Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: IMG_0964.jpg (86KB, 496x901px) Image search:
[Google]
86KB, 496x901px
Why are you pretending to understand primary texts without using secondary sources to explicate ideas? Even Avicenna used them.
>"...As a teenager, [Avicenna] was greatly troubled by the Metaphysics of Aristotle, which he could not understand until he read al-Farabi's commentary on the work. For the next year and a half, he studied philosophy, in which he encountered greater obstacles. In such moments of baffled inquiry, he would leave his books, perform the requisite ablutions, then go to the mosque, and continue in prayer till light broke on his difficulties. Deep into the night, he would continue his studies, and even in his dreams problems would pursue him and work out their solution. Forty times, it is said, he read through the Metaphysics of Aristotle, till the words were imprinted on his memory; but their meaning was hopelessly obscure, until one day they found illumination, from the little commentary by Farabi, which he bought at a bookstall for the small sum of three dirhams. So great was his joy at the discovery, made with the help of a work from which he had expected only mystery, that he hastened to return thanks to God, and bestowed alms upon the poor..."
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna
>>
Extensive use of secondary sources here desu. I think /lit/ is critical on second sources ONLY vs actually reading the primary.
Also remember there are many Amerifats and former Protestants here, so they fetishize primary texts and their own interpretation
>>
>>9672516
>not being smart enough to unpack texts on your own
>>
File: IMG_0868.jpg (61KB, 500x495px) Image search:
[Google]
61KB, 500x495px
>>9672516
What are you even talking about? I don't read primary sources. I read secondary sources, reviews, TvTropes, and see how far I can get without getting called out on not knowing what I'm talking about. I'm not emotionally prepared for actual critical thinking, so I regurgitate pseudanalysis as practice.
>>
>>9672662
>I'm not emotionally prepared for actual critical thinking,
you should get on that or leave.
>>
medieval 2: total war did nothing wrong
>>
File: 19105521_1681767508503454_3926009439552168680_n.jpg (36KB, 500x557px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 500x557px
>>9672516
DEUS VULT MY NIGGER
>>
>>9672516
Who the hell doesn't read secondary sources?
>>
>>9672516
Which secondary source al-Farabi used?
>>
>>9672516
Avicenna is a fictional character invented by Muslims to convince themselves they are capable of intelligence. He's literally a mary sue
>>
>>9672780
Allah
>>
There's nothing wrong with using secondary sources, but there is definitely something wrong with an over-reliance on them leading to a lack of your own interpretation, which honestly is far too common.
For most works you should probably be trying to come up with your own interpretation and analysis before turning to secondary texts. Using secondary texts to illuminate primary texts you can't grasp can be helpful, but you have to exercise caution while doing so, and if you're doing it frequently you probably are reading too far outside of your skill level.
>>
>>9672529
Basically.
>>
>>9672516
I've been thinking of reading such books about the Bible and the Quran, because I hardly understand a thing of those. Sadly though I don't have the drive that Avicenna apparently had:
>Forty times, it is said, he read through the Metaphysics of Aristotle
>>
>>9672516
If a text is worth reading I shouldn't have to read some other nigger's worthless thoughts on it. And I mean nigger in a non-racist way
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3