that is true! to understand kant like you just wanted to know all about him, you would need context.

in the context of just trying to read schopenhauer, you really dont to dive deep into kant all that much. you dont need it to understand his ethics and philosophy, but probably a small amount when you get to metaphysics (and maybe phenomenology?). thats about it.

also i think whats interesting about kant is that people say he was debunked but theres still too many things that rely on his disciplines. if it were easy enough, hed be debunked somewhere in the 240 years that have passed. pretty cool

 

[thisisretard]

i mean technically yeah you need a lot of context to understand his more major works, that is true! to understand kant like you just wanted to know all about him, you would need context.

in the context of just trying to read schopenhauer, you really dont to dive deep into kant all that much. you dont need it to understand his ethics and philosophy, but probably a small amount when you get to metaphysics (and maybe phenomenology?). thats about it.

also i think whats interesting about kant is that people say he was debunked but theres still too many things that rely on his disciplines. if it were easy enough, hed be debunked somewhere in the 240 years that have passed. pretty cool

deontology is giga irrelevant to understand schopenhauer, all you need to understand kant's epistemology and metaphysics because according to schopenhaur people literally suffer because they want to understand something and during this they simply making themselves farer from the will/ding an sich
also yeah he was debunked a while ago by hegel. And he can be debunked another way, if thing-in-itself is not acknowledgeable because we see things through mind then mind is also a thing in itself, so there's no border between phenomenon and noumenon