> When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. In learning to write, the pupil goes over with his pen what the teacher has outlined in pencil: so in reading; the greater part of the work of thought is already done for us. This is why it relieves us to take up a book after being occupied with our own thoughts. And in reading, the mind is, in fact, only the playground of another’s thoughts. So it comes about that if anyone spends almost the whole day in reading, and by way of relaxation devotes the intervals to some thoughtless pastime, he gradually loses the capacity for thinking; just as the man who always rides, at last forgets how to walk. This is the case with many learned persons: they have read themselves stupid.
So /lit/, have you read yourselves stupid yet or do you occupy your time with meaningful activities? Or perhaps you think that Schopenhauer is wrong?
I'm not sure this is true. I think a lot as I read. Interesting sentences are like seeds for a dark garden. What grows from them can be very different from the progenitors.
>>8179556
Literally "I sucked 5 cocks before lunch today": The post.
Yeah, no. I think about shit when I read.
>>8179556
But you're still a faggot for putting it this way
>hurr durr the hermeneutic circle is already closed
Lmao, he is not saying that everyone who reads a lot read themselves stupid. He is just pointing out the fact that some do. So why the fuck do you people say "no, this is not true"? Enlighten me please
>>8179593
Because OP asked:
> have you read yourselves stupid yet or do you occupy your time with meaningful activities?
Asking us directly if we've done this to ourselves while also implying that reading books is not a meaningful activity. He also poses this question in opposition to Schopenhauer being wrong. It's not surprising that readers would interpret it this way.
It's just bait, friend. Well crafted bait, but bait.
I"ve never read Shaup, but thats a hella dumb segment quote (not gonna base this on him completely tho, regardless to whether he's based or baseless.)
Reading isnt for Queers if it's interactive. On second thought...
>>8179612
OP never implied that reading was meaningless. You're totally wrong here it seems for me. He asked if you either are reading the 'wrong' or 'right' way if you imply Schopen's theory to be right. Also, again, the first guy who commented answers with "no, this is wrong" on the whole idea BECAUSE he himself reads the 'right' way.
Enlighten me pls
>>8179643
Why does it sound wrong? Lets say I read mindless fantasy all day, how does that make me any smarter? (Lets ignore the smart meme this time)
>>8179663
Reread my post.
has anyone here ever actually read the Schop? that dude quotes 15 authors per page, he read everything. so all he really means is "don't be a dumb fag lord," which I think is a pretty uncontroversial piece of advice.
>>8179674
Lol mb, didnt see the last comment. Im drunk
Kill me
>>8179683
Nah im drunk too
Kys (unless you take NAC and Vitamin C whilst drinking)
>>8179556
I agree. It is much as the longsword to thy knight, who can hand it to him but himself?
>>8179678
/lit/ is 300-500 people, 95% of which are pseuds. Almost nobody here actually reads.
You might get a response from someone who actually knows things, but you'd have to frame your question in a way that would prompt their response.
>>8179694
Doth his squire not furnish for him his blade? For what be a squire but a bearer of the sword? Dost not the young lad be the handler of swords?
He's specifically criticizing Hegel's orbiters.
>>8179556
This, except I'm not a faggot so I'll say that what I read makes me think about things and certain things I read make me pause and reflect on myself and my life and how I haven't killed a whale yet or visited a prison colony.
>>8179731
this this this
>>8179714
Wandring Wind, what hast thou witnesst? Yieldless Earth, why shalt thoust bear me? Tis in winter warmest days are found, and in Eldaron's halls is the greatest loneliness. This sword yon page does wield may 'deed be made of a thousand mansorrows, yet in this hand it carves a thousand new! Alack! Kloq'mithuk shall fall!
>>8179769
Gay
>>8180101
cunt
>>8179535
But u can ride horse all day and not forget how to walk tho
>>8179556
If I told you that a flower bloomed in a dark garden, would you trust it?
>>8181681
I might lick it.
>>8181681
>Dark
What did he mean by this?
>>8181698
I-it was a pretentious reference to the unconscious mind. I thought it was almost poetic.
>>8181681
It's dark room, retard.
>>8181704
>I trusted it was almost poetic
fixed that for you
Just touching down on /lit/, after boiling my head like a cabbage in a couple of the various lost-cause boards here on the chan ship of fools - so it seems it is common to call each other 'retard' and generally upkeep the (essentially) /b/ mentality of the angry mob / crowd?
That's a bit of a shame, isn't it? At least it is free of anything worse, thus far, but it still despoils the quality of our interaction with a board of innately superior content.
I'd say it was the sadly inevitable product of intellectually insecure 18-25 year-olds, if only it wouldn't provoke more backchat in a similar timbre.
Feel free to let this topic sink without trace. Some things will never change, I suppose.
>>8181967
You talk like a faggot
>>8181716
thank you, friend. I didn't know that. desu I've never listened to the song before, nor have I ever looked up the lyrics. truly I had no idea. it's not like I was slightly tweaking the lyrics to fit the response or anything. kys, my good man.
>>8181967
kys fag
>>8182061
I *kiss you, as you have instructed.
>>8179556
Good post, appreciate the original format. You're also absolutely correct.
>>8181967
>I'd say it was the sadly inevitable product of intellectually insecure 18-25 year-olds, if only it wouldn't provoke more backchat in a similar timbre.
Exactly right on all points. I have raised similar sentiments so many times and they have all fallen on deaf ears or those of lurkers. There is really no winning. If I wasn't so complacent I'd find another forum.
>>8179556
I think this is a good post and I like the way he put it.
>>8181967
Yeah, conversation here could very well be more civilized. Not to say that the opposite of the angry confrontational style which is the reddit circlekjerking style isn't as worse though, but there is a middleground.
>>8181972
by 'faggot' i'm gonna guess you mean 'individual'
good job anyway champ
>>8182116
Absolute, a middle ground is needed and simply healthy-minded. Rational but not acerbic, critical but not cruel. Respectful and not arrogant. Let's not get into the intellectual part, though... I find it amazing that pseudos believe that board culture is somehow full of substance.
