Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 2926. page

I get this post. And yes those fucking threads are annoying.

>>8479627

Waiting for Godot is exactly what you're looking for.

>>8479627
The Glass Bead Game isn't one of them

Kurt "The Reddit of Authors" Vonnegut

>>8479600
I want anti-edgy to leave

Kurt VonneGET

>ancient philosophy
>human sexuality and culture
>geography of garbage
>environmental problems and solutions
I'm an environmental studies major. The top two are filler I'm taking as GE.

>Differential equations
>Electromagnetism for physicists
>French I
I only signed up for 12 hours because the first two are supposed to be hard as shit weed-out classes.

>>8479618
>Geography of garbage
What is this class like anon?

>>8479552
Read

>>8479552
Watch, but movie adaptations are shit, and plays are too expensive. Plus I don't live in London so it's doubtful to even find a decent rendition.

>>8479552
read. i find most film adaptations of shakespeare to be shitty, especially when it's set in some other era.

Derrida is a sophist

Derrida is mostly smoke and very little fire. The person who recommended you Husserl is masturbating themselves as some sort of Philosophy King of New New York, because they think they "get" Derrida and that Derrida is the capstone of some linear evolutionary model of philosophy, and they think they must "get" Husserlian phenomenology because they "get" Derrida.

It's a fucking non sequitur. Why would you study Husserl? Does this person even know what phenomenology fucking is, or how distinct Husserlian phenomenology is from Heidegger and his successors? Saussure is a more likely recommendation, because the Prague school's retarded butchering of his ideas in order to found the retarded cult of structuralism can give you a good idea of the retarded cult of Derrida. But reading Saussure won't tell you shit about Derrida. The person you're talking to is a fucking retard who thinks they're cool and wants to show off. Typical academic functionary cunt who thinks because they're mastered the ad-hoc unreflective techne of "deconstruction" as a "methodology," they know anything about philosophy.

Derrida sucks fucking cock. Derrida and Foucault, Derrida and Gadamer, Derrida and Ricoeur, there's a reason they never had more than glancing blows off one another. He's a self-indulgent Algerian faggot. If you want to understand Derrida, do these things:

- Understand that Derrida's original ideas are distinct from the cult of deconstruction they founded, which is now dead.
- Understand that Derrida's cult, which invaded the study of literature and theory like a mind parasite for a few years, involved very little philosophical breadth or erudition in the minds of its endless hordes of pissant grad student footsoldiers, who destroyed authentic literary study like only true "men of one book" can.
- Understand that these footsoldiers are mostly intellectually inert now, have left behind no legacy, and no one gives a shit about Derrida anymore.

Just read a few academic big-boy books on deconstruction which go into its intellectual legacy. That's it. If anyone says UHHHH MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ BRENTANO FIRST DUDE..., fucking kill them. Just be on the lookout for books on Derrida that are written by the few straggling cultists of Derrida, who want to be Derrida, so they will write a book on Derrida as if they are Derrida. A good book on Derrida will deflate all his bullshit and set forward his methodology and its underlying ontology, while pointing out antinomies. No doubt Derrida would reply that
>ahh you see antinomies are essential to my method.. and what is a method?? Now look over here, I'm wearing your watch! Bet you didn't see that coming

But he can't because he's fucking dead and no one cares about him anymore.

File: 1472007711725.jpg (21KB, 640x636px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 640x636px

>>8479748

pretty excellent critique, I kek'd. You're completely fucking right about the advantages with a deflationary secondary source - Derrida is very stylish, and that's a feature of his writing, but it shouldn't be taken as substance.

>>8479531

OP, when I was taking a course on phenomenology, we entered into Derrida's work w/ The Gift. I think it's a pretty good starting point, and as the other poster mentioned, with some secondary sources it'll probably prove a worthwhile read.

>play erotic HTML game focused around a fetish
>the author clear just wants to write literary fiction
>only a couple tasteful scenes involving the fetish that are believable plotwise and develop the characters substantially

>>8481330
I hate when that happens.

Almost everything is my fetish. So typically I enjoy this experience, OP, since it validates my desire.

Pynchon likes being spanked? Joyce wanted to be dressed up like a prostitute by a dominant woman? Burroughs wanted to take a strapon up the ass?

I guess I must be as smart as they were.

Enjoy your normie sexlife, OP. My gf stripped me, whipped me, and gave me corner time tonight. After ten minutes blindfolded with my nose at the wall, she came up behind me, jerked me as quickly as she could, and then let go of me as soon as I started cumming, effectively ruining my orgasm. She says she has it all on camera and I've never felt more happy in my life.

Take the 'that' out of your last example and it works.

Repetition is fine in scientific works, vagueness or verbosity is not.

>>8479468
X tells us that...
It follows from X that...
X (necessarily) implies that...
Because of X we have...

You can say something like "using x gives us...". I can't see that you could says gives us THAT there tho. Same for the other one. Lay off the that's there. Unless you're using it as a pronoun.

>>8479505
>>8479510
Is it okay to have a line just saying "thus:"?

Example:

"X=2Y
Thus:
Y=X/2"

>>8479437
Yes, there is an equivalent. Many of the benefits people receive from prayer can be had in a secular/atheistic context. Essentially it just means having a positive mantra, or a repeated intention. It alters your state of consciousness into the emotion of the prayer, if the prayer means something specific to you, and that you've absorbed yourself into it enough. This is because your perceptions/emotions and your thoughts/ideas directly influence each other. If you were to ritualistically say "I will see beauty even in ugliness" eventually your brain will pick up on that message and begin to make it so. People naturally associate emotions with symbols, slogans, mantras or whatever by habit, even if they themselves ones who are deciding on what to feel. You can use this phenomenon to develop techniques in order to provoke certain emotions in yourself. It's why in some political rallies the leaders will have the followers endlessly chant empty statements and such, to get them riled up in righteous anger or whatever else. 'Fear is the mind killer' is a very good example. I see no reason why that specific mantra may not work just as well for you as another person repeating a psalm in a time of need.

>>8479437
>secular
>prayer

Leap to faith, friend.

:^)

>>8479437
Yes, auto-suggestion. >>8479516


'Every day in every way I'm getting better and better' is another common phrase.

The idea is to change your brain by suggestion. Reality is merely perception, which can be changed by words, for good and bad.

For example, a man may be convinced he is homosexual, alcoholic, racist, or stupid, if enough people around him tell him he is so.

>>8479414
It's challenging and large if you struggle with literature. However, thanks to Moby Dick, I'm a certified cetologist now :^)

>>8479414
It is full of allusions and references. If you didn't understand any of them the book would be "hard".

>>8479414
>Why the fuck do people think that Moby Dick is a challenging or large book?
Because it is universally considered that. Only autistic non empathetic people on niche websites would say otherwise

Nabokov was a shit-teir reader. Hating Dostoevsky and Lawrence but loving Updike proves he was just trolling.

>>8479442
the man wrote purely to live out his pedo fantasies. Cut him some slack

>>8479404
Dostoevsky is 100 times the author Green is. Why is he ragging on him?

>>8479350
Chomsky fucked his mum.

>>8479350
The fact that I've only just heard of Tom Wolfe right now leads me to suggest academic jealousy

>>8479353
Comsky's contributions to academia were debunked rather embarassingly decades ago and he holds no weight in his academic field. Since then all he's put out are popular histories for plebes that have made him a fortune.

Wolfe turned down academic jobs in favour of journalism.

Not much worth comparing there.

is Arsenal the most lit football club?

just

fuck

>>8479281
>youtube
>evola

Go ask /pol/. Normies get off of my board.

>>8479281
>inb4 just start where the guide tells you
im to stupid and it all flys over my head

>>8479286
bitch im just tryna learn and expand my mind and shit cmon son

>evil

grow up

The Collector by John Fowles
Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut
American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis
Watchmen by Alan Moore
hardcore romeo by Mark Nadja
Indian Killer by Serman Alexie
Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy
The Maniac Manifesto by Nick Caligari
In The Miso Soup by Ryu Murakami

lord of the flies
perfume

My favorite book is Gödel, Escher, Bach.

>>8479232
That sounds like a hella weird book. Never heard of it. What's good about it mate?

>>8479201

Count of Monte Cristo tied with Dead Souls.