Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 3896. page

>>7994528
>/lit/, what's your opinion on him?
I love him. I've been trying to copy him in building languages and so on but I'm not knowledgeable or creative enough.

>>7994575
Madlibs a foreign language grammar/vocab book

>>7994528
I just want him to be my grandfather and read me stuff.

>>8000959
navy seal copypasta

>>8000959
Hey bitch, how you doing? I hope you don't get fired this time. Lol, if you know what I mean. "fired", get it? you know, they have gun and shit in the navy. ok. My anus miss you too. Cum home soon, my love.

if you read that, you will come back as a tampon in your next life

>>8000563

No, and I resent that her last name is similar to W.G. Sebald's so his books have to suffer being next to this piece of shit.

>>8000563
I didn't read it but my sister told me about it long ago.

It's nothing special.

>>8000463
/lit/ - literature

>>8000496
This is a lifestyle board now didnt you get the memo?

>>8000463
Where do you go to school now? You need to factor in cost of living to the equation.

stupid distinction, bad question

stupid question, bad distinction

>>8000441
dumb frogposter

I know a certain Byung-Chul Han has written some stuff related to this, but it might be crap.

>>7999310
Deetz?

>>7999918
full name?

>>7998792
Check if it's the full text. I know modern library offers the unabridged version for about $15.

>>7998816
this version has 688 pages
the unabridged version has around 1,100 pages?

>>7998828
Shit man, how do you fill that many pages with 'specialisation is efficient'?

Hold on, let me get this straight:

People have opinions?

What the actual fuck is going on

How can Bloom be against New Criticism?
New Criticism is one of the only ways through which the canon continues to be talked about

>DFW cites Fredric Jameson by name as one of a group of critics whose English is "appalling"
>"pompous, abstruse, claustral, inflated, euphuistic, pleonastic, solecistic, sesquipidelian, Heliogabaline, occluded, obscure, jargon-ridden, empty: resplendently dead.”
I bet DFW could not have written this with a straight face. he was either smugpepe or wincing.

wtf happened to breifcases sss sss. like seriously. I've never seen something that was around for so goddamn long just disappear in the blink of an eye.

>>7996740
virgin detected lmao

>>7996711
Goodbye, Rato

I think we should start a curriculum that isn't necessarily to be followed in a fixed amount of time or fixed chronology of texts, but instead groups of texts that consist of novels, poetry, essays, theory, philosophy and nonfiction, etc... that come from all backgrounds to provide for a wider read lit. It would take a group effort to design and perfect but i'm willing to try

>>7996737
and of course in turn each "group" that is created could be made into individual posts for years to come for discussion. Does this make sense?

>I don't see how you can wriggle out of this argument being shit by saying I've 'misinterpreted' or 'misread' him.

But you have absolutely misinterpreted and misread him. At one point is this passage talking about guilt? To say that an act is not one of wickedness is not the same as saying that act is permissible.

>>7995992
If harming somebody in self defense is morally justifiable, then many things considered immoral becomes morally justifiable.

If harming somebody innocently/accidently is morally justifiable, then many things considered immoral becomes morally justifiable.

>>7995992

In general, the people Nietzsche is responding to believe the act of causing pain, injury, or death to be immoral so long as the act
a. is intentional -- exempli gratia, you are not at fault if somebody dives in front of your car and paints the pavement.
b. is understood to be causing harm -- if you play a game of football and kick around the ball, but later learn that the ball was filled with small, fluffy animals, you have not done anything wrong, as you didn't know what was in the ball.
c. is not intended to do good -- if a surgeon breaks your ribcage and rips out your organs, you are caused severe injury and pain and are at a significant risk of death, but generally, these procedures are done for your eventual benefit.
Nietzsche takes it for granted that, if an individual harms another to save himself from pain, injury, or death, then he has not committed evil, even if he causes more harm to another than he prevents in himself. If a victim cripples her rapist or murders his torturer, it would be argued, she or he has done nothing wrong, even though more harm has been done than would likely be done otherwise.

His response, then, stems from a number of observations:
1. We always learn that others feel pain, die, etcetera by analogy. We feel pain ourselves, and we in turn assume that when others exhibit the same symptoms that we do when we are in pain, that they feel pain as well. Nietzsche conjures the image of a child who tortures an animal but does not understand that the animal is in distress. Is the child at fault if it can't identify the symptoms of distress in a species that isn't even its own? Of course not! The child hasn't even been taught. Imagine a more colourful example: a creature that exhibits pain and terror by laughing uproariously and stating in plain English it's absolute pleasure, and which is driven to agony whenever fed chocolate and given sexual favours. How could you be at fault for torturing this creature if every bit of information you have learned about it informed you that it felt the opposite of pain?
2. Extending this somewhat, the child itself experiences a great deal of pleasure from tormenting a kitten, and you would feel a sense of pride and charitableness at torturing the faux-masochist. There is no biological reason at all for you to believe that you are inflicting pain.\
3. Humans have a capacity for sympathy. That is, when another individual feels pain, we feel pain also. However, we, as far as seems reasonable, don't feel as much pain as they do. Since we cannot be certain of how painful their injury is any more than a very young child can gauge the degree of a kitten's pain from the loudness and intensity of its screeches, we cannot be at fault when we misjudge the application of pain against the weighted benefit.
(1/2 Cont . . .)

the quintessential suicide novel would probably be Werther

File: 2.jpg (515KB, 1000x1400px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1000x1400px

It really depends on what you're looking for. If you're just beginning to look into the subject, I think you should start by reading the book Notes on Suicide by Simon Critchley because he explains a number of different perspectives on suicide ranging from Christian to Buddhist to Philosophical and everything in between and lays out each of their arguments thoroughly so you can come to a conclusion on your own.

Personally, I like the writing of Camus on the subject, starting with Myth of Sisyphus and then reading his novels (especially The Fall and The Outsider). Quite a few great writers on suicide are in pic related and I definitely suggest reading Cioran, Miller, and Williams.

I love Frobisher in Cloud Atlas. I am a big fan of Cloud Atlas and I herald it as a masterpiece.

>>7997966
>refuse empiricism
>based

>disproved and embarrassed by Sam harris
>based

>disproved and embarrassed by John Stuart Mill
>based

the book is okay, definitely not the best book I've ever read about a traveling salesman who transforms into a giant bug and gets apples chucked at him

Gregor was a dung beetle.
The cleaning lady called out for Gregor and called him a dung beetle. I'm thinking fermentation because the book was published in Germany translated to other languages.

>>7997621
By his own father.
The mother loves him by the sister doesn't althought she cleaned the room his was in for some time.

Does reading exist? Where is reading?

It's about the same question.

File: Figure_1.jpg (662KB, 1286x1648px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 1286x1648px

Part I: Kant's Synthetic A Priori

We should begin with what Kant considers a ‘judgment.’

- Judgment: “I think [subject + predicate]” = A statement or assertion

RE: ‘I think' ...

"The ‘I think’ must have the ability to accompany all my representations; for otherwise something would be represented in me that could not be thought at all, which is as much as to say that the representation would either be impossible or at least would be nothing to me (Transcendental Deduction of the Categories, Part 16).

- A judgment may either be analytic or synthetic.

In all judgments in which the relation of a subject to the predicate is thought, this relation is possible in two different ways. Either the predicateBbelongs to the subjectAas something that is contained in this conceptA; orBlies entirely outside the conceptA, though to be sure it stands in connection with it. In the first case, I call the judgment analytic, in the second synthetic (Critique of Pure Reason, 6-7).

File: Screen Shot 2016-05-04 at 12.37.37 AM.png (266KB, 1614x846px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1614x846px

- Analytic: “true just in the virtue of how the subject relates to the predicate”

- Synthetic: “something entirely different from that which I think in the mere concept of body in general” (Critique, 7).

Knowledge comes from judgment and is classified as either empirical (a posteriori) or a priori.

Judgment --> Knowledge

a posteriori: grounded in experience

- Limited in its application

- Susceptible to contradiction

a priori: based upon reason alone

- Independent of sensory experience