/lit/ - Literature

i've never read plato or aristotle (besides the symposium when i was 14 and poetics) and i never will
i've never read homer either and i don't plan on it
fuck the greeks

>why are we keep winning

>>19603169
>duuuuude let's just, like, abolish capitalism and civilization and go back to living in mud huts like primitive matriarchal savages
>ha-HA capitalism btfo! checkmate misogynists

>based
>chud
>imagine
>touch grass
>incel
>literally
>kek
>kys
>boomer
>this reeks of
>ngl
>cope
>go outside
>nigga
>doomer
>coomer
>anon
>seethe

>existence is not a perfection!!

>>18652649
Farewell. I meant farewell dammit.

Accounting for similar quality and skill between translators, of course.

I am fluent in both Portuguese and English. I have this habit of reading books from all Romance languages in Portuguese translations instead of English because I suppose they are more loyal to the originals. I do the same for German > English.

This seems logical to me. Consider the fact that Portuguese and Spanish share a lot of their lexicon. It makes sense that I read Spanish in Portuguese instead of English, which comes from a whole different language tree.

Do I have any reason to believe this or I am just grasping at straws? If yes, would you say that languages such as Russian translates better to English or Portuguese? What about Turkish?

>>17045418

>>16963892
>We should never look beyond the concrete facts that industry owned nerds can prove

>>16373204
>jokes on you I surround myself with people I don't like out of spite

>>16371465

>>16351253
Good come back, bro. Wow. So convincing!

>>16350648
>Assuming every woman author is bad
>most writers, especially canonical, are liberal
>thinks a story about a hidden magic world with themes of blood purity, power, and overcoming conflicts for children is shit
>?

>>16341248
>Believing that Homer not only was a single person, but that person also wrote The Iliad and The Odyssey by himself.

It is the air! The air of the Midi and the old cultures intoxicates them. The big gay in the black hat enters, on a horse with a donkey-neck. The drunkard and the charlatan drink into one another.

Finally a grand old woman with a ball bag catches sight of Jesus, sits down on the flat stone and says 'Come Lord Jesus, come to me!'

We come! And as we ride past the tent of Hillel the jews laugh, 'Vom klöster Klasse! Gewil, Vom sie eine Klasse!'

Vroom! And as the eagles fly from the mountain Szekely,

We cry out,
La, la, la!
Blah!
Excrement! She spits

>Because analytic philosophy initially saw itself as superseding traditional philosophy, its tendency throughout much of the twentieth century was to disregard the history of philosophy. It is even reported that a sign reading “just say no to the history of ideas” once hung on a door in the Philosophy building at Princeton University (Grafton 2004, 2). Though earlier analytic philosophers would sometimes address the views of a philosopher from previous centuries, they frequently failed to combine philosophical acumen with historical care, thereby falling into faulty, anachronistic interpretations of earlier philosophers.

>Beginning in the 1970s, some in the analytic context began to rebel against this anti-historical attitude. The following remembrance by Daniel Garber describes well the emerging historical consciousness in the analytic context (though this was not then and is not now so widespread as to count as characteristic of analytic philosophy itself):

>What my generation of historians of philosophy was reacting against was a bundle of practices that characterized the writing of the history of philosophy in the period: the tendency to substitute rational reconstructions of a philosopher’s views for the views themselves; the tendency to focus on an extremely narrow group of figures (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley and Hume in my period); within that very narrow canon the tendency to focus on just a few works at the exclusion of others, those that best fit with our current conception of the subject of philosophy; the tendency to work exclusively from translations and to ignore secondary work that was not originally written in English; the tendency to treat the philosophical positions as if they were those presented by contemporaries, and on and on and on. (Garber 2004, 2)

>Over against this “bundle of practices,” the historical movement began to interpret the more well-known problems and views of historical figures in the context of, first, the wholes of their respective bodies of work, second, their respective intellectual contexts, noting how their work related to that of the preceding generation of thinkers, and, third, the broader social environment in which they lived and thought and wrote.