/lit/ - Literature

And yet, questions remain

>>2213057
>mfw OP wont get a new motorcycle by wishing for it really really hard
You're missing out, OP.

>>2214269
Too bad The Secret was originally a movie, not a book! Although a bunch of pretentious assholes like to wish it was a book first.

>>2214279
Had to be a screenplay first, and everyone knows that all screenplays have to, as a scientific rule, be adapted from a source text, i.e. a book.
>umad?umad.
>my new motorcycle sez: "VROOM VROOM!"

>>2213057
Because tackling philosophical problems is a great way to train your mind to think rigorously about abstract concepts.
Also because philosophy encompasses politics, ethics, virtue, and other areas of study relevant to a life well lived.

I don't, but if I have nothing else to read...

you can see how different historical settings over time influenced western thought

it's like any other knowledge or skill set that you picked up hands-on, like car repair or object-oriented programming. you can go with what you know and probably do just fine, but if you want to gain a deeper understanding of the subject, then you're behoven to read some of the technical literature that shaped the field, like Dennis Ritchie's 'The C Programming Language.'

even though you may not know it, your ability
>to understand enjoy life with other people around us
is based on western thought as developed through
>the words of long dead men
and now implicit in our cultural outlook.

Hey, /lit/.

I've got a question. Why are you interested in fantasy books at all? It seems like a highly irrelevant and pointless process in my eyes.

I, along with most people I know, do not need to read the words of fat men with delusions of talent in order to entertain myself and enjoy life with other people around us.

>>2214359
It is a start. I don't read fantasy, but I think people who read fantasy are more astute and grow more, intellectually, than people who flat-out don't read.

Once upon a time, I read Goosebumps.

Hey, /lit/.

I've got a question. Why are you read at all? It seems like bullshit.

Me and my friends do not need to read the words of fat men who think they're hot shit to have fun and chill with together.

>>2214339
Wow, best answer in this thread.

>>2214367
Man I loved Goosebumps. But if I could go back in time I'd whack my eight-year-old self over the head and tell him to read Hemingway and Shakespeare instead.

>>2214359
Sorry you hate anything fun in your life and lack imagination.

>>2214378
Sorry you don't find writers like Nabokov and Shakespeare fun. Sorry you don't use your mind while reading as much as you should.

>>2214378
>books
>fun
Anyone would watch a movie instead.
>lack imagination
If you really had imagination you wouldn't even be relying on some book instead of the imagination itself.

I like how OP suggests that he actually discusses philosophy with his friends, even if it's only to verify that they don't actually read anything that might be classed as "philosophy." I'll bet that some of the shit you read is borderline, though. A lot of ostensible fiction gets classed as philosophy, depending on its value to general thought.

>>2214391
>implying you can't enjoy Shakespeare AND Terry Pratchett
Why does /lit/ hate it when you enjoy books?

WHO THE FUCK IS ENJOYING BOOKS IN HERE!?
IT BETTER BE NOBODY.

I used to think like OP, then I took several formal and informal logic courses, and then went back and deeply read some of the greats. Their arguments are TIGHT. Hume is incredible from an argumentative perspective. So is Descartes (ignoring the Cartesian circle). It's incredible how well put together their arguments are, and the thing about arguments is, if you start off with good argumentative structure and combine it with truth, it's impossible to veer off the course from truth. That is one useful aspect of reading old philosophical literature, you try to go head-to-head logically when some of the great arguers in history.