/lit/ - Literature

>>23363047
One can develop contradictions towards agreement. I believe in God. My belief is lacking when I sin. These aren't mutually exclusive statements. One can hold different perspectives simultaneously in his mind.

Pascal's wager applies to everything because believers live in the world. For example, I hope that my writings can be of help and will lead me closer to God.

Hello lit.
How do I find motivation to read books? I really want to start reading, I have a lot of books about subjects that I'm interested in, but every time I give it a go, I just ready 5-10 pages and then abandon the book. I have made a lot of attempts the last months, but nothing. Some years ago I went through a period of ~4 years, when I read a lot of books. Now I can't start reading for the life of me.
How do I change this???

Hello lit.
How do I find motivation to read books? I really want to start reading, I have a lot of books about subjects that I'm interested in, but every time I give it a go, I just ready 5-10 pages and then abandon the book. I have made a lot of attempts the last months, but nothing. Some years ago I went through a period of ~4 years, when I read a lot of books. Now I can't start reading for the life of me.
How do I change this???

Just finished all of it. Just finished Paradiso tonight.

This was written by a saint. I don't understand people who think that Dante was some kind of asshole or petty man. Only a saint could so beautifully describe Heaven.

>>16144709
I read Revolt Against the Modern World. I know it's a basic pick. I disliked how disordered his metaphysics are - not religious, but spiritual, and reliant on the existence of a spiritual magic that Traditionalists including Evola can neither prove nor really define. In his criticisms of Christianity, for instance, he separates that which is "traditional" from that which is "Christian." But what traditions are Traditional, then? He refers even to "superior Traditions," but there is little effort to truly define what sects or traditions bear truth and which don't, and frankly Guenon does an even worse job.

I understood and sympathized, however, with his insistence on the unity of spiritual and temporal authority (though he is dead wrong on the equality of those powers), and with the sense of hopelessness of reform in the modern world. I disagreed with his nihilistic political prescriptions, but that's splitting hairs.

The core problem is that Traditionalists seem to believe in the relative equality of all spiritualism, and that all faiths are interrogating the same truths. I don't think esotericism, unitarianism or hermeticism is true. That's really the meat of it. I just wish that there was a degree of consistency in describing the spiritual order that these men are attempting to interrogate, but it seems to conveniently bend to whatever arguments they personally prefer to make, not actually informed by the spiritual powers that they are so obsessed with.

Do you feel like it is more important to read "deep" or "wide"?
Obviously, there are certain classics everybody should have a basic level of familiarity with, but beyond that, is it better to focus on a specific period/ literary tradition/ movement/.., or to have read the most important works of every one of them?
Do I pick an author or period and then read every single work of it (incl. letters, unfinished works...), read up on the history of the time, read criticism about these books, etc. Or do I look at every book that's considered a classic or is frequently mentioned online?

The latter option might seem like you'd only read the "best" but you'd probably miss a lot of context & subtelties as well as trusting others to select what to read...

need some help on the boook

>>10472774
>What if the source of your suffering is something that is completely out of your hands, for example?
If you know the source of the suffering you can avoid it in most cases if you can't than you'll need mental strength to endure it. If you really want to remove yourself from suffering you could become a Buddhist monk.
>you are enabling that creation's suffering.
You are missing the point that not all suffering could be labeled as morally bad. I'm arguing that the suffering, especially during the first yearso of a child, are insignificant and not a bad thing. There are many cases where suffering could be seen as good and even enjoyable. Saying that all suffering is morally bad isn't true. We humans are pretty durable, so I don't see how getting kids is bad because of some light suffering the child undergoes during his development into an adult. Do you condem sports and work because the results are not worth the suffering?

>>10369645
>I'm not sure how true this is
It is absolutely 100% true. After his Resurrection, Christ bodily ascended into the highest heaven, and there sits enthroned at the right hand of the Father. He is literally on the throne of the Universe. It is a common misconception that Heaven is a non-physical place. It is actually a physical location that is simply far higher above/father away from us than we can conceive of.

ITT: Post the last poem that you've read.

>>9728216
God is the fullness of being, so nothing can even exist without him. Consequentally everything is searching and finding meaning inside of him.

>I Am that I Am

>>8328270
/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

Check the wiki, the catalog, and the archive before asking for advice or recommendations, and please refrain from starting new threads for questions that can be answered by a search engine.

/lit/ is a slow board! Please take the time to read what others have written, and try to make thoughtful, well-written posts of your own. Bump replies are not necessary.

/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

Check the wiki, the catalog, and the archive before asking for advice or recommendations, and please refrain from starting new threads for questions that can be answered by a search engine.

/lit/ is a slow board! Please take the time to read what others have written, and try to make thoughtful, well-written posts of your own. Bump replies are not necessary.

Looking for books online? Check here:
Guide to #bookz
http://www.ak3d.net/help.htm
Bookzz
http://bookzz.org/
Recommended Literature
http://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Recommended_Reading

>>7545043
3 Bibles
Complete Chaucer
The Name of the ROse
Plato Dialogues
Bad Dirt - Annie Proulx (shit book)
Fine Just the Way it is - Proulx (probably shit too)
Hucklebeerry Finn
Three Men in a Boat
King Solomon's Mines

That was all I got.

The thing that immediately came to mind was The Divine Comedy. I'm allowed to get all three canticles, right?

Because I truly think I could read it for the rest of my life.

>>7506537

Obvious choice is the Epic of Gilgamesh in the original Sumerian.

https://youtu.be/QUcTsFe1PVs?t=57s

There's a reason it's stuck around as the oldest piece of literature ever. It's amazing both in its content and its sound.

>>7300679
>God is omnipotent
>there is no free will
>so, evil is just God's fault
>if you don't have free will, you're not responsible for your salvation/damnation

What are some books that will let me understand the mind set and reasoning of other time periods?

>>6461247
If you'd read the thread, you'd realize that the point about suffering in this world has already been answered. The world after this one contains no suffering, and it will last forever. Whatever we suffer in this life will be nothing compared to the joy we know in the next. In fact, the joy of Paradise is so great it makes even the worst sort of suffering one can endure in this world insignificant to a tremendous degree.

I think the flaw in agnostic/atheist conceptions of suffering and evil is this forgetfulness of the afterlife.

>>5278125
It will all make sense in the end, Anon. And in The End, everything will work out for the best.