/lit/ - Literature

>>14034260
To be well read, there are seven things you must read, then re-read, then re-read, on and on. Only seven; reading after that is superfluous; however, additional texts will obviously benefit you.

>>14034260
>It seems like everyone here has done that already,

>>14034273
It really does though. I don't have any reason to believe someone doesn't know what they're talking about, especially when I haven't read the source material myself, or tried and had a difficult time understanding it.

>>14034260
Find what you like and read as much as possible. philosophy is trash anyways so don't stress it.

Philosophical poetry > poetic philosophy

Pick a subject you are willing to devote the time towards being well read on, then begin to read various books on said subject. You could start with popular or common reads in your subject, then move on to related or referenced books or authors. The important aspect of being well read is to read a wealth of books on your subject in order to get a diverse understanding of it, viewing it from as many angles as possible.

>>14034282
Do you have any good poetry suggestions? Also, I think by "poetic philosophy" you're probably referring to someone like Deleuze, right? I've tried reading before and it was really confusing, but some people suggest reading him more like poetry.

In any case, thanks for the reply.

>>14034260
Do you read books that are challenging often? Neuroplasticity is very very real and many of us read a book a month to every week that are all at the undergraduate/graduate level of difficulty. I needed to read fantasy books for a year to get close enough to enjoying these books just because I didn't understand what I read, and then I read a couple really difficult books (IJ, Ulysses, Polansky) and from there the rest became much easier in comparison. In general, try to avoid Faulkner, Henry James, Proust, and Nabokov. There is much more in their syntax than their thoughts.

If you want to enjoy the read and not struggle with the act of reading, Kundera, Hemingway, and even Kafka are all very powerful writers that, arguably, I think provide a greater level of depth than the above. Additionally, Satantango is a GREAT book to build reading muscles.

As for opinions, secondary literature (for phil u cambridge has all of their secondary literature recommendations published for their courses), can provide some nice mental scaffolding that will help you see how to think critically.

>>14034260
Read overviews of philosophy and then refine with choice primary texts as interest you. As for literature, either read mostly 20th century fiction after 1945 (a copout but easy enough since it's all ahistorical popcultural parochial trash for the most part) or start with at least Roman poets. Learn about Roman and Greek religion and cosmology, then read the Bible (most literature alludes to one or the other.) Being educated, and hence being a well-regarded writer (until the American suburban mentality became dominant after WW2) meant having a classical education in all of those things.

>>14034292
>In general, try to avoid Faulkner, Henry James, Proust, and Nabokov. There is much more in their syntax than their thoughts.
FUCKING BAAAAAASED
>Kundera, Hemingway, and even Kafka are all very powerful writers
ah fuck nevermind :///

>It seems like everyone here has done that already, and I have no idea where you find the time to.
If you read widely it's easy to slowly accumulate many superficial understandings to such a degree that one can hoodwink the lesser versed into believing that you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. This is what we call a dilettante.

>>14034292
I've been in a bit of a reading slump recently; I was reading one book a week last year (had a long train commute into Glendale for work) but since I got a job much closer I've stopped reading nearly as much. Should probably force myself to get out of the house to read every day.

I've gathered some secondary literature such as biographies of certain philosophers and read parts of them, but I'm cautious about the secondary sources coloring my view of the primary sources. Maybe that's not the right way to think about it though. Thanks for the suggestions; I've read a good deal of Kafka and enjoyed his work immensely. Never heard of Satantango, but I'll look him up.

>>14034306
That's really what I'm trying to avoid becoming myself, and a major reason I refrain from offering my opinions in threads. If I'm really not certain I know what I'm talking about, I don't think I have anything to add to the discussion. But again, I don't have any reason to believe most people here are trying to hoodwink each other because that would be pretty meaningless in an anonymous forum. I guess I just think people here have the best intentions, like I'm sure you do too.

>>14034290
Read Shakespeare's sonnets. They're the best poems in modernish English. Edmund Spenser and Pope are also essential for any English speaker. Chaucer is essential too but that's middle english.

As for 'poetic philosophy' I was merely opining generally without any particular author in mind. If I'm gonna read nonfiction it's gotta be history.

>>14034333
Everyone is a dilettante in most things. Being properly well read (or a "Renaissance man") is being a dilettante except also having a handful of actual expertises.

>>14034306
>slowly accumulate many superficial understandings to such a degree that one can hoodwink the lesser versed into believing that you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
literally me

>>14034296
I gave Hemingway a go, but tend to place him in the surface level bs, along with EE Cummings. Kundera and Kafka I'd defend
>>14034320
Satantango is the name of the book. Secondary as in like academics publishing on their arguments. I generally agree with your resistance to using them, but if it's a shortage of perspective, it'll help you out. Also, make sure you're sleeping enough

>>14034347
Yeah, I think the shortage of perspective is the biggest reason I've started reading some of them. Seems easier to properly understand an author if I have some idea about their background, so long as the secondary source isn't too opinionated.

Interesting you'd mention sleep, because I'm not getting enough. I probably get 5 hours on a good day; a lot of my time after work is spent trying to get up to speed on a ton of subjects and I'm almost certainly spreading myself too thin. Thanks for the advice.

>>14034282
>Philosophical poetry > poetic philosophy
Philosophy and poetry go together well, no point in dumping one. I do agree to find what you do like and go from there.
>>14034260
>(e.g. needing to read everyone leading up to Kant). It seems like everyone here has done that already, and I have no idea where you find the time to.
Trust me, you don't and we haven't.

>>14034357
Sleep 8 hours and get back to me. Realistically, I think it's every hour short of 8 you lose 7 IQ points, so you're losing 2 std devs everytime you don't sleep enough.

>>14034260
For philosophy it is often useful to read supplementary materials like the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy or brief introductions to orient oneself within a topic, but it is necessary to read deeply if you want to really understand and wrestle with the philosophy. If you only read the supp stuff you’ll just parrot someone else, and will be unlikely to make connections that you would if you read the source texts. I myself have only really read the Greeks and I’ve been doing that for 3 years now, but it has set a foundation from which I can engage with a lot of people about philosophical topics, even ideas that come from later philosophy.

Most people are frauding though and haven’t actually read much, even in academia. So don’t feel too terrible.

Once you really get into a subject you'll change your appraisal of the quality of discussion here.

>>14034260
The best non POZZED method is to read “great books of the west”, it’s 54 volumes so depending on your NEET level it should take you 1-3 years to fully read. It’ll cover everything from Plato to Marx to Freud and will allow you to actually hold your ground in conversations. Unfortunately it will then be necessary to read brief summaries of counter arguments. For example I don’t just read Foucault or Deleuze, I read their critics. That way when someone brings them up I can BTFO them by quoting deleuze then quoting a critic then getting tons of responses saying “BASED”. Alternatively you can just open a thread, Wikipedia the relevant names, quickly copy and paste a quote from them, and attach a smug anime face to imply your disdain. One is the vastly easier approach but both will yield the same number of (You)s

Read Boorstin's Knowledge Trilogy.
Then you'll know how much you don't know.

>>14034268
Which are?

>>14034385

>tfw can't sleep for any longer than 4 hours at a time

it's been years at this point i'm certain it's making me retarded

>>14034347
>>14034296
Other than Old Man & The Sea, most of his stuff is meh. cummings is great when read as a whole because you can see how diverse he can be while maintaining beauty and fun. Try doing a cummings-style poem and you will see how hard it is to achieve.

Proust is good in condensation but he has so many pages focused boring French shit that you have to wade through to get to the Madeleine moments. Faulkner and Nabokov - overrated, although Nabokov has more talent, but he just chose to squander it on novelties. Have not read enough of Henry James.

>>14036543
Do you do two blocks of 4 hours? I remember reading somewhere that all the idiots saying to sleep in 15 minute blocks are killing themselves and the only healthy alternative to monophasic sleep is biphasic sleep. I still say anything other than monophasic sleep is weird though.

If you have a mind for philosophy you'll be able to start almost basically any primary text and at least get a sense of what the author is trying to communicate, even if the nuance is lost on you and will be lost on you as you spend years clarifying your understanding. Sorry, but reading lists and charts are mainly for people who read philosophy for the image of reading philosophy. If you have a genuine interest in this stuff, nothing will stop you

>>14034279
bruh
people are just pretending, if 1 out of 2 anons here have read what they say they have read I would be surprised, maybe 1 out of 4 is the most likely, but yeah, the rest are just straight up talking shit lol