/lit/ - Literature

>NOOOO you can't just trust the bible and Aristotle!!!!
>you have to do le ebin science experiment!!

Books on why the eternal anglo never ceases to ruin philosophy

Post what you're currently reading and what you'll be reading after.

Roger Bacon - Opus Majus
Jacob Marschak - Economics, Information, Decision, and Prediction
Nicolaus Copernicus - On The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres
Jeremy Bentham - Economic Writings vol. 1 (Supply Without Burthen)
Aristotle - Sophistical Elenchi

After:
Thomas Bradwardine - Speculative Geometry
Gerard Debreu - Mathematical Economics: twenty papers of Gerard Debreu
Galileo Galilei - Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences
John Stuart Mill - A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive

I'll finish Sophistical Elenchi first out of all these: by the end of May. The other books I am nowhere close to finishing. :3 However I think the next one finished after Sophistical Elenchi would probably be the book by Copernicus.

Do you think God has given certain people throughout history more knowledge, wisdom, and ability to learn things over time, as it is asserted by Roger Bacon?

Certain people like Jesus Christ or Augustine were granted powers of seeing the real truth or spiritual matter of the situation at hand. Why would this not be divinely inspired?

What sections of the brain does God specifically interact with?

Why do we not discuss Plato's background in the Old Testament more on /lit/? If /lit/ believes in God and likes Plato you would think they would.

Here are some quotes from Opus Majus
'Augustine maintains in the eighth book of the City of God that Plto had read the book of Genesis because Plato's description of the creation of the world is similar to that given in Genesis; also that he read the book of Exocus because of the name of God found in it, namely, "I am that I am.".

Interestingly enough, Plato indeed traveled to the region of Israel, so he must have been acquainted with their religious teachings.

Is this just another example of the atheists on /lit/ being unacademic? :3

I think I have to make a comment. I find that generally speaking, something that people heavily interested in philosophy don't understand is that Plato and Aristotle (in the Topics, for instance), weren't speaking of things like 'heated arguments' or 'debate club discussions' even, they were especially not interested in political topics, what they wrote about when they referred to 'dialectic's is similar to the way Euclid would have defined his arguments: that they have to prove initial propositions first to move towards the construction of greater figures (theses, or problems).

I think the interesting thing is that in most of Plato's dialogues he starts in the middle of them, kind of taking as assumed some things, but leaving the conclusion he is aiming towards dark. I think that these sorts of dialogues, or discussions, happened often and for this reason, if they did actually happen, what you are reading when you are reading a Platonic dialogue, is one of the best of them. Similar to how many mathematicians had many versions of their own Euclidean 'Elements', but only the best survived because it held up infallibly to criticism. Much like this, you see Plato has transcribed a dialogue between the philosopher Socrates, and another person, who most likely knows the darkness that is hidden at the beginning, but wants to fully test and flesh out the system.

In this way, it's nothing like a debate where the people don't agree on something, a Platonic dialogue or dialectics as some translate Aristotle in his Organon, is more scientific: a method of defining something greater.

:3

I think I have to make a comment. I find that generally speaking, something that people heavily interested in philosophy don't understand is that Plato and Aristotle (in the Topics, for instance), weren't speaking of things like 'heated arguments' or 'debate club discussions' even, they were especially not interested in political topics, what they wrote about when they referred to 'dialectic's is similar to the way Euclid would have defined his arguments: that they have to prove initial propositions first to move towards the construction of greater figures (theses, or problems).

I think the interesting thing is that in most of Plato's dialogues he starts in the middle of them, kind of taking as assumed some things, but leaving the conclusion he is aiming towards dark. I think that these sorts of dialogues, or discussions, happened often and for this reason, if they did actually happen, what you are reading when you are reading a Platonic dialogue, is one of the best of them. Similar to how many mathematicians had many versions of their own Euclidean 'Elements', but only the best survived because it held up infallibly to criticism. Much like this, you see Plato has transcribed a dialogue between the philosopher Socrates, and another person, who most likely knows the darkness that is hidden at the beginning, but wants to fully test and flesh out the system.

In this way, it's nothing like a debate where the people don't agree on something, a Platonic dialogue or dialectics as some translate Aristotle in his Organon, is more scientific: a method of defining something greater.

ITT post what you're reading now and then what you'll be reading after.

Now:
Roger Bacon - Opus Majus
Lloyd Shapley and Robert Aumann - Values of Non-Atomic Games
Nicole Oresme - On Seeing the Stars
Jeremy Bentham - Economic Writings
Aristotle - The Topics

After:
Thomas Bradwardine - Speculative Geometry
Anatol Rapoport - Conflict in Man-Made Environment
Nicole Oresme - De Moneta
John Stuart Mill - A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive
Aristotle - Sophistical Elenchii


Also Butterfly was on my bed today. :3

My favorite argument by Marxists is that for some reason you have to read this 150 year old outdated document that has no applicability to today's economic environment to glean some understanding as to why we need to overthrow the people that are letting me sit at a desk for 8 hours and do nothing and get paid for it.

Or even my last job which was driving around and selling things (talking to people and listening to music all day).

HURRRR CAPITALISM IS SO BAD. Is there a reason why Marxism is espoused by unsuccessful losers? Is there a logical connection between their life experience and the implied pains they must feel and push on everyone else?

I think the problem is pessimism personally. I really think you don't understand the obligation that your leaders are in at times as well as the people that work under them. They all have it pretty hard so to be saying that workers are being 'exploited' for all of their value is ridiculous.

How many pages did everyone read today?

For me it's...

1st book - 30 pages
2nd book - 2 pages
3rd book - 5 pages
4th book - 2 pages

39 pages for me :3

Generally speaking, men are more 'divine' than women. They were created first, and woman sprang from Adam's rib. Woman was the second creation, man was the first.

What kinds of things do you think men are better inherently at than women?

I would say telling the truth and also honestly desiring others to be happy. I will say that some women can certainly have these attributes, but it is harder to cultivate than in men. Hence why every prophet of God has been a man. :3

Discuss while Halo: The Master Chief Collection downloads on my cpu.

Why is it that when it gets cold it always seems like the best time to be reading? :3

ITT what you're currently reading, and what you'll be reading next.

Right now my favorite by far is Nicole Oresme's tract on intensities, which can be quite metaphysical especially at the inception; but Adam Smith is two days from being completed.

Not sure what to think of Spectral Analysis. Quite an unbelievably complicated affair.

Currently:
Witelo - Perspectivae (Books I and V)
Clive Granger and Michio Hatanaka - Spectral Analysis of Economic Time-Series
Nicole Oresme - Tractatus de configurationibus qualitatum et motuum
Adam Smith - The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Aristotle - Prior Analytics

After:

Roger Bacon - Opus Majus
Clive Granger and Oskar Morgenstern - Predictability of Stock Market Prices
Nicole Oresme - On Seeing the Stars
Jeremy Bentham - A Defence of Usury
Aristotle - Posterior Analytics

:33

What sort of libraries are your books from?

I've got one from the library of the University of Arizona and one from Montana State University. :3

>>13722243
Once you start talking about the right literature, and being interested in literature that ACTUALLY matters and not Marx 24/7, I might actually make a literature related thread.

Thanks. :3

So.

How about you post what you’re reading... you know stuff you’ve been absorbed in and learning? And tell us a little bit about each one.

Reading :

>Witelo - Perspectivae (Bk.1)
This book has been eye-opening, as it has been the first geometric treatise I’ve largely had problems with. Sometimes the way things are proven are off, and I feel like additional diorismos should be added to certain propositions where there are none. Remarkably simple at times, and to be certain that is the problem: it needs more in depth coverage of all particular possibilities.

>Mortimer J. Adler and Louis Kelso - The Capitalist Revolution

This book is rather repetitive and somewhat complex at times, simple at others. I view economics under a different lens than these people do, but as opposed to viewing economics from a technical lens, these authors have decided to mention only one actual economist the entire time I’ve been reading the document, and spend the rest of the time either referencing publications or Aristotle and Locke. I was just hoping for a more in depth economic analysis than a refutation of Marx (whom is easily refuted by facts regardless) and an endless harping on for the development of capital for all wage-earners.

The technicalities of these arguments are embarrassingly absent and the core tenets of a goods value still consists of labor, capital, and rent, with rent just not being mentioned at all anymore and the gains from capital being distributed to all laborers under their definition of “communism” (which I know is not the technical definition or the one Marx made for it). So in the end he ends up taking an almost Geoist stance towards the value of a good, with the current redistributions of wealth replacing somewhat the rightful distributions of it in the value of a good (somehow? Even though that makes no sense). My mind is largely set to explore this work even though its foundation may be woefully simple and uneducated.
>Ibn Al-Haytham - Configuration of the World
This is my last work I’m reading by Alhazen. I re-read his Completion of the Conics and his work on Optics (all books except VII), and I must say they were all very impressive.

I’ve had the experience of reading his Optics, which is largely a development of his theory of vision with intromission. The Configuration, involves some theories of extromission, and my copy doesn’t even have any illustrations of the diagrams. That being the case, I still enjoy reading the different ideas Alhazen had as opposed to Ptolemy. For the more complex ideas, like the difference between the planets Mercury and Venus, are a bit more involved than the Ptolemaic conceptions of these.

So why has /lit/ never been able to be completely left-leaning or completely right-leaning?

What I wish to show is that the point of this whole game we play is elegant, that the ideologies of various individuals throughout time have been defined by objective morality (and just recently scientifically verified by various atheists). So generally speaking there are three different groups on here

1. The spiritual believers in God

These individuals have read a vast tradition of literature steeped in the belief in a Creator. They base much of the problems and miseries in the world on the forces against this creator, namely Satan and his influence.

2. The Marxists

The second and third categories could actually be grouped together, but because of the predominating large amount of literature being written and that has been written under the brand of ‘Marxism’, there is a large culture here, for whatever reason, who are not only cultural Marxists, but who believe in his particular brand of socialism.

3. The Darwinists

These individuals believe in religions salutary influence but do not actually believe in a real God. They are the most harmful, as they believe in Eugenics, evolution, social Darwinism, and the harming of the human race for their own selective evolutionary benefit. There is, no doubt, quite a lot of literature for these readers, starting with fascist political leaders.

I believe I am not alone in saying that group number three is the most harmful, groups number two is the second most harmful, and group number one the most beneficial.

It is because of group 1, in fact, that anything gets done at all in life. You can consider this a metathread nods, please no delete. :3

So, Butterfly I am serious about it: you do the things I say. I will admit, there is not much more to life than this: have fun. If you can’t, then maybe you’re doing the wrong things.

Please read Hayek and Schumpeter. Schumpeter actually in depth analyzes Marx for what it’s worth and accedes to his message of destruction with its own elements, which I might be inclined to agree with but it would take a little bit of discussion.

That’s the only reason we post here, right? To talk to each other? The clock is ticking BF.

You could also post what you’re reading right now and what you’ll be reading after, everyone!

Now:

Leonardo Pisano (Fibonacci) - Book of Squares
Joseph Schumpeter - Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy
Ptolemy - The Almagest
Alexis De Tocqueville - Democracy and America
Aristotle - Prior Analytics

After....

Witelo - The Perspectiva (what I can get of it, Book one is $300, Book V is $80, nothing else is for sale)
Oskar Morgenstern- On the Accuracy of Economic Observations
Ibn Al-Haytham - On the Configuration of the World
Adam Smith - Theory of Moral Sentiments
Aristotle - Posterior Analytics

I am enjoying Aristotle right now. You’re lucky I’m focused on theoretical economics and not solely on the mathematical literature. I guess it must be you guys. Whereas most of you heavy users are severely affected by this site, I typically screen myself. I imagine otherslike Butterfly do the same

Mathematics. All periods interest me. Right now I’m reading Fibonacci. Once I finish his Liber Abaci and his Book of Squares I’ll be moving onward to more thought provoking treatises. I just wanted to read the book that introduced Arabic numerals into Europe

I’m trying to find Witelo’s Perspectiva. This is a document I would take much joy in reading. Alas, I cannot find it translated anywhere on the Internet. As such, I suppose I will be reading Roger Bacon’s Opus Majus if I can’t get my hands on ‘Perspectiva’.

Love love love the old mathematical documents. Love em.

I also like mathematical and non-mathematical economics (most people have a preference, I personally like a solid mixture). About to finish up Theory of Games by Von Neumann and move on to Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy by Schumpeter.

As far as other interests go, I am interested in older astronomy, and just contemporary astrology and astrophysics in general. I think space is interesting.

I love political science and sociology. I’ll be reading Jeremy Bentham after I’ve finished with Tocqueville.