Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 330. page
- Home
- Board: /lit/ - Literature
- Reading: Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 330. page
I'm gonna get the ego and it's own. Which edition should I get?
>>8138213
The cheapest.
Or go balls deep and get it in German, unlike all the other plebs here.
>>8138213
Luckily for you there is only one edition in English
>>8138213
They're all mine btw
Good evening /lit/,
I've just finished Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. It was fun and I had interesting contemplations afterwards. Where do I go next to stay roughly in the same vein of roman/greek (not necessarily) stoicism?
Aurelius mentioned Epictetus and Plato a lot, any recommendations for them maybe?
Read The Enchiridion or Golden Sayings by Epictetus.
Read Letters From a Stoic by Seneca
Read Cicero in general, start off with On Old Age or On Friendship (then read the one you didn't read)
>>8138170
>>8138179
>Aphoristic "literature"
>>8138179
On Friendship seems interesting, I'll go with that first
Who are the essential modernist/absurdist playwrights?
Albee, Mamet, Beckett
>>8138051
Genet, Ionesco, Albee, Beckett, Adamov,Camus
Let me just lay things out for you in just as broad a way as I can, then try to narrow it down. I think it's disgusting that our society has a system of justice, I think that it is horrible for the people that live in society. People are just people with no cosmic good and bad and right and wrong attached. When you break those things down, you realize that they make no sense and they are, no matter how badly you'd like to believe otherwise, completely arbitrary.
So since the people in our society are living under these arbitrary moral laws, and anyone who breaks them is subject to punishment and the torment of being locked up, doesn't it seem like society is ultimately a bad thing for everyone who lives inside of it? You may be thinking, of course it's not a bad thing, just don't do wrong things and you won't be sent to jail. Seems easy enough, right? Well, disregarding the fact for a moment for the sake of an argument, and the fact that it's unfortunate for those who are constrained by laws, we can see that society actually constrains us in many other ways.
Consider the ways in which society enslaves every person who lives in it. We not only cannot break the laws, but we can't break the unwritten laws, the norms and mores of our culture. We're also bound by money, our family, our country, all of these things are at times very unfortunate things that people are bound by.
So, seeing as we're all ultimately slaves to society, I don't know why people don't have more respect and sympathy for people like pedophiles and rapists and murderers, and not just people who break large social rules, but people who simply rebel against the authoritative class of society, the people who rule above them. You're brainwashed if you think society is a good thing, and you're just part of the attempt to normalize and program others around you into conforming to the society you live in if you say otherwise.
Do you see my point? I wish I knew some literature that related to this topic but unfortunately I don't. I also wanted to say for the millionth time, I hate religion more than I hate pedophiles, rapists, murderers, and anyone who goes against the grain of society. Religion is the epitome of that authoritarian programming that tries to get people to fall in line with the social program. Social - program, it fits nicely doesn't it, it's because that's exactly what it means; social programming of your own mind.
>>8137971
>>>/reddit/
>>8137971
Stop trying to justify your love for children. We get it, you don't want to be judged by society for your way of thinking. Sure, I'd like to fuck a 12 year old as well, but NO, OP, don't do it. Okay? All your rationalizing on the arbitrariness of good and evil doesn't justify your sick thought.
>>8138073
I actually am not a pedophile, but you'd be willing to scapegoat me to make yourself feel better about what I said. You're an idiot, you only rationalize to make yourself feel better.
So I've seen the movie American Psycho probably a dozen times and don't really feel like reading the book. Is there anything else by him I should check out?
American Psycho is his only good book.
>>8137872
The Rules of Attraction is one of my favorite books. Much better than American Psycho, don't let people who haven't read either fool you.
>>8137872
none of his books are a massive departure in style
>>8137857
AND THIS KIDS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF TELEPHONE POETRY.
BenFolds is the only one I can unanonymously quote:
Here I Sit
Broken Hearted
Came to Shit
And Only Farted
trillingly off the hamlet
>>8137857
my attempt to translate a bathroom lymeric which i saw a while ago... had to botch the rhyme a bit
a general lived in italia
who twisted his aides' genitalia
and if those had none
so it couldn't be done
then he gave them bouquets of azalea
They paint these walls to silence my pen,
but the shithouse poet strikes again!
I bet you pretentious faggots can't agree on a definition of 'Post-modernism'.
The artistic movement that came after Modernism.
>>8137764
I disagree
I need recommended readings on post-modernist culture/politics and identity politics, preferably critical views of them, but defensive stances are also acceptable.
>>8137677
my diary 2bqh
>>8137677
not even memeing, the best way to understand post modernism is to read up on modernism.
It makes a lot more sense in the context of a response to modernism than it does in a vacuum
I've been reading Lucretius' De rerum natura and Epicureans in the last couple of weeks and I find their idea of the afterlife believable: since we're made of atoms and energy, which can't be destroyed, when death comes, the first ones break-apart and the seconds disperse and, then, the atoms reunite again in a new being, that's going to absorbe our dispersed energy. Eventually, we are reborn in a new body (animated or inanimated) and our existence goes on, till the next time death catches us and the process stars all over again. It seems a lot more believable to me than Hell and Heaven.
>>8137672
The Christian theory is that one's soul or spirit is what determines consciousness and that it persists after bodily death, and that the state and/or location of this spirit can be called heaven or hell.
Why is your explanation, which is merely a transfer of energy, and not of consciousness (which is what we are generally referring to when we talk about life) more convincing? Besides, right now you may have atoms that were once in Stalin, or in Jesus, and yet you are not Stalin or Jesus reborn.
>>8137707
Because that belief is held in a state of physicalism - that is to say that the body and soul are one, and indistinguishable - and therefore this soul is transferred along with the physical matter that corresponds with bodily death.
>>8137707
Because, while we're sure that atoms and energy exist, the existence of something we call soul can't be proven. Our consciousness is a mere series of electrical pulses in our brain and, once death, the informations they carry disappear, so that, when you gain a new body, you don't have any memory of your past life. Furthermore, you can be reborn in something which isn't a human being, even something without brain functions.
Is it a meme
"Common Sense and how to Come off as a Total Twat" more like
>>8137639
No. The title is ironic
>>8137645
This pretty much. It's heavily tailored towards business transactions and relationships of mutual benefit towards objectives rather than romantic relationships or how to make what people would call "real" friends.
What philosophers would you recommend to someone who is just looking to get into philosophy? I bought thus spoke zarathustra, the myth of sisyphus, nausea, the stranger, and the world as will and representation.
I can understand a tiny little bit of thus spoke zarathustra, but it took me skimming past a couple stories so I could get a vague interpretation of what it was about. If I would have known how horrible the writing style in the world as will and representation was, I wouldn't have picked it up at all.
I read the stranger and that was alright, I had no trouble reading that at all, I read it in less than a day. I tried camus's essay and I found myself drifting off a lot. I have yet to get into sartre's nausea, but I hear that that's more accessible.
I probably didn't make the best choices in what I bought from these authors. I probably could have found something more accessible by nietzsche, I probably could have just ignored schopenhauer all together because I would probably need a class on philosophy to get the most out of that book.
What philosophers are actually good as baby's first philosophers? I know a lot of people like kant and hagel, but there's no way I'm touching those outside of a college course. Are there any philosophers who have interesting philosophies that can be accessible to someone who's just getting into philosophy on their own accord. I like Cioran, his works are fun to read. I just don't think his works are particularly enlightening, they just seem to tell you stuff you already know, but in a fun to read way (IE, everything is pointless).
>>8137547
At the same time, start with the Greeks AND the existencialists. After that, buy and read some manuals/books about pilosophy and the history of pilosophy as a whole.
>>8137547
Then, retroactively make your way into the past using the existencialists and in the future using the greeks. Read more manuals, watch YouTube videos and go on.
>>8137547
The books you mention are not philosophy. You could describe them as "socially conscious fiction" or something.
Waugh thread got me thinking about Greene. Any fans?
>>8137533
Yeah, I've read Brighton Rockand seen both film versions. Pretty good book. Helps if you know a bit about what England was like at the time. There's a bit of Catholic nonsense in the story but it can just be read as a bit of a seedy underworld plot / cynical doomed romance without losing anything.
That's all
>>8137533
I really enjoyed The Power and the Glory. Probably the book I enjoyed most by him.
A Gun for Sale and Brighton Rock were entertaining too.
i just read his memoir 'a sort of life,' was fucking wonderful
Two quick questions: is it absolutely necessary to read The Iliad before reading The Odyssey? And are the translations by Lombardo decent? Thanks.
>>8137525
Why the fuck would you skip the better poem to read the Odyssey? Of course it's not absolutely necessary, but it's just kinda stupid. Iliad doesn't take that long to read, and it's the superior work.
Also, Lombardo isn't terrible and isn't amazing. Read Lattimore or Fitzgerald.
>>8137525
>Why the fuck would you skip the better poem to read the Odyssey
im guessing so he can hurry upand read Ulysses
>>8137525
it would be extremely painful
Where can I download books for free?
Is there any have-it-all site?
Pic unrelated
read the sticky you faggot
>>8137490
look at the fucking sticky you faggot
>>8137490
hey, faggot
>who me?
yeah, you, faggot. look at the fucking sticky, faggot.
Anyone know of a site were i can get alot of .pdf, .mobi and .epub(s)?
libgen.io
The Pirate Bay
>>8137418
gutenberg.org
