Reading is for fags

>>8190956
You need CONSCIOUS, ACTIVE, THOUGHT to read and understand a book.

Movies, music, and even audiobooks, require little for your mental thinking to be working. It's what some people can say as white noise, or background.

I mean really anon, don't you already understand that when you sit down on your chair, open the book, and stare at black and white text, you're putting more thought and action than blandly staring at a screen.

People hate movie/TV people because most modern stuff is garbage. Kind of in the same way that most modern books are garbage. Similarly, most of everything created ever is garbage. However, humans have made a crap ton of books over the years so the tiny percent that isn't crap is actually a large absolute number. So most TV sucks but we're on 4chan so we have no high horse here.

>>8190956
not trynna sound like a fedora tipping gentleman but obly idiots deal in absolutes.

There is trash in both merit and trash in both mediums.

>>8190975
what the fuck is wrong with me?

There is both trash and merit in the two mediums.

>>8190966
>You need CONSCIOUS, ACTIVE, THOUGHT to read and understand a book.
Even if that were true (and I'm sure a filmfag could say the same about watching a film) how does that make books better?

Because it requires more energy it's better? How? Do you therefore recall more about the books you read than the films you watch? Do you find it easier to quote books than movies, and therefore that justifies it?

Help me out. Give me more than "it uses more brain power Q.E.D."

when you're watching television the higher brain regions (like the midbrain and the neo-cortex) are shut down, and most activity shifts to the lower brain regions (like the limbic system). The neurological processes that take place in these regions cannot accurately be called “cognitive.” The lower or reptile brain simply stands poised to react to the environment using deeply embedded “fight or flight” response programs. Moreover, these lower brain regions cannot distinguish reality from fabricated images (a job performed by the neo-cortex), so they react to television content as though it were real, releasing appropriate hormones and so on. Studies have proven that, in the long run, too much activity in the lower brain leads to atrophy in the higher brain regions.

see, if you read a book you'd know that.

>>8190966
>CONSCIOUS, ACTIVE, THOUGHT
One too many commas Mr Gove

>>8191013
Coming from the man who omitted his final period, it's hardly a concern.

>>8190996
Assuming all of that to be true, that still wouldn't suggest there is something to be gained from books that cannot be gained from video/audio, since the only benefit is as some sort of "exercise" (a bit like eating grass so that your appendix gets a good workout)

Also
>Studies have proven
Oy vey cum hoc ergo propter hoc kekeke

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/may/21/watching-3d-movies-helps-improve-brain-power

Neuroscience is poking around in the dark. It has marginally more value than psychoanalysis which has marginally more value than phrenology.

>>8190966
this is entirely depending on what you are reading/watching/listening to. is reading the Hunger Games really more mentally engaging than watching even an entry-level arthouse film like Persona?

>>8190975
The Jedi lost mate, the Sith rule the Galaxy.

THAT's an absolute.

File: tmp_14194-images1832874274.jpg (6KB, 197x255px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 197x255px

>>8190975
>obly idiots deal in absolutes

>>8190966
>Movies, music, and even audiobooks, require little for your mental thinking to be working.
Stanley Kubrick is widely known to make every detail in his films meaningful and symbolic and his films always contain themes about humanity as a whole. He never makes these themes extremely obvious because he wants to test the audience and make them think for themselves

What's the point of this thread? Are you some fag from /tv/ whose vagina got filled with sand after your parents told you that tv was making you a retard?

>>8191082
>What's the point of this thread?
Read the first three lines of the OP post. If based on that you wish to participate in the discussion, feel free to do so, however...

>Are you some fag from /tv/ blah blah blah...
...try to avoid the trap of tackling the man and not the ball.

>>8191104
I'll take that as a yes.

>>8190956

novels is for fags. i only read history, philosophy, and literary theory.

>>8191013
commas can have rhetorical use

>>8191037
It suggests, rather resoundingly, that reading is superior to watching television in regards to benefitting the mind. This is self-evident.

>"exercise"

Is superior to inactivity, which if allowed to persist culminates in atrophy.

>eating grass

How about you leave /lit/ and go watch some TV, or better yet, a 3D movie.

File: tmp_14194-i-prefer-good-literary-crit-701010666.jpg (89KB, 570x321px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 570x321px

>>8191149

>>8191149
>novels is for fags.
>literary theory

>>8191158

literary theory comprises a whole slew of problematics that can largely operate "on themselves," as it were, much like philosophy. if i ever feel the need to "apply" it in the more traditional, vulgar sense, I just pull out heart of darkness.

File: 205071_007.jpg (36KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 320x240px

>>8191156

>>8191156
I love that movie.

I don't know and don't really care desu, I just enjoy reading so I do.

File: zeno is disappoint.jpg (21KB, 250x328px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 250x328px

>>8191180
>Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
mfw