/lit/ - Literature

As other anons have pointed out - the repetition of ''young man'' feels like a rookie mistake and also takes away from the empathy we can feel for the fucker. He's young and drunk - so scared we might lose him!
The structure and the monster (a random man who encounters an unspeakable death-like character in bits of a black bathrobe and then gets scared/killed/mamed) is overused to the point that you have to be really inventive and have a really good main character to have some emotion to the story - and in this piece you are not. The last bit at the ending also seems like to be edgyness for the sake of being edgy.
''but at least he was alive... if you can call that "life" - that sounds like a thing a 15 year old would write in his first horror story.

As for the question: if this is the representative sample, no, I wouldn't buy a book of these. That being said, the only horror stories I have really read and liked are by Poe, so may not be your target audience.

That being said, all those mistakes aren't that hard to correct, given the length of the story. So, you know, try again.

>>4381915

>Plato looking up
>Aristotle looking down

Every time

This seems the best place for this;
I've heard this quote used quite a few times, but I can't find the source. Of course I tried google, but that didn't help. Anyone here know?
The aforementioned quote:
"for what have you won in a battle of wits when you've bested only a fool"

Not pictured: the best of the three.

>>3561086
That's Plato you plebian. And before you ask the man getting served by him in this pic is Aristotle.

Obligatory pic.

No, I would not make a good philosopher king. But I might make a good neo-tribal philosopher chieftain or elder someday.

>>3499935
Obligatory pic.

>>3432495
Holy fuck, one of my favorite saved images is relevant for once. Halle-fuckin-lujah!

Seriously though, do you think Plato would have arrived at the same conclusions had he never talked to Socrates? And do you think Aristotle would have amounted to jack shit without the tutelage of Plato?

Philosophy is not a collection of disconnected ideas about the universe, developed by hermit sages thinking really hard in isolation from all other thinkers. It's a conversation spanning generations and millenia.

8/10 for making me this mad with that post.

Don't listen to these faggots.

Get a really good guidebook on Kant, as well as a philosophical dictionary, and dig right into The Critique. It'll most likely be super, super hard, but at least you'll get to it. Acquiring the famed "historical understanding" of philosophy takes years and years of full-time study, which means that you'll most likely burn out before you get to the parts that interests you the most.

Also, in my experience physicsfags are usually pretty intelligent, so it should be possible to get someone to explain the some of the more intricate references to you (meaning you're probably intelligent enough to get the gist of an idea by someone explaining it to you once or twice). If you don't have any friends with the necessary philosophical foundations, you should just attend courses on Kant at uni/stream some from youtube.

>>3128657

Yeah, but it's fucking Bertrand Russell, I suggest to OP that he just read Russell's wikipedia page and dive in.

OP, use these websites:
http://www.philosophos.com/
http://plato.stanford.edu/
http://www.friesian.com/
& understand these concepts:

"Problem of Universals"
"Theory of the Forms" (Plato)
"a priori/a posteriori" (Kant)
"analytic/synthetic" (again)
wikipedia around Metaphysics

A couple of other concepts to understand
"Problem of Knowledge" (Descartes)
"Skepticism" (Hume, but read the entire Enquiry)

Then take off in examining the Form of the Good / ethix as you see fit: wikipedia is your friend.
"Nicomachean & Eudemian ethics and Magna Moralia" (Aristotle)
Your ethical journey is important and your own.

Short, and there is much more to read about, but look around, check out those websites first, and dive into some reading.

Don't be fooled by contemporaries who think that you don't need to read classics in philosophy in order to understand what it means to be a philosopher.

>>3044959
Hmm... That's an interesting idea. I'll look into it, thanks!

This is the most appropriate place for this.

How do you get to know yourself?
And perhaps something more pertinent to the board, how do you feel about Socrates' quotes about knowledge?
>As for me, all I know is that I know nothing
>When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

>I'd totally of been running game

Running game?
This is what I think of your game.

>>1530853

does anyone have/remember the rage comic that was about someone coming in and asking the guy to explain thomas pynchon? i cant find it anywhere :/

pic unrelated

>>1453378
Plato came up with that idea. Book 10 of the Republic.

>no aristotle
i thought you liked him & hated plato? maybe that was at the start of second year.

So I was reading Prosleigon and it took me three days to fully understand two pages.

Fuck, sometimes philosophy is really complicated, but I am sure it's always worth it.

>>1165902

Sorry - not directly related to literature, this is more of a request aimed at this board's userbase:

If any of you are English Literature students at good universities, would you mind sending me your personal statement? I've been told contrasting things from different sources and I'd just like to go with someone that has actually got in to see what's safe.

Also I have no idea how to being, are quotes too lame?

Random picture