/lit/ - Literature

Am I stupid? Or is Baudrillard's comprehensiveness shit? The only things I'm getting out of this are references to my own preexisting views.

Could I get a run down of the ideas present, please?

>open book
>read chapter 1
>*entirely made of statements without anything resembling an argument as why they are true*
>close book
>never open it again

What is the most black-pilled book you've ever read?

>>20963982
>his brain is so warped he gets sexually aroused by a caricature of a little girl and then starts sperging out and demanding explanations for "what's" wrong when people laugh at him

Picrel is my explanation, you've fallen down a rabbit hole

>>19663049
It's because if you refer to logical fallacies only by their name, their sign and simulacra, you enter the hyperreal.

>>19632380
According to Baudrillard, no.

finished "The Plague"
this is next

this bad boy. im sure that 95% of information will fly over my head but i hope that those 5% will make me more critical.

When does this get good? I've read 10 pages and every single sentence is entirely self-referential to the rest of what he's talking about. None of this is verifiably true or false (I'm aware that technically nothing is verifiably true or false but that's not what I mean here) and it's honestly not compelling enough for me to keep going.

>>13628457

>>13247798
That pic makes me thing of this.

*I dare you to get more intellectually edgy than this*

>>10853722
I dare you OP.

Is this worth reading?

Just finished marathoning this tome

What are some other good books written for the mentally retarded?

>>10409274

is this worth the read? anyone?

what should I have read b4 trying to understand this? Not a philosophy major btw.