/lit/ - Literature

pleb

>>14669049
>Why do you NEED to read the classics? Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, et al
You don't and no one is saying you should.

>What's the problem with just picking out books that appeal to you?
Nothing and no one is saying you shouldn't.

>>14669054
informative, thank you

How do you know what appeals to you? You know only what you're told until you've read the book so you aren't reading what 'appeals to you', only what people have told you to read.

>>14669049

>Start with Nietzsche
>Have no context of the ideas/tradition he is criticizing
>Become self proclaimed 'nihilist'
>Miss the point beyond belief

>>14669049
Nietzsche believed in voluntary slavery. You must get down on your knees before the masters (Ancient Greeks, Romans) and read and re-read them so that you learn the craft perfectly. In his masturbatory Ecce Homo, he lists the ancient authors who made him one of the best writers in the German language.

>>14669049
if you're still asking this question then i don't think you're ready for the answer

>>14669391
This.
>>14669049
Op,if you believe that things are more or less causal you will probably miss out on the nuance and context on whatever it it you choose at random.

Neety himself explains why, go read him

>>14669049
Philosophers use words in technical and contextual ways that have meanings sometimes drastically different than the way the exact same word is used in common discourse. As such, a philosopher's work taken out of sequence in the canon and out of the individual's cultural and historical context is basically impossible to understand accurately, but can often offer an illusory understanding that does more harm than g ood.

>>14669487
This. Neitzche is not bad, but a whole bunch of pauses jump in at him without understanding the context he was writing about/against. Understanding may be a ineffectual word. You don’t empathize with it, and your authenticity is lacking. The only thing one should critique is if they have an empathetic knowledge of it. Being able to place yourself in that uprising context and understand its footing. Anything else is stawmanning and willful ignorance .

>>14669049
cringe

>>14669049
It depends, reading fiction you can still enjoy but you won’t get as much out of it. If you’re reading philosophy you need to understand he origin of concepts

You don’t need to, and in fact it probably won’t do anything for you anyway if you aren’t a great soul.

>>14669049
>philosophers refer to older texts in their work
>to understand these philosophers you have to read not only their texts, but the texts they refer to
>to understand the texts they refer to, you have to understand the texts the texts refer to
How about I just don't read any books and try to attain knowledge on my own two feet?

>>14670352
because billions of lives of experience and geniuses over thousands of years history are relatively well organized, condensed and at your finger tips?

not that you shouldn't use your own two feet too, but exclusively? that'd be stupid

>>14669049
>bu- bu- how could I do better than people from the past! They were from the past!

>>14669049
If you want to hold opinions about the world and take an interest in religion, politics, history, music etc. there are definitely certain classic books you should read or at least be familiar with.

>>14669049
You don’t need to do shit. People tell you to read them because they are good and for some reason most can’t see it or they never give it a chance, never try to reckon with a text on it’s own grounds. They read Shakespeare and think “wtf I can’t read this shit it’s Early Modern English and I can’t understand it.” But if only they had tried to understand, really, earnestly, they could experience more ecstasy from reading than they probably ever have before.

>>14669049
The answer, as Aristotle fucking knew, is a middle ground. Read works that are both classics and appeal to you. Simple as jizz.

>>14669049
You dont. Go back

>>14669049
>Why do I need to learn history? Cant I just pick the fun bits?

>>14669049
taste is somewhat objective. some works are more valuable than others. if you have an accurate understanding, the classics are the books you should want to read

>>14669049
What are you even doing here if the classics don't appeal to you?

>>14669049
because you dont know shit

>>14669049

You don't need to read anything but reading the classics is fun because of the richness of the text. Maybe there are classics that don't engage you, but when you find one that does it's a really gratifying experience and you get the importance of the classics.

ALso, it's good to know how different some of them are to what you had imagined because of the watered-down summaries you read in school.

For instance, I started reading the quixote and was expecting some sort of pathetic and reflective experience but in the second chapter there is a hilarious encounter with two prostitutes in a tavern.

>>14671529
Yas