Write what's on your mind
I'm not writing what's on my mind.
I think i've fucking lost it.
I'm no longer depressed, but i no longer find joy in anything.
Being with other people is so fucking boring, so as doing everything else. Nothing feels new or important anymore.
The only person i've ever loved is almost indifferent to my presence now.
And i just can't with anything anymore.
Fuck, I really should go back reading more Kojeve but I'm a lazy dummy. How to get dat pussy from my scottish redhead co-worker? I don't know what the future looks like and I've never been happier once I stopped giving a damn.
Daily reminder to lean a new language
I did. Now what?
>>9110199
>tfw doing philosophy with spanish at uni in september
this is a good felling
>>9110199
alright, just wasted 4 years learning a language, it was worth it right?
oh it wasn't?
shit.....
Has /lit/ read the bible?
Whats the best version?
New king james
>>9107929
KJV is the only answer--especially in the world of English literature.
KJV and the apocrypha.
Is this book an assualt on analytic philosophy or am I misreading it? Im on part 5 right now, and it seems like the major theme is that rational thinking and logic is completely removed from human nature and will lead you to bad ideas. (Ex. You can come up with a completely logical and rational reason to murder a pawnbroker but it doesnt mean its the right thing to do). What are your thoughts?
Btw I dont care about your own personal opinions on analytic philosophy or morality, Im just looking for input on what Dostoyevsky was trying to convey.
>>9115964
You don't know what analytic philosophy is. And no.
>>9115968
Is analytic philosophy not heavily focused on logic and reason removed from phenomenology? Because thats what it seems like Dosto is critisizing here
>>9115964
The reason I think this btw, is because I just finished the part of the book where Porfiry lectured Rask about how the youth are so in love with their own logic and formulations, but how logic will fail you in the end because it cant account for everything. Specifically he talks about how he catches criminals because they rely on their own reason and wit to get away with crimes but they always forget to take into account unexpected variables and human nature, their own psychology betrays them in the end and gives them away
What is the most classic book
the bible
dumbass
don quixote
>>9115879
This, obviously.
Any good suggestions of philosophical books for someone who is new to philosophy?
Take the red pill.
>>9115732
But do you have any good book suggestions?
>>9115734
>redpilled
>"good" books
Disregard these kids
How fast can you read?
Have you ever taken notes?
Which book gave you the hardest time reading it?
>>9115637
>>9115637
I thought this was standard.
Do you guys really not duo-read?
>>9115637
>not dual-wielding two novels with opposing philosophical themes
sorry, I thought this was a literature board
Childhood is idolizing Dostoevsky, adulthood is realizing Tolstoy makes more sense.
poopy dick lookin ass nigga
Nice fucking thread mate. Gonna read the Cossacks again tommorow. Might cry. MMMMM
Childhood is jerking your local kindergarten memes. Adulthood is realizing there's so much more.
I've just heard a couple of positive things about the book and the description sounded like it could be the one serious fantasy novel written by a person that acknowledged what contemporary art is. The person told me it's some abstract meta-shit so I was like "t-they even do that in genre-fiction?". Haven't checked much about it or it's author yet, but I'm interested if it may be worth doing so, so I came here to waste a bit of my time and hear some contrary opinions.
It's shit.
It's a masterpiece.
It's okay.
What are some of the best cannons of book literature?
>>9115034
>>9115034
>>9115078
Quickly lost it's focus, though
>"Before you could get round Mirkwood in the North you would be right among the slopes of the Grey Mountains, and they are simply stiff with goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs of the worst description."
I thought the beings referred to as goblins in The Hobbit are the same as are referred to as orcs in The Lord of the Rings. This would make me expect that these hobgoblins are Uruk-hai. What then are these orcs? I've read that goblins are subterranean orcs, but this passage wouldn't account for that if these creatures are all in the mountains together.
>I thought the beings referred to as goblins in The Hobbit are the same as are referred to as orcs in The Lord of the Rings.
You're correct. Goblins and orcs are just two names for the same thing in Tolkien's world.
>>9114892
Then why would they appear together in the same passage? Is it just something that should have been edited out after the LotR publication but wasn't?
>>9114904
He's just using two different words for the same thing to indicate that there are a lot of those things
Just read this for the first time and was blown away by it. I read Dubliners over a stretch of time before this, but this one just blew me away, took me 2 days or so which is uncommon for me.
Did anyone else feel such an immense empathy with the character of Stephen Daedalus aka Joyce himself while reading this? I even genuinely felt like I was back in those moments and "chapters" of my youth while reading through this, it was genuinely beautiful almost throughout the whole book. Hardly ever have I experienced anything similar.
Your thoughts on this book and on Dubliners I suppose as well, /lit/?
>>9114875
Some parts of it were really good, but overall I didn't really find it very enjoyable. The preacher's sermon in the middle was a chore to get through.
I read Dubliners in high school but didn't get much out of it. I'll probably reread it someday.
>>9114909
The extensive religious passages were probably the only things I did not enjoy either, but ultimately they are forgetable if you look at the whole of the work. That of course does not make it much better that they're there though.
>>9114875
Now read the sequel.
Why aren't there ever proper book discussions on /lit/?
Do you guys have a tinychat or something with discussions? Most of the stuff here gets shat on fast.
>>/reddit/
>>9114865
I'm not a plebe!
>Why aren't there ever proper book discussions on /lit/?
>he said starting another worthless thread instead of a book discussion
I want to read a book name a book
On the will in nature by Arthur Schopenhauer
>>9114840
Thanks anyother sugestions?
>>9114832
Flann O Brien- The Third Policeman