Books universally beloved by /lit/
No meme books please
I bet none of you poeple have actually read that book fuck you.
>>7657885
>says no meme books
>posts meme book
>>7657885
how good is it? how badly do i need to read it?
>>7657907
No Exit is better.
The basic tenant of existentialism is that "existence precedes essence." In other words, man makes up meaning with the use of his mind. There is no pre-set (a priori) meaning to be found here.
Because of this Sartre (wrongly) believed that this means that man is free, and, therefore, responsible for everything he does.
It didn't take long for Foucault to disprove this idea of freedom, showing how enslaved people were to social system of oppressive power.
>>7657888
Ya man, nobody probably heard of it either Sartre is quite obscure.
>>7657888
I read nausea when I was 15. Fuck this meme board
>>7657885
i hate Sartre and the blood of /lit/ courses through my veins so he is most certainly NOT beloved you cock sucking nigger lover
My god.
>>7657957
I'm sure you understood it too
>>7657885
Nausea sucks and so does Sartre, the googly eyed commie lover.
>>7657924
There is no free will, man has no choice but to be enslaved. Fuck Foucault.
>>7657924
you can't disprove an idea, numbnuts. philosophy doesn't work that way you objectivist simpleton
Invisible cities
Stoner
Lolita(?)
Brothers Karamazov
Heart of Darkness
Most of Borges' stuff
Most of Kafka's stuff
>>7658201
Being is nauseating, language can't describe it perfectly, the ambiguity and absurdity of the world is insurmountable, all narratives are contrivances, the only redemption possible is in music and art ("suffer in rhythm") blah blah blah probably got more out of it than you
>>7657963
What the fuck are you doing?
>>7657885
Lolita is the only one that doesn't have any criticism on this board.
>>7658537
That shit sucks
>le eloquent pedophile maymay
>>7658504
So you're saying you're 15 still?
>>7658617
lol, that's literally in the book. why does every autist on this board complain about shallow writing if it isn't a fucking treatise on the human condition? I'm sorry you read 1984 for the first time in your 20s bro but don't take it out on me
>>7657885
>>7658632
That's not what I was implying. I was saying you probably didn't understand it when you were 15. Then you went on to explain as if you were still 15.
Your reading comprehension is absolute shit mate. If you went back in time to when you were 15 and explained the book to me then that would have made sense.
Do you understand what I'm saying? Do I need to explain it further?
>>7657885
i loev that book, now what
>>7658648
m8 I don't give a fuck what you think to be honest. Hope this helps
I read half but couldn't finish it because it made me depressed
>>7658655
You don't give a fuck about what I think yet you keep replying to me
Interesting
>>7658476
I think Nabokov is quite well liked here but it's not uncommon for people to dislike Lolita. I personally don't think much of the book, or the writer
excepting the "fanfiction" criticisms
>>7658648
you're a stupid cunt and the other anon won this argument completely
bow out now to retain a trace of dignity
>>7658664
Listen I don't give a shite what you think.
I remember on the first day of /lit/'s existence, a bunch of us talked about this book in a thread and how much we loved it. No one called anyone a pleb or anything. I miss those days.
>>7658685
Yeah, people on /lit/ mostly like Pale Fire over Lolita.
>>7658705
Fuck you. I won. You just want the last word.
>>7658838
And I'm gonna get it you little bitch
>>7658815
People have been shitting on Pale Fire lately though
>>7658709
I want to go back to the days when /pol/ and /mu/ stayed on their boards, this board was much slower and nobody mentioned memes.
Probably the book I have heard the least criticism of, along with Lolita
>>7657885
Is this book a good way to understand Sartre's philosophy?
>>7659969
Not really, since it's a novel. 'Being and Nothingness', inspired by Heidegger's work, is considered to be Sartre's magnum opus; Heidegger read it but didn't like it--he literally said that he "can't bear to read that shit".
>>7659958
Because nobody ever talks about it.
And Lolita is commonly criticized for being genre fiction tier substance-free prosefag orgy
>>7658838
Hell no, I won.
>>7658298
You can show that an idea is not logically consistent with other ideas which are generally accepted in a specific discourse, thereby disproving the idea.
Reading objectivism into one simple word really shows that you're d-u-m-b.
>>7658542
why'd you enter two
times?
I haven't read any Sartre but I've heard he's unbelievably dull
>>7657924
No faget he believed in free will because of his 'radical freedom' concept. Get a grip pretender. The idea is that we can choose to disregard all contingency. Whether he's right or not is another question.
faget
>>7658537
Reeligious ppl tho. They hate everything. But of coarse they don't count.
>>7660120
if you have no taste better stick to camus
>>7660461
y-you can like bboth...
>>7657885
>Books universally beloved by /lit/
>No meme books please
Pick two
>>7660453
bad bait
>>7660508
Maybe I was beingserious.
>>7660453
Le Reddit atheist, maybe your protestant parents were dilettantes but most people who are religious have a very complex, deep and expansive love of art.
>>7660566
>but most people who are religious have a very complex, deep and expansive love of art.
![81a3oM3EcfL[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ScmWzDS.jpg "81a3oM3EcfL[1].jpg")
>>7657885
I can't tell if this book is a meme and /lit/ votes it to the top of their favorite books. After 400 pages of reading it I hope it's not a meme.
>>7659979
That's because Sartre was high on cocaine and just cranked out word after word
That same book could be cut down to a third of its size
>>7660566
That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever heard on here.
>>7660578
It's a meme on /lit/ because people a fucking mongoloids. In actual literary communities, it's a well renowned and often critically well received book.
>>7660582
It really can't. I sometimes doubt you people have read these things. If anything I think he kept it as as succinct as should be. One or two parts were unnecessary but as a whole I disagree.
>>7660585
What literary circles do you hang around? You would be laughed out of just about any top 50 school if you claimed that book was anything more than Rolling Stone-tier Pynchon-knockoff
>>7660553
I would hope not for your sake
>>7660600
Call the Pope!!
>>7660591
Sorry I listened to the audiobook
>>7660566
>most people who are religious
That's most people in the world I don't think most people have a complex love of art kek
>>7659982
>butthurt Kerouac fan detected
it's a better road trip and americana novel than your gay fantasy, sorry. it just is
>>7660620
the pro DFW guy is prob talking about franzen and co.
the anti DFW guy is probs about bloom and the "no discernible talent" review
Someone here read Stirner and disliked him?
am i the only one on lit who didn't find this book depressing? honestly, it was more of a self-help book to me, than a philosophical novel.
i mean its actually so stupid this book. its literally just a depressed guy whining about how meaningless life is, as his life just gets worse and worse. Untill he suddenlly bullshits out an explanation for why music/art somehow has meaning, while nothing else has. the book he talks about writing in the end of the novel, is the we're reading.
so we're literally reading the meaning of someones life.
>>7658196
yup
>>7660629
You missed the point. He doesn't assign meaning to art but Finds meaning in it. The book is not much beside ontological and epistemological ideas fleshes out into fiction. Understanding that is key to any enjoyment of the novel.
>>7660628
Disliking Stirner is a spook
