Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 4367. page

Because I finish my books in one session, like every true /lit/ patrician does.

Because I use scraps of paper I find lying around my room.

S T I C K Y
N
O
T
E
S

>>7690696
>Por demanda popular
jajajajajaja

File: Francisco de Goya, Boy Frightened by an Apparition.jpg (296KB, 800x790px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 800x790px

>>7690696

Gredos o Cátedra, ese.

Cuál es la mejor traducción del Fausto de Goethe?

Quién es el mejor poeta de habla hispana y porqué es Sor Juana?

File: girondo con un poco de asquito.jpg (19KB, 258x450px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 258x450px

>>7690737
>Sor Juana

>>7689748

American Psycho

Clockwork Orange

The Shining

Inasmuch as two entirely separate media can be compared as basically as this.

Never Let Me Go

There Will Be Blood

From the prolegomena:

Let us consider first the sources of metaphysical knowledge.
The very concept of metaphysics ensures that the
sources of metaphysics can’t be empirical. ·If something
could be known through the senses, that would automatically
show that it doesn’t belong to metaphysics; that’s
an upshot of the meaning of the word ‘metaphysics’·. Its
basic propositions can never be taken from experience, nor
can its basic concepts; for it is not to be physical but
metaphysical knowledge, so it must lie beyond experience.
•Outer experience is the source of physics properly so-called,
and •inner experience is the basis for empirical psychology;
and metaphysical knowledge can’t come from either of these.
It is thus knowledge a priori—knowledge based on pure
understanding and pure reason.
Mathematics also answers to that description. To mark
off metaphysics from mathematics as well as from empirical
enquiries, we’ll have to call it pure philosophical knowledge.
In this phrase, ‘pure’ means ‘not empirical’; and ‘philosophical’
stands in contrast to ‘mathematical’. The difference
between these two ways of using reason—the mathematical
and the philosophical—is something I needn’t go into here; I have adequately described it in my Critique of Pure Reason.
So much for the sources of metaphysical knowledge.

Full-text: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1783.pdf

>>7688303
1. Kant's conception of Reason is such that it belongs strictly on the 'soul'/consciousness divide of things. When he talks about his apriori axioms he is referring to a kind of disembodied reason that we probably have trouble grasping today, especially since for us logic is no longer something sacred. He means I think, external input, versus what would happen if you were to run the possible configurations of our logic, purely playing with themselves.

2. The bit about the cone means that it would never have to be shown to the individual. He does say all experience draws from the Noumenon, and I don't remember if he addresses this specifically, but he's saying, given an understanding of space, and reason, which he supposes is a priori, we mentally construct a cone, and not a color.

I think this appears to us as odd today because sight and mathematical logic don't seem so different anymore, but what he's saying is internally consistent. If you can imagine geometrical descriptions, you can imagine whatsoever configuration you are asked to. Color on the other hand can't simply be given in that way, you can't explain what it is a priori. It might not be true but it makes sense given what he postulates.

3. Well what is the alternative, that experience and its objects are creating things beyond themselves? I don't see why you care about the source, when he's more so implying that one is interacting with the other.

I think you're having a hangup on the distinction between empirical and experiential?

>When he talks about his apriori axioms he is referring to a kind of disembodied reason that we probably have trouble grasping today

I know he's referring to this but I have personal contentions about this disembodied reason "existing".

>. He does say all experience draws from the Noumenon, and I don't remember if he addresses this specifically, but he's saying, given an understanding of space, and reason, which he supposes is a priori, we mentally construct a cone, and not a color.

But all those faculties of space, reason, or anything else can only come from empirical observation, right?

A rather odd example but, say someone was born without the ability to feel or move or see. You could never explain the concept of a cone or any magnitude in general (Kant talks about mathematics being mostly a priori interested in magnitudes) to him, right?

And so, if he lost this ability go cognisize cones after he lost his sight and movement/touch, surely that cognition would have to be derived from his sight and movement/touch?

> If you can imagine geometrical descriptions, you can imagine whatsoever configuration you are asked to
As I said in my OP, I have no issues with the universality of this, my problem lies with:
>If you can imagine geometrical descriptions
>If
I don't see how geometrical descriptions could possibly be imagined without some empirical backing.

>Well what is the alternative, that experience and its objects are creating things beyond themselves?

I wouldn't use the word "creating", I'd use the word "speculating about".

>I don't see why you are about the source, when he's more so implying that one is interacting with the other.
I'm reading the book from a very personal "I want to see if I can agree with what he has to say" outlook right now.

>I think you're having a hangup on the distinction between empirical and experiential?

How are these different?

I actually don't follow the above post's translation but the Cambridge one, and here too (like in the above post) experience and empirical are almost synonymous right (with the latter being defined as "what is based on" the former)?

What am I missing there?

>>7686748

A ugly literary stud who has the sex.

7/10

my pussy is engorged just from that pic

im a grill btw

>>7686539
2002

a week ago thursday

I had a huge ass omnibus of that shit, dunno where it went but it was at least 6 or 7 years ago

File: 098435.png (966KB, 700x813px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 700x813px

your on my mind again, on & on & on, I have you on hand in hand, the time is coming soon to me

i want to read books with people on /lit/ in some kind of book club thing, but i want it to be easy and catch on well enough that people actually participate and it doesn't fizzle out to me and one other guy awkwardly reading shit. or devolve into a tiny irc/skype group of namefag regulars instead of an open format.

i feel like the biggest problem with this board is that it's usually more about talking around authors/books than talking into them, it's really really rare to actually see a) two people who read the same book, b) discussing that book in any depth. it's always one guy who read it describing it to another who didn't, or an exchange of "indeed, i also read that."

it would be neat to see /lit/ have a persistent book club and actually discuss a single text in depth, in a thread-seminar format. you'd have guys with lots of outside knowledge informing the discussion, guys with less knowledge doing more listening but also asking interesting questions, and everywhere in between. lots of recommendation sharing, lots of spitballing because it's anonymous, etc.

>>7691655

Donald Trump's political trajectory has been incredibly left-to-right and splashless and sad.

the Greeks absolutely did not cover everything, but philosophy certainly seems to be getting deader rather than more alive. much continental philosophy now is rehashing Kant, Marx, and Nietzsche.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ric%C5%93ur

>>7691545

no you fucktard

>>7691497
>Great Expectations

File: extremely-loud.jpg (41KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x600px

>>7691497

>Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war,
>That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
>With carrion men, groaning for burial.

>>7691038
Maybe it's just the grooming methods of the time but Proust always looks vaguely middle eastern.
Also, fuck off shitposter cuntlord

>>7691038
Cute.

>>7691135
He was a kike

>>7690106
nothin, just read it. i'm readin it now. nothing specifically needed to understand what he's saying.

File: images (20).jpg (9KB, 263x192px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 263x192px

>>7690106

File: 1454784483392.jpg (15KB, 210x222px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 210x222px

>>7690106
Prepare for some boring ass chapters with unreliable knowledge bout whales.

Other than that is pretty good.

File: kirkiscool.jpg (15KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 240x240px

"If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will also regret it; if you marry or do not marry, you will regret both; Laugh at the world’s follies, you will regret it, weep over them, you will also regret that; laugh at the world’s follies or weep over them, you will regret both; whether you laugh at the world’s follies or weep over them, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it, believe her not, you will also regret that; believe a woman or believe her not, you will regret both; whether you believe a woman or believe her not, you will regret both. Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will also regret that; hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the sum and substance of all philosophy." - A

>>7685591
philosophy = regret?

the world is full of memorable quotes and I can't recall any of them.

File: image.jpg (142KB, 500x489px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 500x489px

Caesar had long wielded the long sword, just as Antony had wielded the short sword.

This is true even rhetorically speaking, when Antony comes out to speak to the Romans after Caesar had been slain, the curtness of his speech is meant to send alarm bells ringing, although it doesn't manage to do this among the crowd, the canaille. They lap it up willingly, because the points are made succinctly. The true intention and ambition of Antony is hid from them.

Previously, when Caesar had been offered the crown, he was choosing to downplay his role with an equally pointed gesture.

>>7691588
I always assumed that the standard interpretation was that he was trying to get people to see him as unambitious and benevolent but that he would eventually accept. But he overdid it and it somewhat backfired on him.

The standard historical interpretation of this (real) event is that he was gauging the crowd. Antony was offering it to him as a servitor of the Republic and a supposedly representing the people and government. If Antony gave the crown, and it was boo'ed to shit, Caesar could claim it was Antony's brashness and love of him that blinded his judgment.

The three reactions of the crowd, as it held its breath to see what he would do, keeping in mind that regicide was a virtue in Rome and "king" or "kingly" was a political insult, are very tense moments as Caesar decides how to play his hand. He wanted them to beg him to take it. Instead they fell completely silent and waited to see what he would do. He didn't take it, but he wanted it.

Antony bringing it up later is acting as if Caesar had never intended to take it. "You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, and thrice did he refuse." He's kind of lamely and cynically (to the reader) saying that Caesar was a popularis, a man of the people, but the crowd eats it up.

It was propaganda by Caesar, but moreso he was hoping they'd cheer him to take it. Bringing it up was definitely propaganda by Antony to turn the rabble against Brutus, who had just turned them against Caesar just as easily.

Augustus' grace (depending on your perspective, since maybe people were just sick of civil wars), and one which Antony lacked as much as Caesar given all his oriental god-despot roleplaying, is that he knew how to brand himself as a primus inter pares, "first among equals." Caesar had wanted a crown, but Augustus knew how to get the power of one without taking the bad PR. Of course that also bequeathed the succession problem to Rome for 400 years, so there you go.

I'm barely started, like twenty pages of the first draf, ı really need to set up a writing routine/habit.

What's your novel about, Anon?

>>7691512
It's about a taxi driver that continues to drive around the city, hoping to stumble upon a customer that 'saved' his life five years ago.
I never had a routine for this, unlike my other things, and only wrote it when I was feeling depressed, so it's also quite depressing.
What's yours about anon?

>>7691533
Sounds boring

>>7691443
Low quality b8

>>7691443
he's right.

>>7691443
Yes, you should drop out. Calling such a minor writer "talented" is just bullshit.