What does /lit/ think of this book?

>>7328632
good intro to philosophy as it pertains to "real life" and not just armchair intellectual masturbation.

Never read because motorcycle fetishism seems like baby boomer bullshit.

>>7328809
So a shitty Nietzsche then?

Waffly new age feel-good bullshit

>>7328823
Actually try to read Nietzsche instead of posturing

>>7328828
>Waffly new age feel-good bullshit

pretty much this. it's babby's first philosophy and is firmly for middlebrow plebs who want to feel intellectual.

File: 66697ef5-4ce8-437a-9ab1-c9f854f7ea9e.jpg (51KB, 640x637px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x637px

>>7328632
Enjoyed it a fair amount, it's at the very least a persuasive and entertaining pop-philosophy read but, like most pop-philosophy, its merit is almost entirely felt while reading it and not much is learned after the fact

reminded me of Stirner but in an uplifting, politically correct way (at least with how it dealt with "ghosts")

How is the language? Easy or hard to read for a novice? Considering reading it. Would you guys recommend it for a person who intends to read "heavier stuff" later i.e. more complex works, as a form of "introduction"?

>>7328843
yeah it's a good intro to philosophy book.

either that or get an old cheap edition of one of Robert Solomon's "introducing philosophy"...a lot of college professors use it. it's a great read.

File: 68593682.png (1MB, 990x694px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 990x694px

>>7328843
It's the equivalent to young adult philosophy and if anything it will only make the complex works more confusing

desu if you're intending to read heavier stuff later I'd recommend something which deals with complex themes but is told in a relatively simple way

Literature wise I would say short stories are your best bet. Joyce's Dubliners along with Hemingway and Kafka are all excellent and their prose is as coherent and understandable as anything else

Philosophy is a bit tougher, but when in doubt start with the Greeks is never bad advice. If that doesn't cut it for you then a general Philosophy 100 textbook would be a good jumping off point.

Camus, Nietzsche and Sartre are all a nice blend of the two, the existentialists usually had a more romantic/literary approach to philosophy and it's endearing to many. Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Trial are both excellent and require little to no prior philosophical knowledge

I know it has "Zen" in the title, but is it using zen in the more anglicized meaning, or does it have zen ideas in it?

I study Buddhism and have heard of it, but never really heard what it actually is.

>>7328809
You mean the book that's pretty much *only* armchair intellectual masturbation, "ooooh"ing and "ahhhh"ing over how apparently deep it thinks the question "What is Quality?" is, while characterizing both Western and Eastern philosophy half-assedly?

>>7329006

yeah. the book is the MacDonald's of philosophy.
It's neither deep, nor original, nor healthy. It ridiculizes thousands of years of thinking without offering anything in return.

>>7329039
>It ridiculizes thousands of years of thinking without offering anything in return.
so it's not original since every other philosopher has been doing that since eternity

feels like 90% of the people who criticize it haven't even read it since they all give the same vague buzzwords about it.

The book is an okay novel. Every single word he says about Eastern philosophy is wrong and so is most of what he says about Western philosophy to boot.
>>7329039
>ridiculize
Technically an English word but I smell a frog.

>>7329047
There's nothing to engage with in it. That book itself is nothing but post-hippie buzzwords about East and West, with a shockingly retarded grasp on material he should've known better as a professor.

It's precisely what anyone should expect from the philosophizing of a mentally ill guy trying to justify himself with the usual "Maybe it's SOCIETY who's crazy lel" bullshit.