Dostoyevsky>Tolstoy
Proofs me wrong
DOSTOEVSKIJ -MORAL GENIUS.
TOLSTOJ PUSHKIN- SEX ADDICTED AFRICANS
totally agree.
but why wittgenstein likes tolstoy so much?
>reading books
git out my country fagboy
Yes as a writer
No as a person (Dostoevsky was a alcoholic, gambling man and very retarded rightist who hated Jews and west).
Actually our 18-19th century culture is boring because it consists mostly of people of priveleged class copying Europeans. Our 20th and pre-18th century culture is genuine Russian. I strongly recommend westerners to read anything from our Silver Age because it's real Russian culture unlike Tolstoevsky who are good but just copied French novelists.
ПOMEЩИКИ-PAЗBPATHИКИ GOOGLE IT
dostoevsky is overrated
leo - masterrace
>>60809327
wow
>>60809462
lol
>>60808403
What? I think you opinion is general consensus... it is mine at least, here are my opinions of their works (which I've read)
Dostoevsky:
C&P: 9/10
BK: 9/10
Notes: 7/10
Poor People: 6/10
Tolstoy:
Death of II: 7/10
W&P: 7/10
Kingdom of God: 6/10
How much land?: 4/10
Zamyatin a best
>>60809462
>elite
>religious shit
>GALKOVSKY
Lol, who has made that pic and added retarded cospirologist there?
>>60809244
>people of priveleged class copying Europeans
Could the unpriveleged even write?
>>60808403
only retarded people apprecieate russian literature
>>60809244
So you mean Gogol and shit like that?
>>60809975
Some lucky could, Gogol as example.
>>60810026
Gogol is the earliest true Russian writer. I was talking more about Bulgakov, Yesenin, Mayakovskiy, Briusov etc.
>>Briusov
ХУИЗOB
Bup
>>60808403
Bulgakov > Dostoevsky > Tolstoy
Don't even waste your time reasing Russian literature in any language other than its original Russian.
>>60808403
doestoevsky had some weird goddamn mental issues.
tolstoy did too, except he put it into religion.
come to think of it, russia seems like a weird paradox. their best writers were world-class autists, their people have become broken and disillusioned and they have a national fetish for dystopia.
russia, please explain what went wrong.
Im trying to read the Idiot from Dosto.
How the hell do I keep all the Ivan Ivanovich Ivanovs apart.
>>60809462
Meme list
>>60814668
Dostoevskij was a masochist
>>60815011
I reading it now. I have the same problem. Just imagine them in your head. Will be easier.
>>60810061
I prefer Turgenev.
>reading books
*tips*
>>60815321
t. Rugby pro
>>60809462
This list is so fucking stupid.
>>60815335
t. chang
>>60814668
It's not a paradox. Good writers aren't well-rounded people like Dan Brown or J.K. Rowling. Good writers drown themselves in a lake like Virginia Woolf.
>>60815609
>mfw a filthy, stinking, whinging p*m replies to my post
delet this asap
>>60809462
>Goethe
>normal pleb
>no mention of Swift
Shit list
>>60809578
The death of Ivan Ilijts doesn't get enough credit. Although not nearly as perfect as Tolstoy's other works it still catches the essence of his philosophy in a short but still smart way. Most people just plainly ignore Tolstoy's hatred for the Bourgeois lifestyle, but this novel really forces the reader to truly see the old man Tolstoy had become while writing this.
>>60815678
ok Mr big strong colonial
>>60815586
So lovecraft was great by that definition.
i bet he would post on 4chan if he was alive today.
>>60809578
you forgot
>The Idiot 9/10
>>60815586
Virginia Woolf should've taken her idiotic philosophy with her then.
Now we don't only have her pessimistic lifeview to deal with but also moronic philophers like G.E. Moore or Thomas Reid who desperately try to fight scepticism in it's entirity. Thanks to her we now have to put up with this weird mingling between realism and pessismism.
(Still gonna read her work though)
>>60815782
Don't be an asshole. He's not the best writer but he's entertaining. And don't forget Hemingway and Hunter S. Thompson shot themselves; Nietzsche went crazy; Pynchon is a recluse; and Wittgenstein was neurotic.
>>60815907
That doesn't make her a bad writer. Schiller was also an idiot philosopher but he was a damn good poet.
>>60815980
Pynchon is nothing special despite what """""intelectuals""""" will tell you.
>>60809150
Maybe it's because they loved a simple lifestyle alot? Tolstoy is known for wearing peasant clothes and working with his own hands on his estate.
Wittgenstein also lived a while as a gardner at a monastery and gave away all of his money to his relatives.
They also both had a passion for education, Tolstoy tried multiple times to open a elementary school for the peasants on his estate but they all failed. Wittgenstein also worked as a teacher on a elementary school for a while and he ofcourse became a professor at the university of Cambridge.
>>60815149
Proofs?
>>60816073
No I agree that she was a really great writer, I just hate her philosophy. That's why I wrote '(Still gonna read her work though)' at the end of my rant.
>tfw can't even finish the grapes of wrath
it's been 2 years now
who /ADHD/ here
>Reading anything past Plutarch
Lmao
Russian Proto Existentialism is shit tho
>>60816308
Adhd is made up disease
>>60816142
He's plenty special. Tell me why you don't like him.
>>60816209
And I agree. If you're going to read philosophy, the read philosophy. The grey area between philosophy and artistic expression is filled with charlatans.
>>60816378
*then
>>60816308
>not constantly reading something from Sartre, Proust, Balzac, Camus
How can you even look at yourself in the mirror and call yourself a stupid french surrender monkey?
Camus' Myth of Sisyphus is really pretentious but breddy good
>>60816378
>The grey area between philosophy and artistic expression is filled with charlatans.
>2016
>Not reading La Nausée
>>60816378
His worka are relatively complex and I'm actually fond of his style, its just that I am never left with anything that keeps me thinking after I am done with the work.
>>60816491
I didn't say there weren't exceptions. There are plenty of them, like Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Baudrillard's America. I only mean to say that 20th century philosophy abuses artistic expression as a form of obscurantism. Postmodernism is shit in general, and Baudrillard is the only philosopher I respect from this era.
>>60816429
I'm currently reading The Outsider in french and I think you're quite right.
I think that's the problem with most of Camus' work, he was after all known at the time as a womanizer and a general dandy kind of man. But the pretentiousness is probably mainly caused by the ambivelence in which Camus is known to write.
If he lived in our time he would've probably been wearing hot topic shirts and constantly cutting his own arm like every other parasitic emo fuck. But instead of whiny emo retoric we got this fascinating idea of the absurd.
Read past your view of him and his characters as whiny and pretentious and you'll find that his work has quite alot to teach us.
>>60816836
Camus is interesting but much overrated in my opinion. I think real philosophy is the line of epistemology that began with the Critique of Pure Reason and ended with the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Camus repackages earlier ideas from existentialism in a flowery way, but there's nothing wrong with that.
>>60808403
Dostoevsky is pretentious faggot. Tolstoy is the greatest storyteller to ever live.
>>60817098
Dostoevsky was great. Read Crime and Punishment.
>>60817132
The Brothers Karamazov >C&P
>>60816767
I would argue the contrary, I think that postmodernism is the only way philosophy and literature can possibly still exist in this world. After all there's just such a ridiculous amount of philosophic and literary work that every viewpoint can immediately be discredited by a thousand different books and tv shows. Saying that something is deliberately trying to obscure knowledge would be quite a stretch, true philosophers like Heidegger don't write clearly but that doesn't mean that his works shouldn't be studied or even admired.
You could argue that this natural cycle of postmodernist thinking is happening right now on 4chan itself with memes.
For example just a few years ago ragememes were incredibly popular and wideley used on every board. But now if anyone would even dare to post a picture with words like 'ffffuuuuuuu' they would immediately be shunned, hated and ostracized (not that such a thing can have a big impact on a anonymous site like 4chan).
The result is that the humor that originated from the site itself is getting analyzed, criticized and reborn in a new form. New forms of humor and thinking.
The same thing is happening, and should happen, to all forms of expression. Only this way can we keep it constantly evolving and reshaping our thinking as human beings.
(Sidenote, if anyone should be called an obscurist then it should be Nietzsche in my opinion. Okay I have only read his last work 'der antichrist' but I still found it quite a random and hateful piece of work without a clear narrative. As do I find the whole of Nietzsche's oeuvre.)
>>60817229
Nah bruh only if you're religious
>>60817289
C&P is only better if you're the pic related euphoric guy who likes to masturbate while thinking he's a superhuman unlike the pussy in the book
>>60817356
You lnow what, youre right.
>>60817065
True but alot of philosophy is just repackaged and rehashed from other works, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously.
Although I don't think you can call anything real philosophy I do agree that Kant is one of the greatest 'if not THE greatest' philosopher of all time. There are still quite alot of good philophers who have lived after Wittgenstein though, people like Thomas Kuhn, Edmund Gettier/Robert Nozick have made quite big and great contributions to sceptical thinking. Especially epistomological thinking.
Even Wittgenstein himself came back on his tractatus, so saying that the whole of philosophy ends with just one book would be a bit too ambitious in my opinion.
>>60817289
Depends on how you define the word 'religious'.
Kierkegaard, Tolstoy and Dostoyevski were all religious but all in a radically different ways. (Well Tolstoy and Kierkegaard do look alike in a sense but besides that)
Being religious/taking a leap of faith isn't necessarily a bad thing or impossible for euphoric atheists like us to do. It can help with your ethical viewpoints on life and even sometimes in your metaphysical and epistomoligical viewpoints. (Think of Baruch Spinoza, René Descartes or George Berkely)
>>60817273
>After all there's just such a ridiculous amount of philosophic and literary work that every viewpoint can immediately be discredited by a thousand different books and tv shows.
No? Most people don't even read philosophy, yet alone comprehend it. And if the meaning is intentionally obscured, then it's even harder to comprehend. (I remember reading an egregious essay by an author I don't remember comparing feminism to fluid dynamics, because fluid dynamics is unpopular among physicists, and therefore contains a feminine quality.)
>Saying that something is deliberately trying to obscure knowledge would be quite a stretch, true philosophers like Heidegger don't write clearly but that doesn't mean that his works shouldn't be studied or even admired.
There's a difference between having a hard time saying something and being dishonest. Hegel also had trouble expressing himself, but he wasn't a charlatan.
And it's not a stretch to say that modern philosophers are obscurantists. Some of them still have something relevant to say, but most of them in my experience operate on a gimmick and work their entire corpus around a single idea. For Baudrillard it was simulation and for Derrida it was deconstructionism. Foucault had nothing relevant to say and didn't even understand Nietzsche, who he claimed defended democracy despite Nietzsche being a self-professed anti-populist.
>You could argue that this natural cycle of postmodernist thinking is happening right now on 4chan itself with memes.
You've been drinking the company punch.
>The result is that the humor that originated from the site itself is getting analyzed, criticized and reborn in a new form. New forms of humor and thinking.
Comparing philosophy to memes is crazy. Philosophy doesn't come and go with the weather; it's a list of arguments which build on top of each other. And memes aren't "analyzed", dude. They're memes; they're like 90% visceral and stupid.
>>60817786
>>60817611
>>60817465
>>60817273
>>60816836
fuck off to >>>/lit/ i came here to see "Easter?" and "Is X white?" posts
>>60817786
Are you religious?
>>60817273
>The same thing is happening, and should happen, to all forms of expression. Only this way can we keep it constantly evolving and reshaping our thinking as human beings.
Yeah, obviously. It's not the process that's flawed, it's the quality of the output.
>(Sidenote, if anyone should be called an obscurist then it should be Nietzsche in my opinion. Okay I have only read his last work 'der antichrist' but I still found it quite a random and hateful piece of work without a clear narrative. As do I find the whole of Nietzsche's oeuvre.)
Nietzsche has an obscurantist slant but nowhere near postmodernists. You should read On the Genealogy of Morals and The Gay Science first, and then work chronologically toward his later stuff. It also helps to understand his source material, like Homer and Sophocles. Reading Schopenhauer and Stirner beforehand also helps (mostly Schopenhauer's essays and aphorisms, but understanding his work on Kant is also important).
>>60817852
No.
>>60817356
Don't be an autist. It's not necessary to sympathize with the Christian themes to enjoy C&P. There's plenty of drama and emotion.
>>60817465
>True but alot of philosophy is just repackaged and rehashed from other works, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously.
Yeah, but philosophers build on top of existing themes. Their worth is their contribution to the philosophical dialectic.
>There are still quite alot of good philophers who have lived after Wittgenstein though, people like Thomas Kuhn, Edmund Gettier/Robert Nozick have made quite big and great contributions to sceptical thinking.
I'm not too familiar with newer philosophers. I like William Plank and that's about it. I'd rather read older stuff that's new to me, like Montaigne or Spinoza (both great, btw).
>>60817786
>No? Most people don't even read philosophy, yet alone comprehend it.
Exactly but the people critisicing it. The people who write new works, who express themselves in philophy, have read those works.
>And it's not a stretch to say that modern philosophers are obscurantists.
Here I disagree alot with you, no one philosopher writes a work with the express purpose of being a charlatan. Maybe they're idiots, like that bald idiot Foucault who I despise with a passion for raping the subject of history for all those years, but that doesn't mean he wants to write such utter bullshit.
It's just that in my opinion, my viewpoint, he's an utter idiot. And in a sense that is also relevant.
Idiotic opinions are still relevant for those that aren't bullshit. Understanding bullshit and knowing bullshit makes you understand why other people would believe in such bullshit.
>And memes aren't "analyzed", dude. They're memes; they're like 90% visceral and stupid.
No I concur, memes aren't really analyzed or compared consciously, but people do get sick of them. People do still want to new things, new jokes, a new form cynicism. And such they analyze what is wrong with the joke, the meme and discard that what has unfunny and that what still has value.
That's the reason why we won't see ragecomics like this one critisicing an other persons personal music taste. We've grown out of it. To me that is what postmodernism is about and why it is valuable to society.
>>60817786
Btw, fluid dynamics is unpopular because the math is hard.
>>60817997
Why not?
>>60818098
>>60818098
True, I also mainly seem stick to the older stuff since most of the new work seems to be quite literally the same. The only reason why I know those guys is because I must know them for my exams. But suprisingly enough they're quite fun to read (about). Especially Edmund Gettier with his coincidence paradox.
>>60818136
Christian themes are mostly found in the Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevski keeps it quite light on the christian tones in the novel.
When he wrote CP he hadn't become as disillusioned with Western-Europe and the Catholic Church as when he wrote the Brothers Karamazov
>>60818136
The God question is impossible to answer (Kant), but I'm not opposed to the possibility of the existence of a God/s.
>>60818118
>The people who write new works, who express themselves in philophy, have read those works.
And they sell it to idiots. Relevance isn't decided by pure argumentation in our society; it's more about market value and academic nepotism. And this has always existed to some degree (Schopenhauer complained he was edged out by Hegel's influence in academia), but it's very different today than 200 years ago.
>Here I disagree alot with you, no one philosopher writes a work with the express purpose of being a charlatan.
No one really wakes up in the morning and says "I'm going to be an asshole today". It's a learned behavior and stimulation from an overeager audience with political and market influence. Nietzsche touched on this in his argument for the democratization of art.
>And in a sense that is also relevant.
In a dialectic sense, even a wrong opinion is valuable when it leads to a more sensible conclusion. But obscurantism is an unnecessary interference to this process. Having a dialectic is harder and slower when you have to separate more meaningful and non-meaningful complexity in an argument.
>People do still want to new things, new jokes, a new form cynicism. And such they analyze what is wrong with the joke, the meme and discard that what has unfunny and that what still has value.
That's true, but if you believe Zarathustra, philosophy is a little more than that. It's not just about stimulation; it's more about being brave enough to understand and develop difficult or unpopular ideas. I'd much rather read another work like the Tractatus than a dozen postmodern books rehashing the same ideas in new and interesting ways.
>>60818223
That's cool, what's your major? Are you in soft sciences or a philosophy major? My friend tells me they don't venture far beyond post-idealism in philosophy graduate programs.
>>60817837
Is Spinoza white??
>>60808403
No.
