Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 695. page

Daddy issues.

>>9729564
>( I do not say by what sort of feet )
>(( I do not say by what sort of feet ))
>((( I do not say by what sort of feet )))

Holy...

>>9729596
Please elaborate.

/lit/ stands for LITERATURE, we mainly talk about fiction or philosophy/theology here, there are several boards where it would make more sense to ask this question and where people would give better answers than anyone here. Read the rules before posting.

>>9729492
Non-fiction counts

>>9729427
Art in Theory 1900 - 2000
Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art
gotchu anon ;))))
but for real mate
>posting about art on /lit/

What's your background?

The age thing wouldn't be a huge deal, if you had a BA and/or MA already. This is more the problem:
>are any students admitted without previous academic philosophy training?

Anyone can apply to most programs, even (I think) people with very unorthodox backgrounds, or no academic background at all. But the vast majority of people who get into any good program (more on program quality in a second) are going to be people with predictable backgrounds. It's not unusual for a philosophically inclined person to have a Bachelor's in some field like Anthropology or History, but most are going to be Philosophy BAs who then do a Philosophy PhD.

The reason for this is simple: Graduate programs are looking for applicants who are likely to succeed. If they see someone with a BA in Philosophy, and a high GPA in it, they know instantly that he's not a total fuckup. They know that he knows at least something about what academic Philosophy is, and what is expected of him if they accept him. If they see someone applying who did their BA in Literature, they'll still be open to it, but they'll double-check to make sure the person meets those same qualifications. If he has zero philosophical background evident in the courses he took in undergrad, his statement of why he's applying had better clear that up and make damn clear that he knows what he's doing.

Theoretically, the same could be said for a total unknown. I'm sure if you published some magnum opus at 20, as a total nobody who worked at a laundromat, became world famous, and then applied to Harvard, they'd be interested. But:
a) Almost all of the time, they're just going to assume that applicants without relevant backgrounds are naive and don't know what they're doing, and that it's just some random guy who thinks he likes philosophy.
b) Almost all of the time, sadly, they'd probably be right.

A lot of doing academic work is just being familiar with what the academy is doing, and having been trained to look like you could do it. If a modern day Nietzsche, working at a laundromat, applied to a top tier Philosophy program, they'd probably reject him and admit some boring, middle-of-the-road, derivative dipshit who has a nice safe 4.0, because it's not really their job to take risks. And most of them are derivative specialist hacks as well.

>does anyone get a fellowship/scholarship to do a phd?
Usually, you don't go unless you get funded. Getting a PhD is years of taking classes, reading, writing, and jumping through hoops, so you need financial support, and obviously to have the ridiculous tuition waived.

>program quality
One of the other problems is that academia kind of sucks right now. It's bloated. If you want to have a career, you will probably want to get into a relatively exclusive program.. But the more exclusive, the more they will be looking for those picture-perfect Princeton graduates.

Testnachricht

Also, it matters why you want to get a PhD in the first place. Definitely don't look at a PhD as some vaguely prestigious thing, or as the necessary gateway to being "a philosopher."

Academia is seriously brimming over with complete fucking whocares nobodies whose whole career amounts to writing a footnote to the footnote to the footnote to something that has been done to death, then getting tenure, and writing one shitty derivative article every few years. And to get there, it took that person 4-6 years of pre-PhD study, 5-10 years of PhD study, 1-3 years as slave labour with no job security, no benefits, and no fixed residence, a few years working at some bumfuck university they hate and didn't get to choose, and then MAYBE, if they're lucky, finally working some place prestigious (but still maybe in a shitty location, or boring), in their 40s. And a lot of those jobs will be teaching obligations.

That's academia. If you're made for the academy, that can be fine. But if you aren't into that, why the hell bother getting a PhD in the first place? If you want to be a public intellectual, it can MAYBE be worth it? Just to be able to put a "PhD" next to your name when you publish your independent philosophical works? But it's still years of your life, money, etc.

Again, it does train you to do academically acceptable work. It teaches you all the subtle rules of the game, teaches you what looks plausibly publishable, what sorts of things are hot right now and what things aren't. But that isn't even necessarily a useful or good thing, either. Again, there are a lot of fucking nobody whocares scholars, who put out a Routledge Critical Approaches to Film Studies book called "Critical Intersections: Derrida, Thomas Reid, and 1980s Anime" every 6 years, and when you go to the library and take it off the shelf you notice you're the first person who's ever opened it. And it's full of typos.

Academia is a weird thing. The one catch-all advice I'd give is: No matter what you do, know exactly what you want from doing it, and know exactly how the thing you're doing contributes to it. Again, don't assume that "PhD in Philosophy" is equal to "great philosopher." Or even "philosopher," a lot of the time these days.

anything by Dostoevsky

Dead Souls

i think the guy who wrote lolita was russian. vladmir nobokov.

Don't have a favourite episode but so many lines stick out.

I personally love "Pineapple rock, lemon platt, butter scotch. A sugarsticky girl shovelling scoopfuls of creams for a christian brother"

and "Bedwarmed Flesh, yes yes."

>>9728434
Hades (it pulls my heart strings every time I read it), and Ithaca (I loved the question-and-answer style, made me laugh here and there)

>>9728996
>Hades
My fucking nigger
>Plenty to see and hear and feel yet. Feel live warm beings near you. Let them sleep in their maggoty beds. They are not going to get me this innings. Warm beds: warm fullblooded life.
Every fucking time

>>9728205
It's complex

File: tip.jpg (98KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1280x720px

>>9728207

>>9728205
>>9728207
>>9728208
>2 unique posters

>Norwegian wood, wich i must say, is my favorite book?

GIRL DETECTED

I enjoyed it best of all the books I've read by Murakami. I don't really like him but somehow I do in spite of myself his books are a lot like his protagonists.

I didn't find it interesting compared to his other works. I'd read about six of his other books before I read this. I can barely remember the premise now, his friends stop liking him and he needs to find out why? But ofc there's no real point and it's just a boring overly vague story that you know won't have a decisive ending. A vague ending is fine (he usually does them), but the entire book leading up to it is vague too, there's not a single point of clarity in the whole thing so you just kind of 'finish' without getting any impression

>>9726341
honestly for me pessimism neither manifests from social occlusion or takes the form of any bitterness. I just feel to be entirely unbiased it makes total sense. Your entire life consists of ameliorating debts. Sure its kind of fun but hardly anything to revel in and much less so to justify its initiation. I just feel like everyone needs to come down off their high before they approach philosophy.

>>9726372
not an argument

>>9726397
I'm not arguing yet tho. I'm just saying I'm fully satisfied with my existence and I still think philosophical pessimism wins.

she hit 40 despite being like 27

>>9725829
Nigger she's 22

>>9725843
them mexican genes

File: gwen-stefani-zoom-ef9ffed9-c987-479e-9d67-9f3133ea0020[1].jpg (83KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1200x630px

>>9724359

>>9724359
Why ask such an idiotic question?

>>9724359

Orwell :3

File: saga01.jpg (76KB, 340x434px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 340x434px

Pic related
:(

File: 7.png (174KB, 305x411px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 305x411px

I'm tempted to buy this but there's so many other things that I would rather have first for actual reading that I can't justify the cost.

Eden Eden Eden is about 15 yurobucks on amazon

>>alister Crowley
>I tried to download a couple of his PDFs the other month and that made absolutely no sense to the point I felt like it was written in another language.
what? Crowley is normie tier reading. there are two kinds of occult books:

1- Manual style books (kinda boring)
2- Acid trip style of books (interesting but hard to get any juice from them unless you already know some of the "language")

Crowley plays a little bit on the middle of the road between those 2. I don't really like him because he doesn't excel at any of them.

If you are a right winger get into Julius Evola instead. He doesn't write manual style books because he knows those are boring shit missing the point nor does he write acid trip books. He writes studies about the acid trip kind of books.

The good thing is that even if you disregard all the occult bullshit you'll get very nice scholarship with Evola and learn some history. That's hardly ever the case with most authors in that field.

what books have you tried so far OP?

File: image.jpg (122KB, 640x644px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 640x644px

I don't know the names of the couple I have tried but they where in similar writing style to the one in reading now.
I've read a lot of online articles with the same nature,build you up to let you down.

I've also just joined some esoteric group on Facebook and grabbed these in the picture today.
Have you herd of them ?I haven't even browsed through them yet.

>>9719200
to me personally theosophy is christianity-lite and cancer. haven't read any of those though

This being the positions of the books on your pic, judging from the covers:

1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9

may be good if you are lucky: 1, 2, 6, 7 (Waite is ok for manual type books), 9
not sure: 4, 5
look like cancer: 3, 8,

read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum before getting too deep into secret society stuff. it's not a great book but it had the right idea and the first 2/3 parts of it are great. Secret societies are usually one of the most cancerous parts of all the occult reading and theories

http://www.english.grimoar.cz/ has many books to download as well. Israel Regardie is usually good for manual style books to get a first tour of the kind of symbols used, but he is bit boring to read, if i remember correctly

>>9718651
Lolita

>>9718651
The Bible

Some interesting ideas, but everything in it about earlier prophets is 100% fan fiction bullshit
Sufism is the only acceptable Islam

Desert boogaloo 2: Burkas & Durkas

>>9714695
Cause of the fall of the west

>reading jew lit
Stop that and praise Kek instead.

File: 1495216746444.jpg (72KB, 680x585px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 680x585px

>>9731879

Yes, yes. All that good /pol/ stuff. So, what are you reading?

File: 1499037563116.jpg (64KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1024x683px

>>9731879
Shadilay, brother!