/lit/ - Literature

When People say "read the church fathers" do they have any specifics in mine? I am trying to work through the general western canon, and just finished the bible, so I would like a next stop. Is there a good generally liked compendium of the church fathers and the formative ideas of the church? both from a more achademic perspective, as well as a primary source, or as close to a primary source there is, to get the gist of it.

I tend to like to read a primary source first, even in translation, before reading modern interpretations of it so that I can form conclusions and understandings of my own without bewing colored much in one way or the other. Recs?

>Primary, or near period sources (heard about
>Quick and durty overveiw of early saints and the early church
>More academic works on the early church

Preferably, I would also like any recs on Librivox, since I like to listen and follow along while i read. Also since I like late 1800s early 1900s authors and their way of stating things as well, which is a large part of librivox's library.

>>18453768
>>18453834
>>18453710
>new trend of hating on nietzsche?
Its not. And dont you mistake me for a christian, there are a bunch of christ zoomies too. Its just that young people tend to read Nietzsche as their 1st or 2nd philosopher (usually the other being plato,, for christoids, potentially Augustine), and it really, REALLY shows with how miopic and boilerplate they are. Not that Neitchze himself is bad mind you, but simply due to how most people act, their most recent thing they engulfed themselves in becomes the GOAT. While lacking much nuance or alternate or dynamic takes on a subject which you cultivate through reading many different takes and currents of thought rather than simply submerging yourself into one (which people who just started phil just have those one or two reference points so they tend to be rather narrow in their take)
>...its all just, like, slave morality
straight out , withought any additions, or more specific reasonings to the comment, just parroting the gestalt idea, instead of something more focused and reasoned, like
> In Ecclesiastes, for example, there is a major focus on the emptiness and hollowness of all things material, and to some extent, even extra-material, calling for a somber dedication to duty as the only fleeting line of vanity with even a semblence of lasting meaning, but this ideology skips over the inate meaning within the struggle of even a vain task, lumping the arbitrarity of things into worthlessness, rather than finding worth in the very act.
Or something a little more focused and less insipid parroting of a thesis.