/lit/ - Literature

Is giving up weed for good a prerequisite to being a serious and good /lit/ academic/student/writer? I want to be among the best in my class. Have been a stoner for years with periodic breaks here and there.

>>18263979
Fichte and Schelling are honestly more interesting to me, and I don't even dislike Hegel, I think the Science of Logic is fascinating. But anyone who read PoS alone, and not SoL, Fichte, or Schelling, does not deserve to be called "patrician."

Do pot and /lit/ go well together or will I kill my /lit/ gains?

>>17126031
>Hegelian environment
Literally owns and breathes spooks with no fear, for he knows that he is free. The spooks fear him because they know not what the supreme power of the negative will do to them next.
>Stirner
Afraid that if a single spook passes through him undetected he will forever lose his freedom. Spooks ignore him because they know he is not a threat.

>>15979344
>>15979416

>>14144669
I'm here teaming up with Bertrand to tell you that you're an idiot.

What I would do:

>write brilliant, but technical works of philosophy. they can be incremental and trendy instead of earth-shattering, all that needs to be demonstrated is your competence within the current paradigm
>submit to journals, attend many conferences, get cited, get tenure, etc. you need a solid academic reputation to deflect future criticism and get people to take you seriously.
>once you've achieved a reputation, start dropping controversial philosophy red pills in the same analytical format
>use the ensuing controversy to cultivate your own pop culture appeal and your former academic reputation as a call to arms while leaving opponents in a state of cognitive dissonance
>profit as you're now the focal point of a generation, ensuring that your ideas are written down in history (assuming that they're air-tight enough to spark debates and not just get shut down in one massive BTFO)
>oh yeah, make some sick cash while you're at it, bucko!

I personally like Heilagra manna soogur

small brain college student:
>I am getting a healthy and coherent understanding of the world thanks to the modern education system, which deserves $60,000 of my loans.

large brain autodidact:
>I am building a foundation for a rigorous body of knowledge through a modern adaptation of the ancient trivium and quadrivium system.

Why haven't you studied the Trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric) and some sort of modern adaptation of the Quadrivium (i.e., mathematics, music, physics, & philosophy)?

>>9717506
at least he brought us the concept of concrete negation and set the course for marx

This thread is interesting. I got the same impressions after reading Martin Heidegger. Coming to understand the ontical-ontological difference within Being and Time, and then applying the question of Being lens to other great works of philosophy (starting with Descartes), was utterly mind-bending for me. Made me wonder, if Heidegger was right, why philosophers kept making the same mistakes, and whether epistemology was truly "founded-in being", aka a subset of ontology. Hell, if you read enough Heidegger, you'll start to find it difficult to determine whether Descartes, Kant, etc., were trying to solve primarily epistemological questions or ontological questions, and whether a useful distinction could be made.

I think I butchered my attempt to relate my own thoughts to your proposal, but I totally get where you're going with this. Things seem to have a tendency to connect in many of the same basic ways across academic fields.

The "stop x" meme with a picture of a continental philosopher

>>9269493

What I would do:

>write brilliant, but technical works of philosophy. they can be incremental instead of earth-shattering, all that needs to be demonstrated is your competence

>submit to journals, attend many conferences, get cited, get tenure, etc. you need a solid academic reputation to deflect future criticism and get people to take you seriously.

>once you've achieved a reputation, start dropping controversial philosophy red pills in the same analytical format

>use the ensuing controversy to cultivate your own pop culture appeal and your former academic reputation as a call to arms

>profit as you're now the focal point of a generation, ensuring that your ideas are written down in history (assuming that they're air-tight enough to spark debates and not just get shut down in one massive BTFO)

>oh yeah, make some sick cash while you're at it, bucko!

>>9249698

>>9249698

I am actually reading Being and Time right now as part of a class. This is perhaps the most useful advice I've been given besides being figuratively told to continue bashing my head against a wall. What section of B&T is this?

I think I'm not a good listener either. But I find it hard to not get lost when other people are talking, if I can get them talking. I don't know what questions to ask, and unfortunately, few people seem to appreciate silence in another person's company.

>reading the Phenomenology of Spirit
>quotes a passage from Faust
>Phenomenology of Spirit first published in 1807
>Faust first published in 1808
Was Hegel some kind of genie ?

you don't, can't and will not

Consider this a thread for autodidacts seeking to enhance their ability to think systematically, their knowledge of the world, and their ability to communicate. These books should serve as a springboard for more challenging topics, increasing clarity, depth, and precision of thought.

Philosophy (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics), mathematics, natural sciences, cognitive sciences, social sciences, the arts, and the humanities should become infinitely more comprehensible after completing this book list. For additional utility, relevant books on psychology & writing might be helpful as well.

However, for the sake of brevity, this list should also be as short as possible, avoiding non-comprehensive "meme" books, since why the fuck would anybody want to spend their life learning how to think instead of expanding their knowledge?

What books would provide a solid foundation for those seeking to learn ANY subject and communicate ANY idea? Preferably, these books cannot" technically" require nothing more than a high school background, though this should mean "few prerequisites" and "surmountable" rather than "cakewalk" or "non-rigorous".

This list shouldn't be longer than 15 books. So far, I've decided that these several books would be helpful:

-- --

How to Read a Book - Mortimer Adler
>have to start somewhere, why not learn how to read intelligently and build good habits?

The Trivium - Sister Miriam Joseph
>grammar, logic, & rhetoric to increase precision of language

A Rulebook for Arguments - Anthony Weston
>builds upon logic learned in previous listing in order to help construct better logics.

Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow - Daniel Kahneman
>understanding cognitive biases and heuristics built into human psychology, where they succeed and fail, and how to think around them when necessary

Improve Your Social Skills - Daniel Wendler
>how to not be an autist, or at least purge any tinges of autism from your personality. just the basics.

Influence - Robert Cialdiani
>understand the best methods for persuasion

Elements - Euclid
>to develop mathematical ability

The Art of Fiction - David Lodge
>an introduction to literary devices & themes, with examples, in order to better understand the language of literature

The Socratic Dialogues, The Republic, & The Symposium - Plato
>an introduction to a wide range of philosophical ideas. great for historic influence and presentation of alternative arguments

The Character of Physical Law - Richard Feynman
>learning to think about the fundamentals of physics

The Machinery of Life - David Goodsell
>understanding how organisms are built out of complex molecular interactions

The Interpretation of Cultures -- Clifford Geertz

-- --

>>9044897
>he isn't a hegelian wizard

>>8928833
No one cares about your shitty anglo philosophy. Get your Scientism out of here.

>>8819268
>uncovering the nature of reality

HAHAHAHA

>>8742029
>What does it mean to complete the system of German idealism?

>>8649145
Hegel>either

>>8634741
That's second, after Science of Logic.