/lit/ - Literature

Why won't /lit/ shut the fuck about women?

>>15447351
Why does liking Harry Potter = bad taste in books? Stop imposing your own subjective literary agenda onto others.

>>15447384
no

>>15447389
ok boomer

>>15447351
Because Schopenhauer is incel core. Have sex, btw.

>>15447378
It's a biological instinct.

>>15447404
this

>>15447394
lol

>>15447405
>know women are worthless
>should really ignore them and only think about God, mathematics, art, even business and investment
>the succubi still creep into my mind and devour 20-30min a day of my life thinking about them (that included fapping)
How do I stop this?

>>15447351
>schopenhauer
women aren't the only ones with shit taste
schopenhauer is for doomer retards, though he was right about women

>>15447351
Why don't you get a job and start to exercise?

>>15447434
Man has always struggled with the temptation of sin. The Bible recommends celibacy, unless you can't handle it, in which case you should marry, for it is better than to give in to Satan.

Theyre raised on heavily diluted/whitewashed fairy tales the fuck do you expect. Harry Potter should be the picture next to Whitewashed in the dictionary.

>>15447384
>Why does liking Harry Potter = bad taste in books?

because they are bad books?

>>15447434
>>should really ignore them and only think about God
>>the succubi still creep into my mind and devour 20-30min a day of my life thinking about them (that included fapping)
This book helped me on that front. It is very convicting.
Also avoiding 4chan helps since anons are always posting lewd photos.

>>15447351
>loves hiking and adventures
>take girl to trailhead of serious 20 mile hike with 4-8k feet of elevation
>find out she just wants to take a selfy next to the highway

>>15447384
Fuck off, you know where you are dumbass, this is not reddit with their bullshit art relativism, at least we try to get some criteria and recognize what is objectively better.

>>15447495

hahahahahaha ive seen some autistic shit but thats next level

>>15447384
le subjective midwit

>>15447351
I know plenty of women who reads classic /lit/, don't be an incel

>>15447434
you're human anon there's nothing wrong with you, and most women aren't succubi

>>15447535
>don't be an incel
you can't stop me

>>15447404
Schopenhauer was a major influence on Beckett. Beckett is not incel core. Now you have some explaining to do pseud.

>>15447542
I want you to be happy anon

>>15447351
Harry Potter is escapism. There's nothing wrong with enjoying them. Don't gatekeep the whole hobby of reading by only respecting high-brow readers. If someone calls themselves a reader and their favourite book is Harry Potter then that's fine. Let them do them. Don't be an incel.

>>15447539
>and most women aren't succubi
Bold faced lie

>>15447613
>Don't gatekeep
This is, by far, the most r*ddit statement on this entire board.

>>15447613

>Harry Potter is escapism

Yes. For children. Acting like you know a goddamn thing about books when you read harry potter is like walking into a boxing gym like you're hot shit after you spent 3 months training karate in the strip mall in your jammies. You will get laughed at.

>>15447384
They are good books
For children
This is why so many people who are children on their minds like to read them

>>15447613
>Don't have standards. Don't be a meanie

>>15447635
Muh board... muh private community. How dareth someone enter thou from an enemy website! Boy's, have at thee Reddit scum!

>>15447656
Gatekeeping is quality control. You'd know this if you weren't a wojakposting, bottom of the barrel leech.

>>15447637
>Escapism for children
And what do you suppose children have to escape from?
The whole point of escapism is to bring adults back to the innocent times of childhood where they didn't have responsibility.

>Acting like you know a goddamn thing about books when you read harry potter is like walking into a boxing gym like you're hot shit after you spent 3 months training karate in the strip mall in your jammies

You're so unselfaware it makes my toes crinkle.

>I love books
>Brandon Sanderson is my favourite
Why do men have such bad taste in books? Why won't they read Arendt or Austen?

>>15447669
>Quality control
It's a hobby you state-school retard. Only retards who aren't well read want to seem like they are.

>pic related its you

Harry Potter is actually quite good for what it is.
That doesn't mean it's good literature or that it should be respected by adults. But for what it is, it's at the top of its class.

>>15447637
>Acting like you know a goddamn thing about books when you read harry potter is like walking into a boxing gym like you're hot shit after you spent 3 months training karate in the strip mall in your jammies

>To be a reader you have to strictly read thinks intellectual, though-provoking, and analytical.
>Light-hearted reading on the side is strictly prohibited.
>I'm anon and I browse /lit/ with a track record of 4 books under my belt but I want to feel smart.

>>15447679
>It's a hobby therefore there's no need for quality control.
You're quite stupid.

>>15447679
I'd take larping retards over manchildren and literal women posting here about their dogshit Harry Potter and G.R.R.M.

>>15447706
Based.
It takes more intelligence to larp about reading Kant than it does to actually read Harry Potter.

>>15447700
Awww, do you think that reader's form a little community? Go outside for once and you'll realise 9/10 people read. You're nothing special, Greg. You sit indoors on /lit/ so often that you've convinced yourself that anyone outside of it "just doesn't understand what it takes to be a true reader". I pity you, frail man.

>>15447713
>based
On what?

I feel like this site is ramping up. Like incels/nazi LARPers are spreading their ideology into other boards a lot faster. It’s like a brigading.

>>15447706
How can you call yourself a reader if you can't appreciate every book and every published author? Just because something is less demanding to read, doesn't make it any less of a book.

>literal women
Yes, women exist dude. I know it's hard to swallow that you're disproportionate face scares them away but they do exist, and they do read. Harry Potter is an amazing series. I love seeing women reading it in public.

>>15447724
On what I said in the following sentence.

>>15447737
>How can you call yourself a metalhead when you think Nickleback is shit
>le womxn
You are either very low test or one yourself, judging by your blatant redditor vernacular.

>>15447716
>9/10 people read
literally? yes. literally 1/10 people finished a book of fiction in the last month.

>>15447737
Harry Potter is a bad series intended for low IQ readers.
The fact that you're so viciously defending it is hilarious and undermines your whole premise of being the well-adjusted one here.
You're calling everyone who disagrees with you an "incel "and insulting them but it's your behavior here that's appalling.
You're mentally ill and you have low intelligence.

>>15447765
I used the word incel once. But if the shoe fits.

>>15447384
"No!"

>>15447754
You can think Nickleback are shit. But it doesn't make anyone who listens to them any less of a Metalhead than you are. That's gatekeeping. And you are seething.

>>15447784
>that's gatekeeping
So?

>>15447784
Does voodoo magic + stix 'n' leeches make you any less of a doctor than a neurosurgeon?

>>15447504
Just because someone likes to read doesn't they automatically like to read philosophy.

>>15447792
Gatekeepers come across as angry, self-righteous know-it-all's. Reading is a great hobby and is very beneficial. The more people that read, the better society will be as a whole. So we shouldn't care less whether someone read's Plato or J.K Rowling, if they're reading, we should be happy enough. Let them come to this board and make a thread on what HP book is their favourite and why. And we can just smirk and pat them on the shoulder and say "You have a lot to learn". We can enlighten those people with amazing works they would never have read. They will think better of us and admire our knowledge (that's what you guys want, right?).

>muh board
>muh secret club

>>15447804
You're really grabbing at straws there aren't you pal?

>>15447819
The problem there is that people don't, that's why
>read another book
is an actual meme, they don't even think of venturing ahead of YA and children's books

>>15447351
someone actually made that image Lmao
is there a wojack for people who make wojack edits?

>>15447669
this is 4chan
no one comes to 4chan because it has a literature board
a lot of posters probably forget this board exists
so who are you keeping out?

proceed to kys if you'd prefer to see people playing candy crush over reading Harry Potter or genre fiction

>>15447829
And those people most likely don't call themselves avid readers either.
And if they do, let them. I know it's hard. It's insulting even. You read a lot of books and don't brag, then this guy comes along talking about how he loves books when you know he's never read anything over than Hamlet in middle school. It makes them feel smarter than they are. But all you have to do is engage in conversation with them about books and you can easily make them realise that they are talking to someone who actually reads.

>pic related

Harry Potter is good for nostalgia. I’m not sure if I’d say it has any benefit more than that.

>>15447819
>Pat them on the back and be a condescending soccer mom to them
You testosterone deficient fucking worm, you are absolutely fucking delusional, letting in more n*Rmoid cattle will result in more /pol/ tier threads, you dumb fucking retard.
If they want to discuss their faggot, stupid, overdiscussed harry potter books and have people be artificially nice to them, they can fuck right off to r/books or whatever it is.
You are clearly one of them, you are not versed into the culture of this website, instead of shitting up this place even more than it already is, how about you fuck right back to where you belong?

>>15447351
>>15447404
>>15447434
>>15447542
>>15447726
>>15447737
This is an incel moment.

You may be wondering what an "incel moment" is, well here it is, defined.

-When confronted with interracial relationships, this triggers a primal urge in the incel. Half enraged, half aroused he is reminded by his own loneliness and the high desire to be in a meaningful relationship with a women. Protip, he never will

-When confronted by criticism of race and gender dynamics, wojacks, ad-homs will follow. The incel isn't educated so his immediate reaction is to rage and expose his white fragility

-Though he posts photos and memes about how he hates women, all he wants is to be with a women. The problem is, he's not attractive and never will be. Women avoid him like a plague so he attacks anonymously on the internet (notice how he's a complete coward).

-His response when he has no argument is typical "dilate", "nigger", "cope" "seethe" etc. You know when they post this, you've won and witnessed an incel moment.

-Deep down, they're extremely fragile and insecure. They've never really interacted with people outside of their own family so they've never developed proper intellectual and emotional relationships.

-Typically lean right, MAGA despite not really knowing anything about policy, history or society in general. They're obsessed with SJW's, women, minorities even though they don't know any. Easily brainwashed and indoctrinated. Youtubers like PJW, Milo & Steven Crowder have them changing their worldviews every video they post. They're unable to form coherent arguments but are overly emotional when it comes to issues. Notice phrases like "Political correction is destroying our media!" despite not giving any examples on set topics.

That's it folks, a quick guide to spot incel moments and incel rage. Pass it along.

>>15447384
Obviously, because they are bad books.
>subjective literary agenda
This is a cope for having poor taste.

>>15447868
>you are not versed into the culture of this website
Okay, nice bait. Thanks for my daily laugh. I wish I could give you some Platinum for that post.

>pic is you ;)

95% of the people on this board have bad taste then since they haven't read schopenhauer. so why do men have such bad taste in books?

I remember back in like 2007 I went to an interview for my place to study English lit at a UK university. I was nervous as hell because low self esteem back then.

They gave us a group interview, 3/4 at a time. The interviewer opened up with "let's discuss our favourite books or authors, start off by naming some each"

It was me and 3 other girls. They went first.
>Harry Potter
>Dan Brown
All 3 of them. That was it.
That was the moment I knew I'd get a place on the course no problem.

>>15447884
I have just realised that i got severely trolled.

>>15447351
to be fair, all the "men" on this board has Neon Genesis Evangelion as their favorite series.
It's a shitty show for lonely teenagers.

Let's watch and one will come and try to explain it to us how deep it is.

>>15447889

>>15447378
Why won't women shut the fuck up about literature?

>>15447351
>Why won't they read Schopenhauer or Kafka
They do, you fucking idiot. There are a lot of female lit students, and they've read a fuck ton more philosophy and classic lit than any of you 90 IQ incels

>>15447493
In your opinion. Nothing makes them bad in objective reality though.

>>15447504
>bullshit art relativism
Why is it bullshit? The criteria you gather is in no way universally applicable so why pretend it is of any objective standard?

>>15447520
You actually believe there is an objective ranking system for literature? Midwit.

>>15447639
>They are good books
Not saying they're good books, I couldn't care less about Rowling's novels, but just because you think they're bad doesn't make them objectively so.

>>15447888
Well I'm sure you'll be glad to hear that today courses are actually optimized for the Harry Potter fangirl kind of student.

>>15447656
If it work to not gatekeep so well why don't you stay on reddits literature forums? Because it's garbage.
>>15447679
kek

>>15447888
and Harold Bloom said Harry Potter has no place in the literary canon...

>>15447819
that whole paragraph from someone saying
>This is, by far, the most r*ddit statement

>>15447880
>This is a cope for having poor taste.
Really isn't, there's no such thing objectively as poor taste. Are you saying then you only read "highbrow" literature for the sake of other's approval?

>>15447948
Uh nuhh, someone put effort into a response. I prefer it when threads on here are just a cesspool of autistic screeching.

>>15447384
>subjective

>>15447952
No, what is indicating that I meant that?
There is something as objective poor taste, as there is objective good and bad art.

>>15447991
How about actually making an argument against my point?

>>15447997
How is taste or art objectively bad? Yes you can list off a series of criteria YOU think makes a work of art/someone's taste bad, but this is not qualified in any way in or by objective reality.

>>15447900
It's a good show for lonely teenagers. Outside the scope of this board, but this is backed up by the critical appeal of the show and its ratings

>>15447917
The criteria is always aiming to be standar in general thats why we parameterize all things, and in art especially , youve gotta recognize the effort behind expresion, the avant garde aspect of works, by its themes, the way it expresses it and some more elements that are pretty objective desu.

>>15447809
Same as someone that listens music , can listen to shitty rap instead of mozart if they want but then whats the point? , wheres the merit of it all?. Having likes for style over substance isnt bad perse but at least be honest and recognize what it is

>>15448035
I agree that "elements" are objective, but whether they are are good or bad, better or worse, is entirely subjective. And recognising "the effort behind the expression" is worthless unless that is how you personally rate works of literature—yet again, not standardised. I think people such as yourself are aiming to make this subjective criteria standard, objective, but that does not take away from the truth of the matter that this criteria is merely a manifestation of someone's individual taste.

>>15448044
>Where's the merit of it all?
What right is it of yours to define merit for another individual? If a person gets more out of listening to "shitty rap" than Mozart, which many clearly do, then let that be. Sure they're not going to learn about sonata form, etc, but I highly doubt you can't learn *anything* from listening to rap.

>>15447878

>>15448009
I never said that I know of the criteria, but that doesn't mean they do not exist. Indeed it seems like the most intelligent and learned of men tend to agree upon the criteria for which makes art good, as they think it is good. It seems like if a hundred supreme intelligence would read through all the worlds literature, they would all more or less agree on what was the best art (so there is an objective standard for what is beautiful or not, but I recognise this in itself is not proof that art is objective). Even more so with unlimited discussion, surely, you have discussed art, and know that one can through greater understanding change once mind about what is good art and what is bad. Thus, this talk of criteria you bring forth, is just pushing back the problem again. We cannot make criteria and through this decide good art, this would assume your position, but rather search for criteria that explains good art.

>>15447878
I, I wa.. wha... /sci/ and stemfags and their logic based axioms will never recover. Logic died for good in this post and only thing we have left is Hegelian logic.. godspeed to humanity

>>15448056
>>15448064
Again, first of all, obviously youll never as an individual be 100% objective its impossible, but trying to reach for it is necessary, because if every kind of recognition is up for everyone own perception, then nothing is special, we should just keep doing mediocre things because some people will think is the most substancial masterpiece they have ever witnesed. And its okay you have your tastes even for things that are bad, like i said theres nothing bad in style over substance but some things are defenetly better than others, if not all those reviewers that agree that for example shakespeare is definitly far better than jk rowling , are doing it because they are against your relativist ideology. There are superior tastes.

>>15447378
we're lonely and resentful, but at the same time to cowardly to take charge of our romantic lives. so we mock women for having bad tastes.

>convinced gf to read infinite jest

>>15447404
>have sex
No.

>>15448044
>wheres the merit of it all?.
I dont know, I dont understand why you would even ask this.

>>15448105
The "most intelligent" and "learned" of men can agree on criteria as much as they like, this only indicates their subjective predisposition towards a certain type of work; a conglomerate of subjectivities does not make an objectivity. Yes, one can search for critieria and explain why you think said criteria, to you, makes for the sake of argument a work of literature good, but this in no way is of any universal standing. Any work of art is just what it is in itself and questions of it being good and bad are deliberated subjectively and not to be taken as an objective assessment, just a reflection of a person's taste.

>>15448117
And yet no one actually makes a feasible argument against this relativist ideology other than stating the fact people want to remain comfortable in the delusion that their tastes may be superior to anothers.

No, it's not a case of nothing being special, but that works are only special on an individual level. To think that they are "special" simply because culture puts them forward as being superlative works of art is simply being a sheep about things, betraying one's own personal agenda towards literature/art. Things are not better than others but are thought of being as such; with that said, you are well within your rights to think of J.K. Rowling as being a better author than Shakespeare or that her works are better, that is if you genuinely think this so and that this is how your personal literary agenda aligns.

>>15447495
classic
chicks love pretending they’re Lara Croft or some shit because they did a tour guided bush walk with <10kg of provisions

>>15448184
Sure, that's not too far from my point, but let me then ask you, how does one establish objective facts? For example, how would one establish that something is objectively morally good or bad, or perhaps, that it is objectively true that Europe is north of Africa?
You also seem to miss the point that objective taste does not necessitate objective beauty. Using good in the moral sense, which is objective, would provide objective taste

>>15448184
The whats the point of hermenautics. Let me,take it to another direction because your take on art seems to be too ambiguous, if youve gotta point what provided more knowledge to humanity between schopenhauer or the woman that wrote twilight, which one will it be, at the end these aspect enter in the criteria of deliberate which work its better. And for the last time dont be intellectualy dishonest.

>>15448223
One establishes objective facts through what is empirically true. What is morally good or bad, beautiful or ugly is also entirely subjective. Sure, I think murder is abhorrent but what in or about the world (a world in which the given crime occurs everyday) that is outside the subjective realm of human thought and feeling truly substantiates this? Conversely, Europe being north of Africa is demonstrably objectively true.

>objective taste does not necessitate objective beauty. Using good in the moral sense, which is objective, would provide objective taste
As I already stated, what is considered "beautiful" is also subjective as it's not established outside the realm of subjective individual thought and feeling. To say that using good in a moral sense provides objective taste is nonsensically as what is good cannot be objectively defined.

>>15448256
Yeah, Schopenhauer through his works may very well have provided more knowledge to humanity than the woman who wrote Twilight, but providing more knowledge does not make one's work objectively better, it just means more knowledge was provided. It is up to the individual reader to decide whether they consider "providing more knowledge" is one of their key factors in rating a book higher than another, and you know full well they don't necessarily have to intergrate this aspect into their tastes, value sytems, etc.

>>15448034
THERE YOU HAVE IT.

>>15447384
The only based post in this entire thread

>>15448262
What is morally good or bad is not subjective though. If morality is not objective, then there's no reason to accept any other objectively true positions as true, but there is reason to accept some true positions as true, which you agree with, and in fact, if not, then that would be self contradictory, since if no position can be accepted to be true, than that position alone cannot be accepted as true, thus there has to be objective morality. This fact exist outside of humans, just like the concept of North, but is used in context for humans. Murder is wrong, is a truth which describes human interaction, but it being Wrong, and the quality of Wrong, is not dependent on humans, any more than the concept of North, is dependent on the existence of Africa and Europe.
Also, I don't think you answered the question in a satisfactory manner at all. You say that Europe being north of Africa is demonstrably objectively true, but how so?

>>15447351
>Why won't they read Schopenhauer or Kafka?
why are you in your 20s and still a virgin?

>>15447351
>tfw 6'2
>tfw also go to some university or other
>tfw also loves dogs, pizza and going on adventures
>tfw completely fine with normie music
Are you telling me all I need to do to get pussy is try?

>>15448326
>If morality is not objective, then there's no reason to accept any other objectively true positions as true
Why does all truth depend upon morality, which clearly has no standardised grounds? Are you really telling me all moralities are the same, that, say, an Islamist terrorists concept of good and bad is the same as ours? Perceiving something as good or bad does not make it so and therefore morality is not objective. If it truly was every person on earth's concept of good and bad would be in total alignment and believing otherwise would be demonstrably false, which it presently isn't.

>You say that Europe being north of Africa is demonstrably objectively true, but how so?
Travel north. Yes, travelling south will also eventually get you there, but these options are not mutually exclusive.

>>15447351
>School
>Hogwarts
every fucking time
>mfw

>>15447672
>The whole point of escapism is to bring adults back to the innocent times of childhood where they didn't have responsibility.

God I wish this meme would die. Being a child is gay as shit. No one lets you make any decisions. Everyone treats you like you are a moron. Childhood is like a fucking waiting room.

>>15448365
Pretty much unless you're a massive sperg. And even then, if you manage to pass off your spergery as arrogant confidence, you might still succeed.

>>15447384
>Stop imposing your own subjective literary agenda onto others.
But of course, your agenda isnt subjective at all, wink wink, just the people you dont like have subjective agenda, your agenda is totally objective.

>>15448292
>I am a stupid person and instaid of being ashamed of this fact, I redefine taste in such a way that I dont have to admit I am stupid.

This is you, this is how you sound like.

>>15447761
1/10 say they finished a book. My personal experience is that maybe one in twenty or thirty people read.

>>15448528
My agenda is simply that tastes and quality are subjective; there is no such thing as good or bad tastes or good or bad literature. So yes, my agenda is totally objective as I am dealing with what is empirically the case and not what is being espoused as objective truth by individual readers.

>>15448420
>>15448420
>Why does all truth depend upon morality, which clearly has no standardised grounds?
I told you, because there has to be the reason for why one should accept truth as truth
>Are you really telling me all moralities are the same, that, say, an Islamist terrorists concept of good and bad is the same as ours? Perceiving something as good or bad does not make it so and therefore morality is not objective. If it truly was every person on earth's concept of good and bad would be in total alignment and believing otherwise would be demonstrably false, which it presently isn't.
It is the same in the way that my ‘sun’, is the sun just as a tribe who thinks the sun is god has the ‘sun’. Both are pointing to the sun, but one is right about what it is and one is wrong. Surely, people disagreeing about anything, doesn’t prove that it’s subjective, because people disagree about many things which you consider objective. As for how it is known, I just showed you an example which used pure thought to prove it.
For your second point, how does traveling north to see it being north make it an objective fact that Europe is north of Africa? What quality about this makes it objective true?

>>15447494
Not that guy but I looked it up, thanks for this

>>15448262
>Morality is subjective
>Not forcing your aesthetic unto others
Cringe. It's not wrong morally speaking.

>>15449758
So tell me how mortality is objective. How does it objectively manifest? How is it objectively enforced?

>>15449774
>I can't read, be my philosophy teacher
You already have it explained already, but that's beside the point. If morality and art is subjective, then it is only based to force your own taste unto others.

>>15447384
Based af, fuck /lit/ incels

>>15447495
I'd be straight pissed if some incel tried to take me on an 8+ hour hike for a first date too.

Once you have sex you stop caring

>>15447351
liking harry potter isn't a woman thing, it's a liberal thing, you incel

>>15447351

> Implying that most people under 50 are mature enough to view the world and literature in a non dichotomic manner.

Men are the same, I'm sure there are tons of lit feminists ranting about how there isn't a single man who truly read feminist authors and it is genuinely interested in it: "Most read it just so they can score some feminist pussy."

>>15447351
let me decode it for you
harry potter = fuck me
schopy and kant = i want to cut your dick off

>>15447351
>Why won't they read Schopenhauer
Why do you read that loser?

>>15449857
>a liberal thing
Go back. Please. You don’t belong here.

>>15448626
you can get the free ebook here anon.
https://www.monergism.com/precious-remedies-against-satans-devices-ebook
Its a great book to dip into from time to time even if you only read a couple pages and has lots of convicting quotes that will always stick with you.

>>15447819
>Gatekeepers come across as angry, self-righteous know-it-all's. Reading is a great hobby and is very beneficial. The more people that read, the better society will be as a whole. So we shouldn't care less whether someone read's
Ok, but no one here wants to discuss j.k rowling or g.r.r.m

>>15450219
queen

>>15450695

Just make a thread, there were threads about both yesterday.

>>15447351
OP touched on a more interesting issue with that allusion to Schopenhauer than he meant. Philosophy remains one of if not the only male-dominated humanity. 80% of psychology majors are women, 60-70% of English majors, yet only 30% of philosophy majors! That's like biology or chemistry numbers! Why does philosophy remain such a male-dominated field and why do most female philosophers tend to stay confined to gender theory or other continental, semi-sociological interests?

>>15450756
Women care about emotions too much and saying babies are stupid and pointless make them uncomfortable

Women actually read more books than men by a substantial margin. The majority of men do not read books at all. It is true that the books they read are often trashy, but if you are comparing "men" vs "women" that is not the same as comparing women to a very small minority of male intellectuals.

and as a woman I have read both fuck Schopenhauer he was a bitch

>>15450837
Because this is degeneracy, anon

>>15450844
have you read Schopenhauer's actual philosophy or just his meme opinions about society

>incel incel incel
wow dude you sure showed him, you really got him good

>>15447351
Schopenhauer and Kafka are also shit, a book doesn't magically becomes good if an old white man wrote it

>>15450858
Yeah she should also read his meme opinions about metaphysics

because they grew up with them like millions of other children? jesus its not hard to figure out

>>15447384
read a new book you aren't in 4th grade anymore

>>15451353
I'm sure you have very intelligent things to say about Schopenhauer's philosophy. Luckily for us both I'm also sure you won't explain any of them.

>>15447384
It doesn't. But it being someone's favorite is pretty bad.

>>15451372
Wait are you actually going to defend his ramblings about the cosmic will
Last time I had this discussion the other anon ended up giving a spiel about how we shouldnt think of philosophy as making literal claims about the world and we should treat it as artistic expression because he couldn't defend his completely insane speculations on metaphysics

>>15447819
Gatekeeping is a good thing, worthy of praise and admiration, only femcels disagree

>>15447384
because people who like harry potter have only ever read harry potter

>>15451465
This

>>15450219
>loves books
>Sounds Italian or something
>likes anal insertions
YES

>>15447384
Because they ruined a generation. Or rather, those books represent the late-millenial "smart kid" stereotype. The popular-and-high-achieving-social-butterflies who took "life" very seriously. I'd imagine anyone on /lit/ didn't fit into this group, and probably viewed this group as lacking authenticity. These were also the ones with parents who put pressure on them to "achieve". Also probably a strong thing like "these gifted kids burned through harry potter in elementary school but haven't read anything other than social media feeds and NYT for the past 3 years".

I have a hunch a lot of these kid

>>15447384
Because they are slop

>>15447384

Read Adorno and liberate yourself from your childlike consoomer mindset.

>>15447384
put me in the screencap

>>15447384

>women

>>15452289

You honestly didn't get it. Never going to make it.

>>15447351
Here a written meme for you:

the virgin zoomer:
muh literary canon, schopenhauer, kafka, high literature

the chad stacy:
haha wizards make bipt bopt bum avada kedavra!!!

>>15452418

Please, someone

>>15447351
because most people are dumb
and most women are even dumber than dumb
why cultivate literary taste, cultural knowledge, or any other intellectual activity when you can skirt on by with looks and youth
humans were programmed to take the path of least resistance
women are hooers meant to be used a little fuck toys. you shouldnt expect anything deeper than that from them.

>>15447384
It means you haven't read a good book since late junior school/early high school.

That or you're still stuck in the early highschool paradigm

>>15452411
Are you trying to claim Adorno would have written positively about Harry Potter

>>15452466

No, but understanding something doesn't liberate you from anything.

>>15447351
>>15447384
SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP SCHLOP

>>15452411
>>15452476

Where did I say reading Adorno liberates you from anything? I said: "Read Adorno and liberate yourself"

>>15452578

Ok, that seems even harder. How? Please explain how do I set free from all this without completely alienating myself in the process?

>>15452516
based

>>15447384
mimimimi

>>15447351

People with low and middling IQ literally cannot access Schop or Kafka, it bugs their brains out.

And women feel a sense of chronic personal weakness, so even if they happen to be intelligent they usually do not stray far from standing social norms (which are set by the middling majority type)

>>15452516
based

>Stop gatekeeping
>My opinions matter
>I don't need to change, I am perfectly fine the way I am
>Everyone in previous historic eras were dumb
>We live in the best period ever and things are only going to get better and better
>I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE
>I don't need to explain myself to you
>This discussion is over
>Conform to us or else
Ortega y Gasset foresaw he rise of the mass man, and he probably has the most penetrating diagnosis of the NPC mentality and how it came to be. OyG is a great compliment to Christopher Lasch and Oswald Spengler, though he does disagree with him in a few respects.

>>15452411
>>15447917
>midwit
>never going to make it
off yourself. you can only think in shame-based memes to give substance to the insubstantial. bet your reading, what little you do, is the core of your self-esteem and identity. disgusting.

>>15447378
fucking can be nice
>>15447384
Leave and never return.

>>15452851

> Ok, that seems even harder. How? Please explain how do I set free from all this without completely alienating myself in the process?

Seriously, how?

>>15447351
>Why won't they read Schopenhauer
idk anon you tell me?

Male, 22

Bachelor of Business
Less than 1km away

Love drinking beers, chilling with the lads, listening to chill a$$ toonz, FIFA 2020 <3

My Anthem
Oasis - Wonderwall

>>15450756
this reminds me that one time my mom mockingly called philosophy "phil-cock-ophy" lmao

>>15452134
I read Harry Potter when I was a kid. Because they're good books, for kids. Now I read /lit/ material, because I am an adult. I would recommend the Harry Potter series to any child.

>>15447351
Men read more non-fiction and women read more fiction, like much much more, most of it bound to be trash. Men statistically don't read fiction beyond trying a few classics and the occasional manly genre schlock.

>15450756
>semi-sociological
That's it. Women are socially driven. Relatively few maintain long term interest in something that isn't about humans interacting.

>>15454497
>>15450756
How did I even fuck this one up?

>>15452801
>though he does disagree with him in a few respects.
That's an understatement.
Ortega is superior though.

yea I mean... kafka has been my author crush for some time but even reading your microwave instructions is technically reading. There are some people who do not enjoy exploring their very nature (I am no psychologist do I don't exactly know why) or complex topics. I think you made a very good point depicting them as NPCs, but there's not that much we can do about it. I would prefer my children to read Harry Potter instead of nothing, but for grown adults who maybe have a college degree it's not REALLY reading. Some fiction books have a lot to say, just think Rowling only wanted to show some freaks and loosers make pew pew against other freaks and loosers

>>15453424
I SAID MAYBEE