/lit/ - Literature

bumpin it

shameless bump

bump

Most of the poetry I see on /lit/ is shit, this is awesome.

Please keep posting, less of the ye thou old shit

Anyone? Google isnt showing anything

>>3082182
Of course comrade

>>3082183
I plan to, but if I decide my research should be on Being and Time, what exactly should I do with the research? This is my first time doing research also, so im not sure exactly how to best use this experience

What is a word for successfully capturing a moment? Im not sure how to describe it. Its not like carpe diem, which is telling you to capture or seize the moment, instead the moment has just been caught. It has to be said in hindsight of the event.

An example of this could be you having a conversation with a friend about a problem youre having, and you cant find the words to convey what youre thinking, and then the friend is conveys what you are trying to say. A eureka moment, but eureka doesnt quite fit. Eureka is too positive, like youre solving a mystery and the answer comes to you. The word im thinking of wouldnt describe something being solved or accomplished, its just fulfilled or made more perfect.

so /lit/, im creating a philosophy club at my uni. Its a very large and well known uni and im pretty fucking surprised there isnt already a club here, and id like to make sure this club becomes successful, and I would like your advice.

I made a philosophy club in my highschool and was the director of my philosophy club at my small community college, but I dont know what ill do if there is a huge turn out and this club ends up being more than 50 people or so.

Ive already talked to the chair of our department of philosophy and he will be securing us a room, and is sending out an email to all philosophy majors to attend our first informal organizational meeting which is this tuesday.

tldr; what should I philosophy club do and not do to become substantial and popular.

>>3022225
And to all others

Im just beginning to get into "existential" philosophy, mainly Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Camus, and am about to get into Husserl and Heidegger.

If I enjoy Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Camus so far, would it be a good idea to go into the other two? Would it also be good to go into Derrida and other post-structuralists (and structuralists)?

tldr; What is worth reading that came after Nietzsche if I enjoyed him?

>>2860666
I can understand that, and at the moment Im trying to think of an example that might go against that idea.

But even if it is true, thats a very vague structure. Are all stories made today still rehashes on a more specific level?

Is Being synonymous with existence, and beings and entities synonymous with the noun category we use to group things together that exist?

Holy jesus fuck, this faggot is seriously determined. I commend you.

Id recommend Kierkegaard's The Sickness unto Death first, then Nietzsche's The Genealogy of Morals, and after that mix around with Camus' The Stranger, Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism, finish with Heidegger's Being and Time.

/lit/, ill be starting Heidegger's Being and Time today. Any resources I should use to help me understand it?

/lit/

what does "the self is a relation relating itself to itself" mean?

>>2739094
Thanks for that, but just what is he saying below

"If this the highest that can be said of man and his existence [he is referencing Hegel's universal], then the ethical is of the same nature as a person's eternal salvation, which is his TEAOC [end, purpose], forevermore and at all times, [what follows is where i get confused on just what he is trying to say] since it would be a contradiction for this to be capable of being surrendered (that is, teleological suspended), because as soon as this is suspended it is relinquished, whereas that which is suspended is not relinquished but is preserved in the higher, which is its TEAOC.

>>2562038
What does that have to do with the single individual? That its a unification of civilization and god? But then you say that Hegel isnt committed to any supra-individual. If it helps heres the piece from Fear and Trembling

"The single individual, sensately and physically qualified in immediacy, is the individual who has his teaoc [end, purpose] in the universal, and it is his ethical task continually to express himself in this, to annul his singularity in order to become the universal"

/lit/ im a philosophy major and im curious about linguistics. ive just begun in philosophy so i havent read anything on linguistics, or noticed it when brought up.

main question, do you think language, as we have it or as it will be in any form, will always limit conscious beings in their though processes? and do you think this type of question is relevant and should be brought up?

an example that always comes to me is trying to describe the self. i spend hours thinking about it

le bump

Still life with Woodpecker

one of the last important pieces in the book, where some people are eating in a pyramid. dont want to spoil since its towards the end, and i dont know how to do spoiler text

hey /lit/, i've been trying out poetry for a few years and wonder what you guys will think of it. heres a first draft of a poem i wrote in about 30 minutes.

also, what do you guys think of musicians and their lyrics compared to poets and their poetry? do you think a well made poem can be made into a good song?

“Judas”
As I wake with a throbbing body,
A weak heart from broken faith,
I see you in the distance saying,
I don’t what else to do.

Pinned up like an insect on display,
Left for all to see.
And you say, this isn’t what I wanted.
Your hands were the ones that tied mine.

I am the heretic, and you are Judas.
Turn away from the scene of the crime
And don’t choke on the smoke,
That you left behind.

/lit/, what do you think of Wilde's The importance of being earnest on victorian morality? his language is so witty that i feel im missing something, like theres a deeper layer im not seeing

how do i do spoiler tags?

hey /lit/, i know ill get shit for this but im interested in what youll say. i have an assignment for my english 102 class, critical reasoning/reading, and i havent done a paper like this in a few years, so i was hoping for some feed back. heres the assignment:

write a literary analysis on two different works, have a central argument supported by interpretation of key narrative and literary techniques and details. theme, insanity: analyze what is considered normal and abnormal in the story and by the characters, how and what they consider normal/abnormal. my two stories, the yellow wallpaper and bartleby the scrivener

anything is appreciated, will post paper in next post

>>1625998
Im not saying it isnt art, im asking if its literature, im asking if this medium has some limit.

another example would be to ask, is a sketch drawing a photo? the question isnt, is this art, its, what is the medium and what does that mean?