/lit/ - Literature

When did you realise philosophy was just baseless speculation by faggots who are too narcissistic to just write fiction?
For me, it was after watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXPyCY7jbs

>>12782638
Is this you?

>>12780332
Approving of mr. Zizek's genius is universal to any man with a three digit IQ

>>12737157
>There are only gulags and workplaces
The absolute ideology of this lad

I wanna start taking notes while I read, but I dunno how to go about doing it. What are some ways you guys typically do it? How do you know what to highlight/underline? Specifically with fiction or philosophy.

>>11726176
too late Deleuze has been exposed

>asshurt ramblings that don't address OP's query

not this guy

Where do I start with Žižek?

So I've actually been attacked by a mob of angry Zizekians.

What happened was I made a Youtube video--well researched and cited--critiquing Zizek's recent hitpiece against Peterson in the atlantic

(This one: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html))

This video, which was a work of literary scholarship through and through, was very polite to Zizek while also offering constructive criticism.

In response, the Zizekians attacked me, calling me (among other things) "lowlife scum," etc...

... The question is, why are ZIZEKIANS so SENSITIVE re: PETERSONIANS?

>>10464513
what if I have both?

Where do you people find these Žižek images?

What use is there in reading old philosophy? It's not like scientists devote time to studying now obsolete developments like in alchemy or primitive forms of mathematics/chemistry, so why bother with the old and criticized philosophies of the past centuries?

Are there any books that summarize why the materialist new form of atheism is flawed? I always hear that arguments talking about how everything just boils down to chemical reactions based on previous instants/causes, that we have no free will due to everything being a necessary result of a previous thing, and evolution not being a suitable explanation for morality and consciousness. However, I don't see what's really wrong with most of these arguments. Science really does seem like it's able to explain a lot of formerly metaphysical problems and mysteries, and I don't see what's wrong with assuming that even very complex ones like our consciousness will be explained someday. At the least, it seems like religion doesn't make sense anymore.