/lit/ - Literature

Exercises for uptalk?

>>12745384
Absolute kino

>>12689114
>Started browsing /lit/ a week ago
>Actually picked up books
>Didn't take him half a year to finish one of them

This thread is probably bait, but I'll bite. Is there anything in particular you're looking for OP, something similar to Camus or Dazai? Or something else.

>>12236383
If you're unable to tell the difference between Gravity Rainbow and Infinite Jest when compared to space-time relative cum slurping aliens, then I don't know if you're able to see the difference between anything at all.

My eyeballs hurt real bad and i keep juggling books without finishing other ones
I'm glad that /pol/ is now being evicted to another site entirely, it'll make the board slower but the quality will definitely be better.

I've been thinking about zenos paradox a lot of Achilles and the tortoise. By using impeccable logic and developing from that he was able to conclude that Achilles should not be able to pass the tortoise if the tortoise had a head start. But this made me think. If someone so logical and rational and has never been refuted for 2500 years can be wrong, then what else is wrong. Can we use our rationality to ever come to conclusions? Can we ever trust our logic in any sense to come to conclusions? As solid and sound as the works of Plato and Aristotle are, how do we not know that they also might be false despite the fact they're based on premises derived from looking at nature. Is all of philosophy just a sham? Is the only true path to knowledge through empiricism?

It just made me think and become very pessimistic of even going further in my philosophical studies but I wanted to ask /lit/ to see what they thought and see what we can learn from this paradox.