Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 1821. page

Because reading analytic philosophy is literally like being harangued by some talkative sperg on the subway.

>>9121660
Same here, but I was about to order some Wittgenstein, maybe On certainty, maybe another one, dunno yet. Make me do it, OP. Right now I don't know of any analytic philosopher who read and understood any important philosopher, so I tend to agree that Wittgenstein is as interesting as an autistic kid.

>>9121664
Wittgenstein blew the entire analytic tradition the fuck out so hard that they didn't even realize they were already dead. Heidegger and Gadamer speak much better to Wittgenstein than any analytic does.

That said, OP spams this thread with a nearly identical title once every few days.

If you're over 15 you really shouldn't be reading Stephen King.

Funny. An untainted view into Stephen King's work, and, with pinpoint accuracy, it already nails King down as the hack he is. Who would've thought?

>>9121632

Get out now, The Gunslinger is the best one. Stephen King becomes a character in it later:

http://darktower.wikia.com/wiki/Stephen_King_(Character)

http://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Recommended_Reading/Genre_fiction?file=1307836551252.jpg

Let the Slavs have Orthodoxy if they want it. Latin Christendom should develop its own traditions, not import others.

>>9121501
Orthodoxy is closer to pre kitsch Catholism than Roman Catholicism is.

Are there any radical differences between catholicism and orthodox other than the latter ones not recognizing the authority of the Vatican jew?

why these people don't want to have a complex dialogue with what they read is baffling.

>>9121485
but I like offensive content in my books. hell I was more offended by Joseph DLacey's retarded environmentalism in The Black Dawn than by anything this "sensitivity readers" would find traditionally offensive. also there already are books and reading groups that put trigger warnings on books so special people can avoid them

>>9121485
Censorship is fundamentally conservative.

I agree, pretty well put.

I also think there's a concrete element to how it expands your mind. It's not just in the abstract and undetectable. I reflexively refer my real life experiences or attempts to understand phenomena to a storehouse of thousands of metaphors and analogies from literature, philosophy, history, etc., on a daily basis. Not just on a simple one-to-one heuristic level, but on a really deep level of knowing something is possible because someone else has thought it, and then being able to expand your own impulse to model reality in that way, more confidently and more fully, into the space created by the experience.

We express what is real through language, but "language" isn't just made up of words with direct reference to reality, it's made up of metaphors and "tagmemes" of all sorts and sizes that are irreducible and carry meaning in and of themselves.

When I imagine "Europe in the year 1300," my brain reflexively calls up an abstraction built instinctively from a bird's-eye map in a video game I played in my teens. When I think of "Ancient Rome," my brain reflexively builds from my geographical and cartographic knowledge of the plain of Latium, from when I was 20, got fed up with my shitty knowledge of geography in studying history, and decided to learn how to use maps and integrate them into my reading. Before I was 20, I can distinctly remember how much hazier my reflexive concept for "Rome" was - it was more like a general picture of Italy, with the vague location of Rome on the west-centre.

If having these concepts become reflexively sedimented in my brain from direct and obvious visual sources is obvious, what about all the concept accretion that ISN'T obvious, like the precise description of a phenomenon or feeling too complex to be summoned completely consciously or described in words, that you got from reading deeply into metaphysics for a decade?

>>9121144
Yes, but when you select the very highest difficulty setting it's usually stupidly hard. It's not more complex, it just takes longer to do anything. And so you drop down from extreme to hard and you realise the former was just made so people could say they soldiered through, not because its more enjoyable.

>>9121144
what's the literary equivalent of when you get really good at guitar hero like expert level and you go back and play easy but it's so slow and easy that you actually underestimate it and fuck up

24
Mexico City
The Witches by Roald Dahl (and I spent a whole month thinking my mother and teacher were one)
I'm currently re-reading Nine Stories by JD Salinger

>24
>Maryland
>I dunno, Harry Potter?
>Apollonius' On Conics and Carl Menger's Principles of Economics

25
NI
I have no clear idea of when I read what, but the other day I found a mostly empty diary with two entries from when I was 7. In one of them I wrote that I had started Charlie and the Chocolate Factory that day.
Winesburg, Ohio

File: aintchusmahlin.jpg (47KB, 526x469px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 526x469px

>>9119868
This writing is not very good.

>>9119868

Hold on, how many pages do you usually get with a preview? I don't know why I've never taken advantage of that.

File: image.png (158KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 640x1136px

>>9119891
Depends on the size of the book and the kindness of the publisher. I only got 30 pages for a sample of Lolita.

IJ has 1,100 pages of this stuff. Toddler or Tolstoy?

File: rupicervantes.png (33KB, 783x501px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 783x501px

ask her if pic related is her favorite rupi poem

>>9118107
>young
Seek liberal arts teachers in their 40s.

>>9118107

Corrupt her. Get her into better shit. Give her a TS Eliot collection and tell her 'I got it because you said you love poetry'.

they're ok

Why is this even a debated topic on this board. Just read you fucks

>tfw fell for the kindle paperwhite meme

>>9116924
you probably know that philosophy and natural science weren't really considered separate disciplines until the middle of the 19th century. since then, a lot of analytic philosophy is done with modern science very much in mind (kind of analogous to how philosophy in the middle ages was the "handmaiden of theology".)

so I'd say yes it is relevant, but that's not a very meaningful statement. the hard part is working out exactly how it's relevant and what the relationship between the two traditions really is.

>>9116945
My position here is one of historicism - essentially, I don't see any philosophy divorced from the historical tradition as meaningful, and the discipline itself could be described as a constant dialogue with tradition and interpretation. Obviously, a lot of analytic philosophers disagree with this, and this is something I continually struggle with as I read more anglophone texts. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but the whole concept of "solving" a problem with logical analysis is strange to me, as if philosophical content is about puzzles, instead of constructing worldviews that are helpful in dealing with the world.

>Is philosophy continuous with the natural sciences, or does it deal with fundamentally different questions?
They began as one and the same, wise men dealing with philosophy, medicine, astronomy, religion, mathematics, the arts, even engineering, etc. as an unified, holistic body of knowledge, of wisdom.

The idea of overspecializing in, and segregating every single thing is a recent development.

Admittedly, the amout of literature involving each of the many areas of knowledge has grown quite a bit, and it doesn't look like we will be blessed with too many "renaissance" geniuses like Hildegard of Bingen, da Vinci, Leibniz, or even a Peirce.

>Is the historical development of philosophy itself relevant in answering contemporary questions?
Yes, I would cite the above answer as an example, given that the question was asked in the contemporary age.

Another would be the continued persistence of religion and metaphysics being more easily explained when you look at how recent atheism (as contemporarily understood, the definition of atheist changed quite a lot), and eliminative approaches to metaphysics, compared to the way humans have been thinking for entire millennia.

What puzzles fedora tippers is no mystery at all to those who read the history of philosophy. What is more mysterious that we could somehow find a way out of certain durable if not perennial memes.

>>9116974
Since Wittgenstein's Tractatus, they think philosophy's mission is to clarify language and critique language.

Bump, all the other jap threads failed

Check the works of Soseki and Mishima out.

>>9117371
If they put cute anime pictures in their books they would sell more and people would discuss it more.

>>9115028
Why on earth do you need a book on the subject? Are you actually trying to into Neuroscience? Because if not, even a shitty self help book will be more applicable.

Your Brain on Pork

>>9115040
Maybe I find the subject interesting and I want to read more about it :^)

The redpill

Take it

File: 1486878605126.jpg (40KB, 480x540px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x540px

What other threads did you start this bullshit in? I'm gonna guess /tv/ and /b/

File: amusing communion.png (6KB, 307x164px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 307x164px

> But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that.

They also didn't feature magic rings and elves.

Is this guy literally autistic?

>>9104225
Post your picture. I want to see how ugly you are

>>9104227
Can you engage with the thinkers instead of going full ad hominem?
Very immature

>>9104241
You're a meme

John Barth

Muhammad

Donald J. Trump