[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.50 MB, 1024x578, Early_Man.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13611946 No.13611946 [Reply] [Original]

Usually I post on /sci/ and /his/. I figured I could try /lit/ out. I’ve been reading the following and am wondering what to read next. I read everything by Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley, I’ve read The Less Wrong Sequences, the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe, The Instructions, Yaneer Bar-Yam, Stuart Kauffman, René Descartes, most by Simon Baron-Cohen, most by Stephen Hawking, Progress: Ten Reasons to Look Forward to the Future, The Manual: A Philosopher's Guide to Life, Nootropics: Unlocking Your True Potential With Smart Drugs, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, most by Nick Bostrom, Nick Lane, Ray Kurzweil, Jerry Coyne, The Martian, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Abundance, John Locke, The Open Society and Its Enemies, The Road to Serfdom, Homo Deus, most by Carl Sagan, Sam Harris, Bertrand Russell, Gad Saad, Lawrence Krauss, Fashionable Nonsense, Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction, Robin Hanson, Infinite Jest and everything by Jordan Peterson.

>> No.13611954

If you've really read all those books, you surely have realized that many of them offers guidance for further reading?

>> No.13611971

>>13611954
I got several books I want to read, yes. I hope to discover something new here.

>> No.13612030

>>13611946
>that picture
And atheists make fun of theists for believing in "fantasy"

>> No.13612031

>>13611946
pathetic pseud, the absolute lack of order in your naming of the works shows that you most likely haven't read them or haven't read them properly.
>everything by Kant
huge doubt; even the most obvious work most people fail to understand, and seeing you didn't name neither Berkley, Hume or Leibniz, I very much doubt you learned anything from the little you read but to use their titles to namedrop.
Maybe answer the simplest yet most quintessential part of Kant's philosophy:
Name a pure (apriori) snythetic sentence and the pure anaylrical notion deduced from it.

>> No.13612037

>>13611946
Maybe look into Olaf Stapledon since he influenced some of those guys e.g. Last and First Men, Star Maker. Since you've read Popper you should also look into Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend.
Most of the political writings seems overwhelming liberal so maybe look into someone on the opposite side like Carl Schmitt.

>> No.13612055

>>13612037
Thank you.
>>13612031
So yes, I skimmed Kant, and yea he is difficult. So I hope on rereading it.

>> No.13612061

>>13611946
>pic
I think I have this book.

>> No.13612066
File: 127 KB, 645x729, brain collapsed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13612066

>>13612055
>I skimmed Kant

>> No.13612067

>>13612055
you are a pathetic pretentious loser.
Uironically read the Bible (not saying you should become christian); if you fail to read through it for whatever reason, know you are a waste and should off yourself
>inb4 religious upbringing: doesn't count; read it on your own again.

>> No.13612074

>>13611946
>Infinite Jest
You're 1/3rd of the way there, but you must read Ulysses and Gravity's Rainbow before posting on /lit/

>> No.13612089
File: 65 KB, 539x480, 1492199556149.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13612089

>>13612055
>, I skimmed Kant

>I read everything by Kant,

>> No.13612092

>>13611946
Amazing how this image still applies today

>> No.13612095

>>13611946
Fuck you you stupid fucking cunt. You bitch you cunt shit bitch pussy. You bitch it up and down like a fucking animal. Take your ass in your cock bitch you fucking cunt cunt bitch cunt. Take your ass in your ass bitch. We're going to fucking get you

>> No.13612099

>>13612031

does kant give an example of this in the preface

>> No.13612114
File: 108 KB, 400x381, 1491779134658.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13612114

>>13612099
>in the preface

>> No.13613797

Boorstin's The Discoverers

>> No.13613957

>>13612031
A priori Objects are extended
Space is a priori as I cant imagine any a priori forms without it.
Two a priori sentences I guess
A synthetic would be: objects are heavy, because I couldn't imagine an object without weight. I don't remember if that was synthetic a priori, but is it? Not op btw.

>> No.13614063

>>13613957
absolutely butchered the answer.
Completely incoherent, not adressing every aspect asked and simply retarded.
Probably better than what OP would have come up with.
Restart Kant for your own sake.

>> No.13614800

>that "omg I luv soience" meme list
Read the Holy Bible, King James Version, then read it again, then come back

>> No.13614960

>>13611946
>knock-off Nick Land