Arthur told us to read this as the introduction to The World as Will and Representation, and boy was he right. Schopenhauer explains his treatment of Kant's philosophy so succinctly that WWR is really an exposition of what is written here. The strangest thing about Schopenhauer to me when i first approached him was his fixation on causality. You don't find a lot of thinkers so fascinated with the principle of sufficient reason. It is usually taken as a given. But it does form the basis of his wh...

به گمانم بيشتر خوانندگان اين كتاب مسير مشابهي را پيموده اند كه از مقدمه ي "جهان همچون اراده و تصور" مي گذرد، جايي كه شوپنهاور مطالعه ي "ريشه..." را پيش نياز ضروري آغاز اثر عظيم مي داند. همان جا پيش نياز ديگر آشنايي با فلسفه ي كانت بيان مي شود كه بدون شك پيش نياز كمابيش ضروري اثر حاضر نيز هست؛ دستكم بايد تعريف لغتنامه اي بعضي اصطلاحات او مانند پيشيني و پسيني يا گزاره هاي تحليلي و تركيبي را دانست تا بعضي قسمت ها بيش از اندازه نامفهوم نباشند.همان طور كه مترجم فارسي در مقدمه ي كوتاهش اشاره مي كند خو...

Schopenhauer epitomizes the philosophical blowhard. Having an ego is not rare among philosophers. Indeed, it’s quite common, but Schopenhauer takes it to the next level. Hegel was egotistical, but his egotism was largely due to his over appreciation. Schopenhauer’s ego was due to his perceived under appreciation. He hardly misses an opportunity to blast other philosophers while lamenting his own perceived obscurity. Hell hath no fury like a philosopher scorned. This isn’t a bad work. It didn’t

Πάνω από 4.5 αστέρια, κάτω από 5.Κριτική οσονούπω20/03:Παρέλειψα και θα παραλείψω για λίγο ακόμα ν' ανεβάσω μία κριτική ή μάλλον περισσότερο μία σύνοψη γι' αυτό το βιβλίο,. ωστόσο θέλω να σημειώσω ότι δεν έχω σταματήσει να "τσιμπολογώ" απ' αυτό. Νομίζω πως δε μπορώ να το ξεπεράσω κι είναι το δεύτερο βιβλίο του συγγραφέα που μου προκαλεί αυτή την αντίδραση. Δεν είναι πως το ξαναδιαβάζω, περισσότερο θωπεύω σελίδες. Αλλά σήμερα ειδικά διαβάζοντας πάλι για την αφή και την όραση συνειδητοποιώ για μία...

There is probably no better explanation of Transcendental Idealism than Schopenhauer's On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Schopenhauer was an incredibly skilled philosopher, with a cutting wit as sharp as his intellect. He comes across a bit petty when he criticizes Hegel. But if you've ever tried to study Hegel you'll find his frustration with the other philosopher quite understandable.

Schopenhauer finds it necessary to rescue noumena causa from Kant by calibrating our human experience to these four grounds of causation. These four grounds for Schopenhauer arise naturally due to different cuts in reasoning's consistency. Admittedly these grounds are somewhat arbitrary, but he is unable to find much connection between these grounds except for their ability to highlight concepts. In this Schopenhauer is very much a follower of Kant.I, too, do sometimes find Kant to be too airy.

I would exhort any potential reader to first familiarize themselves with Kant's First Critique (or perhaps the Prolegomena) up to at least a superficial level, although ideally a thorough one. After all, Schopenhauer did -- in another work -- say:"Whosoever has not read and understood Kant is but a child."The "Principle of Sufficient Reason" was perhaps best described by Leibniz when he wrote "nihil est sin ratione" (nothing is without reason); everything occurs for a reason, and Schopenhauer se...

I have very rarely read a book that I could feel changing my internal architecture page by page. Many other people have said this, but with Schopenhauer, I feel like I'm seeing my own thoughts and most deeply held convictions elucidated with an order and precision I could never achieve myself. I haven't even cracked "Will and Idea" yet, and already, Schope's notions of perception, thought, eternity, universal personhood, etc. etc. have changed the way I see the world. Schopenhauer walks such a f...

En el prólogo de El mundo como voluntad y representación, Schopenhauer nos indica varios requisitos para leerlo: Haber leído su tesis (este libro), tres libros de Kant (uno de ellos Prolegómenos), y varias cosas más. Me tomé en serio (parte de) su recomendación, y me alegro mucho de haberlo hecho.Este libro fue su tesis doctoral, escrita en 1813 y revisada y completada en 1847. Recoge casi en su totalidad la teoría del conocimiento de El mundo y sus escritos posteriores, y es un trabajo sobresal...

I have read it as a supplement to Kant's first critique. It is not an easy work to understand, there are some random rants against ppl such as Hegel which overdoes it and makes you think deeper about *what* the content of the critique really is.

Zunächst sollte man mal erwähnen, dass, wenn der große Schopenhauer darauf verzichtet hätte, seine Rivalen vom sogenannten "philosophischen Gewerbe" in der hier vorliegenden Ausführlichkeit zu beschimpfen, dieses Buch wohl nur zwei Drittel seiner Seitenzahl ausgefüllt hätte. Während die Tiraden anfangs noch ziemlich unterhaltsam zu lesen sind, drängt sich im weiteren Verlauf immer mehr das Bild eines verbitterten Alten auf, der trotz seines sich ankündigenden Nachruhms nicht verkraften kann, das...

The principle of sufficient reason is one of the great metaphysical controversies that has engaged philosophers from Aristotle to Spinoza. Simply put, the principle states that for everything that exists, there is a sufficient reason for why it exists and not otherwise. Schopenhauer's critical interpretation of the principle identifies the basic condition for both the applications of the principle and knowledge of the phenomenal world in general: the presence of a subject apprehending an object....

I'm not going to give this a rating until I familiarize myself more with Leibniz and Kant's philosophies, and what exactly is Schopenhauer's polemic against Kant's Critique. Some chapters come alive with wild imagery, with no reference points needed. The only reason I read this is because I started to read The World as W&R, and he tells the reader to stop reading unless they're familiar with "On the Principle," so I went and found it online and read it a lot faster than I thought I would, but a

Debo leerlo de nuevo.🤯

Very boring to read for someone who is not interested in epistemology. I got baited into reading it from the intro of his will and representation and he managed to dissuade me from reading that too. There are just too many things that we take for granted now (even if we can't articulate them properly) that were exciting at that age.

Going to the midnight premiere of this dressed as Ground of Being

This is a wonderful work of philosophy. I am not familiar enough with current accounts of causation or objections to Schopenhauer's account to know why he's "wrong" (which I'm sure he is in parts), but this came off to me as a penetrating and perhaps even still relevant account of the different forms of causation. Schopenhauer's brand of idealism elucidated here, and how that idealism relates to the PSR, seems wholly in keeping with the developments of predictive processing theories and contempo...

On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason: 4.5/5As per instruction by Schopenhauer himself in the introduction to his magnum opus, this first essay is one of the pre-requisites suggested to any reader before proceeding with WWV, and rightfully so. Great introduction to his view on metaphysics and his philosophy overall, well worth the read. On the Will in Nature: pending

Schopenhauer, kaleme aldığı bu ilk kitabında, her bir şeyin varlığını ispata dair dört ilkenin olduğunu ifade ediyor. Zaman, mekan ve töz bağlamında, içinde bulunduğumuz dünyadaki her şeyin a priori seviyesine indirgenene değin "niçin" sorusunu sormamızı öğütlerken bu kelimeyi bilimlerin anası addediyor.

Schopenhauer has some neat elaborations on Kant and corrects him on his negligence on the fact of our embodiment. However, this text wasn't the most gripping piece of canon work that I've read, and I've found that reading secondary literature on Schopenhauer is sufficient. Kant has made the primary contributions, and Schopenhauer adds a tiny bit, which can be learned through summaries.

Mi pento di non avere seguito le istruzioni per l’uso, e non avere letto la “Quadruplice” prima del “Mondo”. Un libro che fa venire voglia di riprendere in mano Kant e Hume, e non solo AS. Il rigore analitico è semplicemente stupefacente.

My brain hurts. Phenomenology has never really been my favorite subject, but it is interesting seeing this connection develop here. I am going through all of Schopenhauer's works. He refers to this at the key to his system, but I am much more interested in his ethics and aesthetics work.

من عاشقش شدم

Interesting but somewhat hard to conceptualize, I felt that to truly understand this princple as Schopenhauer means you need to read this then move straight onto the World as Will and Idea

İsteme ve Tasavvur Olarak Dünya'nın anlaşılması için kilit önem taşıyor. Bazı noktalardan, bana göre, bu yapıtın bile ilerisinde.

Extremely clear and well argued positions. Schopenhauer is an instant favourite.

دقت بی‌نظیری که در تشریح و موشکافی مسائل در این کتاب وجود دارد حیرت انگیز است

Two of the three essays contained in the Cambridge Edition are helpful to understanding Schopenhauer’s magnum opus “The World and Will as Representation.” The first essay “On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason” contains an analysis of previous philosophers’ misguided applications of the principle via insightful critiques of Kant, Hume, Berkeley, and Aristotle. The reader will gain a general understanding of Schopenhauer’s epistemology as well as a glimpse of his metaphysical...

Such an important book and Dodo Press must be applauded for re-editing it. However, the proof reading has been abominable. Examples: page 69 and 70, where the Greek text appears in some surrealistic gibberish, obviously translated by a computer into ASCHI language, or whatever computers use. Translations of the Latin and French texts as well as the Ancient Greek would have been a useful addition as well.

has important information about causation