/lit/ - Literature

>>16980384
Based

>>16866839
You shouldn't manipulate people

>>16132173
Of course.

>>15062587
I don't care.

>>15047827
>>15047834
I agree, it's unlikely that the Jannie actually engages with the board at all (Jannie applications mentions listing multiple boards to moderate, so we may have some /mu/tant or /int/literate presiding over the board). I would further speculate that jannies can't delete threads unless they've been reported and they're on a pretty tight leash. But in truth, the moderation system is still somewhat of a mystery, and /lit/ having shit moderation appears to be a law of nature at this point (a perverse incentive perhaps--the exact kind of person who would make a quality Jannie would never apply for it, and vice versa). It's a shame, but we're on the wrong side of the milian dialogue and 'suffer what we must'. In lieu of quality moderation, minding our own actions is all that can be done; render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's and all that.

His principles of psychology is fantastic. This was back when the psychologists' first port of call was their own mind and experiences, which led to a very rich account of the human experience sitting somewhere betwixt psychology and philosophy of mind. When people ask for philosophers who they can relate to everyday life, they often pick the stoics or buddhists or some other ancient school. Now, i don't really care much as to whether a philosopher can double as self-help, but for me, William James has probably had the most profound effect on my everyday "life philosophy", especially his essay The Will to Believe. I'm not religious, but i've come to see great value in faith as James describes it, both in an epistemological and practical sense. He really is a wonderful thinker and a blast to read.

>>15016098
I suppose the cognitive functions could be useful in that sense. And it's probably closer to what Jung intended them to be.

>>14998899
For many of its traditional uses, libraries have been superseded by the internet. If you want to know something about irrigation or engines or history or whatever, you no longer need to visit the public library to learn about it as all the relevant information can be found quicker online. For most people, a simple overview is enough for their needs, they really don't need to read an entire book about it. To a lesser degree, you also have the digitization of books, though i don't think this is really a huge factor as i don't think book piracy that well known. Likewise, as a place with public computers it is becoming redundant due to mass ownership of home PC's, Smartphones, and the ubiquity of internet connections. Another problem as, as has been mentioned, the infestation of homeless people at public libraries, who're generally unpleasant to be around.
I do not think the decline in public libraries has anything to do with a perceived decline in 'societal cultivation'. In fact, i don't think the majority of the population in any country or time period ever has be 'cultivated' fans of literature; it is just that the locus of culture has shifted from the media of the educated elite (often cultivated as a sign of distinction from lower classes) to the media of the middle-lower class as the latter gained economic and political prominence over the former. Public Libraries themselves always served the needs of an ideal more than any instrumental function: it is a noble lie of enlightenment meliorism and it's ties with the operation of a democratic system. That isn't to say it is a bad thing, in fact i think it is far more noble than any mere instrumental servicing, but it is to say that the existence of public libraries shouldn't be mistaken as a sign of the existence of an enlightened public.
I can only see public libraries declining further, with only university and other specialist libraries remaining.