Anyone know if I should get this version translated by Mannheim with the intro by D Cameron watt ,pic related. Or the one with the black cover just by Mannheim. Is there a big difference between the 2 editions? Btw I'm not a nazi just getting a lot of autobiographies and I felt this is an important addition to the list.
Thanks /lit/ !
Also the one in this pic with black cover is just the Mannheim with no DC Watt intro.
The first is cheaper but I want to know if the one with no watt intro is a better version or is altered or updated in any way?
Don't forget to read the Zweites Buch, and Hitler's Table Talk. They're better. Mein Kampf doesn't really get the real Hitler across.
Thanks I have table talk written down to remind me to get it. I'll definitely look into zweites buch.
So do you think that the 2 MK versions are basically the same?
I'm just afraid the DC one has different footnotes or is altered from the Mannheim version.
Look at this reddit writing, and how well praised it is.
I mean, it's mediocre at best.
Is reading philosophy worth it? I'm interested but it seems like quite an undertaking and I don't want to put in the effort if I'm just being memed without realizing it
was he right?
Which settings/themes would you most like to see more in literature?
something written at a higher level than literotica/amazon ebook standards anyway.
Not that they're that bad but I want to fap and have nice prose as well
Thinking of reading this book. Is it legit or is it just feel-good betabux propaganda
I've read it
Teaches you how to do "active conversations", i.e., how to talk about feelings of everyone involved in a relatively useful way without, how to keep the discussions on track, how to stop feelings getting too involved etc.
Still, I hate when people use the techniques presented, it's become a bit overdone in some circles ("How do you feel about Timmy having taken your toys? I want you to describe your feelings to Timmy!")
Useful if you have to "manage" conversations relatively often (partner/work etc.), not...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
This is fascinating.
Man how do you guys do it?
I recently got bored and lurked around for a bit here, I saw a thread on dystopian books and decided to get myself a copy of Fahrenheit 451, a book about book burning and I sat down a read for a bit, after about 2 minutes I put the book down and went on my phone. How the heck do I get a really get into a book?
Any books, articles on mechanics of humour, joke semiotics? What is there, besides the setup and the punchline, that succesful comedians have at their disposal?
You guys have been somewhat successful at clarifying some elliptical things in books.
I am currently writing the script for a movie adaptation of The Book Of The New Sun. If you've read it can you post some comments/suggestions/understanding of the mythology.
For anyone interested
Thecla will be played by an actress wearing Severians cloak when appropriate. There will probably not be a white fountain. The beginning scene is of Father Inire showing the girls his mirrors.
Fun fact: HBO is releasing a show called Westworld and already has Game of Thrones leaving the New Sun series 'not viable'. To be fair, I am excited for both of those. The way the script is going now, it has a very clear arc that can be done in one movie. I hope you will be optimistic.
I will check back in maybe an hour or so if this thread isn't relegated to the trash, but for whomever might be curious some fun facts:
triskele is of course in.
the play is not in the film, quotes from it are used to introduce the seperate chapters. Jonas is explicitly korean. severian dies several times.
what are some essential books for betas?
can we have a exospatial metaphysical spondulics?
why do you read books?
that is one of the ugliest book covers i've ever seen
where do I go from this serie?
I'd like sci-fi/fantasy actually well written
I've read about modal ontological arguments for the existence of God, and it seems some atheists think that the same sort of argument can be used to argue the non-existence of God:
1. If God exists, God is necessary.
2. It is possibly the case that God doesn't exist.
3. Therefore God is not necessary.
4. Therefore God doesn't exist (modus tollens, from 1)
So /lit/, what's wrong with this argument?