/lit/ - Literature

With certain specific people in the right social context, yes. Generally no. I'm happier when I can and do.

Only in the classroom, really.

Outside of the classroom, yeah, everyone I talk to seems extremely uncomfortable when I try to talk about books. Even when they're English majors.

I think it's just a "taboo" thing to talk about now. Like you're trying to show off or something, by calling to attention the fact you read books. Maybe they take it as bragging, and don't want to seem that way themselves.

I've always thought reading was a pretty personal kind of activity too. Maybe that accounts for it.

nope

As I grow older, I talk about intellectual pursuits less. I just don't have the spark for discussion. It's like I'm tired of the arguments.

I have a number of friends that graduated as literature majors and other "brainy" subjects, but they also did not become "intellectuals" in the social sense...we mostly just talk about our kids, bills, work, and beer.

Discussing literature and idealism just doesn't have the same spark that it did in college. It's better just to recommend books and then move on to different topics.

I've found that it can make some people uncomfortable. A lot of people seem to react to it as though a) you are arguing about politics, thus just generally being obnoxious, b) you are having a very in depth religious or "spiritual" conversation, or c) you're having what most people call a "heart to heart." Still, I have a few friends I can talk to stuff about.

*getting drunk with friends*
Me: duuuuude! I fuckin totally read ____ chapter of ____ today! Shit fuckin went down.
Friend: duuuuude! enjoy ur fucking beer and shut the fuck up. Ass-nugget fuckin' nerd!

*sad-face*

>>2140758

...dad??

>>2140763
*me getting drunk with my friends*
Me: duuuuude! I fuckin totally read ____ chapter of ____ today! Shit fuckin went down.
Friend: duuuuude! That chapter is the shit! Just wait until you get to chapter ____! It's fucked, man!

Moral of the story: Choose better friends.

>>2140762

>heart to heart

I think this just about sums up the reason for the awkwardness. It's hard to dicuss literature in depth, or anything else related to the arts, without putting yourself next to some very emotional subjects. How many times have you sat down and had a casual conversation about grief, or loneliness, emotion, or pain etc

The reasons these topics are so hard to talk about are the same reasons that make them so wonderful to read.

>>2140769
Somebody's father, sure. Not yours though.

Come to think of it, my dad was probably the same way. He had a masters in engineering, wrote for a few magazines, and had a huge collection of classic literature. One of his minors as an undergrad was literature.

He never talked about it. I have no idea what the man's passions were. It was like living with a very quiet ghost.

Thanks anon. You've shown me something.

I hate listening to myself say aloud the things I've been thinking for a long time and see that it's new information to other people, and worse, that they agree with it. Things I decide to say are almost invariably taken well, even among people I consider intelligent and unpredictable, and something about such enthusiasm and ready agreement disturbs me and makes me feel sad or even disgusted with myself. For this reason I have avoided 'intellectual' discussions, even since I was in high school.

Occasionally I really do desire to share an idea and hear a response, even a positive response, but it very quickly can sicken me and make me tired of myself and others and i refrain from doing it again for months. the internet is good because i can exercise this impulse without having to see peoples' reactions or hear my own voice...but tbh i usually avoid participating in 'intellectual' discussions online, too. generally i just lurk.

imo talking about books is not all that intellectual. I like to talk about books, but it's very rare a good book discussion will crop up in my life outside the internet. that is why I am going to propose marriage to /lit/ once i get the bride price together.

>>2140741
Only with the right people. I find most people are either not knowledgeable enough about subjects that I am interested in and generally just not smart enough to have a good conversation with. My old college roommate was my favorite to conversate about physics and religion with. I ended up having another roommate just like him when I was living in Aspen which was fun to talk with about similar subjects.

Nowadays, I'm pretty much confined to talking about lifting at my gym. This is something I enjoy especially considering I'm at a powerlifting/strongman gym so a lot of people are as knowledgeable as I am. This might not sound intellectual, but it's really just another branch of science more or less. Most people who haven't done the research don't understand that.

I miss talking about physics/philosophy/religion greatly.

Not really. I occasionally have interesting conversations with my professors, but I've found that even at elite colleges, most students aren't smart. They're just good at cheating, lying, plagiarizing, sucking up, regurgitating information, and taking tests. What wonderful skills our school system imparts.

>>2140793
>>2140793

why would agreement with your opinions and thoughts gross you out? don't like the positive attention?

I got tired of having arguments and discussions that go nowhere. You try to make a point and the man across you tries to make a point, but in the end it's just you two trying to hammer your ideas into each other instead of an actual debate. It goes nowhere, so I stopped doing it.

People have gotten more tribal and less trusting about these things (religion, philosophy, and their relative importance) as the years have gone by. This is why disagreements on these things are often construed as unpleasant arguments or fighting, which makes the act of bringing them up a test of loyalties, and thus an act of confrontation. If your fellow conversationalist disagrees with you or doesn't know wtf you are talking about, then it is seen as a challenge. If he agrees with you, then it you are merely preaching to the choir and will probably have a short conversation (or a long and meaningless one).

In most situations, other subjects are ultimately much better for building relationships. This is why people may think you're spergy if you constantly want to talk about philosophy, etc. (outside of the classroom, of course).

>>2140807

When the person I'm arging with seems quite aggressive, I usually won't bother, but if they are relaxed and easy going I do still like to just ask them about their point of view. I have no delusions of converting them to my ideas, but I am just interested in what they think.

Other than that, I do agree with you. When it gets heated and you are just bashing heads it's a waste of time. You can usually spot the people who will do that though.

I'm bored with people's opinions on the intangible and academic.

I'm bored with my own opinions on the intangible and academic.

I'm listless and just don't give a fuck.

I've no interest in lighthearted chit-chat bullshit, even when out drinking with friends and randoms. I have no patience for that.

I'm a serious person and I honestly don't like "fun".

Luckily most of my friends and their friends are smart and educated so I usually find at least one person willing to have a real conversation when out in a group.

>>2140818
>This is why disagreements on these things are often construed as unpleasant arguments or fighting, which makes the act of bringing them up a test of loyalties, and thus an act of confrontation. If your fellow conversationalist disagrees with you or doesn't know wtf you are talking about, then it is seen as a challenge. If he agrees with you, then it you are merely preaching to the choir and will probably have a short conversation (or a long and meaningless one).

Cripes, yeah. In real-life, people don't talk about news/political stuff, unless they're street crazies or something. On Facebook, I just don't say anything when some of my more uh, enthused true-believer friends go off about that stuff. I'd rather have friends than practice my debating skillz or whatever the point of that exercise is.

In RL, when I was a kid (teenager/college) people would have what you'd call "coffeeshop conversations" where they'd usually hash out whatever they'd just read in Introduction to Philosophy. Or some other half-wit crap. After a while, it's just trotting out the same points and counter-arguments over and over. "Oh boy, here comes opinion C and D...."
Much smarter people than any of us at this table started thinking and writing about this stuff hundreds (thousands?) of years ago and this stoned bullshit-fest isn't helping anybody. Just drop it.

The most intellectual conversations I have are the discussions in my philosophy class and the weird epiphanies I share with my roommate. Greed and the resulting consumerist culture has destroyed the United States, though I'm not sure about the rest of the first world.

My closest friends are fond of art / literature in general so all our 5 am post party talks tend to revolve around ontology, poetry and shit. Awesome feel man

Most intellectual conversations are just empty pontification. Yes, god doesn't exist, America is a shittier place than you thought it was as a child, there's no objective morality, art is sometimes good and sometimes not, and after circling these conversations enough times, you realize you just don't give a shit anymore.

I recently found out that my friend believes all scientists are bullshitters. He respects slacker type characters like that dude from Wavves. He watches Sagan's Cosmos because he sees Sagan as a great father figure type character, but could give a shit about what he's talking about. My entire view of the dude has changed since I found out I have nobody who digs things that involve actual thought to speak with. Just a bunch of people with escapist ploys and a very ill thought out hatred for ambition and optimism. :(

Anyway, people are still cool. I don't consider myself the ideal human with the utmost of high end interests. Its a lovely thing to realize yourself as an isolated case. That's all many of us are, to me. Isolated vessels bunched up b(cum)ut seldom seen as such. From an outsiders perspective, of course you'd assume all clans are of the same cloth.

>>2140807

It's not always suppose to be a debate you know. I mean that's exactly the reason why people don't like to talk about big subjects, there is always some guy that now "NUHU! You're WROOOOOOOOONG!".

My friends don't talk about anything intellectual.

My family talks about things that are over me.

Books are my only medium.

>>2140870
>all our 5 am post party talks tend to revolve around...
oh god these are the worst

>>2140882

agreed.

>>2140901
nah man these are the best

I have no choices other than keep it to myself...

People are so stupid guys, it is so unbearable.

The closest I've gotten to an intelectual discussion with anyone has been about how and why Suckerpunch sucked...

Sometimes with my father, but we tend to agree on things so basically I end up supporting his common sense ideas by existing economic theories. He spent 37 years of his life living under totalitarian communist regime not bowing to it, so it's interesting to hear his opinions.

I used to discuss things a lot with my old flatmates before falling asleep, usually missing the whole night of sleep. Can't say it was especially fruitful though. After a while we always somehow ended up talking about girls from highschool we still wanted to fuck.

You mean that sophomoric philosophical bullshit that's already been thoroughly explored thousands of years ago? No thank you, sir.

Only one of my girl friends read books in her free time, I get some light-hearted 'Remember that part in SputnikSweetheart?' or we talk about new outcoming books.

Had a fun conversation too with my best bro's sister about the GRRMs books. Was a pleasant surprise that she had read them all.

there's one group of guys I can do it with, when we go to the pub.

Conversations have been on matters as diverse as the musicality of Swinburne's poetry and Anselm's ontological argument. lel

>>2140882

Spot on.

>>2140882

Did you ever think that it's just the conversations you're having that are 'empty pontifications'?

>>2140932
Caracalla, I knew you where a pretentious wannabe, but Anselm? The man is practically retarded. His 'proof of God' is the worst argumentation I have ever heard since I left kindergarten. Just in case, I am referring to the golden island and Anselm's reaction.

There are a few groups of people when it comes to this.

1. The angry kid: some people grow out of this, a lot don't. I imagine most people start like this. They only want eristic arguments. They make up for their lack of knowledge by assuming the facts will back them up. They simply want to be right and a conversation quickly turns into a dick swinging contest where you will feel uncomfortable. Just agree with them and leave it at that. Could also be known as Marxists, Atheists or liberals (see most comment sections on the internet).

2. The "tee hee I don't really know" kid: Generally their views are adopted from their parents and they genuinely don't know anything. Most people. Will usually agree with everything.

3. The religious kid: Is either a thinly veiled angry kid or can be open to very interesting discussion. Their religion means they are not too aggressive, and they have strong views but often have studied them quite a lot. If you are open you can have some very interesting conversations.

4. The hippy kid: usually very uninformed and their point of view is usually very mystical and vague. They have life experience not truth. At first these people seem worldly and deep. After meeting a few they can come off as a bit shallow.

5. The faggot kid: You are a faggot for trying to talk about anything other than boobs.

5. The genuine intellect: will discuss things like the religious kid but won't be close minded and will genuinely try to discuss things with you. I am often intimidated by these people so I never have that many conversations with them.

>>2140947

When did being 'close minded' become a universal bad thing?

If you were really 'open minded' to everything, you'd waste a lot of time giving credence to absolute bullshit.

>does /lit/ ever have intellectual conversations irl?
probably less than ten people on the planet qualified for that with me

Not conversations entirely devoted to heady topics, no. The philosophy and science phase in and out of the politics and vidya gaems. I mean, I love intellectual dicussions, but you can't be srs all of the time--nor do I want to be. When you have the right balance, you'll appreciate both types of conversation.

>>2140950

Well bad or not, being close minded doesn't leave you very well equipped to have interesting and intellectual conversations.

But really, being close minded is a universally bad thing. Refusing to listen to anything other than your own opinion will never be a good trait. Close minded is basically synonymous with anti-intellectualism.

Being open minded will neither increase nor decrease the amount of time you spend listening to bullshit. A close minded person just completely disregards it without even thinking about it. If it is clearly nonsense then throwing it away without thought is just sensible.

I can't bothered actually. You are trolling. 7/10.

>>2140963
Don't assume people are trolling. Christ, that's so fucking obnoxious. But still gotta agree that being open minded is a beautiful thing so long as a good deal of skepticism is considered.

>>2140954
If you cannot find 10 people who believe that you are an intellectual, maybe you should try looking on /lit/ and maybe check out starbucks or junior high.

You probably just need a change of crowd.

My friends and I sometimes have intelligent conversations though not necessarily... Knowledgeable. We don't all possess the same wisdom or information but ideas, creativity, and of course, reason, is something we all have. So though our topics are quite simple, I'd say they're intelligent in terms of where we go and how we build off each others' ideas and theories. They're never arguments either.

I don't really consider myself intelligent, anyways. More than the average person, but saying that really doesn't say much. Of my friends, I am most likely the least intelligent though, possibly one of the more creative.

im a 20 year old sophomore in college and its the best its ever been for me in having these types of discussions.

for most of my life ive had only one friend to talk about philosophy and other topics with until he went to a different college. in my last year of high school i influenced some people to discuss and study what i discussed and studied, and they still do now, all though not quite as well as i hoped.

but in my first year of college i made a good amount of friends, this year im going quality over quantity. i hang out with around 10 people and they are all bros. we usually meet up on weekends, get drunk smoke cigarettes and talk for hours. usually starts off about women, catching up, philosophy, women. good times man.

>Is this a universal thing or am I hanging out with the wrong people?
pointless question. both at the same time. you're approching the situation from the point of view of those who surround you, those who make u ask yourself this question.

so: change your friends or change ur ideas.

>>2140882
>>2140807
and who says that a conversation has to go "somewhere"? when i talk to someone and see this logic i just stop arguing and talk about weather

>Is this a universal thing or am I hanging out with the wrong people?
pointless question. both at the same time. you're approching the situation from the point of view of those who surround you, those who make u ask yourself this question.

so: change your friends or change ur ideas.

>>2140882
>>2140807
and who says that a conversation has to go "somewhere"? when i talk to someone and see this logic i just stop arguing and talk about weather

Yeah, I do, but it depends on what group of friends I'm hanging out with.

The group I spend the most time with are very open to discussions about, for example, self-sufficiency and other alternative ideas, but we very, very rarely talk about arts, for example. Which makes sense because they study civil engineering, medicine and biotechnology (plus, discussing music with someone who listens to blink 182 at 21 is usually not that productive). It sucks because the friend that is most willing to 'go deep', is not that bright, and whenever we have differing opinions he goes in this weird state of mind and begins interrupting me, insisting he knows what I'm talking about. Fortunately, we usually have similar opinions.

With another group we do talk about arts, drugs and spirituality, but never about things we usually discuss with the first group.

There's also one group I don't really want to have intellectual conversations with, because there's someone who always counters whatever I say, for some reason (he jelly). Once he wanted to prove me that an ecological man-made islands makes sense (that's something our last government apparently wanted to do).

I'm the kind of person that wants to have an 'intellectual discussion' with anyone and I jump on every opportunity to have one, though. Probably because I'm an awful storyteller.

>>2140967

What is skepticism if not being closed minded?

Guys. Oldfag, here.
Behold the madness: I have a wife, and I talk with her.

>>2141037

Why do you let her talk? That's just asking for trouble.

>>2141033
The opposite? Closed minded means that you have pre-formed answers and positions that prevent you from considering new perspectives. Skepticism means that you can consider every possible explanation but will always be aware of the possibility that the explanation is not universally valid. If you think the two are the same, you are just a 12 year old of average intelligence, like the rest of /lit/.

To answer OP's question: yes, you are hanging out with the wrong people. I'm not telling you to ditch your friends but you could try to find some new friends who are open to these sort of conversations.

As to the point made by >>2140947. The fifth group of people is in my experience the most interesting group, and it's even better when they're able to preserve this attitude in old age. Because that will give you the benefit of a lot of experience with life without the obnoxious or dull attitude many of the elderly exhibit.

>>2141042

>Closed minded means that you have pre-formed answers and positions that prevent you from considering new perspectives.

That rigid definition is awfully closed minded of you. Why aren't you open to other definitions?

>Skepticism means that you can consider every possible explanation

"Every possible explanation"? Really? So if I tell you that the sun rises every morning because of a train of flying tortoises, you would consider that as possibly valid?

>but will always be aware of the possibility that the explanation is not universally valid.

Not "universally valid"? So something could be conditionally valid? Under certain conditions, the magic flying tortoises actually do raise the sun?

>If you think the two are the same, you are just a 12 year old of average intelligence, like the rest of /lit/.

That sounds an awful lot like a "pre-formed answer and position".

>>2141050

>>2141052

You think I'm trolling, but that's just because my ideas are radical. You have a predisposition to disregard any ideas too far outside your perceived limits of what is 'reasonable'.

You're closed minded

>does /lit/ ever have intellectual conversations irl?
Good sir...To what end, do these intellectual converstaions serve?

>>2141038
Trouble is sexy.

>>2141056
Shit bro, you are onto something, do tell more!

>does /lit/ ever have intellectual conversations irl?

Nope. Small town in the southern United States. Everyone is a retard. I deal with it.

>>2140802
>>2140793

A cynic, aren't you?

>>2141056

Spiral dynamics, bud. Some people have a lower level of consciousness than others.

>>2140954

name them

>>2141050
nice try (not really, I'm humoring you).

I have one friend. He is a meat-head. He likes the x-factor.

Feels bad man.

I'm not certain what entails an intellectual conversation, but if you ask if I talk irl with anyone over literature, then no. I don't know anyone else that reads the same literature as me.

>>2140741
>does /lit/ ever have intellectual conversations irl?
No. Intellectual conversations are boring.
I just wanna make pop-culture non-sequiturs, and talk about girls.

>2011
>can't discuss Kafka with my friends

>>2141136
I loved Metamorphosis. It was so Kafkaesque.

>>2141133
thus we learn why this guy has a pattern of making bad posts

>>2140741

You're hanging out with the wrong people as do all of us. For fucks sake, last girl I met was someone I hoped to have a conversation with. For once she says she likes my company because I'm someone she can have a proper conversation with.

But anyhow we get a little bit closer as often happens and BAM the jig is up, our time is over and she's like "Thought, I'd something more to saiaaaaay..." because apparently she's bored with talking, she's made an opinion of me as a hopeless loser in life, although I worked for 3 years, saved up, moved countries all on my own with no help whatsoever, to get a proper university education.

But yeah people are deceptive. At first they'll pretend to be interested and then when you get closer sooner or later they'll come out for what they really are.

Also she believes in ghosts and pops chinese medicine pills like "Hello, World".

>>2141146
>Also she believes in ghosts
The amount of times I've pretended to be interested in girl's ghost stories to try and fuck them. Hmm ok, only twice. Three if you count one girl I laid in bed with the next day coming down from ecstasy and she wanted to get deep by talking about her Grandma and the afterlife.

>>2141150

Dude, the Grandma and the Afterlife story. Every girl I've been with has one. Either the granma haunts them because she died in pain or she helps them. Also INEXPLICABLE GUSTS OF COLD AIR IN A CLOSED ROOM.

>>2141142
You seem jelous.

>>2141156

"heh, GIRL, am i right folks?" - dane cook

>>2141136
>them table manners.
NOPE

>>2141156
tee hee

most people don't care for intellectual conversations because they're stuck in their reality. anything that threatens their reality is upsetting. nobody wants to have an existential crisis, however small.

people seem to think they're dumb when it's just that they've never exercised their left brain. they assume anything that appears complicated is too complicated for them.

we should be very careful about showing off our smarts to people. we should examine our intentions very closely before we start telling someone about postmodernexistentialism. are we really interested in sharing thoughts or are we in fact challenging people around us to be as intellectual as we are? and how might a person feel if you've got the audacity to effectively call them out on being ignorant?

Interesting thread.

I have some intellectual talks, but we never get to the root of the problems discussed. It seems like there is a barrier between me and the other person. As elitist as this sounds, I have to step back or else I'll just be misunderstood.

I believe this is because of the constant abyss in information. If I've read authors x and y, while you have read x and z, all we can talk about fully is author x. It goes beyond authors or theories, the education the person had as a child, his references, how people around him thinks, it's all different and it will always be. Sometimes it bothers me to step back, even if, rationally, I understand why.

I have a good connection with my father and our references match, since, naturally, he is my reference and I learned a lot from him. He teaches literature and he is a walking encyclopedia. But as I grow older and away from him, I'm learning the things that he doesn't know, not because he never touched the subject, but because the subject never touched him. Still, I feel confident talking about the deepest of things with him.

In college I also have plenty of intellectual talks, but they are very limited. Fueled by insane amounts of weed, all subjects twist and bend from utopia to a joke to technology, religion, women, books and art. I love this chaos, even if it doesn't grant me a sober intellectual talk. Amongst them, I know I'm the one that grew around science and literature and I feel uneasy when there is a misconception on what these things are. You know, when Einstein and the alien conspiracionist get the same praise, when people treat Dark Knight Returns as Hamlet.

>>2141293

Isn't it more offensive to assume that everyone's a moron, before you speak to them. You should never be ashamed of the knowledge or understanding you've aquired. Of course meeting someone and going straight to postmodernism, or whatever other relatively obscure subject, is a no-go, but little by little you can get a feeling of what they're comfortable talking about.

My friends are nearly all painters and sculptors with a few installation artists and ceramicists thrown into the mix (it's a function of the city I live in - there's hardly anyone else here), so if I'm honest, I sometimes get bored of talking about Stan Brakehage and his "relationship to both classicism and pop-art" or whatever the fuck. There are plenty of times I'm sitting in the pub with my mates and I think "I wonder if anyone saw the Arsenal game?"

You can get too much of a good thing. Luckily, one of my best friends is a drummer, so all he ever wants to talk about is women and jokes about paedophile rape.

>>2141150

It's about 20 for me. I've literally lost count of the number of women who I've said "Don't worry, you'll be OK with me, my Grandma was a gypsy witch" just to get a girl's knickers off.

(my granma really was a gypsy witch, btw - Hi Grammy, if you're looking down [up] at me - your boy doin' good with tha laydees cos of you)

Not often. When I see my old friends that I went to high school with I usually do. We were all nerds though. Most people I see on a daily basis are dumb as shit. My girlfriend makes fun of me for believing in evolution.

A few weeks ago I had to work all Saturday. It was just me and a gay guy from Canada that I had never gotten to know very well. We had surprisingly intelligent conversations about nuclear war, politics, genetics, cloning.

The company I worked at went under though, so I don't think I'll ever see him again.

I really crave some friends with some good knowledge, not only that we can talk about things but so I can learn from them.

I'm pretty young (18) and I am surrounded by people who immediately dismiss intelligent conversation. It is driving me crazy.

>>2141354

Up top for supporting Arsenal *highfive*

>>2141342

Here.

I was going to post in the confession thread, but it's more on this topic.

Sometimes people are so full of themselves when saying completely retarded stuff, I get too lazy to disagree, because I know they won't understand why I disagree. At the same time, I know that I sound retarded to other intellectuals though, in a way that only experience and time will show.

Say I'm A and I think x. Later, I change my mind and think y. I change again and think z.

Meanwhile, B thinks x. Then, he changes his mind and think y.

We discuss. B will see that A doesn't think y and so he will assume A thinks x, because that's the alternative that B knows, when, in reality, A is """ahead""", thinking z.

It's hard to go around this problem in a discussion, I'm still struggling. How can I make B understand A has nothing to do with x anymore and present B the option z? And how can I, as B, avoid judgement and count for options that never crossed my mind?

Misunderstandings everywhere.

>>2141431

You have to be emotionally as well as intellectually appealing. The rule of thumb is you can't give somebody anything, you can hold it up for them to see and drop it to the ground as many times over but they have to take it.

Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.

>>2141420

I don't really support them, sorry - I just like to watch their games whenever I can. Same goes for Barcelona and Ajax, I just like the way they play.

mfw I've supported Doncaster Rovers for more years than anyone ever should

Still thanks for the broly moment.

I’m someone with very thin intellect, just enough to appear above average among a group of blue collar, functional retards but not enough to be known as “intelligent”. My family is stubborn white trash who believes the facts, figures and the information I say is made up because it doesn’t square with their beliefs. I’m in an awkward position where I tend to avoid substantive conversation with people because they likely complete idiot who are blown away with what I say or someone who is condescending toward me and puts me down for being ignorant on topics I never claimed to have knowledge in.

I am not exactly on topic, but any intelligent conversation demands a common grounds for agreement. Without that it soon devolves into quibbling.

Theological and emotionally intelligent conversations, yes, with a good female friend, but not about books. I've tried, but we've read such monumentally different things, that it's just not worth it.

>>2141445

Agreed. I figured a long time ago that a good presentation is often more eficient in making a point then a good point to begin with. I think combining both is ideal. And as you said, it depends on the other person.

>>2141464
But is agreement the goal? I had good talks in the past in which me and the other person walked out of it in disagreement, but both gained with the conversation. I also had talks in which the person in question said to agree with me, but I left unsatisfied because I don't think the person really understood me. He thought I thought something I wasn't thinking and agreed with that. Unnerving.

I don't understand this point about not having read the same books - surely most intellectual discussions begin more generally, and remain fairly abstract, with people using the specific to back their point?

I may not have read much Stein, but I've read Joyce and Hemingway, so I can talk about modernism with a Steinoholic.

No agreement is hardly a goal. And I did not mean full agreement. I just meant a certain level of agreement. This certain level is a necessity that decides how long a conversation will last before it hits the ceiling of a debate.

I have somewhat intellectual conversations with my friends. Usually about politics or some other issues. We've had some pretty deep and complex conversations about life in general too (a couple of my friends have actually started to cry during one of these aha).

I'm happy I have like minded friends.

I moved from my home country, hoping to meet more like-minded people. When you start missing the drugs of all things you know you're not surrounded by the best bunch. I resent drugs because they're easy pleasure, and can't compare to real sattisfaction but fuck it. When you hate your home and you love your parents as much as me, and you know they don't have any chance of escaping. You have no chance of escaping from the triviality of others, there's very little consolation in living healthy.

So much hatred of your fellow man in this thread. This is probably the worst thing about /lit/izens.

l2b your brother's keeper.

ridiculous people in this thread. i talk to my friends on an intellectual level all the time. how could this be pointless in anyway? if nothing is settled or discussed you have AT LEAST come in contact with a new perspective.

>>2141510
I recommend you go find on the wild goose chase of trying to find a society where everyone is ACTUALLY equal in their abilities and please go out to wall street with your altruistic bullshit because I hate every piece of human shit who can’t provide a service to me.

>>2141514

Then you must be blessed with a very low expectation of others. I mean that. It's a blessing. Live as long as I have and in twenty three years I've learned to ask one question. "Do you read books?" if the answer is no, believe me I still give people a chance but from my experience those kind of people are variations on the theme of the Everyman. Nothing even remotely inspiring about them.

I'm very very fortunate to have some "intellectual" friends I can talk to about stuff that goes deeper than the recent hockey results.

only at truck stops

ive had some success in progressing to having more and more of these conversations with people, and i wonder if you guys have ever noticed this

anyone ever tried the Socratic method when having a "deep" conversation with someone who is not used to it? believing, maybe pretending, that the person you are talking to has a nugget of gold in their head, and you want it, so you treat them like a teacher.

"hey have you ever thought that liberal legislation works more than conservative ones? like welfare?"

"no fuck blacks, they are an inferior race"

"really, why do you think that?"

im guessing this would turn you guys off, but it works for me

>>2141599

I unfriend people on Facebook if they use the term 'gay' to describe something I and them both hate. You know why, because those kind of epithets force the reader to assume the intellectual position and world-view of an early 20th century cotton-farmer in order to empathise with the term.

It's 2011 FFS if you haven't figured out where the Zeitgeist stands in most of the modern world you have no place talking to me.

>>2141614
>doesn't know that most people who use "gay" like that do it now solely because it pisses off pathetic blowhards like you.

>>2141614
i have the belief that most dumb people in america are the way they are because of public education. teachers dont give a shit about the mass of them and make them believe theyre stupid when really they just didnt have the exact up bringing that would lead to the academic type of person needed to study and focus, and to later become passionate about the academics.

because of this i do what i said before, and believe that they can create good conversation, and act as if they will. when i act like this they act differently then they used to, they actually consider what is being said.

thats why i dont just throw them out when they say stupid shit. yeah some are lost, but theyre a minority ive found

i also keep my friends on facebook limited because i hate the spam, but facebook doesnt equal real life

>>2141620

>>doesn't know that I'm hardly pissed off, I'm simply infinitely dissapointed with how trivial people are. Triviality for me is the greatest sin. If someone is racist or homophobic at least that's character. At least they stand for something no matter how retarded or outdated. But calling something 'gay' in 2011 is like telling me you're completely uninteresting uninspiring and altogether a waste of time.

>>2141599
I used to do this.

Then I realized that most of the people I talk to like "winning" debates rather than having constructive arguments.

>>2141637
guy you replied to

i noticed that as well, but i havent let it stop me. and if you can think of a good question to really make them think, thats all it takes

>2008
>thought the only reason why men would ever get married is that they could talk about deep shit with their women
>2011
>mf

>>2141629

jesus what a faggot you are. and I normally don't use faggot or gay. so what, a person can be blind when it comes to a certain issue and still be clever and useful. okay if you tell them not to say it and why they shouldn't say it, a completely other thing to shun then. stop being a whining little baby and grow up

>>2141653
why would someone think that?
how is it even thinkable?

i mean, bad troll

>>2141653

I know that feel

>>2141654

I don't need clever and useful I need people with fucking character. I don't use people I enjoy the company of fascinating people. If you give me Hitler I'd have tea with him over your sorry ass, that's all I'm saying. And yes I cut off losers like you, because I'd rather sit down and have an imaginary conversation with the bricks and mortar, than go over the same topic I've covered since childhood with you.

>>2141646
Maybe my approach is bad.
But as soon as I "see things from their perspective" and exploring their logic, they assume I've given up any counter-position and declare themselves "the winner". They completely miss my point entirely and dash any hopes of thought.

What's the use of discussion anymore.

>>2141665

Just one last word from me, that's what you should have gotten out of hunter Thompson, that's the bottom line of Gonzo and Kerouak and Kinski and Bukowski, and Kafka and Dostoyevski. Not the intellectual timidity you shell yourself into when you call other people 'blind'.

>>2141674
i value conversation for its novelty and being able to grow as a person, along with someone else. it also has a comforting factor, like venting, it just feels good to talk to people. hence why im here in this thread

the way i go about it it somewhat childish, just constantly asking questions, but trying my best to keep them in a humble and calm tone. is that how you went about it? or did you make statements like "oh that makes sense, never thought of it like that". i tend to try and stay away from these comments.

I normally talk about books with some friends, but we rarely discuss it in a profound manner.

>>2141674
This happends to me as well.

I try to balance things out the best as I can to keep the conversation flowing. If I go opposite of them, they feel attacked and retreat or attack back. If I go too easy and try to understand them by knowing where they are coming from with it, they feel like winners as you mention and they don't hear what I have to say.

A couple of times I partially agreed with someone and then tried to add something else only to hear they say after a lot of things mentioned: "but you agree with me on that one thing, right?".

The problem never was to win or lose an argument, the problem is to fight an argument to begin with.

>>2141614
>Homosexual community appropiates "gay" as a colloquialism that means something other than what it literally means at the time of appropriation.
>The public at large appropriates "gay" as colloquialism that means something other than what it literally means at the time of appropriation.
These two things are exactly the same, dipshit.

>>2141599

>fuck blacks

I literally do not know one person, even tangentially, who would even dream of saying this in public. I'm glad I live in the politically correct socialist republic of yerp or whatever you fuckers think this is, because where I come from, that's just fucking rude and stupid and anyone who tried to pull it very often would have had there fucking head kicked in so often that they'd learn their manners or just be like a vegetable or whatever with their mam going down the hospital every day with some flowers and a Terry's orange and a box of dairylea or whatever the cunt liked best. An every day the nurses would eat it, and the mam would know it an that, but it would still be kinda sad anyway, cos she'd be thinking that her son would of loved that fucking terry's orange an them dairyleas man. They was proper his favourite innit.

Yeah man.

Anyway, where was I? I dunno - you're a cunt or something I suppose, I can't be bothered to scroll up and see what shit I was chatting at the start of this post.

>>2141876

No your gay

>>2141884
>you're a cunt
In this case, anon, the proper response would obviously have been, "ur a nigger"

ITT: illiterate nigger gay cunts

>>2141902

>>2141665

yes I'm sure hitler would be so grateful to talk to you, a person who cuts people off because they're insensetive. throughout the centuries there have been thinkers and writers writing off women as the lesser sex, doesn't mean they don't have good things to say on other subjects. stop being a faggot, you faggot gay nigger retard aspie whore children rapist

I was able to speak with a fellow rationalist for a semester in high school.

Going to a shit-tier state college hasn't increased my chances of having a conversation beyond "Capitalism is bad because Micheal Moore told me so."

>>2140954
living up to his name!

>>2141886
>No your gay
How does one come into possession of a gay.
I think I'd like to have one.
Fuck, if you don't want it anymore I'll take it off your hands.