/lit/ - Literature

>>9333241

lit/poetry II

>>9333231

thanks, man--i absolutely intend to scan everything people have asked for thus far. if you have any requests, feel free to let me know.

>>9333225

lit/poetry I

>>9333207
>>9333220

i know you wont read it, but here's something to chew on:
https://catilineconspiracy.com/2017/04/04/1-18-the-politics-of-the-myth-collected-notes-on-democratic-theory/

>>9333203

science fiction/fantasy

>>9333165

i again agree entirely. there are some scholars who i think are beginning to do this--maybe not with bush II or obama, but with raegan and clinton--see sean wilentz, for instance.

but i do not think we will return to a consensus politics; i think the academic conditions that made that salient are no longer in existence. anyone who is in theory/history at the grad level today will tell you: the fucking main trope now is all about "disenthrallment" from various states of "beholdenment." all scholars want to do is make a name for themselves by shouting at another that they missed "this" or forgot "that." it's basically become a world of strawmanning, with the larger problems falling out of fashion as pathetically trivial debates foment and take hold.

there are some people today who i think are doing a better job than not, though. michael kazin's work on populism is excellent--but of course this doesn't count as consensus politics. but i wanna see a lot more from scholars like him.

>>9333181

absolutely! would be a pleasure. any shakespeare criticism along with it?

>>9333153

anthologies III

>>9333150

sorry, missed it.

i would highly recommend:
Fine's "the ancient greeks: a critical history"
Lendon's works on greek warfare, including "song of wrath" and "soldiers and ghosts"
Finley's "legacy of greece"--its an edited volume with a lot of great essays on various topics by top scholars
jaeger's three-volume "paideia"
vernnant's work on myth and greek society
guthrie's "history of greek philossophy"--all volumes. while he covers every aspect of greek philsophy, guthrie's treatment is utterly exhaustive, and you'll have a wonderful grasp of history by the end as well
munn's "the school of history"
cooper's "the pursuit of wisdom"--a little more laymen oriented, but a good treatment of the various "ways of life" found in ancient greece
ober's "the rise and fall of classical greece"
loraux's "the invention of athens" and "the divded city" for more theoretical treatments
burkhardt's the greeks and greek civilization
onian's "the origins of european thought"--this is a little bit more idiosyncratic, and onians is a stickler for precise historical detail, but you will learn a lot about how the greeks saw the world
mcdonald's "progress into the past"--his treatment of myceneaen civilization cannot be beat
croix's "the class struggle in the ancient greek world"
godolphin's two-volume "the greek historians"

honestly, though, i am unaware of a series that is comparable to mommsen's history of rome, for instance. if you have any suggestions, i would of course be all ears.

>>9333145

anthologies II

>>9333141

anthologies I

>>9333137

french/latin

>>9333132

linguistic theory

>>9333126

game theory/ logic

(i began my graduate education with formal modeling)

>>9333113

aspects of cognition

>>9332637

honestly, if you are really just starting out, i would recommend Miller's "very short introduction to political theory" by oxford. these little texts are great intros, written by top scholars, on all major theorists.

if you want a holistic treatment from the ground up, something a little more serious and meaty, then i would suggest sheldon wolin's "politics and vision"

if you want to go to primary source materials, then--and this is a meme, no doubt--i would recommend starting with the greeks and moving up: anaxamander, anaxagoras, thales, pythagoras, heraclitus, parmenides--socrates/plato, aristotle, etc.

this is the slowest, most arduous method. but you will change as a human being and become truly wise. what can i say? "long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

>>9333109

biology II

>>9333106

history of greece in specific, or history of greek philosophy? what's the angle you wanna cover?

>>9333091

maths VIII
biology I

>>9333089

hofstadter addresses goldwater directly as a perfect manifestation of the paranoid style; see his essays "the psuedo-conversative revolt" (1954), "pseudo-conservatism revisited" (1964/1965), and "goldwater and pseudoconservative politics"

i agree entirely, btw--i prefer the consensus historians infinitely to this zinn, julian zelizer, etc. bullshit.

>>9333088

maths VII

>>9333082

maths VI

>>9333081

maths V

>>9333077

maths IV

>>9333071

maths III

>>9333068

maths II

>>9332017

maths I

>>9332922

plato--the dialogues
aristotle--the collected works
augustine--city of god against the pagans
aquinas--summa theologiae
wittgenstein--philosophical investigations/on certainty
bonus round: the bible, king lear (shakespeare), the waves (woolf), peeling the onion (grass)


what about you?

>>9332764

what can i say? weakness still lingers in me; i rule over syracuse, but look to athens on the horizon...

>>9332877

i fucking love you--hofstadter is one of my all time favorites. his anti-intellectualism in american life is the basis of my disertation--i absolutely have the paranoid style (another incredibly influential essay on my thought), as well as his essays on goldwater and the rise of the alt-right, and will happilly scan in all.

would you like all the girard as well?

>>9332365

sharing knowledge for free/no economic benefit in a self-titled academic/literary setting.

yeah, you're right, i'm sure they'd be furious.

>>9332091

excellent question. epistemic justification is a favorite topic of mine--i've approached the problem through wittgenstein and harman primarily, and, while i don't refer to sellers or mcdowell, they are in the back of my mind--same with plantinga and warranted belief. my stance on the subject of "changing frames" might offer some insight here:
https://catilineconspiracy.com/2017/04/04/1-15-on-wittgenstein-epistemic-authority-and-frame-changes/

i gotta go to dinner, but great topic: i'll post more later, especially how i think that the internalist/externalist debate plays out today in populist politics as the fundamental cleavage between antinomeans (those who externalize truth born internally) and establishmentarians (those who internalize truth born externally). i think the first category encompasses the alt-right and alt-left; i think the latter defines things like academic communities and scientific traditions (though, of course, kuhn and collins and so on have a lot to say here).

i'll engage the analytics more when i return.

>>9332062

great question. i run a reading group with two other friends in washington, DC: my library is totally open to that group (some 30+ scholars, politicians and businessmen), as well as whatever intellectual circles i run in post-cornell (i have several friends who teach at georgetown, AU and GW). of course, my effort here is to open it up even further to the general public writ large--especially the internet.

>>9332068

i have both a special scanner and several people willing to help/scan. see my response above--my friends/colleagues will often come and either take a volume or scan it.

>>9332015
>>9330748
>>9331988
>>9331907
>>9330701
>>9330657
>>9330643
>>9330582
>>9330571
>>9330512

ima say this once, and once only, because if you read through my posts i have gone out of my way to be polite, to show you kindness, and to disclose my intentions--of which you have not responded at all.

let me make it very clear: not one of you--so full of anger and insecurity--could ever, ever compete with me on an intellectual level. while i have not read anything close to the entirety of my collection, i have read an incredible amount; i can speak intelligently across disciplines and subjects; and i have plenty of worthwhile opinions, some controversial and some sanctioned. but you don't care about this. all you do is hurl ad hominems; you ask nothing about my interests, you ask nothing that would demonstrate your knowledge or challenge mine, and you don't respond when i do try to engage in any meaningful way.

you all are truly flawed human beings. until you start acting like adults, i will ignore you, and continue offering what i have to those worth speaking to.

you embarrass yourselves with your gross stupidity and lack of basic human decency.

and i know: this post will receive nothing but the same kind of belligerence. i'm not going to be surprised--but just know that, the more you post as you have, the less anyone in this world will respect you or take you seriously.

engage me on an intellectual registrar or not at all. these principles should be obvious to you; but they are not, and reaching you seems impossible. therefore, i will give up before i succumb to the same type of anger.