Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 619. page
- Home
- Board: /lit/ - Literature
- Reading: Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 619. page
let's write a novel one sentence at a time. I'll start.
chapter 2. somewhere in the middle.
"Mr partridge what on earth are you doing", he shrieked as he lunged for his glasses to have a closer look.
>>7994772
Mr. Partridge had unflinchingly battered his testicles so fiercely with his steady, open palm that it was hard to tell how long he'd been at it.
"Mr. Partridge, are you battering my testicles, or your own?" "I don't even know anymore," Mr. Partridge said as he took another hit off his glass pipe.
With forthright elegance he tamped the subsiding embers into his distended and blistered foreskin with his thumb he caught a glimpse of his watch and knew he would have to turn up to class soon.
ITT: we draw inspiration from the current US elections.
I took Carly Fiorina's creepy poem/song she wrote for Cruz' children:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5By5FNb4ldA
and added four more verses:
>I gently push the children's bedroom door
>tip toe softly 'cross the bedroom floor
>bend over the bed with silent cheer
>motionless until the dawn draws near
>the games we play are good old harmless fun
>my hands are claws, I roar and children run
>but when they come back for a treat or two
>they love me better than no matter who
>but time will come when playtime has to end
>you'll leave me, drive away around the bend
>at first I'm sad but then I realize
>you each forgot a toy, oh what a prize
>and when I hold your toys so very tight
>my teeth will shine, my eyes turn very bright
>because you're never really far away
>and children playing tend to go astray
This election is going to make an incredible book one day.
>>7991646
it lacks pokemon and pizza
>>7991646
whoever wins, future generations will look back on this election and ask themselves, "how could such a large and diverse group of people be so unbelievably retarded?"
Poetry Critique Thread, Ill start:
To see the world beyond today,
The bloom of future flowers.
But with it comes the voice to say,
"I count your life in hours".
World and sky
The summers die
Your youth; your youth: It cowers.
Be not shy,
And save a sigh
Let time not posses those powers.
dump bump
http://postmetakolsti.tumblr.com/post/143759456465/its-349-am-and-i-guess-thats-implicit
Type a word you like that seems to define itself simply by its utterance. I'll start:
Voluptuous
cock
>>7990244
dry
>>7990244
Inguinal
Why exactly does Kant take human reason as this entirely homogeneous thing that we have in common and that we can more or less be "solved" in its entirety(for the latter claim see the appendix to the Prolegomena, "Proposal for an investigation of the Critique, after which the judgment can follow" in which he says, regarding metaphysics, "...especially since the science concerned is of such a peculiar kind that it can be brought all at once to its full completion, and into a permanent state such that it cannot be advanced the least bit further and can be neither augmented nor altered by later discovery (herein I do not include embellishment through enhanced clarity here and there, or through added utility in all sorts of respects): an advantage that no other science has or can have, since none is concerned with a cognitive faculty that is so fully isolated from, independent of, and unmingled with other faculties”
What I most strange is his claim that the transcendental (or rather, transcendental concepts) is (are) required because this thing that he calls “reason” calls for it (them) itself and can only be satisfied by it (them).
See the paragraph that starts with (book linked in reply)
>It is true: we cannot provide, beyond all possible experience, any determinate concept of what things in themselves may be. But we are nevertheless not free to hold back entirely in the face of inquiries about those things; for experience never fully satisfies reason...
This justification of why we need concepts beyond experience hinges on the reader, well, giving a fuck. He even, defends the existence of metaphysics by placing emphasis on the fact that people can’t help but think about those questions due to their psychological make up:
>We have thus fully exhibited metaphysics in accordance with its subjective possibility, as metaphysics is actually given in the natural predisposition of human reason, and with respect to that which forms the essential goal of its cultivation
>Metaphysics, as a natural predisposition of reason, is actual, but it is also of itself (as the analytical solution to the third main question proved) dialectical and deceitful.
He, perhaps inadvertently, even himself makes a case for scepticism when he says:
>the demand that the attempt at such a critique which is now before the public be subjected to an exact and careful examination does not seem unreasonable – unless it is considered more advisable still to give up all claims to metaphysics entirely, in which case, if one only remains true to one’s intention, there is [4:372] nothing to be said against it
Clearly, he does not have people in mind who, well, do not give a fuck and would be totally fine not making any claims about metaphysical things about which they agree with him that, we cannot know anything about them.
My question being, is Kant’s way of thinking not thoroughly unconvincing for someone who well, doesn’t really have this craving of reason? Does he really think everyone has this spirit of inquiry?
Pic very very related
>>7990199
>Why exactly does Kant take human reason as this entirely homogeneous thing that we have in common and that we can more or less be "solved" in its entirety
He either didn't properly understand Plato or he was a low empathy autist.
Possibly both.
He does defend the possibility of metaphysics at all saying:
> Fortunately, it happens that, even though we cannot assume that metaphysics as science is actual,we can confidently say that some pure synthetic cognition a priori is actual and given, namely, pure mathematics and pure natural science; for both contain propositions that are fully acknowledged, some as apodictically certain through bare reason, some from universal agreement with experience (though these are still recognized as independent of experience). We have therefore some at least uncontested synthetic cognition a priori, and we do not need to ask whether it is possible (for it is actual), but only: how it is possible, in order to be able to derive, from the principle of the possibility of the given cognition, the possibility of all other synthetic cognition a priori.
But then, this entire argument once again rests on people actually granting apodictic certainty to certain claims, not so convincing for the sceptic.
Also, this is the book this all taken from: strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-prolegomena-cambridge.pdf
Is he as good as Shakespeare?
my dad?
>>7988470
better, in technical writing ability
shakespeare understood humanity better though, he invented the human.
>>7988470
why joyce and not someone like yeats?
Joyce was a novalist and Shakespeare was a poet.
ITT we replace titles using their synonyms and guess what book others are describing
>enormous detective
>>7988287
unintelligent amphibianposter
Heaven misplaced
>>7988287
Big Joke
Fundamental Force's Arch
Odysseus
It's all ultimately a matter of opinion, but I think that Absalom, Absalom! is still the great American novel as compared to Blood Meridian. While Blood Meridian is a great lyrical work of philosophy and violence, I still prefer the coalescence that occurred in Absalom, Absalom! rather than the diffuse, picaresque nature of Blood Meridian.
McCarthy is perhaps the best living American author, but Blood Meridian, to me, is a shade below Absalom, Absalom! and Faulkner's masterworks. What do you guys think?
>>7985350
>corncob vs corncob
IMO, Faulkner is better.
I haven't read a more violent book. This shit's brutal.
I don't think McCarthy wanted to write the great American novel.Blood Meridian is a conscious created post-colonial text and a take down of the Wild West and manifest destiny.
While Corncob is Shakespeare but in Mississippi.
What is a book you can recommend that is similar to this?
My diary desu
Infinite Jest
Catcher in the Rye
its out today any one picking it up
No, I don't read contemporary American babble and I despise who does.
>>7995677
shut up
mobi when
I can't find it on #bookz
>>7995677
Regardless of whether you're happy about being culturally colonized by the United States, as a subject of her dominion, it is willfully ignorant to avoid learning about your shared culture.
Have you ever read a book that offended you so much that you had to stop reading it? Mine, personally was Harry Potter 4 for the racist descriptions of the French and "Bulgarian" students or whereever they were from. Just ridiculous.
>>7993477
It's the author's mind. Enjoy it, laugh at it or discard it if it's shit.
>>7993491
Idiot, if we don't complain about it in a public space then how will it EVER change?
Thankyou.
>>7993494
Racism isn't really something to complain about in literature. If a book is bad then it's bad. If an idea triggers you it's your problem.
Can I dive right in to Babby's First Edgy philosopher or am I expected to be familiar with the Greek faggots first?
You can dive right in. He makes references but nothing you can't look up.
>>7992830
the only people that think nietzsche is babbys first philosofur are those who desu dont catch the depth of his thought. the allusions he makes throughout to other philosophies really illustrate aspects of his own thought that are otherwise missed by the new reader
>>7992830
you should probably be somewhat familiar because he brings them up a lot but you could still understand the points he is trying to make.
How do you find time to read novels while in college?
>>7990408
I didn'twent out and got wasted bruh
>>7990408
By doing a degree in literature.
>>7990408
By not living in a shithole and having a functional public transport network.I read on the bus/at the bus stop.
You know the drill.
>>7959211
4/6
Here is where I start to lose you.
What is nothing?
not being
now the question is what is being
>>7994963
thing
>>7994959
The absence of all things.
