/lit/ - Literature

>>23516794
you can count on zero hands the number of posters on this board who has read 50 pages or more from each of those guys in your pic.

>>23184911
>You actually can enjoy both jazz music and classical music
As I already said, I suspect that we have different tolerance levels for gayness.
>clinging to the past won't help overcoming those people
I don't have to "overcome" anyone. (Plötzlich über-windet nun alles jeden und alles. - Winke I/Schwarze Hefte) Marcuse etc don't stand in my way. I don't have to do anything with them. Should I change my ideals, only because some Jews don't want me to uphold them? The way to deal with their ideas is to simply reject them or to ignore them. The same goes for their authors. Either ignore them or use them to make special cookies.
>Heidegger and ppl in that vain on traditional religious life
As I already said, I suspect that we have very different tolerance levels for faggotry.
>nooo.... you can't just pray the rosary daily, be a simple carpenter living in the woods, using 4chan in the evening and while shitting up the toilet, Heidegger clearly showed that you cannot! Now submit to the jewishness by "overcoming" it and eat the lit crit bugs. You cannot continue with that, it is not that easy
I am not sorry,I certainly will not.
>if you read the theory, you will see that it is not that easy.
picrel is for someone you know.

There's literally no reason why reading the full 1,000 pages of Kant's Critique (for example) is better or more valuable than just reading the Wikipedia (or any secondary summary, really).
It's all purely a question of time investment. Why would I waste 80 hours slogging through Kant when I could study something actually valuable? In what way will reading Kant benefit me? Why shouldn't I use that time to study math, or history, or some other actually valuable intellectual field? Even if understanding Kant's ideas will benefit me, why is it more valuable to read the whole thing rather than just a summary? Is there some hidden doctrine that the Wikipedia editors and History of Philosophy book writers have all tacitly agreed to leave out of their summaries?
Even if I were to finish the entirety of the Critique, whoever wrote the Wikipedia article or History of Philosophy book would no doubt still have a better understanding of Kant than I would. I'd have to read Kant over and over, read his other works, read various commentaries, etc. to get to their level. But again, that just brings us back to the original question. Is there any reason this is worthwhile when I could just read a summary written by someone who already did all this work?
Everytime I ask this question, people just say "umm because you...le should!" or jump to calling me a midwit, etc. but nobody can give an actually good defense of reading these "classics".
Of course this applies even more to most lesser books. It's been remarked that most nonfiction books published nowadays could just have been blog posts, and I agree. Even the ones with a solid core tack on tons of pointless crap. A book should have to justify its length. If it's just repeating itself over and over, I'm going to drop it.
Of course this doesn't apply to fiction, or any classics that actually use their length well, like the Republic.

Are there any good, non-pozzed-up magazines/sites to submit short stories to?

>>21598009
You are literally this soijak kek. Effort posts are valued anon but you cant expect people not to funpost on 4chan

>”There’s nothing either gem or coal but thinking makes it so”