/lit/ - Literature

>>22420829
A Man of Letters, the Scholar, the Scribe was a respected figure once. Like a Blacksmith, he was bordering on Wizard status.
But we're all men of letters now. And it was overrated, after all. We need less literacy, I say.

>>22420853
>he thinks learning how to read in first grade or being able to buy a hammer for your DIY project is the same as being an actual man of letters or a blacksmith

Child porn in the 70s increased men's intelligence

>>22420856
>first grade
It's abysmally overrated on a much higher level than that. Also, women shouldn't be able read at any level, unless it's a nun.

>>22420858
Made me chuckle.

>>22420853
>We need less literacy, I say.
Agreed; universal literacy was a mistake (but boy does it help sell coca cola!)

>>22420864
why (to both things you said)?

>>22420829
It's a rhetorical trick, which is to say, it's a linguistic trick. When you meet people who say things like that, substitute "books" for "books which that person agrees with", and "smarter" for "someone who has internalized more of the views and values of that person than before reading the aforementioned book".

Language always was and always will be a landscape of perpetual warfare which materializes in never-ending attempts by particular groups at appropriating the meaning of language for their own ends and preventing others from trying to appropriate words for their ends. Words and concepts cannot contain meaning by themselves, they can only be surfaces on which we project what we wish them to be, what we wish them to mean. Which is why the questions of "why did that person say that" and "what is that person trying to get at" should always precede "what did that person mean by that?"

>>22420875
Reasons other than the insane white noise that floods the world's airwaves and printing presses? We'd be better off without 90% of academia, to mass media, to pajeets lusting for bobs and vagana on Facebook. It was all a mistake to give any of them a voice.
More to the point, some people are better off being controlled and regulated. Even if I admit certain groups or castes have historically suffered great injustices over the centuries, the damage is already done. There is no rectifying it. It's a nice thought, but deluded. Enabling people who've suffered that much is just self-destructive, at this point. They will just be even more spiteful and upheave society when equipped with knowledge and discover who they really are, historically speaking. They're not going to be interested in just getting a seat at the table. They will flip the table.

First, we must identify the fallacy. Books don't make you smarter, it is only through exercising your brain via thought that one becomes smarter. In this sense, you could read every word ever written by Aristotle and not gain one iota's difference if your idea of reading is to merely connect the abstract symbols to their definitions. At the same time, deep focus on a single paragraph could enlighten one from a darkness to an understanding that is infinitely times more valuable than the sight-reader.

For what purpose then is the 'pro-reading' propaganda that suggests I make an effort to relate symbols to sounds and sounds to vague interpretations? If I am so inclined to learn and become smarter, I do not need to be told to read books - I find my own methods for enlightenment. It is thus for the dullard that this propaganda is produced. The dullard reads to fund the press; the press prints to be funded by the dullard; the dullard funds so the press need not work; the press need not work for they take the author's toil; the author toils because he has a thought; the thought manifests because it is true; truth is distorted for the press' profits; the press profits off of truth's destruction; truth is bastardised and the scum prosper; the dullard is conned by the conniving scumbag; the scumbag deceives and the natural reader is silenced; the natural thinker is pushed to obscurity and thinking halts; thinking halts as printing faults; the dullard is snared and the wise man overpowered; it's easier to walk when the ground is unmoving.

>>22420925
inane* Not insane. But maybe that works too.

>>22420925
interesting point
shouldn't we then discuss whether the table actually needs flipping?

>>22420829
It's not a meme, being well read does make you smarter in some ways. You'll have a bit more cultural knowledge than the average person, knowledge that's not just relevant to your surroundings but will help you relate or make connections with people who aren't native to your land. You'll understand references a bit better, you'll have a slightly better grasp on history. Reading actually does exercise the mind, it keeps it active, learning, making new connections, and it's one of the most important things you need to do as you age to keep yourself present. You'll have a better vocabulary, and will be more likely to express yourself in a concise manner. You gain better general knowledge, which makes it harder for you to fall for misinformation or it will at least cause you to double check things before you start to take it as fact. Yes even fiction does a good job of contributing to these qualities. You won't turn into Albert Einstein but you'll be slightly better off than the average person. Every person knows something you don't know. I've encountered adults who can't read, they aren't helpless, they have their own skillsets, but conversations beyond what they personally know are uncomfortable to them, they lack curiosity, they judge harshly, they don't pick up ideas as quickly, they tend to be superstitious or religious and rely on those things to explain events in their lives, they become stagnant and the world moves on without them.

>>22420856
>first grade
Little late to be learning how to read.

/lit/ is the exception that proves the rule.

>>22420829
Reading is a skill in and of itself, but, yes, if you read gravities rainbow 1000 times you will become a genius

>>22420891
Woah that's like so postmodern man, woah

It's mostly women and betas who think reading is somehow a sophisticated and intellectual hobby, since all they read is romance or YA or self-help. People who genuinely read important stuff don't feel the need to share boomer comics about it because they aren't insecure.

Also GOD that picture is old. I miss /fitlit/

>>22420864
>Women shouldn't be able to read at any level
Nah, just deprive them of the internet and trashy novels.

>>22421133
If you're learning to read your parents were neglectful and never read to you as a child, preferring to shove that duty to the state. That's why at 1st grade some kids are reading three grades ahead and others are completely illiterate.

>>22420829
Reading can make you smarter but it isn't a guarantee, as anyone who's read Amazon book reviews can attest.The reason why this stereotype of the intelligent reader is so common is two fold. One, it is a hold over from the days before widespread literacy. Two, a certain level of intelligence is required to actually have a interest in reading to begin with.