Find me a better book than this one

I’m not gonna be memed into the meme trilogy so don’t even try

Some of the greatest works of the 20th century are these. It's no meme.

>He thinks the meme trilogy is bad
You got memed hard

Damn, forget what i said i didn’t really meme it anyway

Attached: Zentralbibliothek_Zürich_Das_Kapital_Marx_1867.jpg (997x1681, 774K)

Its unironically shit. I have it already and its pretty bad book

The one that translates it to PRESENTATION
nor REpresentation

hot cop's buns

>all labor is equal, bro
>therefore give me your stuff

This

Attached: 6AEA295D-19F8-4EB9-B320-FFE6C43CC4B1.jpg (357x500, 41K)

I hate translation snobs. In 99% of cases any translation is fine. Just accept that no matter what, you will lose some meaning. Especially when translating from German to English. Unless you're a real Schopenhauer scholar you shouldn't care about translation. And if you are, you should learn German anyway. Any translation that translates Vorstellung as "Representation" is fine.

Schopenhauer was brilliant and his grossly underrated. I'm happy he's getting some recognition as of late. Michel Houellebecq also wrote an interesting essay on him recently. He has a talent, rare among Germans, to write clearly and distinctly. He also has a talent for picking brilliant metaphors to represent his ideas. I've read WWR in Dutch (my native language), English (this translation) and German. I come back to certain essays in volume II regularly. He should be more widely read.

A translation can make a big difference if someone doesn't understand what is going on and they are opting for a literal translation of the material which can come across as abstract. I can't speak to Schope in particular but some translations of Kant are border-line unreadable (Cambridge press in particular).

Kant has a notoriously difficult writing style anyway, even in German. In fact that's true of just about all German idealists, and the German tradition in general. Heidegger and Hegel are probably the worst offenders. I recommend people read secondary works or watch some lectures on Kant before tackling him head-on. This seems to be a taboo on Yea Forums, like you'll lose some internet cool-points if you read secondary literature on a giant, difficult thinker first. Incidentally, Schopenhauer explains Kant better than Kant explains himself.

Changing representation to presentation really is nitpicking though. The general meaning of the word is not lost (unlike Idea). Actually in the translators preface to this book he explains that Vorstellung has no direct translation into English and explains why he chose representation rather than the other words.

Also meant for

>not reading it in french

Attached: 1555362786049.jpg (233x233, 57K)

The key error is in how representation creates a divide between subject and object. When, in Schoppy's thought, the object is only there when it is held in the mind. There was no object before the presentation, one could even say it's the subject that presents the object to themselves. Reality doesn't partition itself.

>Not listening to the audiobook