Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1490680498015.jpg (110KB, 736x956px) Image search:
[Google]
110KB, 736x956px
Just something for you guys to think about:
"When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. It is the same as the pupil, in learning to write, following with his pen the lines that have been pencilled by the teacher. Accordingly, in reading, the work of thinking is, for the greater part, done for us. This is why we are consciously relieved when we turn to reading after being occupied with our own thoughts. But, in reading, our head is, however, really only the arena of some one else’s thoughts. And so it happens that the person who reads a great deal — that is to say, almost the whole day, and recreates himself by spending the intervals in thoughtless diversion, gradually loses the ability to think for himself; just as a man who is always riding at last forgets how to walk. Such, however, is the case with many men of learning: they have read themselves stupid."
- Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
I read it and I disagree.
>>
Obviously Schopenhauer never read Derrida!
>>
>>9328651
A stupid person reads in such a way. A smart person allows the other voice to be there in his consciousness, but without falling for it as if it was necessarily the truth.
>>
>>9328651
Does that mean I should reject what Schopenhauer just wrote as well :^)
I would suggest that those incapable of taking other's thoughts and make them into their own, weren't bright in the first place. They didn't read themselves stupid. they were stupid, to begin with.
>>
>>
>>9328651
>When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process
Opinion already discarded. This is very wrong and literally one of the big differences between books and films. When you read a book you get your own mental representation of what's going on, which will most likely differ from other people's.
>>
>>9328728
this is what people think "thinking" amounts to, in the way the word is used in this context, wow
>>
>>9328734
(You)
>>
>>9328651
>he doesn't think about every single statement and actively try to disagree with the author by deconstructing his arguments and attempting to refute each premise
Whew lad, I didn't realise Schopenhauer was such a pleb.
Not even an ironic post. Genuinely disappointed with Schopy on this one.
>>
this is exactly why I don't read books
And lmao at those triggered autists itt, at last you find out how average you really are, you sheep
>>
>>9328771
Be careful not to fall for this bait.
>>
>>9328802
Killjoy.
Thanks for the (you) though
>>
>>9328822
You almost got me.
>>
>>9328651
Exactafuckingmundo. All this gigantic "I LE LOVE READING, I LE READ LE SO LE MUCH LE LE LE" nonsense comes from a few things.
>propaganda aimed at kids, so that they don't become functionally illiterate
>consumerwhoredom
>pseudointellectualism, which is an important issue all dying art forms
>plain stupidity
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2