/lit/ - Literature

>>19707165
If a book sticks with you then it was worth reading. It's as simple as that.

Just read stuff you enjoy, whatever it is
Don’t try to impress people and worry about enjoying your life before you die.

[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]9 / 1 / 5 / 2 [Update] [Auto]
File: Henri_Bergson_02.jpg (216 KB, 524x742)
216 KB
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)09:57:14 No.19706805▶>>19706993 >>19707044 >>19707059 >>19707070
>In Creative Evolution, Bergson starts out by criticizing mechanism as it applies to the concepts of life and evolution. The mechanistic approach would preclude the possibility of any real change or creativity, as each development would be potentially contained in the preceding ones.
What's wrong with each development being potentially contained in preceding developments? Why does he say it can't be?
>>
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)10:20:46 No.19706882▶>>19706972 >>19707070
Because then it wouldn't be emergent, it would be "evolutionist" in the old sense, meaning just an unfurling or unspooling of something that already exists. It would be the revelation of a latent or hidden thing instead of the creation of a new thing. Bergson's process philosophy is aimed at giving ontological status to creativity itself.
>>
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)10:42:14 No.19706972▶>>19707070 >>19707100
>>19706882
I know that's his idea but why does he believe that?
>>
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)10:46:26 No.1970699talog] [Bottom]6 / 0 / 5 / 1 [Update] [Auto]
File: Henri_Bergson_02.jpg (216 KB, 524x742)
216 KB
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)09:57:14 No.19706805▶>>19706993 >>19707044 >>19707059
>In Creative Evolution, Bergson starts out by criticizing mechanism as it applies to the concepts of life and evolution. The mechanistic approach would preclude the possibility of any real change or creativity, as each development would be potentially contained in the preceding ones.
What's wrong with each development being potentially contained in preceding developments? Why does he say it can't be?
>>
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)10:20:46 No.19706882▶>>19706972
Because then it wouldn't be emergent, it would be "evolutionist" in the old sense, meaning just an unfurling or unspooling of something that already exists. It would be the revelation of a latent or hidden thing instead of the creation of a new thing. Bergson's process philosophy is aimed at giving ontological status to creativity itself.
>>
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)10:42:14 No.197069
Schopenhauer addresses this by saying that the principle of sufficient reason (essentially, our habit and capacity for describing things as the effects of some cause, whether in a physical, metaphysical, logical, or volitional sense) is a product of reason, which is it
learn to write before you write
no-one is interested in an eternal preface

>>19707171
even if it's brandon sanderson stuff?

most "deep and meaningful" nonfiction is bloated trash which could be explained in far fewer pages than required.

Read for fun when it comes to fiction. At least you're doing something healthy

>>19707191
Stop being insecure and just read what you like, nobody cares

>>19707191
Yes dude

[Post a Reply]
08/21/20 New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17 New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16 New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]

[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]7 / 1 / 6 / 1 [Update] [Auto] No new posts
File: 1640804609365.jpg (57 KB, 653x523)
57 KB
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)11:15:31 No.19707165▶>>19707169
Do you think one should try to always read deep & meaningful books or is it okay to also just read fun and entertaining stuff?

Am I wasting my time if I don't exclusively stick to the classics?
>>
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)11:16:22 No.19707169▶
>>19707165 (OP)
If a book sticks with you then it was worth reading. It's as simple as>>19707070 >>19707100
>>19706882
I know that's his idea but why does he believe that?
>>
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)10:46:26 No.1970699ta
[Post a Reply]
08/21/20 New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17 New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16 New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]

[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]7 / 1 / 6 / 1 [Update] [Auto] No new posts
File: 1640804609365.jpg (57 KB, 653x523)
57 KB
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)11:15:31 No.19707165▶>>19707169
Do you think one should try to always read deep & meaningful books or is it okay to also just read fun and entertaining stuff?

Am I wasting my time if I don't exclusively stick to the classics?
>>
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)11:16:22 No.19707169▶
>>19707165 (OP)
If a book sticks with you then it was worth reading. It's as simple as that.
>>
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)11:16:50 No.19707171▶>>19707191
Just read stuff you enjoy, whatever it is
Don’t try to impress people and worry about enjoying your life before you die.
>>
-1-=-=; 01/08/22(Sat)11:17:04 No.19707173▶
File: announcement.jpg (20 KB, 400x400)
20 KB
[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]9 / 1 / 5 / 2 [Update] [Auto]
File: Henri_Bergson_02.jpg (216 KB, 524x742)
216 KB
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)09:57:14 No.19706805▶>>19706993 >>19707044 >>19707059 >>19707070
>In Creative Evolution, Bergson starts out by criticizing mechanism as it applies to the concepts of life and evolution. The mechanistic approach would preclude the possibility of any real change or creativity, as each development would be potentially contained in the preceding ones.
What's wrong with each development being potentially contained in preceding developments? Why does he say it can't be?
>>
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)10:20:46 No.19706882▶>>19706972 >>19707070
Because then it wouldn't be emergent, it would be "evolutionist" in the old sense, meaning just an unfurling or unspooling of something that already exists. It would be the revelation of a latent or hidden thi01/08/22(Sat)11:22:06 No.19707202▶
>>19707191
Anonymous 01/08/22(Sat)11:22:06 No.19707202▶
>>19707191

>>19707165
Of course it's fine to just read for entertainment. At the same time I would say it is also good to challenge yourself and read something outside of your comfort zone on occasion -- you by no means have to *exclusively* read classics, but you might surprise yourself with how much you like certain books.
Personally I am someone who exclusively read easy fantasy novels in the past until my friend recommended I try out Frankenstein; I didn't have any expectations for it and thought I would just end up rushing through it to get back to my fantasy books, but I was absolutely blown away by how good it was. Now I spend more time reading classics than fantasy, but it's still a mix of the two.