/lit/ - Literature

>too intelligent to write YA novels and make money
>too retarded to write original philosophy or reflective introductions and analyses

What do I do now?

>In the year 1831, Schopenhauer fell in love with a girl named Flora Weiss. At a boat party in Germany he made his advance by offering her a bunch of grapes. Flora’s diary records this event as follows: "I didn’t want the grapes because old Schopenhauer had touched them, so I let them slide, quite gently into the water."Apparently, she was underwhelmed."

Hi /lit/,

I decided to get off the /pol/ train. I'm not interested in being bluepilled, but /pol/ is a type of bluepill in itself. All I wanted was to consider new views and not be afraid to call out demographic change, not become a white nationalist while being stuck in a permanent outrage machine. In addition, I think it's really starting to impair my quality of life because I'd binge too much and it'd make me depressed.

Unfortunately, I don't really have an ideology anymore, and I don't know where to go from here. What should I read to deradicalize without becoming bluepilled again?

People I like reading: John Stuart Mill, Pat Buchanan, Noam Chomsky, Theodor Adorno, Martin Heidegger.

Have you ever felt that you could comprehend the world better after learning, for example, thermodynamics, even in totally unrelated topics such as philosophy?

Have you ever noticed that patterns “of factual relationships” and the structures “of ideas/thought” seem to repeat themselves, at some fundamental level in science, philosophy, and even literature?

Have you encountered books or lectures that were substantial enough to affect your life by making “reality” more accessible, especially after thinking and applying its ideas? I’m talking about such an effect that it inserts “context” and “purpose” into your worldview, grounding yourself where one was formerly lost and inspiring yourself to investigate further with this new-found understanding.

-- --

I think there’s something underlying, unifying factor in all of these observations, and I think it would be an interesting project for /lit/ to tackle, for the sake of developing our own wisdom.

-- --

I hold the belief that there are certain fundamental “relationships”, for the lack of a better word, that unites concepts within disciplines and across all disciplines. This refers to both 1) the self-evident facts and the raison d’etre that grounds a discipline; and 2) the understanding that certain fundamental patterns—of logic, syntax, information, philosophy, mathematics, or whatever you want to call it—repeat themselves across all disciplines.

All investigations are a form of problem-solving, which means that unrelated disciplines such as psychology and literary theory share the same endgame of wresting some understanding from the world, with perhaps the possibility of some analogous relationships, though the building blocks may be of different qualities. I think that it’s plausible that there exists some basic, atomistic “units of understanding”, though I find it hard to define beyond intuitions.

-- --

Now, what if there were a curriculum, or even a list of books, that could help somebody become acquainted with the various units of understanding, the fundamental ways that these units can form relationships to build concepts, and the relationships between different fields of study that can aid us in developing a deeper appreciation of the world?

>>9249445

How so?

>>9249450

Not even patrician-tier movies? I figured if I boycotted blockbusters, ignore news outside of spidr.me + CSPAN, and avoided pop music, then I'd be fine.

>>9249457

Often, I'm willing to tell the truth, or at least not tell a lie, but I have nothing to say or elaborate upon. I don't know if I'm missing out.

>>9249483

Not the best. I'm not an idiot--currently studying at a top 10 US university--but it sure seems like it at times. I've been having a hard time trying to fight some personal demons and come to terms with political developments while struggling to make ends meet and figure out how to best proceed forward with my life. I seem to take the wrong steps that lead to the least amount of satisfaction and step on the wrong toes.

I've started to take the /lit/ pill to add some flavor into my life and see if it can help me make some sense out of my situation, but I don't find anything besides George Orwell-tier and Ernest Hemingway-tier books satisfying. I either don't get it, or I have the weakest holistic appreciation for it. I also don't believe in the "read only what you find interesting" meme because if I didn't challenge myself, I wouldn't grow.

>>9183696

There's nothing wrong with systems. If you're average state of being is so that you can't accomplish your goals, then maybe you should try to find a system that might help you get there. After giving it a fair trial of a month or two, pick what elements you like and what elements you dislike, and then make it feel natural.

Nobody uses systems to autopilot their lives, and you'd be a fool to believe that the mind will automatically redirect you on the most productive path without any work or help. The most successful systems are absorbed into your behavioral habits and are no longer really systems at all, but just a starting point for organizing your responsibilities into something intelligible.

IMO, it seems like you value mastery and involvement the most. You don't want to forget things that you learn. Instead, you want to incorporate them into your life, naturally using what you've learned to explore the world. I don't blame you, it's an authentic and romantic view of intelligence. After covering all the self-maintenance basics, like exercising, meditating, sleeping well, and eating well, maybe you should just maintain a journal and a few Anki decks every day.

Just write about what's going in in your life, or more if that's what you prefer. When you learn something new, make an Anki flashcard deck, and review when it tells you to, which is based off of an irregular interval that works best with your psychology. If this doesn't start jumpstarting your ability to find direction and meaning in your life, then I'm not sure what else will except for a visit to a therapist.

Have you ever felt that you were able to understand the world better after learning, for example, thermodynamics, even in topics totally unrelated to chemistry and physics? Have you ever noticed that the "patterns & structures of thought" seem to repeat themselves in science, philosophy, and even literature?

What about encountering books that were substantial enough to affect your life after thinking and applying its ideas? Do you consider a certain text to be "foundational" for those in pursuit of knowledge?

I'm hoping to create a list of 15-20 books, in a variety of subjects, that will increase clarity & depth of thought, leaving autodidacts with the mental faculties necessary to tackle future challenges. I would also like to have this list of books be sufficient to achieve a cursory education for people looking to improve their knowledge beyond the dregs of their high school or college education, though this isn't as important.

I need to keep the scope limited to the fundamentals. There are far more than 20 worthwhile books, and this isn't a definitive guide to "the best books ever". Some fields like "economics" may already require proficiency in basic fields like history, mathematics, and philosophy, so it would be redundant to cover include them. Only the bare necessities should be maintained for brevity.

I'm still reading the greeks so I won't get to Schopy anytime soon, but I'm really interested in his philosophy and I have a question to those who read him. Does he further adress to the topic of animal ethics besides just saying that a good man is kind towards animals or that it is barbaric to hold that they don't deserve rights? Things like critique of the way they are treated by mankind or the act of killing and eating another creature?

Which philosophers have the most accessible writing style? Now reading Schopenhauer's Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life and it's really good. The Greeks are also good in that regard.

And, on the contrary, which ones are terribly unintelligible? Is Hegel the right answer?

Why do people continue to make philosophy after him?

It is clear that things should have moved on to cognitive neurosciences and neurology in general.