/lit/ - Literature

What is the literary or philosophical technique called when, in writing, what is being claimed to be true is simultaneously being practiced in how the claim is written?

An example might be claiming there are no nouns, while making that claim without using any nouns. Others might be Wittgenstein's Tractatus on how one can talk about logic without being outside of logic, or the Diamond Sutra on negation

>>11099794
All three are pocket size, roughly 3.5 x 6

Moleskin - $14.95, 196 pages
Rhodia - $13.95, 96 pages
Leuchtturm - $12.95, 121 pages

You can also find more deals easily with Moleskin, bringing it down to Rhodia or Leauchtturm prices

However I have never used any of these so I cant say anything about quality

>>10072672
Generally speaking the people here who say they dislike him have never read him, or at the very least dont understand him

Take
>>10072687

This anon is just wrong. Russell's Descrition theory of names is still hotly debated. Its not as if Kripke just ended the debate in Naming and Necessity. People still attack Kripke on his Millian attempt with names, and Russell's theory seems like a good alternative in light of that. There is also Searle/Wittgenstein but you get the point, which is this anon is talking out of his ass.

I mean if you arent interested in logic, phil. math or phil. language, then you wont be interested. There is nothing wrong with that

>>9975592
You dont know history so why do you talk about it?

Why dont you attempt to show proof that Jews were not forced into dealing with money-lending in Europe, and that it wasnt the guilds and the clergy doing this to the jews

I bet you forgot guilds even existed. Or that Catholics even gave a shit about sin, greed being one of them in a time before capitalism

>>8917703
>Is this a flowchart for Western philosophy?

A better question is what are you interested in with philosophy? Any list anyone gives you will be useless unless we know what you want.

You should start with Plato since he probably started the topic you're interested in, but if you look up all of Plato's dialogues I think you will quickly see that even with one philosopher there is a lot you just will not care for.

To figure out what you like in philosophy, just look up wikipedia's page on the branches of philosophy.

/lit/, I am about to finish Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. I have already read what I wanted from Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, and Hume.

I want to go on to Frege because I think analytic philosophy will interest me more than others. Should I get a grasp of anything else before Frege?

>>7566338
>Pierre Menard, author of the Quixote

Really? I just finished that one and it just felt like a slight against contemporary literary criticism. It didn't feel all that important or great.

>>7455827
Not planning on a stand up routine, I'm just gonna fwd: it to my grandma when it's ready to be released into the world

>>7377930
Oh damn

Well I'll definitely be doing this then

>>6617274
Why Hesiod? Theogony.

I am not trying to make some justified distinction. I am sure where to start and off the top of my head that distinction seemed to make sense.

Have you read everyone I've mentioned? Would it take a long while to read all of them? I really do not know who has only fragments left and who has complete works.

>>6586042
I am also interested in this

>>6567940
For my cap English course we focused on N-Nature. I was a philosophy major, and it was terrifying how no one knew how to fucking define a word, or to see how manipulative it was to use the word "natural" in various context.

My professor was good though. He was finishing up some major paper of his, had a kid coming right in the middle of the semester, and still managed to always find time to have great critiques on how my style (philosophy:brief, concise, at most sufficient) could change in an English course, which was pretty helpful.

He was also well read on Kant and Heidegger which was surprising.

>>6300823
>Shit writing. Easily.

Not the anon you were responding too, but I wanted to ask his/her question and was hoping for a more specific response.

For example, I can understand that a godly query letter or excerpt could probably make any premise/plot/story work, so given that, what are generally some things that are just meh or generally some things that are nice.

So for litfic specfically:
Having a 20 something character in a suburban setting with nothing surreal/fantastic happening, having horror elements like ghosts, having a story take place largely in a few places, etc. I'm just throwing things out there.

tldr; be real with us litfic fags. What are some things which are just done too frequently that we wouldn't know about, besides shitty writing and a main character which is a super-awesome-bohemian version of the author

>>5983426
Slightly different topic but you're thread is slow.

I made a thread earlier about works in English that deal with Mono no aware. Any ideas? How about your favorite Japanese works that deal with it?

I haven't read much Japanese literature since I feel pretty uncomfortable reading works not in there original language. Danzai's No Longer Human was pretty disappointing.

insouciant and nonchalant are the words you are looking for.

The words above are pretty close but they don't carry the extra meaning of consciously putting on a face, a farce, to feign, that sort of thing.

These two words allow for that since the words include in the definition "showing x" rather than "is x".

A word that included "faking x" would be best but I don't know of many words that have that within a definition, especially faking indifference or apathy.

I'm currently reading Syntax by Andrew Carnie

Pretty solid textbook for an introduction but at the same time I'm in the same boat as you so maybe there are better one's out there I'm not aware of.