/lit/ - Literature

>>13183372
Much love anon

>>13146376
reading this, it's excellent and has helped a lot.
my plan to learn german is
>continue reading 'German for Reading'
>watch as many videos as possible, sometimes re-watching some periodically to get more and more out of it each time
>do some duolingo daily
>get some random german book and bruteforce my way through it
Need some advice in the latter though. How do I go about it? What's the best approach to it? to look up every word I don't know?

>>12981937
Peterson just got exposed as a dilettante, and a poor one at that.

1) Anyone who has taken a 100 level course on Marx could have given as good or better of a rundown and critique of the Communist Manifesto that Peterson gave.
2) No serious Marxist reads the meme pamphlet Marx wrote for uneducated workers, it's not an academic source, it's a propaganda piece.
3) Peterson, although claiming to have read and understood at least a modicum of Zizek's works, was not able to produce a single meaningful critique of his theory, even going so far as to be impressed with Zizek's take on Christianity
3a) Peterson is in many ways a scholar of religion, in particular Judeo-Christianity; he also critiques Marxism for being an athiest doctrine which rejects these principles. So if Peterson had done so much as read Zizek's wikipedia article, let alone an article on him in an encyclopedia of philosophy, let alone read one of his books on Christianity, he would have known this position and not been impressed by it. It means he didn't even watch Pervert's Guide to Ideology. Incredible lack of research.
4) Peterson did not stick to his position that Marxism was bad, instead retreating to a simple repetition of his individualism (at one point admitting that the heart of the individualism leads to the position that you must do what is best for the community anyways "good enough for you/your family isn't enough" which basically recasts JP's position as individually enlightened Marxism)
5) Peterson hasn't read Critique of the Gotha program which is shorter than the Manifesto and much more important (reminder this intellectual has been arguing against the evils of Marx for decades and hasn't even read him in any meaningful sense since he was 18).
6) By the end, Peterson wasn't even able to formulate an argument against the form of Marxism which Zizek promotes. His only point to the debate which had any relevance was to point out Capitalism's productive force, a fact that he also admits Marx agrees with and discusses at length in the Manifesto.
7) Peterson being pressed on and subsequently not able to name a single postmodern neomarxist needs no explication.

Peterson has been exposed as someone who has no real education (or perhaps intellectual interest) in political theory. I am actually amazed there are people who watched this debate and think Peterson managed even the bare minimum of understanding of both Marxist theory and the historical realities of capitalist dynamics.

>>12852501
three arrows, cuck philosophy, and the minotaur himself

>Addressing One Preliminary Concern
>It’s useful to start by considering common anxieties or preoccupations that many seem to have. The first of these can be summed up in the question: “Which book or books should I read first?” What is often lurking behind this question is a concern about “getting it right” when it comes to studying philosophy. One needs to read the books and thinkers in order—that’s one common conception. First you need to read Plato, and only after that study his student, Aristotle. But of course, before Plato (one discovers, while reading Plato, to dismay and chagrin!) one really should have read the pre-Socratics. And when reading Plato, of course, it is important to start with the early dialogues, and only after having read those to go on to the middle. God forbid you should crack open a late dialogue before adequate preparation!
>[...] You don’t need to read the books and authors in the “right order”. Unless you’re the sort of person who takes some sort of indelible stain in your brain from what you read—in which case, I am sorry to say, you will not get much from philosophy—you’re not going to damage your mind by reading around the canon at the start, rather than buckling down with some sort of rigidly arranged list.
>It is perfectly fine to read Aristotle before reading Plato. It’s equally all right if the first book of philosophy you encountered was Epictetus’ Enchiridion.
>Here’s why: whatever book you pick, whatever author you start with, you’re probably not going to understand most of what you read the first time you make your way through it. If you come away from an initial reading of Plato or Descartes, and you feel like you solidly grasped everything you read, that feeling is very likely wildly off-base. Often all it takes is a second reading to realize how much you missed the first time around. And different readers are going to come away with different things—usually a mishmash of some rightly understood points and other mistakenly mixed up ideas—when reading the same texts. All that is ok—in fact, it is normal.

>*cracks open late Plato dialogue without having read the early ones*
>*reads*
Jokes aside, do you agree with this? Do you think it is valid, say, for a guy reading Aristotle to get a break from that one and read Descartes' Meditations? Going further, more than valid, is it worthy? or on a more extreme side, jumping to a work of Kant like this (obviously not expecting to understand 1/3 of it on the first read, specially without secondary material, be it videos or other books)?

>>10933489
Just comes naturally to Chadler

>>10746332
>thinks original = good
Wew

>>10701882
>tfw ywn be saddled by the sadler

>>10673241
>”Heh, yeah. They got “me”...”