What's the literature equivalent to John Cage?
>he thinks flexing his vocabulary makes him look smarter
>he thinks artificially restricting his own vocabulary makes him look less insecure
I have a free book credit on Audible. What should I use it on? About 99% of the people reading these things sound bored out theirs ass
>literally 99.99% of the problems posed in this book are solved by Democracy
Is there seriously a better system of government?
That's the point, you putz. It's like you're quoting others' arguments as a substitute for reading the book.
Machiavelli believes a republic is the highest form of governance, but knows that it can be prone to takeover. The Prince is a guide to how the guy who takes over should rule in the absence of a republic. It's not a treatise on autocracy and fear, it's a necessary text to provide guidelines to a tyrant who refuses to abdicate. He's trying to do the best with what he's given.
Machiavelli was perhaps John Adams biggest intellectual predecessor. In response to your question, no.
>inb4 the kids get in here and stink up the thread with their trendy extremism
The truth of combat?
>The truth of combat?
Rich old men send poor young boys to suck and fuck each others in hot steamy shit puddles for erotic fun.
/k/ will give you better answers (sometimes). Some guys have seen some shit, many more will try to act like they've seen some shit, most will just tell you war (not necessarily combat) is boring or a big party, depending on when they were in the Middle East.
Are there other "cannons"? Where do I find lists for them?
Are there any studies that exist that show that 'E-Ink' does not have the same detrimental effects on reading comprehension as do E-Readers without E-Ink?
What about the physicality of the an actual book and the touching of pages--is this not relevant?
I've only seen one study that concluded e-books resulted in worse comprehension than paper, but they made no distinction in the device being used to display the e-book, lumping together proper e-ink readers and tablets with LCD screens.
Being rich is more impressive to most people than not being rich; also good quality paper feel better than plastic buttons. More news at 11.
Seriously: a text is a text, everything else is luxury.
Redpill me on this guy, /lit/. Apart from the fact that he looks like a Planeswalker from M:TG, what is the best reason to be reading him seriously in 2016?
Here's Searle's take on it.
Tl;dr Just say 'no' to Continental philosophy.
>reading him seriously
don't. the guys crowning achievement is deconstructionism which basically concludes by saying 'all written text is nothing but words on a page and therefore are completely useless and meaningless. now let's post some frogs boys!'
the guy was a raving irrationalist. there is nothing to be gained from studying him other than to see just how he forms his claims, what his overall message is, and how he impacted thought.
I know I'm not the only
plebon here needing to be spoonfed lines of poetry in order to like the whole poem and discover further material.
So: Post your favorite lines of poetry ITT. Let's become patrician through an entry level circlejerk, friends.
Darkling I listen; and, for many a time
I have been half in love with easeful Death,
Call'd him soft names in many a mused rhyme, To take into the air my quiet breath; Now more than ever seems it rich to die,
To cease upon the midnight with no pain, While thou art pouring forth thy soul abroad
In such an ecstasy!
Still wouldst thou sing, and I have ears in vain
To thy high requiem become a sod.
Scenario: you are banished to a deserted island with a little cabin.
A genie gives you the option of either having:
A: one single work of a white male author (hence no Bible or 'collected Shakespeare/Plato', say)
B: a library of the best literature and philosophy produced by women and nonwhites
Which do you choose? And if A, specify which work.
And mods, please don't be party poopers and ban me, this is not meant as a shitposting bait thread, I'm just genuinely curious, and I encourage all frogpeople, SJWs, and...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>Avoiding a nasty real-life plot twist, a writer dashed past firefighters into a burning New Orleans house Thursday to rescue two completed novels stored on his laptop.
>"Anybody that's ever created art, there's no replacing that," Gideon Hodge, 35, told The New Orleans Advocate after safely making it out of the burning building with the computer. "It's got pretty much my life's work."
So, who of you lot was this?
Is there a more /lit/ nation than Russia?
Hmm. Favorite cat literature?
Post what your currently reading.
what does /lit/ think of this?
What's some metrically interesting poetry?
I'm a student composer. Rhythm has always been my weakness, except when I set poetry to music. Tennyson particularly has been great for this, I've found. I don't want to write another art song right now, I'm just looking for something to draw rhythms from.
what are his accomplishments?
If I strive to just find the deepest, most thought provoking experience in a book that I possibly can, which will change the way I view the world and give me new reason to live, without some supernatural superstitious crap attached to it to give me false hope, what would that extraordinarily intelligent book be? I was thinking about reading infinite jest, buying a big ol hardcover copy of it too.
I like steve way more than linda. so sick of running into fucking cunts like that, concerned with being 'liked' by all the other vapid cunts concerned with being 'liked' at the office. if i was picking friends i'd rather have one steve than thirty lindas. steve says and thinks interesting things, linda takes instagram selfies with friends for literally an hour before everyone heads to the club. perhaps linda goes to europe but it is a hollow experience anyways and she should kill herself.
Is he the only decent existentialist?
Started reading CoL49, got to Chapter 3 and there's this:
>Nicholas having freed the serfs in 1861
Which is weird, since the year is correct, but it was Alexander II who did it. What the hell? I thought this guy spent the years between his novels in libraries doing research.
the novel is about broken communication, meaningless signs, ostensible facts
I guess that is why a statement is wrong?
I never noticed that, but I know jack shit about the topic anyway
Anyone else here reading this?
I just read the first chapter and i'm already sucked in.
I know homosexuality was never mentioned in the Giver, but given the dystopian nature of the society and their philosophy, what do you theorize would happen to homosexuals in their society, especially since that cannot be detected at infancy, and they mostly to aim at that age for exterminating "unwanteds".
I know they like to live in a black and white world without religion or color to cause division, but how would human sexuality fit in since it is such a continuum with such variables? Would they just let gay men live in peace with the rest of them and marry...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
What do I have to read before reading "my diary desu" to get the most out of it?
Tell me /lit/ why do you think nihilism is so often associated with pessimism and depression? And more importantly why is it all the time taken for granted on here that it's the ultimate (anti-)truth and ultimate (anti-)foundation?
Can I ask for a justification please?
Imo it's faulty reasoning, first and foremost the classic is/ought fallacy. Existence without purpose, no objective truth and so on are descriptive claims not to be confused with (the rejection of) moral claims and if an "is" does shape your "ought" we are not speaking of a philosophy but of something related to psychology, biology, neuroscience etc. We may philosophize about why nihilism and a pessimistic outlook on life correlate *through psychology* etc. perhaps after seeing convincing studies (or just making armchair observations like sigmund) or...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>Memory believes before knowing remembers. Believes longer than recollects, longer than knowing even wonders.
What did he mean by this?
Epicurus isn't making me happy.
How do I become happy?
>There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus
what did he mean by this? That we have to submit to 'muh SJW equality'?
He means ultimate gnosis is the cessation of all individuation, and the City of God is a Parmenidean whole, so if you want to have awesome fucking religious wars and beat the shit out of your wives, you'd better do it a LOT while you're in the Earthly City and really get get it out of your system.
What books do you keep starting with the intent of legitimately reading only to lose interest shortly after ?
Pic related is a book that I will never be able to devote myself to. Every month or so I pick it up with the aim of finally striking it off my list, and every time I lose interest within the same day. The furthest I've gotten is 105 pages and I keep forgetting why I stopped reading until I try starting again. The writing is god-tier at times, but the style of the book is a chore to get through.
No, I wouldn't say so. I don't find it difficult to read books in general, just this one specifically. Challenges are fun, but for some reason reading Ulysses just doesn't feel rewarding at all. Jung's critique of the book is very accurate.
A lot of people here seem to dislike the analytic tradition of philosophy. Why is this the case?
It seems to me that contemporary analytic work is by far the most readable and comprehensible, and covers the whole range of traditional philosophy. A likely explanation is that most people probably don't read the major changes that have happened since the 60s or so - and they end up equating logical positivism with analytic philosophy as a whole. But it's apparent that anglophone departments are not doing philosophy in the way conceived by Russel or Moore, and their fairly dogmatic positions on the role and limits of philosophy have been largely abandoned.
For instance, metaphysics is a respectable discipline now, as well as various revivals of ancient ethics and re-assessment of medieval thinkers. I think it's safe to say that "analytic philosophy" conceived as a rigid logicism that only clarifies arguments and plays haindmaiden to science, is a useless and outdated conception.
Its mundane, banal and reductive.
The aim of analytic philosophy is not to expand the possibilities of thought, it's simply descriptive explicating the world as it exists in common understanding.
It's mostly women and liberals who shy away from it because they've been taught that rationality and logic are patriarchal and white supremacist capitalist concepts that oppress.
They'd rather think with their feels than with reason