>he claims he is intelligent >he thinks he is an intellectual

>he thinks he is intelligent
>he is browsing r9k

Laugh at yourself, OP.

>>26310174
>reads babby philosophy
>only read it for a course
>he thinks he is an intellectual
got some bad news for ya, college boy

I've been reading Hyperion recently

It's pretty nice, I enjoy the technique of using short stories to tell a bigger story. Sure >genre fiction and all, but I usually just read because it's fun.

>thinks true intelligence is in reading
>thinks it doesn't actually lie in writing

It's the difference between getting fucked and fucking. Women read, men write. Women take, men create.

It couldn't get any simpler, faggots.

>>26310200
I've read the book before. It's for a graduate level course in my department, but it's not a required text. I just re-read it so I could quote it more precisely in discussions.

>>26310174
>he doesn't read books
I don't.

>he thinks he is an intellectual
I don't.

>he claims he is intelligent
I don't.

I'm an all-around loser. I'm aware.

That said, to answer, I don't remember. My IQ is too low to even fail to read pages in order -- I fail to read them while picking a few here and there at random and looking at the dialogue even, which's been my mode of 'reading' since forever.

Probably some shitty short fiction.

>>26310249
>Women read, men write. Women take, men create.
By this logic all true literature has just been random crapshoots and no real authors have ever had any influences.

>>26310174
>falling for the "intelligent people read books" meme
>falling for the book meme in general
BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN LEARN IS THROUGH AN OUTDATED TEDIOUS MEDIUM THAT DOESN'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR EXTRA SENSES LIKE VIDEO OR HANDS-ON LEARNING DOES!

>>26310174
wow,this must be the stupidest post i have seen in a while

>>26310386
>BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN LEARN IS THROUGH AN OUTDATED TEDIOUS MEDIUM THAT DOESN'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR EXTRA SENSES LIKE VIDEO OR HANDS-ON LEARNING DOES!

...Yes?

Video is slow and has huge noise (mistake & correction, feedback) to data (WPM) ratio. Hands-on 'learning' isn't even learning because it is always only an application of facts which first have to be conveyed: ideally, in books.

>>26310174
I read LNs before they get anime adaptations
Is that okay?

>>26310460
No

And if you can't read Japanese it's even less okay

>>26310386
Literally every piece of information you'll ever come across originates from a physical publication.

>>26310442
>yes
So you're basically saying you can only learn directly from books. (And I meant directly, not indirectly)
Oh look, I just learned that 1-1=0 because my toucan flew away.

>>26310337
>true literature
>influence

You're talking like a cuck who enjoys getting fucked by others. A true literary master doesn't care about arbituary values of worth placed upon his work by others.

Remember, it's easy to appreciate a good fucking from someone else, but being a good fucker lies on a higher plane of existence

The last book I read was Star Wars: Battlefront: Twilight Company, by Alexander Freed. It was really good if you're a fan of the franchise. I started a book of short stories by Ted Chiang but never had time to finish.

>>26310499
So? That doesn't mean you can't learn stuff from videos or hands on learning first before you read a book. You're thinking of indirectly learning from books which completely misses the point.
I was trying to say someone could learn the same amount of information and be as "intellectual" as a person who reads books, if they learned everything they know solely form hands on learning and videos, and other mediums that use our senses, like audio. (I.e. People telling it to you using their vocal cords)

>>26310497
I read them in their original format, and actively work on translation projects for the ones i enjoy

File: FBe4t1t.png (68KB, 259x156px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 259x156px

>>26310174

Last novel was Deicide the God Eater. Starting the Red Mars series next.

>>26310602
But the source of all of that information is ultimately books. Literally any intelligent thought has its foundations in literature at this point. The less you engage with literature, indirectly or not, the less you know. That's a simple fact.

>>26310639
>every intelligent thought has its foundations in literature
So? That doesn't mean anything. I wasn't saying other mediums are better and we should destroy books, I was just saying that you can get the same experience without reading books. You could listen to an audio book and get the same experience as reading. That's a simple fact. Just because you read a book instead of watching a video that has the same level of info doesn't make you any more intellectual.

>>26310736
My point is that reading books is the purest form of knowledge, and thus the most intellectually demanding. Any "hands-on experience" you get is just distilled information from books.

File: 1441246868036.jpg (45KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x600px

>>26310841

you're fucking retarded if you think this. I sincerely hope this is bait.

>>26310841
>the most intellectually demanding
I can agree that they are the most intellectually demanding, but not because they are "the purest form of knowledge" (it's probably actually neurons to us) I think it's because it's on a medium that use humans find hard to understand. We're more suited biologically to the audial or visual mediums, because those are our two most used senses. The textile medium challenges us because it adds another layer of difficulty in conveying it's message because humans aren't adapted to a non-visual (i.e. Non-graphical) and non-audial realm. In fact, they probably aren't "intellectually" demanding, just demanding to our primate brain because it adds another layer of comprehension between the message and us. However, even though I do not deny that they are challenging to read and comprehend, (however I only say this because the medium of books makes it artificially more challenging because it uses a non-organic/sensual medium that makes us require more time to comprehend for the message to be conveyed) other mediums seem "dumber" because they are easier to comprehend because they pander to how we evolved and our species' abilities (just like how pictures in comic books aid the viewer) thereby making elitists who want to take the harder path because they want to seem more "rigorous" claim that books are more intellectually demanding, even though they are only "challenging" in the aspect it doesn't cater to our biology and how our brains work.
TD:LR: books only seem more "intellectually demanding" because they don't use a medium that can more easily convey information to us because they cater to our senses and biology, (I.e. Aiding comprehension with sounds and graphics) thereby making them easier to understand and therefore making them seem non-intellectual by making comprehension so easy.

File: 1454521020663.png (504KB, 454x600px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 454x600px

>>26310174
You read the Phenomenology? What do you think about Hegel's rejection of Descartes-Kant-Fichte's Epistemology? Is the phenomenological "method" really substantive to repair this tear in philosophy?
Have you read Schelling or Spinoza? I'd recommend them if you enjoyed Hegel.

>>26310174
>The Winter of Our Discontent
I hated that book.

>>26311137
>STEM majors actually believe this

>>26311240
What's wrong with it, fampai?

>>26311283
>biological reductionism
what about mental states that aren't empirically based (and thus we can't use natural science on them to infer anything)?

>>26311378
>not empirically based
Well, you do nothing about it or research. I put my argument together from science right not, not future science where we find out these things.

>>26311482
If you mean science from right now (typo? or complete non-sense?) then you're still wrong. Quantum Physics says that the mere observance of a phenomenon changes that phenomenon. This is in direct contrast with some observable phenomenal-block like in Einsteinian Physics (the traditional and current and respected kind).

>>26310551
Sorry but I didn't even read your shitty post because only women do that bullshit.

I haven't read a book for fun in over 4 years, but I read about 7 hours a day.

Do textbooks count?

>>26310174
Count of Monte Cristo

>>26310238
Just got this & the sequel on recommendation, gonna read it after my collection of short stories by Tolstoy

Last one was The Death of Ivan Ilych, reading The Kreutzer Sonata now

I'm not intelligent, I just read a lot & talk a lot about what I know to coworkers and classmates

You'll never catch me reading, ya fuckin queer

>>26310174
Do androids dream of electric sheep is good

>>26310174
Don Quixote a month ago when I realized I hadn't read a book cover to cover in two years

>>26310174
I read the Odyssey a couple weeks back. I should probably read more.

>decide to work through Bloom's entire western canon
>realize it will take me decades at my reading pace
think of all the extra non-fiction you could read in that time. I cannot determine whether it is worth it

File: God-tierbook.jpg (48KB, 331x499px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 331x499px

Pic related. Finished it last weekend.