/lit/ - Literature

>>17986945
>I wouldn't mind if they were getting into the proper intellectual philosophy that more or less builds up fascism
I agree
/pol/ shouldn't ask
>uuhh which one of these 3 books do I start with?
They should ask
>what books do I nead to read to understand the following works?

>can't read anymore due to very severe tinnitus

>>15887107
I’m actually reading pride and prejudice as well. I know /lit/ likes to say women can’t write but I’ve absolutely loved it so far.

I don’t “get” poetry.

How do I start my fictional novel? What should the first line be?

>>13944206
Hopefully this won't sound like a troll, but I once flipped through a translation of the Qur'an at a book festival and I read over and over about how great God is and about how much we should fear him. Maybe it was just a coincidence since I looked through it randomly for a bit, skipping from page to page, but is that kind of repetition needed? I'm not saying repetition doesn't have a force of its own, but it doesn't make for interesting reading and it just feels like coercion if that's the right word for it.

Anyway, good look with your reading group, I might join in if I have the time!

>>13939975
>cry on camera to promote traditional masculinity

Fuck, why did I laugh at that?

>>13929083
No offense, but that stuff sounds entirely made up.

>>13917056
>Lacan
>left wing

He was pretty conservative on most things, he just had a bit more nuance than most and an unbearable style.


>>13922581
Deleuze literally called himself a Marxist. Just because the Left at the time had a lot of libertarian tendencies (because muh state) doesn't mean they weren't Left. Either you're a Tankie that considers everyone else a Soc Dem or you're an Alt Right larper, either way you're bullshitting about Deleuze.

>>13910897
/lit/ is a bit too harsh on Russell. He has his merits, including plenty of stuff in the non-mathematical books and even in his History of Philosophy. There are better choices of course and it isn't a good book if it's your only source of knowledge on the matter and as others said it's mostly Russell's biased and flawed opinion on various philosophers, but it does present a decent history of how philosophies evolved and even makes some interesting points even as it is missing the mark. Read it as a biased and interesting work rather than as a failure in representing a proper history, too many are quick to completely discard every thinker instantly if they disagree with them.

>tfw driving down simple county roads in the autumn
>tfw fishing on a calm lake
>tfw working as a humble electrician
>tfw owning my own home
>tfw small town USA