>In order to understand Ancient literature, you need to have a massive knowledge of ancient history and to be familiar with the context and circumstances surrounding the creation of that work
>In order to understand "modern" philosophers such as Derrida and such you first need to have a huge understanding of phenomenology, Heidegger, structuralism and post-structuralism and pretty much every single philosopher (and their ideas) that came before him, and it all boils down to "start with the Greeks"
>In order to fully grasp Ancient Greek philosophy it is advised to be familiar with the Ancient Greek history
>In order to understand Joyce, you first need to be familiar with the works of Shakespeare, Dante and Ovid (and many others)
>In order to understand Pynchon, you need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of just about any subject ever, also it is recommended to be a rocket scientist
It's like they couldn't have possibly made it any harder if they tried.
Learning is hard? Give up.
Saw this on /lit/ earlier fagtron
the idea that you can fully graps something knowledge of hat produced that work, is bogus. You wouldn't have the need to read it then yu could make it up yourself if this sort of "transparent" understanding was possible.
In fact the value of a work resides exactly in what is stranger to you and the effect it produces by clashing with your cultural horizon, also not everyone needs to be a critic.
>>1025175
Fuck off
>It's like they couldn't have possibly made it any harder if they tried.
you mean human history and culture? yeah its a little complicated
>>1025156
Epic le /lit/ thread homie! I also like inventing excuses not to read.
the idea that you can fully graps something knowledge of hat produced that work, is bogus. You wouldn't have the need to read it then yu could make it up yourself if this sort of "transparent" understanding was possible.
In fact the value of a work resides exactly in what is stranger to you and the effect it produces by clashing with your cultural horizon, also not everyone needs to be a critic.
>>1025156
> Derrida
> Modern """"""""""""""""""""""""philosopher""""""""""""""""""""""""""
wew lad. Not to mention that structuralism and post-structuralism have very little to do with philosophy to begin with. Read Focault as if he's part of the analytic tradition and considered a coherentist when it comes to epistemology and you're set.
>>1025156
Not my fault your mother didn't buy you encyclopedias as a kid.
>>1029687
lol
