Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 1368. page

File: Dazai_Osamu.jpg (19KB, 220x331px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 220x331px

Redpill me on jap literature

File: dictionary-pseudo-intellectual[1].png (26KB, 406x134px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 406x134px

Hi /lit/, help a Norwegian brother out

My friend is a pseudo-intellectual. He follows some entry-level courses on philosophy and sociology and name drops a lot of writers and concepts without actually understanding what he is saying.

Of course you also encounter these kind of people, those who are more interested in appearing intellectual than actually being an intellectual. Putting yourself on 'interested' on Facebook for public lectures about interesting subjects but never actually going. Paraphrasing arguments from online articles and then acting like they're your own. You know it. Maybe you're even one of them (I hope not).

Anyway, my question is: HOW DO I DEAL WITH THESE KIND OF PEOPLE. This guy annoys me to death, much to the point I don't see him as my friend anymore. When I call him out on his bullshit he gets really salty and his ego is obviously injured (he loves himself so much). But when I try to have a serious conversation with this guy he just gives me an incoherent and superficial monologue about stuff that wasn't even relevant to the conversation but he just wants to say to appear smart. When I try to counter his thin non-arguments he feels really attacked and defends himself till the end by subtly shifting his argumentation until his view point is completely changed and not relevant to the argument anymore ("No... I meant... You did not understand me"). This guy literally has TWO books on book shelf outside manga and study books, which are: The Metamorphosis and Dead Souls (of course he constantly quotes these books to appear well-read).

Example of conversation between me and him

"What do you think about Scotland wanting to seperate from the UK? I think the fact is that..."
"There are no facts bro, just like Nietzsche says, there are only interpretations"
"But that is not what Nietzsche..."
"Haven't you read Derrida? You see in our post-truth world [incoherent monologue where he name drops some more French philosophers he never read and only heard in passing in Philosophy 101]... And that is why Foucault says that even when we walk on the sidewalk we're under the power of the state!"

I'm asking you (providing you're not one of them) how to handle with these people, because it's driving me fucking crazy. They do not have the ability to listen and do not have the self-reflection to see what they're doing is just acting smart instead of actually engaging with the subject. I especially rage when other friends say "Wow that guy sure knows what he is talking about, he improved a lot in intelligence!" The worst thing is that pseuds like this sometimes get really far in life, look at all the Youtube personalities talking about philosophy and politics without actually saying anything. So, should I try to make him see his vain life, or should I just walk away because people like this are unsavable?

Also, share similar pseud stories like this, green text or not.

Peace.

File: 2017-04-07-141933_721x202_scrot.png (40KB, 721x202px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 721x202px

What are some metaphors that could feed an entire narrative if taken literally?

For example, "the world is a stage" can develop in a story where the world is actually a stage and the main character is unaware (e.g. The Truman Show)

What are some other metaphors that are not as obvious/overdone if taken literally?

>pic unrelated found it in the archive while searching for poetry stuff and i liked it (and it's not me samefagging)

File: c6926c0b78bb68515d350777df5fe6a6.jpg (47KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 540x540px

What should I read before WWIII starts and we all die?

File: Sigmund_Freud_LIFE.jpg (876KB, 1066x1500px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 1066x1500px

is it me, or freud doesn't get the respect he deserves on here?

File: Morrissey.jpg (1005KB, 985x1624px) Image search: [Google]

1005KB, 985x1624px

If you must write prose/poems the words you use should be your own, don't plagiarise or take on loan.

File: images.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

Doesn't have to be your best piece, just some fun little thing you wrote today

File: qualia.jpg (872KB, 1733x1936px) Image search: [Google]

872KB, 1733x1936px

Using Dennett's definition of qualia, how is it possible for us to not have a soul?

>A non-conscious being, that does not possess "qualia", is incapable of properly feeling anything, but only articulate a response to that input of information. For example, a being who has qualia, when burned by touching a boiling object, feels that pain and rapidly pushes his hand away, exclaiming pain. But one who does not, when touching the same boiling object, pushes his hand away and exclaims pain, without having properly felt it. Therefore, what is the essential difference between both? The perspective. It will never be possible to literally put yourself in the place of other, experiencing everything like he does, coming to the conclusion that it is impossible to prove the existence of qualia in any being exterior to the observer. The ones incapable of feeling, but only showing an adequate response, are in philosophy called "philosophical zombies". A being devoid of qualia is essentially this: input, processing and output of information. The input of information is the heightened temperature of the object touching the hand, the processing are the chemical processes done in the brain, and the output is the result of said processes in the form of action.

>An human being (as scientifically defined) can the completely abridged to this: input, processing, and output of information. Science tells us that the "qualia" is a sensation created by our own brains to exteriorize us from the ambient, and that is verified by an observer about itself. However, if that is the case, qualia itself, as defined by Dennett, cannot possibly exist. According to neuroscience, qualia is only part of the processing of the brain, that is, it is only an aid for th articulation of responses to the input.

File: 185047e4fe0d39558123a93615807f0e.jpg (17KB, 552x305px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 552x305px

>The case against burning wood is every bit as clear as the case against smoking cigarettes. Indeed, it is even clearer, because when you light a fire, you needlessly poison the air that everyone around you for miles must breathe. Even if you reject every intrusion of the “nanny state,” you should agree that the recreational burning of wood is unethical and should be illegal, especially in urban areas. By lighting a fire, you are creating pollution that you cannot dispose. It might be the clearest day of the year, but burn a sufficient quantity of wood and the air in the vicinity of your home will resemble a bad day in Beijing. Your neighbors should not have to pay the cost of this archaic behavior of yours. And there is no way they can transfer this cost to you in a way that would preserve their interests. Therefore, even libertarians should be willing to pass a law prohibiting the recreational burning of wood in favor of cleaner alternatives (like gas).

>I have discovered that when I make this case, even to highly intelligent and health-conscious men and women, a psychological truth quickly becomes as visible as a pair of clenched fists: They do not want to believe any of it. Most people I meet want to live in a world in which wood smoke is harmless. Indeed, they seem committed to living in such a world, regardless of the facts. To try to convince them that burning wood is harmful—and has always been so—is somehow offensive. The ritual of burning wood is simply too comforting and too familiar to be reconsidered, its consolation so ancient and ubiquitous that it has to be benign. The alternative—burning gas over fake logs—seems a sacrilege.

>Of course, if you are anything like my friends, you will refuse to believe this. And that should give you some sense of what we are up against whenever we confront religion.

what did he mean by this?

File: Midnight_at_the_Well_of_Souls_COVERART.jpg (497KB, 1200x1957px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1200x1957px

Bat Knees Bend the Other Direction REEEEE edition

Fantasy
Selected:
>https://i.imgur.com/r688cPe.jpg
General:
>https://i.imgur.com/igBYngL.jpg
Flowchart:
>https://i.imgur.com/uykqKJn.jpg

Science Fiction
Selected:
>https://i.imgur.com/A96mTQX.jpg
>https://i.imgur.com/IBs9KE8.jpg
General:
>https://i.imgur.com/r55ODlL.jpg
>https://i.imgur.com/gNTrDmc.jpg

NPR's Top 100 Science Fiction & Fantasy Books:
>https://i.imgur.com/IJxTQBL.jpg

Previous Threads:
>>9338774
>>9310137
>>9300600
>>9291022
>>9277698
>>9260860

File: Daniel_dennett_Oct2008.jpg (467KB, 3101x2201px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 3101x2201px

Are there fiction that explores philosophical problems of consciousness, specifically the metaphysics of phenomenal consciousness?

File: 55124082.jpg (57KB, 434x689px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 434x689px

>be reading this in public
>people watchs me like WTF you pervert
>classmates asking if it's porn

Most inappropriate/uncomfortable cover?

File: socrates_2.png (219KB, 267x356px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 267x356px

Is that true, /lit/?

>The story goes that Thamus said much to Theuth, both for and against each art, which it would take too long to repeat.
>But when they came to writing, Theuth said: “O King, here is something that, once learned, will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memory; I have discovered a potion for memory and for wisdom.” Thamus, however, replied: “O most expert Theuth, one man can give birth to the elements of an art, but only another can judge how they can benefit or harm those who will use them. And now, since you are the father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are. In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own. You have not discovered a potion for remembering, but for reminding; you provide your students with the appearance of wisdom, not with its reality. Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so.”

File: 10784_w0g1p59kc4_123_426lo.jpg (335KB, 1365x2048px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1365x2048px

Greentext the plot of your new novel, its not like is going anywhere.

File: 1473115328562.jpg (29KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1280x720px

Is this the year we get a new pynchon novel?