/lit/ - Literature

>>21793040
>can you not
>your writing sucks
If you want me to write better just say where can I improve desu

Aside of cringe framing, OP is essentialy right. Philosophy as it exists in public conciousness -- reflection on life. etc -- is not the worthwhile part of it. Every meaningful part of philosophy has already been cut away to become a science of its own. Every time you see a philosopher quoted, it's a quote about about psychology or human condition.
A person would gain much more by studying psychology, cognitivism and literature than another book about onthology, reading some bullshit about how "Thing and Being are important parts that constitute the essentially important process, which allows for the grater meaning to form on the theme of living."
Not a single person had ever read something like that and came out out better after.

>t.Philosophy Student for years

>>21238068
>>21238091
>>21238451
I am literally a young man in zip-up hoodie who read Nietszsche (Geneaology of Morals) while traveling by public communication today so I will give my honest impressions of reading that.

It did prickle, at first, to read that. The author isn't an amateur at writing, so she knew how to write in a perfectly contemptous, arrogant tone that instinctualy wants the reader to not be ina group she despises. Or maybe that's just my 'beta' instincts. However, after a moment of thought I realized that there isn't much reason to feel bad about this fragment. In fact, her 'cuts' are skin-deep.

The protagonist doesn't really have anything bad to say about the men. She clearly thinks nothing of them, but her 'insightful' description stops at telling how they look or what they do, no deeper thought is present. I think it's things like that that divide pseuds from actual thinkers. The first group always reads everything at face value, they take an author's words as gospel, divine ordination that cannot be refuted.
The second? They think about what they read. And thinking about this fragment really doesn't give the protagonist any favours.

Without context that we need to supplement with our real life experience, this would be a powerful woman going through live, judging men by their worth and picking them apart for horrible flaws they have. Which is a nice power fantasy, but falls apart when you supplement the experience. And what do you get then?

A young, arrogant woman, that goes through live as a sexual object, judged solely by her abilities to please and give her body to any man that wins her over, but barely in possesion of her own agenda. She judges men for their failures, but they are failing because they are trying. Men are reading, men are advancing, men are LIVING. It's only natural all of them cannot be at the top. But she judges them, because she doesn't see them as people. And the only man she describes as worthy? The one that puts down HER.

Meanwhile she herself is nothing. She cannot fail at anything, because she isn't trying anything. Her sole vocation is that of a sexual object, which never changes. Something she didn't achieve or struggled for. The weakest of those 'pathetic' men she describes has more intrinsic value than her.

It's the most visible when she talks about men daring to ignore her at parties because they pursue something else in their own group. How dare they. How dare to ignore HER. As if there were more valuable things to care about.
I can't decide whether this is an excellent piece of writing that portrays an ulikable, egotistic and delusional woman in a world where she needs to put down others to fool herself into thinking she has worth, or maybe the author herself is entirely honest about how she sees the world.

If it's the first, I commend her. If the second, I pity her.

The problem is there isn't really something to "discuss" about philosophy. Everything written by philosophers is either trivial or wrong, and has become obsolete thanks to science and math. You force yourself to read the Greeks or Kant or whatever, and put a lot of effort into trying to find something "deep" or "insightful" in their texts. But ultimately they're just stale memes and only serve as a pretext for acting pseudointellectual. The reader is supposed to project his own trivial thoughts into their generic texts and then act like "omg look, this wise man said something similar to what I said, that means I'm smart". If one was to actually separate the content from the celebrity worship in philosophy (as is done in science where you can learn about general relativity without giving a shit about Einstein's personal beliefs), then you'd be heavily disappointed to find that the philosophers' works are no deeper than the average reddit post.