/lit/ humor thread
>>7683455
this is still the best thing in the history of 4chan
>>7683455
The board isn't active enough to have these threads everyday. Not a huge body of work to draw from
>>7683620
She was pretty much asking for it.
My eyes.... The heck? *twitch* again! I need HELPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!! But I need that Hit. Where’s my card? I need to mash this more. Straw? I CANT REMEMBER WHERE I PUT IT! I’m so angry now! Oh wait... I see it, on the floor. "Gotcha!" Like it can hear me....*Sniff* mmm, this feeling.
No... NOO! It’s going to quick... Little more.. *Sniff* ahh, much better. Spinning room “oh Hello kitty mamas busy…” *Knock Knock* Oh no... *Knock; Buzz* who is that!? “It’s me!” Just him...
Ouch! My body hurts. *screech* damn rusty hinge... “Do you have any?” “uhm” how’d he get to the table so quick?? NO WAIT! “HEY DON’T USE IT ALL!” I NEED MORE! *Sniff* laugh *sniff* mm *sniff* just one more... *Sniff*… black out…………..
I'm pretty new to poetry but I think I have potential:
She's like a demon
Her heart black and scary
But I am not afraid
Because she is like a fairy
She's like the Devil
When I go to her place
But don't be forgetting
Your whole life is a disgrace
Her heart is a lock
I have the key
But don't forget
Your whole like is a FALLACY
>>7673468
This is really good! Keep going, this have potential
No poetry to post but, I just read Allen Ginsberg. The poem about America was very good. Howl was good too.
Favourite self-help book?
gtd easily
>>7683491
Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum
>>7683504
>gtd
which is?
I not too long ago started learning English and everything written or said in it seems to me so primitive, unlike in my mother tongue which is Russian. Here you cannot have genders, don't really have cases and as the result fixed word order which is a fucked up thing. You don't have normal regular diminutives, or have them only for nouns, for comparison we in russian have diminutive forms even for verbs(occasionally). And words themself in english have lots of different meanings. Everything relies on a context. In a nutshell it is rather disgrace but not a language as it should've been at least as i imagined it before getting started. So of course literature written originally in English and translated to Russian reads much better in Russian.
How do you say "Everyone in the world speaks English as their second language and no-one speaks Russian" in Russian?
>>7690286
Why would that interest you since you can't understand Russian?
Actually, don't bother translating it. Nobody will be able to understand it.
It's here.
>>7689622
infinitely shitty cover
>>7689622
>he fell for it!
DUDE NOTES LMAO
So /lit/, why aren't you using a paperclip and a bookmark?
Because I finish my books in one session, like every true /lit/ patrician does.
Because I use scraps of paper I find lying around my room.
S T I C K Y
N
O
T
E
S
Por demanda popular, hace su gran retorno el hilo donde nos masturbamos alrededor de Borges, posteamos nuestros patéticos esbozos literarios, y lamentamos no tener amigos con quienes tomar absenta en un bar de los años '30 en medio de una discusión /lit/eraria.
Edición: Los griegos
Qué traducciones al español de los textos de la antigua Grecia son equivalentes (en calidad, confiabilidad, material crítico extra) a las trad inglesas que aparecen en la imagen esa que se postea tanto?
>>7690696
>Por demanda popular
jajajajajaja
>>7690696
Gredos o Cátedra, ese.
Cuál es la mejor traducción del Fausto de Goethe?
Quién es el mejor poeta de habla hispana y porqué es Sor Juana?
>>7690737
>Sor Juana
What are the cases of movie being better than the book other than Coraline and Women in Dunes?
>>7689748
American Psycho
Clockwork Orange
The Shining
Inasmuch as two entirely separate media can be compared as basically as this.
Never Let Me Go
There Will Be Blood
I have a question regarding Kant 's sources of metaphysical cognition.
Firstly, I'm not quite sure what he means by cognition in the first place, I don't see it clearly defined anywhere yet. Does he just mean "action of thinking about"?
he says (in ss1 of the prolegomena) that the sources of metaphysical cognition cannot be empirical.
now, he says the Principals of such cognition include fundamental propositions taken from beyond experience, but im not sure if these propositions are synonmomous with the source of such cognition or if they are a product of it.
so, what does he mean by source here?
I think he might be referring to the ability to cognisize and where it comes from, since he goes on to say that the (metaphysical) cognition is a priori and from pure understanding and reason, differentiating it from outer experience and inner "empirical psychology" (empirischen Psychologie).
now I have a problem with this too, mainly in how he assumed that one even has any form of intuitive reasoning outside of experience (yes it's a very fundamental doubt) he compared this "pure philosophical" cognition to Mathematical cognition and for further understanding referred to a section of the CPR.
in this section pure Mathematical cognition is said to cognisize through reason "from the construction of concepts" through "nonemperical intuition" that intuition being "an individual object" (this constructed concept being valid for all intuitions of the same concept, I dont doubt this universality but cant get myself to agree with his claim of nonempirical intuition)
to cement my doubt I find this to be the most ludicrous statement in the CPR (ill post all the passages my doubt refers to when I got on my computer)
>The shape of a cone will be able to be made intuitable without any empirical assistance at all, in accordance with the concept alone, but the colour of this cone will have to be given beforehand, in one or another experience.
I find that neither of those intuitions are possible, even the shape, without empirical assistance.
also, even if metaphysical cognition concerns itself with or bases itself on principles of things beyond experience how does that necessarily imply that the source of the cognition itself must be beyond experience?
From the prolegomena:
Let us consider first the sources of metaphysical knowledge.
The very concept of metaphysics ensures that the
sources of metaphysics can’t be empirical. ·If something
could be known through the senses, that would automatically
show that it doesn’t belong to metaphysics; that’s
an upshot of the meaning of the word ‘metaphysics’·. Its
basic propositions can never be taken from experience, nor
can its basic concepts; for it is not to be physical but
metaphysical knowledge, so it must lie beyond experience.
•Outer experience is the source of physics properly so-called,
and •inner experience is the basis for empirical psychology;
and metaphysical knowledge can’t come from either of these.
It is thus knowledge a priori—knowledge based on pure
understanding and pure reason.
Mathematics also answers to that description. To mark
off metaphysics from mathematics as well as from empirical
enquiries, we’ll have to call it pure philosophical knowledge.
In this phrase, ‘pure’ means ‘not empirical’; and ‘philosophical’
stands in contrast to ‘mathematical’. The difference
between these two ways of using reason—the mathematical
and the philosophical—is something I needn’t go into here; I have adequately described it in my Critique of Pure Reason.
So much for the sources of metaphysical knowledge.
Full-text: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1783.pdf
>>7688303
1. Kant's conception of Reason is such that it belongs strictly on the 'soul'/consciousness divide of things. When he talks about his apriori axioms he is referring to a kind of disembodied reason that we probably have trouble grasping today, especially since for us logic is no longer something sacred. He means I think, external input, versus what would happen if you were to run the possible configurations of our logic, purely playing with themselves.
2. The bit about the cone means that it would never have to be shown to the individual. He does say all experience draws from the Noumenon, and I don't remember if he addresses this specifically, but he's saying, given an understanding of space, and reason, which he supposes is a priori, we mentally construct a cone, and not a color.
I think this appears to us as odd today because sight and mathematical logic don't seem so different anymore, but what he's saying is internally consistent. If you can imagine geometrical descriptions, you can imagine whatsoever configuration you are asked to. Color on the other hand can't simply be given in that way, you can't explain what it is a priori. It might not be true but it makes sense given what he postulates.
3. Well what is the alternative, that experience and its objects are creating things beyond themselves? I don't see why you care about the source, when he's more so implying that one is interacting with the other.
I think you're having a hangup on the distinction between empirical and experiential?
>When he talks about his apriori axioms he is referring to a kind of disembodied reason that we probably have trouble grasping today
I know he's referring to this but I have personal contentions about this disembodied reason "existing".
>. He does say all experience draws from the Noumenon, and I don't remember if he addresses this specifically, but he's saying, given an understanding of space, and reason, which he supposes is a priori, we mentally construct a cone, and not a color.
But all those faculties of space, reason, or anything else can only come from empirical observation, right?
A rather odd example but, say someone was born without the ability to feel or move or see. You could never explain the concept of a cone or any magnitude in general (Kant talks about mathematics being mostly a priori interested in magnitudes) to him, right?
And so, if he lost this ability go cognisize cones after he lost his sight and movement/touch, surely that cognition would have to be derived from his sight and movement/touch?
> If you can imagine geometrical descriptions, you can imagine whatsoever configuration you are asked to
As I said in my OP, I have no issues with the universality of this, my problem lies with:
>If you can imagine geometrical descriptions
>If
I don't see how geometrical descriptions could possibly be imagined without some empirical backing.
>Well what is the alternative, that experience and its objects are creating things beyond themselves?
I wouldn't use the word "creating", I'd use the word "speculating about".
>I don't see why you are about the source, when he's more so implying that one is interacting with the other.
I'm reading the book from a very personal "I want to see if I can agree with what he has to say" outlook right now.
>I think you're having a hangup on the distinction between empirical and experiential?
How are these different?
I actually don't follow the above post's translation but the Cambridge one, and here too (like in the above post) experience and empirical are almost synonymous right (with the latter being defined as "what is based on" the former)?
What am I missing there?
what do women think about him?
>>7686748
A ugly literary stud who has the sex.
7/10
my pussy is engorged just from that picim a grill btw
When was the last time you read Captain Underpants /lit/ ?
>>7686539
2002
a week ago thursday
I had a huge ass omnibus of that shit, dunno where it went but it was at least 6 or 7 years ago
Write what's on your mind
your on my mind again, on & on & on, I have you on hand in hand, the time is coming soon to me
i want to read books with people on /lit/ in some kind of book club thing, but i want it to be easy and catch on well enough that people actually participate and it doesn't fizzle out to me and one other guy awkwardly reading shit. or devolve into a tiny irc/skype group of namefag regulars instead of an open format.
i feel like the biggest problem with this board is that it's usually more about talking around authors/books than talking into them, it's really really rare to actually see a) two people who read the same book, b) discussing that book in any depth. it's always one guy who read it describing it to another who didn't, or an exchange of "indeed, i also read that."
it would be neat to see /lit/ have a persistent book club and actually discuss a single text in depth, in a thread-seminar format. you'd have guys with lots of outside knowledge informing the discussion, guys with less knowledge doing more listening but also asking interesting questions, and everywhere in between. lots of recommendation sharing, lots of spitballing because it's anonymous, etc.
>>7691655
Donald Trump's political trajectory has been incredibly left-to-right and splashless and sad.
Hey /lit/. Is Philosophy dead?
What I mean by that is, didn't the Greeks cover everything? What more could there possibly be to discuss? They covered it all.
Before you think so, no, I'm not a STEM fag. I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts on where philosophy is and where it's going. Are modern philosophers introducing any new ideas at all or are they just rehashing all the old ideas and changing the words to fit the modern era?
And if there ARE new ideas being presented and modern philosophers making genuine breakthroughs, could you please offer me suggestions? I'd love to look into their work.
the Greeks absolutely did not cover everything, but philosophy certainly seems to be getting deader rather than more alive. much continental philosophy now is rehashing Kant, Marx, and Nietzsche.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ric%C5%93ur
>>7691545
no you fucktard
Describe your last shit with the title of a book.
>Three Moments of an Explosion
>>7691497
>Great Expectations
>Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war,
>That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
>With carrion men, groaning for burial.
>>7691038
Maybe it's just the grooming methods of the time but Proust always looks vaguely middle eastern.
Also, fuck off shitposter cuntlord
>>7691038
Cute.
>>7691135
He was a kike
