/lit/ - Literature

>>21331963
And I'm ready to kill white bitches that have little black babies.

>>19531513
>yes i only skin philosipcal books just for shitposting how could you tell?

I underline cool sentences with a pencil and always skip the forewords

>I don't read books cause they are for people who are not taking action but are just overthinking. It is what it is.

>>18854416
Lolita

>>18421346
Spinoza Ethics

>Wait, there's a sticky?

>>17456852
>”The Bhagavad-Gita is the Don Quixote of eastern spiritual literature”

1. Dalkey Archive
2. NYRB
3. New Directions

>>16508406
Rafael Cansinos-Asséns

>>16496773
>Yes, my favorite authors are Gustavo Bueno and Jesús G. Maestro, how could you tell?

>>16496003
>the real book was the introduction
>the "book itself" was just an excuse to write the introduction

>>16463191
No

I only read non-German philosophy when my mind has been sufficiently blown by German philosophy.

>>16459725
unsurpassable and unceasing bliss

>>16363111
>read Freud
>become a Misato appreciator

>yes, i'm a plotfag indeed

>>16128705
Reporting these threads will not make retards like you understand that your place is not on this board. Go back to /a/ and never come back here.
>>16128707
No you will not.

>>16122518

"Herein lies the annoyingly persistent logical error of those physicists (like Alexander Vilenkin, Victor Stenger, or Lawrence Krauss) who claim that physics has now discovered how the universe can have spontaneously arisen from “nothingness,” without divine assistance. It does not really matter whether the theoretical models they propose may one day prove to be correct. Without exception, what they are actually talking about is merely the formation of our universe by way of a transition from one physical state to another, one manner of existence to another, but certainly not the spontaneous arising of existence from nonexistence (which is logically impossible). They often produce perfectly delightful books on the subject, I hasten to add, considered simply as tours of the latest developments in speculative cosmology; but as interventions in philosophical debates those books are quite simply irrelevant. As a matter of purely intellectual interest, it would be wonderful some day to know whether the universe was generated out of quantum fluctuation, belongs either to an infinite “ekpyrotic” succession of universes caused by colliding branes or to a “conformally cyclic” succession of bounded aeons, is the result of inflationary quantum tunneling out of a much smaller universe, arose locally out of a multiverse in either limited constant or eternal chaotic inflation, or what have you. As a matter strictly of ontology, however, none of these theories is of any consequence, because no purely physical cosmology has any bearing whatsoever upon the question of existence (though one or two such cosmologies might point in its direction). Again, the “distance” between being and nonbeing is qualitatively infinite, and so it is immaterial here how small, simple, vacuous, or impalpably indeterminate a physical state or event is: it is still infinitely removed from nonbeing and infinitely incapable of having created itself out of nothing. That the physical reality we know is the result of other physical realities has more or less been the assumption of most human cultures throughout history; but that, unfortunately, casts no light whatsoever on why it is that physical reality, being intrinsically contingent, should exist at all."

For me, it's the textbook

>Aristotle
>Spinoza
>Nietzsche

>>16040948
Because it’s too slow for me. Not even lying, I’m at 40+ books for the year right now.

>>15836961
Read "A New History of Western Philosophy" to get some grasp of the history of philosophy, then go to the greeks.

>>15816115
Unless you guys post CP, I ain't interested sonny