/lit/ - Literature

In my experience, it's just to re-read the text again every 10-15 years.

>>22441799
>What are some other ways to memorize and reflect better on the text?
Keep a notebook. Read a section once. In this first reading, your notes should be questions. Now, give it some time. When you have had some dreams about what you read, go back and read it again. Read your questions. During this second reading, answer the questions.

>>22441799
>How to read

>1. Pick up book
>2. Open book
>3. Look at words on paper
>4. Think about the concepts conveyed by the words

I'm glad that I could help you learn how to read.

bemp

>>22442084
Are you telling him to WRITE stuff down when he is asking how to read Plato? Do you see the irony?

>>22442084
that's actually good advice (plus minus the dreams part just because I don't usually remember what I dreamt about)

>>22441799
Reread and take notes. Review said notes regularly. But this will limit the amount of books you can read, so choose wisely.

>>22441799
Memorizing their calculations doesn't matter if you understand their conclusion. If you don't remember their conclusion by simply reading the text, it was either trivial/wrong or you don't have the mental faculty to process their arguments

>>22441799
Imagine memorizing another MAN’S written words. What a fucking cock guzzling faggot.

>>22443498
>imagine memorizing another man's translation of another man's word
>imagine memorizing another man's (Benjamin Jowett) manservant's (Matthew Knight) translation of the first man's written word because Jowett didnt even bother translating Alcibiades and he left it to his servant because the dialogue was so unimportant to him

There are, you see, two ways of reading a book: you either see it as a box with something inside and start looking for what it signifies, and then if you're even more perverse or depraved you set off after signifiers. And you treat the next book like a box contained in the first or containing it. And you annotate and interpret and question, and write a book about the book, and so on and on. Or there's the other way:you see the book as a little non-signifying machine, and the only question is "Does it work, and how does it work?" How does it work for you? If it doesn't work, if nothing comes through, you try another book. This second way of reading's intensive: something comes through or it doesn't. There's nothing to explain, nothing to understand, nothing to interpret. It's like plugging in to an electric circuit. I know people who've read nothing who immediately sawwhat bodies without organs were, given their own "habits," their own way of being one. This second way of reading's quite different from the fIrst, because it relates a book directly to what's Outside. A book is a little cog in much more complicated external machinery. Writing is one flow among others, with no special place in relation to the others, that comes into relations of current, countercurrent, and eddy with other flows-flows of shit, sperm, words, action, eroticism, money, politics, and so on.

>>22443509
I read them in german translated by Schleiermacher

>>22443520
I like this is it from somewhere

>>22443721
Well unlike Mr. Jowett, Shleiermacher had the dedication and wherewithal to not dump the whole project on his unpaid valet because Alcibiades is an unimportant dialogue.