Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 79. page

>>10017618
>On a side note, has anyone on this board actually read the entire summa?
lol

>>10017618
I think Leo Strauss talks about Aquinas from time to time, he never dedicates an entire work to him, but he is definitely in the periphery in some of his works, even if it is minor.

File: ariddle.jpg (2MB, 2700x6826px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2700x6826px

>>10017633
Honest question, I wouldn't be surprised if someone actually did. I have seen posts by extremely well-read individuals on /lit/.

Also, bumping the thread with interesting debate material (pic related).

This is why I'm a Catholic. When taken simply as just a reliable human document, the Bible shows that Christ not only rose from the dead, but that he established a church built on the apostles (Matt. 16:18-19, Eph. 2:20). The successors of the apostles, or the popes and bishops who inherited the apostles' spiritual authority, were then able to authoritatively declare the Bible to be the word of god.

This is not a circular argument, in which an inspired Bible is used to prove the church's authority and the church's authority is used to prove that the Bible is inspired. Instead, as Karl Keating would say, it is a "spiral argument," in which the Bible is assumed to be a merely human document that records the creation of the divinely instituted church. This church then had the authority to pronounce which human writings also had God as their author.

Contrast this with the Protestant view of scripture:

In the 16th century, Luther rejected the seven books that comprise the deuterocanonicals together with parts of Daniel and Esther. He did so because they contained passages that disagreed with his theology. Luther claimed that all matters of faith and practice were based on the Bible alone, but the Bible never gave Luther the authority to determine the books that belong in the Bible. Luther also questioned "Whether James was in fact scripture" along with Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He referred to Jude as a "superfluous document" and claimed that Revelation "lacks everything that I hold as apostolic or prophetic."

In rejecting the canon of the Bible that was accepted by Christians for over one thousand years, Luther wrenched Sacred Scripture from the certain foundation upon which they had been established, namely, the infallible authority of the Catholic church.

Since Protestants teach that the Bible alone is their ultimate authority, each book of the Bible has a cloud of suspicion hanging over it because the Bible does not have an infallible table of contents that lists the books that are divinely inspired and, therefore, should be included in it. If, as Luther taught and Protestants believe, the Catholic church was wrong about the deuterocanonicals, isn't it reasonable to suspect from that perspective that the Catholic church made other errors? Perhaps other books should be rejected from the bible?

>>10017563
Very interesting! I had never thought of it that way. Let me try to sum it to see if I understood:

The Catholic Apostolic church, as the name says, was founded by the Apostles by the order of Jesus himself, therefore the church has the power of choosing the books, since it was the order of Jesus.

However, my question is: the current canon was accepted around the IV century after Jesus, him and the apostles were long dead. I don't doubt that their influence lasted strongly even in that century, but it may have weakened.

Anyway, the word of Christ is plain and simple and I don't doubt the current canon. These are just interesting questions I enjoy debating.

>>10017563
You should actually research the history of the canon rather than relying on whatever simplistic Catholic apologetics you've read. The fact that you think the Deuterocanonical books had some sort of universal acceptance prior to the Reformation is laughable.

t.non-Protestant

>>10017457
I'd actually kind of like to get into this as well. I'm a student so I was just gonna get involved in the theatre groups at uni. There are probably local amateur theatre groups who you could check out if you're not a student. Don't know much about that.

As for not sucking at it, I'm just working through the classics to get a feel. Read Beckett recently and that's what made me want to get into the theatre in the first place. I don't really trust any "resources" regarding writing, especially ones that try to lay out rules about plot etc.

Gonna be keeping an eye on this thread tho

>>10017466
>Read Beckett recently and that's what made me want to get into the theatre in the first place

Looks like we're on the same boat my man!

Kys

>>10017347
biography* not autobiography

Probably not. I've read Can Live Prevail in English but I think even that was published by a small publisher who usually published far-right stuff.

It was a pretty disappointing book overall, it read like a grumpy old guy angry that someone cut down a tree in his garden. He ignores statistics, preferring to reference several times the journeys he made over a decade ago across Finland by skis when talking about deforestation. There's a whole essay on why cats should be massacred because they're fucking up birds and fauna. He argues that supermarkets suck because expiration dates for fish aren't correct, and talks again about he knows this because he worked as a fisherman and used to take the fish to market via bicycle. Maybe he has written more substantial stuff elsewhere, but the stuff I read was like hollow yet entertaining propaganda. He talks about overpopulation for example but uses no statistics. Fair enough if he's talking about general trends or inevitabilities, but it's hard to engage when there's no proof there.

i doubt this will be translated

>>10017283
Does that book have a colophon? What font is this?

>leaders have made people distrust logic and reason in the past
>we must now trust in those leaders
>our current leader is purely in it for dominance

Wew, logic really has taken a battering in recent times, hasn't it?

>>10017254
Quadrant?

>>10017254
Voss

>>10017254
My boy Murnane used to work as fiction editor for Meanjin, so it's probably alright.

File: buddhist lit.jpg (2MB, 2728x2248px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2728x2248px

Is this a good starting place for the latter?

Sanskrit: Vedas, Brāhmanas, Upanishads.

Sanskrit then Pali: Tripitaka.

>>10017242
holy fuck dude, you are so fucking ignorant. that is a samurai from the tokugawa period. he has nothing to do with hindus or with buddhist I can't believe lit is fucking retarded. how dare you piece of carp shit on another culture which is vastly superior than hamburger. sayonara nerd, I'll see you in the next yurei

2-3 years.

t. I've done it.

>want to read Homer
>spend 2 years learning Ancient Greek
>find out afterwards that there are already English translations
Bummer

>>10017258
> and yet still know Ancient Greek
The problem?

Something by Flaubert or Ballsack is good to add to a reading list

If you're that into the Greeks, there is no reason at all not to learn Greek over the winter.

Still no one that can provide me with the best translations.

>>10017170
Ancient Greek. It's not the same.
I am not learning Ancient Greek as it would require even more literature to learn it correctly as opposed to the reading I want to do.

I want to read about philosophy.

I thought this site was antiscientology?

>>10017072
e-celeb board when?

>>10017072
Hahahaha Jordan Peterson, the man himself, turned from whiney pseudo-academic to capitalist entrepreneur. Smart man!

Hm. I'd say Stephan Molyneux is a good place to start. I propelled past him before I ever knew who he was, but he seems like the guy I'd recommend to people who ask this kind of question.

File: burke-and-paine.jpg (50KB, 960x524px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 960x524px

>>10017053
Uh...

>>10017041
But, seriously OP, try The Righteous Mind by Haidt, for the psychology behind political ideologies; Hobsbawm's the Age of Extremes gives you a good historical grounding of those ways of thinking which dominate discourse today; and The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left gives you exactly what it says, with a smattering of both philosophy and psychological (emphasis on history).

Hope that helps.

>>10017053
Worst fucking advice I've ever seen. Molymeme has some good videos but is an extremely poor thinker. The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies looks good (and is readily available as an epub).

>>10016917
Try to answer the questions yourself.

>>10016925
Which one book will teach me how to answer the questions myself?

>>10016926
Hegel.

>>10016894
Brilliant is overstating it, but I'm hard to please and I do think it's a good novel. On the other hand, some other novels by Naipaul are just extremely dull to me.

File: Unbenannt.png (169KB, 389x559px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 389x559px

one of Goethe's bitches

>>10016894
I've got to read this. A Bend in the River was absolutely fantastic.

Yes, and don't forget Goncharov

both are wonderful, but ill make it easier for you;
0-4 turg
5-9 gogol

>>10016872

L E R M O N T O V

Just because a review exists doesn't mean people are reading it.

tommy buns is underrated

it's easier to review a book than to write one in most cases