/lit/ - Literature

Literature is dead. Think about it.
Let's say you're an avid reader and manage 40 books a year every year. This is already a generous assumption.
Let's say you read at this rate from age 18 to age 80, when you die, and you never re-read anything. This too is a generous assumption.
That means you will read 2,480 books in your entire lifetime.
Compare this miniscule number to the 129,864,880 books already in existence.
"But most of these books are trash!" Fine. Let's say only 0.1% of these are worth reading.
That means you have 129,865 books which are top 0.1% in quality, and you will never be able to read all these in your lifetime.
Real literature is dead. The reader is already overwhelmed with sheer volume. The only books that will be published are (1) for entertainment, or (2) books commenting upon current events. That's it. The era of discovery, philosophy, poetry, and great fiction is done.

>>17353726
This makes no sense my friend. If women were truly akin to biological machines whose only purpose and aim in life is to create children we would not see the low fertility rates we are experiencing in developed countries today. In fact the trends show that, as women become educated, financially independent, and politically equal -- thus allowing them more freedom to make the decisions they want to make -- they are less likely to choose to have children.
But I'm sure you have your answers to this. Fine. Even if we assume you're right -- women are no more than baby-making machines -- what has that got to do with Femdom? A man who is sexually submissive can impregnate a woman just as easily as a man who is sexually dominant. It doesn't matter if she's on top or you're on top, if you cum in her you will eventually make babies. Nor does being sexually submissive hamper your abilities to "provide for a woman and her children" (which doesn't even happen anymore; in modern times both sexes go to work). An office rat who likes to eat pussy and a Polish construction worker who likes to be dominant in bed both get paid a wage and are both therefore just as able to "provide for a woman and her children."
In conclusion, your evopsych garbage is cringe.

>only browse Wikipedia/SEP/IEP for philosophy
>takes 10x less time than reading the primary texts
>absorb the exact same information as the people who read the primary texts, and come to a better understanding than if I had read the primary texts
>am able to have in depth discussion on /lit/ where I usually come out the victor
So what’s the point in actually reading philosophy? Many of you will spend decades learning new languages and devoting yourself to the study of philosophy and yet you come out no wiser than me in the end. No other discipline does this. Nobody reads Euclid or Pythagoras or Newton to come to an understanding of their ideas, they look to a textbook instead. Why are philosophers then so adamant about reading the primary texts?

Any books that deal with the 'socialism has never worked' argument? I want something that's incisive and scholarly not "muh chapo revolution".

>you read at least 80 pages today, right, anon?

So nerd, what did you read today?

You've read at least 30 pages today, right anon?

You have read at least 30 pages today, right anon?