Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 967. page
- Home
- Board: /lit/ - Literature
- Reading: Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 967. page
A significant or memorable experience...
Saging your dumb-ass thread.
I'm sorry you haven't experienced anything yet. Try throwing up
Or growing but that works too. You'd obviously describe two glasses of milk. Why
Why is everyone pretending to care that this middlebrow hack with no discernible talent has passed away? Surely not for his nonexistent contributions to great literature?
clearly a juvenile
>tfw writing a first draft and suddenly wanting to change a whole character before I finish it
What do?
>>7719880
Thats literally the best time to do it .
>>7719895
The shit is I'm not sure about changing it or not
>>7719989
Consider each angle on paper first, or play around with "beta" drafts of the divergent paths. Cut as paste as needed
Annotations—yay or nay?
A friend of mine expressed that annotations are "impure" and taint interpretation of a given work. I disagreed; I feel that annotations are helpful for some's thought-process and can be regarded as (if of worth) a valid extension/interpretation.
What do you all think?
>>7717395
You should probably annotate, but it's not that big a deal.
your friend is a moron
>>7717410
Yeah, he kind of is.
It made him angry (for some reason) that others would even dare to annotate. He said that it's a way of presenting something unnaturally different from the way it is unaltered. Though I told him that an unaltered text always exists and he went into some bout about pricing of used books or the prevalence of annotations in used copies.
I do it slightly, but only with paperbacks and on my kindle. I feel like I'm taking a class when I do it, though.
>The 46th word from the beginning of Psalm 46 is "shake"
>The 46th word from the end of Psalm 46 is is "spear".
what did God mean by this?
'Francis Bacon'
>>7716797
Go to bed Tommy.
God didn't write it in English
I have to keep bringing up this passage from Aquinas because it actually uproots the entire foundation of modern philosophy -
First he makes his statement, which contradicts the foundation of modern philosophy, viz. that the object of our mind or intellcect is our own mind or intellect (we think only of our own thought), and that what our senses perceive are their own sensible image (we see only our own sight, hear only our own hearing). He, on the contrary, asserts that we do not understand (intellectually grasp) our own thought (except in the special case of reflective cognition), but rather, our own thought is that /by which/ we understand (intellectually grasp) things. Similarly, what we sense is not our own sensual faculties, but rather, our sense is that by which we sense things:
> The intelligible species is to the intellect what the sensible image is to the sense. But the sensible image is not what is perceived, but rather that by which sense perceives. Therefore the intelligible species is not what is actually understood, but that by which the intellect understands.
He outlines the contrary position (which is the position of modern philosophers, probably from Descartes onwards):
>Some have asserted that our intellectual faculties know only the impression made on them; as, for example, that sense is cognizant only of the impression made on its own organ. According to this theory, the intellect understands only its own impression, namely, the intelligible species which it has received, so that this species is what is understood.
Then he shows how this position is false, with two reasons:
>This is, however, manifestly false for two reasons.
First, that it leads to solipsism. If our mind only understands what is in itself, rather than what is outside of itself, then the mind is ultimately trapped with in itself. The mind becomes a self-reflecting universe entire of itself. This was the problem that presented itself to philosophers like Hume & Kant:
>First, because the things we understand are the objects of science; therefore if what we understand is merely the intelligible species in the soul, it would follow that every science would not be concerned with objects outside the soul, but only with the intelligible species within the soul; thus, according to the teaching of the Platonists all science is about ideas, which they held to be actually understood [84, 1].
Second, because it leads to total epistemological relativism (which would then lead to moral relativism), and this is the relativism of modern philosophers. If all we understand is our own mind, then whatever we think is true, actually is true; because there is no external or objective order (of being) by which we can judge the truth of our own thought. If reality is just that which is in our minds, or the only knowable reality is that which is in our own minds, then there is no measure external to our minds by which we can judge its contents. Thus, every one of perceptions is true, which would ultimately violate the law of contradiction which states that something cannot be both true & false simultaenously, because all of our perceptions would be equally valid, so if 99% of humanity found a fruit sweet and 1% found the same fruit bitter, there would be no reason to say that the 1% is any less valid than the 99%, indeed, the fruit "in itself" would neither be sweet or bitter, it would all come to down to a "matter of perception" or opinion; this extends to the moral sphere, "there are no objective goods or evils, it all comes down to what one perceives to be good or evil":
>Secondly, it is untrue, because it would lead to the opinion of the ancients who maintained that "whatever seems, is true" [Aristotle, Metaph. iii. 5] and that consequently contradictories are true simultaneously. For if the faculty knows its own impression only, it can judge of that only. Now a thing seems according to the impression made on the cognitive faculty. Consequently the cognitive faculty will always judge of its own impression as such; and so every judgment will be true: for instance, if taste perceived only its own impression, when anyone with a healthy taste perceives that honey is sweet, he would judge truly; and if anyone with a corrupt taste perceives that honey is bitter, this would be equally true; for each would judge according to the impression on his taste. Thus every opinion would be equally true; in fact, every sort of apprehension.
All modern philosophy is based on this one simple error that we understand our own thought and sense our own senses, thus trapping us in our own minds and making us the unjudgable gods of our own sealed mental universes.
But, as St. Thomas himself states, following Aristotle:
> A small mistake in the beginning is a big one in the end.
>>7715587
>Thus, every one of perceptions is true, which would ultimately violate the law of contradiction which states that something cannot be both true & false simultaenously, because all of our perceptions would be equally valid, so if 99% of humanity found a fruit sweet and 1% found the same fruit bitter, there would be no reason to say that the 1% is any less valid than the 99%, indeed, the fruit "in itself" would neither be sweet or bitter, it would all come to down to a "matter of perception" or opinion; this extends to the moral sphere, "there are no objective goods or evils, it all comes down to what one perceives to be good or evil":
And this figures into modern democracy. Because modern philosophers did away with the objective order of being and made the mind the judge of its own self, all of our minds become equal inerrant gods (as I have said above). Before, it would be that wisdom or knowledge or truth meant that your mind understood the objective order of being (truth is the correspondence of the mind with being). Now, however, that the mind has turned away from being and in on itself, there is nothing whatsoever to judge it. So all minds are equal. Therefore, the political order must treat every one equally; politics is founded on the "social contract" of these individual and equal gods agreeing to something based on their own radical freedom and sovereignty. If there is to be any doctrine imposed on anyone, it can't be based on truth or knowledge, because each of us has equal right to say something is true or false; therefore, it has to come down to democratic vote: it's true if >50% of the gods say it is true, false if <50% of the gods say it is.
What's the right order to read the Pinecone?
chronological, like you'd read any other artist.
>>7713513
Chronological works. What I did was
V.->Gravity's Rainbow->Bleeding Edge->The Crying of Lot 49->Vineland->Slow Learner->Inherent Vice->Mason & Dixon(almost done)->Against the Day(will read last)
Basically, other than V. and Gravity's Rainbow you can read them in any order, though some people will say that you can read GR first. I disagree though, because V. introduces a lot of the concepts used in GR which makes it much easier to follow on a first-time read.
It doesn't matter. Read his best works first: GR, V, M&D, or CL49. Ultimately, Pynchon being a difficult writer is a meme perpetuated by dorks who bought Gravity's Rainbow and just left it on their shelf.
Hegel general. What are some good secondary sources?
>>7720023
Zizek. (Less than Nothing)
There is one thread already.
Do you think modern readers appreciate Shakespeare nowadays?
>>7719948
yes
gtfo
worthless pleb
Some do. Some don't. Do you think every teen in the 17th century cared about theater?
>>7719948
You peasant swain! You whoreson malt-horse drudge!
Methink’st thou art a general offence and every man should beat thee.
Anyone here ever subscribe to this? Worth it?
>>7719931
Yep, it’s worth it for the archive alone.
>>7719931
oh god thought that said nick land
yeah it's good
>>7719938
Thats what I was thinking. They are doing a discount for new customers, no harm in giving it a go I guess.
I'm thinking of getting this shirt
With band t-shirts you at least directly support the band even though you look like a tryhard, book t-shirts are infinitely worse
>hay everyone i know this book look at meeeeee
>im very smart
>>7719855
>wearing graphic tees
>liking Murakami
Real talk, though, OP. You shouldn't be wearing tees if you're an adult. If that's your style, though, at least wear a plain, solid-colored tee. Logos and graphics are trashy.
>>7719855
Look at me everybody I have read a book.
Has anyone ever gotten laid from Goodreads?
Met up with a guy and sucked his dick as he read Infinite Jest
>>7719794
on the one hand, a fucking stupid thread, kill yourself
on the other, an charming and whimsical image, I approve
>>7719796
Patrician.
I have just finished reading Heart of darkness, I admit I held it in high regard as I am a big fan of Apocalypse now.
You may cringe, you may scorn me but I enjoyed the film adaptation more than the novella.
I am now eagerly hunting a new read, what would you recommend?
i feel like if you say things like "hunting a new read" you shouldn't be reading books. I feel like you should just make youtube videos about books you've bought but haven't read.
>>7719814
His post was completely innocuous and didn't warrant such an emotional response.
OP, try 'Under the Volcano'.
>>7719814
Feel free to edit and revise my post, I can't guarantee that I'll give a shit but go for it.
Will this forever be the standard that all post-apocalyptic novels will be judged?
I've never read something that combines so beautifully, the fire and brimstone of a dead world and extraordinary tenderness.
Well /lit/?
>>7718922
No that would be "I am Legend" you're thinking of.
>>7718922
Lel the hunger games doe
>>7718922
Honestly though, the road was like 6/10 for me. One of McCarthy's worst.
After reading Foundings and Critique of Practical Reason, I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to eat meat morally.
Morality is only relevant to non-human entities insofar as they are relevant to humans.
Thats why you eat it practically
Do you personally kill your animals before you eat them? Then yeah, you might have an argument.
Do you buy your meats at the supermarket? Then no, there's nothing unethical about that because your actions change literally nothing at all.
