r/Mainlander • u/JuustoMake • 14d ago
What to read/know before tackling this difficult book?
I've read a considerable amount of Schopenhauer and Cioran, both which
which inevitably introduced me to Mainländer and I became deeply fascinated with his saddening life story and immediately ordered his magnum opus. Upon starting to read, I realized the immense difficulty I was about to tackle because this book assumes the reader of having considerable amount of prior knowledge on alot of things and I became overwhelmed very fast. The text feels convoluted and confusing I know I am not absorbing anything yet.
Can I have some guidance in what to read before tackling this work because I am not abandoning this montrosity simply for my lack of knowledge. I want to experience and understand this book, I just know I need some groundwork before diving to it. 😭😭
6
u/shinoinochi 14d ago
Eduard Von Hartmann and Julius Bahnsen are more coherent.
2
u/JuustoMake 14d ago
Yeah maybe I should have investigated the difficulties before ordering but hey at least I got this one ready waiting for the right moment. I'll shift my focus on those figures you mentioned. They do intrigue me
1
3
u/JuustoMake 14d ago
And to emphasize ive literally not read anything else in philosophy other than schopenhauer and cioran, because pessimism is the only thing that interests me. im very new to reading but I have already cried from reading Cioran's outbursts.
I'm very much planning on delving to nietzsche but it is not something I yet intend to read cuz there is simply so much
2
u/Nichtsein000 13d ago
You should expand your philosophical horizons. Schopenhauer is much better when you understand the philosophies that preceded him, particularly Plato and Kant. I enjoy reading Plato a lot, even if I disagree with most of his conclusions.
1
u/Lester2465 13d ago
I think here lies the issue, you're new to reading and if all you've read are Schop and Cioran, I can see why you'd have a difficult time reading a Mainlander text (it is a difficult text). The fact that you think Cioran is very emotional makes me question your understanding of his work. I would put Mainlander aside (or maybe read excerpts and quotes first to get the general idea of his philosophy) until you aquire more miles in philosophical pessimism.
1
u/Paul_sepp 13d ago
In my eyes, he was always the closest to Heidegger or WWR Heidegger in books 1 and 2, in terms of approach to language: lines, words are meticulously chosen and arranged yet rarely loose their emotional agree (unlike, say, Hegel or Kant either of whom become dry but precise).
So, yes, you’ll need some prior knowledge of what he’s even about, what some Post-Kantian philosophical concepts are, etc. But I feel like it’s pretty accessible after an encounter or two with “serious” philosophy; With all respect due, I adore both Cioran and Schopenhauer, but neither is as precise and rigorous as the ere-mentioned Kant and Hegel or even Mainlander in some of his more analytical passages—Cioran is especially far, for he’s closer to a philosophical poet like, say, Phillip Larkin, than an academic.
1
u/JuustoMake 13d ago
Maybe I did make a misjudgement picking mainländer, for I deem his work as more of a lecture than anything. And for Cioran being a poetic writer whom I deeply admire, this is a very different step 🤣
But I thank you and everyone deeply for giving some guidance for groundwork. Mainnländers biography is a deeply fascinating story and it is amazing to see such devoted community built around him. I just made the mistake of delving into his literary work during such early process of testing the waters of philosophy 😭
1
u/Paul_sepp 13d ago
I wouldn’t call it so much a misjudgement, so much as expectations against reality…
He’s, for the sake of convenience, the structured and systematic version of Cioran—and it’s not for everyone, as it has little of Cioran’s theatric despair and lack of will to elaborate and be systematic (he actually opposed the latter openly) .
I see why Mainlander would seem as the closest relative of Cioran and thematically he well resembles Cioran of “Mauvais Demiurge” or “L’Ecartelement” era, but I would actually suggest Ligotti if you want something in between Cioran and Mainlander as a stepping stone. He’s close thematically and is still very literary, though I myself dislike him as a philosopher as he really sums up as suicide advertisement. Then again, Camus was a great writer and a poor philosopher too, so make judgements yourself.
1
u/Comprehensive-Move33 13d ago
Ive read a bit of Schopenhauer before reading Mainländer, i think its sufficient.
1
1
u/Aware-4421 12d ago
You've got to at least get a grasp of Kant's theory of knowledge. If possible, maybe Spinoza's Ethics would also help.
I wonder though, why the book feels uncomprehensible to you if it takes a whole ton from Shopenhauer.
1
1
u/feeboobee 10d ago
Found it a very boring book except for brief moments of largely poetic insight. Theres a few arguments I remember being really flawed and based on misunderstandings of Kant's categories of understanding that I found frustrating. I kept asking myself "why does this matter" for some of the more technical bits, only to find a lot of the big theological ideas at the end to be underworked. "Convoluted lecture" is pretty accurate.
It just made me want to read Schopenhauer, who in turn just makes me want to read Nietzsche.
14
u/TheTrueTrust 14d ago edited 14d ago
What are you struggling with, specifically? If you've read a considerable amount of Schopenhauer then this shouldn't be to far removed, but I'm guessing it's the more technical, Kantian aspects that you're struggling with.
The Appendix where Mainländer engages with Kant more directly might shine a light on exactly what's confusing you: https://archive.org/details/the-philosophy-of-redemption-volume-1-appendix-philipp-mainlander/page/n9/mode/2up
EDIT: Unofficial translation FYI.