/lit/ - Literature

When writing a book, can you use short quotes in them if you just source their secondary source?

For instance, one short quote of two sentences I have is sourced to a YouTube clip that is of a local TV news show segment, but I can only source the YouTube video because I do not even know how to find where and how it originally aired. Or could this become a copyright issue?

Similarly, another quote is sourced to another book where it is found, but the original source of the quoted material, according to that book, is apparently in some video clip from forever ago that I have not seen (or can find) myself.

Are these things still fine, can I just source that book and that YouTube video for the quotes, or can I get into copyright trouble if I do not say, as well as I can, where the originals are from? Any other authors here who has encountered similar issues?

My end goal is to be the guy at the party that can wax eloquently about post-structuralist thought and hold deep philosophical conversations with others and also just be enlightened in general, but all the knowledge I have about philosophy comes from being exposed to memes on /lit/ and other such places. Where does one even begin? Presumably I have to start with the Greeks - but what then?
Basically are there any guides that take you through exact philosophical works to read until you can read works by Deleuze?
I know I'm potentially talking about hundreds of books here, but I am mentally ready for this long and arduous journey.

Is there a systemic way to take notes when you're reading philosophy? How should I takes notes?
Fuck man I don't want to forget this shit after week.

>>16783322
things are way too complex bro, there are way too many doctrines and Gods. I don't even think about it now.

I am writing a book and want to use quotes from other books in it. The problem is, however, that in these books it says things like ~"No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of the publisher."

Can you still use quotes from that book under fair use if you reference them, they are shorter than 300 words, and you write something about them both before and after using them?

I have written a non-fiction book. It has received glowing endorsements from some of the foremost experts in the field already, and I am just about to send the final version of it in to the publisher. However, I have a question. Can I add a few pages of new material to it after receiving these endorsements, as long as it is in no way controversial or false and I have good reasons to think that they would not disagree with it, without having to contact each and every endorsee to ask them if they are chillaxed with this? In other words, can you get in trouble for adding a little bit of material to a book that they have already endorsed?

Some of them even recommended making some of these changes when providing feedback on the book, but this is the first time I am publishing a book, so I am uncertain of how all of this works. Any help or feedback would be much appreciated.

>>15111600
>maybe

>>15039984

>"Basically I detest photographs, and it has never occurred to me to take any, except for the ones taken in London and Sankt Wolfgang, and another that I took in Cannes. I have never owned a camera. I despise people who are forever taking pictures and go around with cameras hanging from their necks, always on the lookout for a subject, snapping anything and everything, however silly. All the time they have nothing in their heads but portraying themselves, in the most distasteful manner, though they are quite oblivious of this. What they capture in their photos is a perversely distorted world that has nothing to do with the real world except this perverse distortion, for which they themselves are responsible. Photography is a vulgar addiction that is gradually taking hold of the whole of humanity, which is not only enamored of such distortion and perversion but completely sold on them, and will in due course, given the proliferation of photography, take the distorted and perverted world of the photograph to be the only real one. Practitioners of of photography are guilty of one of the worst crimes it is possible to commit--of turning nature into a grotesque. The people in their photographs are nothing but pathetic dolls, disfigured beyond recognition, staring in alarm into the pitiless lens, brainless and repellent. Photography is a base passion that has taken hold of every continent and every section of the population, a sickness that afflicts the whole of humanity and is no longer curable. The inventor of the photographic art was the inventor of the most inhumane of all arts. To him we owe the ultimate distortion of nature and the human beings who form part of it, the reduction of human beings to perverse caricatures--his and theirs. I have yet to see a photograph that shows a normal person, a true and genuine person, just as I have yet to see one that gives a true and genuine representation of nature. Photography is the greatest disaster of the twentieth century. Nothing has ever sickened me so much as looking at photographs..."
Thomas Bernhard

>>14697973

>>14691889

>>14109473
>no lautreamont

>>13632203
what I don't understand is why he ALSO shits on Aryans. Is there a race that he doesn't hate?

>>13085397
Oh man, you're so shallow and close-minded it's unironically funny. And this is coming from a /pol/lack.

>We are pleased to announce winners of the fourth Bad Writing Contest, sponsored by the scholarly journal Philosophy and Literature.
>Professor Butler’s first-prize sentence appears in “Further Reflections on the Conversations of Our Time,” an article in the scholarly journal Diacritics (1997):
>The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.
what did she mean by this?

>>12366018
so you just have to act like a woman?

>>11936663
t-thanks anon
but from where I should start?

Is Schopenhauer's "will" using animals (humans included) as some sort of vessel for it's existence? that is to say it is inherently separate but manifests through living beings and uses them as vessels? You see some animals eat their young when times are hard, as if the will has concluded this is better in the long term if the mother can eat, and then reproduce and raise her young in more favorable conditions at a later time. Obviously you also see mothers sacrificing their lives for their young, i guess this is the most common expression for the continuity of the will.

idk, maybe i'm severely autistic and just rambling. Please do provide insight if you have any.

>>11241211
>Stirner was a brainlet
>If that is a true reflection of what he thinks
Do you really think you know better than Stirner without having read his work? A real philosopher you are, anon.

why don't i find racism in the Greeks and the Romans? is it an invention of the XIXth century?

>the translator makes the text better

>>11114806
Wtf she's like a thousands years old and deathnikk, I thought Zizek only got HQNP JBs... This is very disturbing...

>>11059295
>tfw paradoxically pretty much require cars to escape

How does a man feel he's gained ANYTHING from female emancipation?