/lit/ - Literature

>>14818511
You'll get a better understanding by 'doing' philosophy. Don't just read... Get into debates and work through the logic yourself. Reference what you read not as gospel, but as propositions to be critically examined and considered. Understand that all arguments are made logically (even if poorly so, or in support of illogical notions), and proceed from there.

Also, I would encourage you to look at this endeavour as not one that will bring you some 'enlightened' understanding, but as an exercise in increasing your mastery of logical thought. You may ultimately find yourself more uncertain about things than ever, but hopefully more certain about yourself and how to live.


>>14819057
It doesn't dissolve; you are attempting to make a logical argument against philosophy right here with weird rigid definitions. He doesn't need to choose between philosophy and literature... It's obvious that they are quite complimentary, in fact.

>>14034951
Things don't have to be perfect or eternal to be worthwhile.

It is true that there is no grand meaning to life, but it's also true that it is in our nature to assign value... A nature which does not require an external reason or justification. There is no meaning of life, but life is the purpose of meaning.

What are the most important fiction books one should read in his life?

Why are you guys being so mean to him? It's obvious he reads because he wants to gain pleasure and knowledge. It's okay if he doesn't go by the "western academic way". He's not a humanities academic.

Anyway, OP, I think it's great, even if I wonder what you're going to understand of Heidegger. I mean, he's really difficult, and I hope you know your philosophy if you want to understand any of it.