It's not for everyone.

I'm curious of what you think is being summarised in the article. The only thing approaching evaluation is the author's woeful misrepresentation of Fichte's thought, and completely reductive and mischaracterized relation of the Jena intellectuals to Rousseau. Rousseau was a of course a significant influence, but not more than the Greeks, Spinoza, Kant, etc.

Believe it or not, the reality is even spicier than that. When Schopenhauer was applying for a lecturer position at the university, one of requirements was to deliver an oral presentation (if I'm not wrong the subject was his PhD thesis) which would be evaluated in front of a committee. Hegel was one of the three members of the committee and in fact Hegel's vote ended up being decisive for Schopenhauer to be approved. Hegel was pretty much totally indifferent towards Schopenhauer during his tenure as a lecturer, even though Schop quarrelled with a lot of people there.

I must've confused it with another article about Schopenhauer that I had read earlier which goes more in depth about those influences. He even had a bust of Buddha on his writing desk. My mistake then, I was convinced I had read it in this article.

How much do you wonder about it on the scale of 1 to 10? 2 being opening the article and reading about it.

It's not as hard if you can make yourself forget everything you possess of logic, common sense and critical thinking. That's all hindrance. And get one of the two modern Cambridge translations. Pinkard or Inwood, or both.