/lit/ - Literature

>>3668720
I'd like to see more.

What happened to him?

>>3668720
Seems likely he visits /lit/
Anyways half of the stack is non-fiction
Ask yourself if you want to read fiction, poetry or non-fiction and start from there

>>3668722

>>3668729

wait for a couple more pictures; i sincerely appreciate your input, though he dealt mostly in non-fiction and philosophical texts

>>3668730
Looking pretty good, are there more?

>>3668743

lots

>>3668747
why does he have a glass dildo

>>3668742
This is really good. What is that next to the cufflinks in the middle picture?

>>3668748

that's a bowl/bubbler

>>3668753
well, what happened to him?

>>3668753
lots of fiction in this one. You never mentioned if you want to start with fiction or non-fiction.

I suggest Invisible Cities.

>>3668752

it's a magazine cartridge for a rifle

i've tried to splay out the books; he gets rather disorganized in the next portions of the house.

>>3668760
Did you get rifles from him too? pics

Sorry for your loss OP.

Dang your brother appears to have been well read.

>>3668761

yeah, several. one is a .22 magnum in this picture: >>3668747

the others are upstairs in a gun locker. i'll take pics of them eventually if you're interested.

>>3668720
lol. guy's got supplemental readings for authors he obv couldn't hope to make sense of in his wildest dreams

was laff

>>3668765
Nice, finally a bit of Eastern lit.

Yeah, I'm interested in seeing the guns. I'm assuming he didn't kill himself?

>>3668767

what? what are you talking about?

what an oddly obstinate thing to say. i always wonder what it looks like when someone betrays their own insecurities in the most palpable and humiliating ways; thank you for demonstrating such an instance.

>>3668771
not to take anything away from the collection as a whole, it's impressive, and i'm jealous as fuck. i'd love to have the same collection as a personal library (especially the last couple of pics). i just think that it's hilarious to see "lacan today" among those books. and etc.

while your brother appears to be well-read, you're clearly borderline retarded, little buddy, i bet that's causing some insecurity on your part.

see also the elipses following your posts RE: your brother

r u projecting m8?

>>3668769

no, he didn't. drunk driver doing 90 in a 40.

>>3668771
How can you brother have such a collection, without having the Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged?

Unless there is more to come.

>>3668771
Dat Beowuld

>>3668782
Shit, that's rough. I'm sorry to hear that.

beautiful collection, op. very sorry to hear about your brother.

>>3668783

he has them. he didn't like them--fountainhead above shrugged, as i remember, but not much appeal in either.

>>3668781
Holy shit, fuck off.

Not enough genre fiction

>>3668765
Where did your brother find the time to watch those movies?

>>3668782
apologies, that's horrible. i'm sorry.

>>3668781

i'm done for now. there are three more full rooms, including a full mathematics collection (he was a physics and architecture double-major), but i just don't have the emotional dexterity or patience right now to deal with assholes like this.

to those who weren't total dicks: thanks for stopping in. please leave any suggestions for reading.

>>3668720
Godel Escher Bach is hard as shit.

>>3668799
>please leave any suggestions for reading.
Everything?

>>3668742
Economy and Society is awesome.

How old is your brother? Holy shit that's a good library.

>>3668803
This.

Any work you grab is a good book.

My suggestion... Don Quixote. Totally personal. I just love Don Quixote. But, again, anything you grab is worthy.

>>3668787
I remember someone else posting about his well read bro tier brother who was for a large part responsible for his intellectual grooming. Was that you, OP? Anyway, I'm sorry for your loss.

I see some Lucretius in there. Perhaps some Epicureanism will do you good. Soothes the mind. I always like languid Greeks and Romans when the weather starts getting better.

>>3668782
OP..I saw this thread and was immediately attached because I feel very similar to the situation you are in. I have an older brother who is studying to become a doctor and he is really the pride and joy of my parents and all the teachers I have now always rave about him to me. He is really a lot smarter than me and I just recently started getting serious about academics and studies as college begins for me this coming fall and am eager to start getting into stuff like this. I honestly don't know how the hell it would be going through that.. I would literally tear myself apart inside and out if that happened to my older brother and well I just wanted to say this thread really touched my heart no joke..thank you OP.

im sorry for your loss.

this is an impressive collection. i cant imagine ever reading this much material. what was your brother's profession? id be surprised if it was something non-academic.

plato was the first philosopher i ever read. i think that is a good start. for fiction, try something a bit easier, such as "brave new world," before something like proust.

>>3668807
I also detect some Aurelius and Seneca, which are also great in rough times. Perhaps some Epictetus if you got it, I can't read all the covers clearly.

Anyone else feel sort of terrified when confronted by enormous book collections? All those things I should have already read/should be reading right now...

Really sorry about your brother, OP. If you haven't read much at all, might be best to start checking out some of the poetry collections and see if any of it grabs you. Or there's Chekhov's short stories...

>>3668799
erm, this is the total dick. please excuse me for my first post — it was solely in response to the first picture, and you're right, it was horribly obstinate.

i'm embarrassed.

>>3668814
>Anyone else feel sort of terrified when confronted by enormous book collections? All those things I should have already read/should be reading right now...
Depends on how happy you are. I get this sense of urgency with my reading when I feel like shit because I, often vainly, think something will be in those books that will help me. When I'm happy I can go weeks without reading.

>>3668782
wow how did he have all the time ro read this stuff? or is he just pulling a gatsby lol

>>3668821
Ah, I was thinking more in professional terms as I'm doing a PhD. There's only so long you can pretend to have read key books...

>>3668814
makes me think of the thousands of hours I've spent playing video games or watching television or sitting around doing fuck all being bored when there is a vast wealth of knowledge I could have attained in that time.

But then again, I can't feel guilty for spending time enjoying myself. I only wish I could derive such pleasure from reading more.

>>3668823
and im extremely sorry for your loss op, terrible way to die, I hope you sued the driver if he survived

>>3668782
Hey, man. I'm sorry. Truly.

He seems like a bro just from what I've seen in this thread. I'm sorry for your loss.

>>3668814
i feel very intimidated and humbled when i see large collections like this. i tend to think of myself as well read and intelligent, and i stick out at my school, but this guy seems to be a million levels above my head. makes me feel like there is just always a way of being that i will never get a taste of.

>>3668821
>When I'm happy I can go weeks without reading.
i'll have to keep that in the back of my mind. i often measure my worthiness by how diligently i'm working, probably because i get praise for working hard in school. of course that skews the purpose of reading. i suffer from this puritanical instinct that tells me there's something wrong when i go too long without committing myself to some kind of chore.

did he read all of it?

>>3668834
>i suffer from this puritanical instinct that tells me there's something wrong when i go too long without committing myself to some kind of chore.

Remember anon, you don't have to do anything. Don't chain yourself with unnecessary burdens, they will only weigh you down and make your life miserable.

>>3668838
no. you can tell half weren't really touched much, and i'm sure a good deal were bought used anyway.

but still. that's a seriously good collection

>>3668834
>mfw I've destroyed all traces of protestant mentality within me

Nothing but otium. It's interesting that the Greeks and Romans, who we often praise, were obsessed with leisure instead of work. They were quite content to work out, explore philosophy and the arts and lay around talking. I think this kind of atmosphere leads to much greater things than an obsession with productivity. In any case, more joy and less stress. Which comes with all kinds of benefits in its own right.

I wonder why he has finnegans wake

>>3668851
>Nothing but otium. It's interesting that the Greeks and Romans, who we often praise, were obsessed with leisure instead of work. They were quite content to work out, explore philosophy and the arts and lay around talking.

...which they were able to do because they were mostly wealthy and owned substantial amounts both of real property and slaves.

>>3668851
yeah thats an interesting point. it doesnt seem it seems contradictory that weve conflated the life of the mind with productivity. this has also caused me to really search for greatness and praise, and as i go to a school that isnt steeped in intellectual culture, its hard not to get a big head sometimes. i use /lit/ to humble myself.

>>3668851
>>3668851
I agree that Otium would probably make our lives much happier, but in ancient times and today it's a privilege of the rich who can afford to not work. And at least in my experience leisurely study doesnt work that well for school. If i really want to master the material and get good grades for my classes i need to practice like crazy and memorize. it's the classes with the most pressure i find myself retaining the most knowledge, although i dont want to say it's always the case.

>>3668861
Yes. Still, with the right attitude and some frugality you can make it with little to no work these days, opening up your time for books, wine and sunshine. Of course that mostly requires a lack of worldly ambitions, which isn't for everyone.

>>3668851
>I think this kind of atmosphere leads to much greater things than an obsession with productivity.
That shit didn't put a man on the moon, son.

That feel when you've become a utilitarian person in spite of yourself.
>feelsbadman.jpg
Anyone know how to reverse it?

Respect.

>>3668782
fuck
i'm sorry man

>>3668720
Should you want someone to talk to about literature and readings, I left you my email in the mail field. I'm kinda well-read, though mostly interested in fictions & English/French lit.

>>3668801
>Godel
I wouldn't say hard as much as incredibly dense.

you're brother's collection is astonishing.
i somewhat thought of myself as a smart man, but now i feel the need to reevaluate...

Holy mother of fuck, pick out any book there and it is gold. Your brother had amazing taste, I'm sorry for your lost. Do you know what his favourite reads were?

Based off of his books he seems like a stuck up champagne socialist.

Your brother sounds great, im sorry about your loss. A real tragedy.

>>3668901
2edgy4/lit/

>>3668875
In a way it did. The sciences are an offshoot of philosophy, which is basically the result of inquisitive rich guys speculating and rambling about. Science is part of what happens when you free people up from toiling in the fields all day. You could say that all great human accomplishments stem from living in such a way that you don't have to worry about sustenance. Scientific progress has for a long time been the domain of leisurely gentlemen. Without a privileged class such things could have never come into being since we all would have been busy working the land. Today being a scientist is an actual job, but that's because we have reached a level of organisation where society can allow itself to pay people for such things. A level of organisation which again stems originally from the idle thought of men of leisure.

>>3668901

you either have no taste whatsoever in reading people's political views qua their literary collections, or are purposefully trying to sound "edgy"

either way, you look like a complete fool: I know it, you know it, the rest of the people in this thread know it, etc.

First I thought you meant. "he's out to buy groceries" or something, but he's passed away. That's terrible.

Amazing collection. Please post the rest.

>>3668720
Start with that there The Sirens of Titan by Vonnegut, easy read but it's pretty awesome.

>>3668914
You're right. I'm jelly.

I've read sister Carrie and thought it was great ..just saying..

You're brother seems like he was an interesting person OP. The amazing book collection, the pipe, the guns. Sort of a Hemingwayan figure, in the good sense.

If I had a collection half this size when I'm in my 30s I would be very proud indeed. Sorry for your loss, OP. Truly.

Make sure you don't throw away the books OP.

>dat goldmine of philosophy books covering literally everything
holy fuck

One less mouth to feed.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>3668986

your smallness is palpable

don't betray yourself so easily; at least make it something clever

>>3668986
EDGY.

oh the irony of life...

>>3668986
>edgy
you win the pageant honey

>>3668986
>Implying OP's brother had a mouth
Check your cis-mouthed privilege

>>3668992
Who is that? Other than Nietzsche, I mean. I remember him briefy recurring on /lit/ as the ultimate symbol of teenage edginess...

>>3668986

Troll or not I'd imagine you're a genuinely trying and loathesome person to be around. May I never give up on life as completely as you.

>>3668747
Wow sorry for your loss dude. I notice Tenth of December in the stack on the floor-- that just came out so I am guessing he died really recently. Really tough dude.

OP how old was your brother when he died?

Great. Now I don't know what I am going to do with my books when I die. (According to some gypsy seer, that will be at the hands of an angry mob.) What to do with your books general?

Post his film collection too, OP.

all I can say is
>buying books

>>3668806

Reading Don Quixote at the moment actually, +1 for what this anon said. Great read. But don't know if I'd recommend it as a first book to lrn2/lit/.

But a lot of great reads here, OP. So sorry to hear about your brother, man. Shit sucks.

>>3669055
>Now I don't know what I am going to do with my books when I die.
Why the fuck does it matter at all?

>>3669067
I want someone to enjoy them as much as I have.

>>3669064
>a niger
>>3668720
>studys sociology
>smartest person you know
hahaahhahaha

>>3669071
Then why don't you just start giving them away while you're alive?

>>3669062

>token broke casual posting to declare his secret asspain in the face of literati greatness

what took you so long? expected you sooner

>>3669086
>hahaahhahaha
Indeed. There's comedy material around here. It's not as relevant to this deceased brother, though, as it is to you.

>>3669086
> studys sociology
> studys
hahaahhahaha

captcha: and edgyet

>>3669110
Not the same person, but he has at least 10 "the deconstruction of white heterosexuality" textbooks.

>>3669130
Okay. Will you rule out the deduction for me here?

That's a beautiful collection OP, I think you've got some reading to do.

>You know, that's the best thing about a book. You can put it down if you don't get it yet, and then you can come back to it. You can read all these books.

If I were your brother, I'd be proud of you for being interested in them. I'd also be really happy that you were going to read them. Books are very personal experiences, so this is a way you can share experiences with him.

I wish you the best OP, it's hard to rebuild after you lose someone, but it gets better.

>Here's a dancing chicken to make you feel better.

>>3669130

>implying this is a bad thing or it even implies anything

perhaps this was simply him reading views that challengde his own in order to be fully versed in the topic and his own stance. from his collection he seemed like the kind who'd want to know a subject from all sides

>>3668730
Cool dude. Does that lighter have anything interesting on the other side?
Zippo guy here.
Lots of people get funny about their hat and their lighter I've found.
Anyway sorry about your brother OP. That sucks.

>>3669153

>>Here's a dancing chicken to make you feel better.

Not OP, but I recently bought Herman Hesses's Steppenwolf in german. I am a native speaker, but my question is if I should delay reading the book in case it is too over my head yet, mostly read scifi and non fiction about animals and plants so far.

>>3669185

On the author spectrum Hesse is pretty easy to get into. Just dive in and see how you go.

>>3668823

he was blessed with a true photographic memory; he also skipped a great deal of high school and just did his own reading, and on top of that he went to/graduated from a really prestigious undergraduate where that kind of intellectual caliber is valued.

>>3668838
>>3668850
he read a great deal of it, certainly not all (I don't even think it's possible at his age), but you would be utterly shocked to know how often you find his notes and scribbles just flipping through random volumes. he also tended to keep books as nice as possible on the outside (but would write all over them inside)

>>3668853
there is a quote regarding certitude somewhere in there that he absolutely loved

>>3668898

thank you. that list is extensive, and pretty idiosyncratic: wittgenstein, fernando pessoa, octavio paz, virginia woolf, tocqueville, proust i know were all irreversible moments in his thought (his own description), but i also know that he had a special affinity for the greeks, especially heraclitus and parmenides. aeschylus, juvenal, the book of job, the oddyssey...he was super into classics

king lear, tempest, poem in october (dylan thomas), ulysses (tennyson), the second coming (yeats), prufrock (eliot) all come to mind as texts that he saw fundamental to explaining some region of human thought/behavior

>>3668901

not at all--he was very hard to point down politically, and you would have to inquire as to certain issues to understand the logic he brings to each. having said, there was an overarching thread to his political thought: i would say classically conservative, in the sense of socrates, machiavelli, burke, tocqueville, oakeshott, william james, etc.

>>3669042
24, turning 25 in may

>>3669216
Was your borhter more extroverted or introverted?

>>3669216
on top of this he was an ent and liked guns.
we shouldn't lose guys like these man

>>3668905
>>3668878
>>3668880
>>3668830
>>3668828
>>3668786
>>3668763

thank you--truly, i appreciate all of it.

>>3668972

never--i hope to only add to it, as best i can...

>>3669163


no, but i know he picked it up in barcelona from a street bazaar--its old, and it was his token lighter
>>3668932

he had a really cool natural image: he dressed well, was naturally handsome, had a beautiful girlfriend, etc.

seriously you would not believe the half of it; he literally had everything going for him, and worked hard to maintain it that way

>>3669227
What was your brother's favorite book? Did he like music just as much?

>>3669216

>he was blessed with a true photographic memory

>being able to have that level of recall and having a collection that unbelievable

>my face when there is no face available to convey this level of envy

This thread has actually hit me really hard.
He would've gone on to do great things.

>>3669221

he was INTP, gemini, etc.
i can't explain it well. he loved spending time on his own, and you could leave him alone for days and he couldn't care less; he also had a 7 year relationship going on with his girlfriend (they started dating in high school), and spent a ton of time with her; he played soccer throughout highschool, and so built a small athletic community that he would chill with regularly too. he was one of the most relaxed, chilled dudes i've known. it took a lot, and i mean a LOT, to phase him.

he was very personable, witty, etc, so he had a good group of friends and was definitely down to party whenever.

it was the oddest combination ever--you just had to know him to understand what an ineffably powerful combination of traits he was.

i know it sounds like all i think is that he can do no wrong, but that's just the thing: he honestly thought that his education was a set of tools--tools which he used to rigorously check his own faults. i have never known someone so consciously aware of their own faults, and thus consciously committed to altering or at least placing them under quarantine

>>3669227

>>3669235

yeah. he was a virtuoso piano player; chopin's nocturnes were his favorite. ligeti, rachmaninoff, etc.

>>3669239

thank you--i would like to believe so, too.

>>3669244
Your brother seem to have a thing for Claude Monet

>>3669091
Not really neo-/lit/. As a matter of fact I kinda pity the poor tool. You see, thanks to the unlimited access to any book ever for zero dorra I've actually already read 10 times more than he ever will. How mad does it make you feel?

>>3669240
God dammit, OP, why is your brother such a perfect person? You're a lucky bastard, getting to actually know a person like that, and I'm sorry for your loss.

>>3669241

this is what i honestly don't understand. you go through an entire collection, find a point where you interject a personal standard of literature and try to compare that you trilling (having clearly not read, nor understood trilling's essay), you take the time to cut and crop it, title it irony, then post here as some profound expression of your own superior intellect?

son, ima say this once: you didn't know my brother, so i understand and forgive you. but you think for one second, for literally one goddamn second that some pathetic stunt like that even puts you in the same league as him, then, man, you are one sorry fucking idiot.

seriously, i cannot believe that you post this on an open public forum and think that it even includes a modicum of intelligent commentary.

read 10%--no, let's say even 5%--of what he read, and then maybe we can talk.

good luck.

>>3669257
I think he was pointing out the juxtaposition with Fight Club there, mate.

>>3669216
I suppose this is going to be interpreted as "dickishness" and so on - but I think this last splurge of pretentious stupidity by the OP has finally tolled the hour for someone to "grasp the nettle" and say right out how fucking laughable and despicable this whole thread is.
It's been pretty much armour-proofed against mockery or criticism from the start, of course, by the - entirely unverified - information that we're talking about a saintly, brilliant, deeply-loved relative here who was "cut down in his prime" by some drunk driver etc etc.
Great Movie of the Week material, I have to admit. But if it's true, I'm inclined to suggest that you simply mourn him in the privacy of your family, without expecting any admiration or sympathy that actually means anything from a bunch of total strangers on an image-board.
Because what are you actually showing us, after all? A mass of paperback books that might have been acquired by assiduous automatic purchasing of whatever was being reviewed in the New York Review of Books that week, that you say yourself that you have no intelligent opinion on, and that we are supposed to take it on pious trust that he did.
What you DO convey at second-hand, I have to say, about his practices with and attitudes to books doesn't make him sound, to me, like a very intellectually appealing individual. I fucking HATE people who scribble their thoughts all over the margins of books written by other people. If these thoughts have any worth, write your OWN book for Christs sake, don't try to surf to significance in someone else"s margins. And what kind of insufferable dick talks about the works of classic writers being "irreversible moments in his thought"?
I suppose it's you who is to blame rather than your brother because of the way you've set this up - but really you've achieved nothing with this thread except evoking an image of an intellectual show-off whom either intellectual show-offs will flock around and admire.

>>3669262

there have been some really asshole comments in this thread for no reason--i assumed, maybe wrongly, that it was an extension of those.

if not, then i'm sorry.

>>3669256

>How mad does it make you feel?

uh, it doesn't?

why would i be mad that i invest money into a passion of mine?

>>3669263

You're either off your meds or you're in serious need of a hug.

>>3669263
>I suppose this is going to be interpreted as "dickishness" and so on
Very much so, yes. But also profound stupidity for suggesting that anyone could be trying to 'surf to significance' by writing in the margins OF THEIR OWN GODDAMN BOOKS. Do you somehow think there's a strong publishing market for marginal notes?

>>3669266
>invest
I don't think it means what you think it means.

>>3669263

woah lol insecurity overload

>>3669267
whynotboth.jpg

>>3669263

if there is any intellectualism showing off, it is me vicariously through him. learn to separate the representation from what is being represented

he scribbles in the margins because he was a PhD student; you show a PhD student that doesn't, and i'll show you someone who's been on the job market a little too long without any prospects

his "irreversible moments" comment came in the midst of a private conversation, where my sister explicitly asked him for "before and after" intellectual experiences


but, thanks for commenting recklessly and with little knowledge, extending far beyond the pale of reason in your assumptions, and sounding just generally like an insecure asshole in your tone.

i also started the thread specifically asking for suggestions; i've been answering questions as people have fielded them

i'm not sure why i need even take seriously your criticism that this thread has been cut off from criticism from the beginning--under what conditions would one criticize my brother without knowing him anyway? maybe you could criticize me, but your only knowledge of him is through the eyes of his little brother. either way, your lack of concrete knowledge sorta tears the rug of your criticisms from under your feet.

you're a very stupid man with sloppy thought. it seems like your just trying to be heard to quell what is obviously a muteness in your banal life

>>3669265
"some really asshole comments"

I am honestly very surprised that people have not been shitting all over you and your alleged dead brother for the past 100 posts already.

This really is getting ridiculous now: "He was uniquely brilliant and he played Chopin to himself all night sometimes as he mused on the problems of the world and shook his head sadly at the thought of what a burden of responsibility weighed on his young shouldrs as he knew that he alone could save us, but then a throng of angels would descend and bear him on their wings to the arms of his beautiful girlfriend, his one true perfect love...."

Jesus, enough already, eh?

>>3669281
>>3669263


lol

your insecurities are way too obvious, man

please, and i think i'm talking for several people in this thread, stop before you make an even greater fool of yourself

>>3669268
Look at this newfag. Haven't you noticed 10 daily threads of "will my bookshelf get me sex" or "wat boox do i red for sex" or "does borrowing a book to a qt3.14 count as sex?"

lurk moar, fagget

>>3669284
>Look at this newfag
>lurk moar, fagget
please take that shit back to /b/. This is a literature board.

>>3669263

crawling in my skin

>>3669281

these wounds they will not heal

>>3669284

jesus christ do people like you exist?

like seriously?

you are blowing my fucking mind right now, man

calling someone a newfag for making a reasonable, personal point? yeah, yeah no you're right--people take you seriously here. keep it up.

>>3669286
>please take that shit back to /b/. This is a literature board.
please take that shit back to /b/. This is a literature board.

>>3669263
>>3669281
>>3669289

i actually really like this guy

he makes me feel smarter

>>3669263

>>3669281
>I am honestly very surprised that people have not been shitting all over you and your alleged dead brother for the past 100 posts already.

Hahahah look at that retard
this isn't /b/ mate
We are leguin right guyz xD?

>>3669279
And I really am beginning to have to struggle now with the dilemma of whether to assume that this family of yours you are describing are complete and total fiction, and that you are trolling the fuck out of this board yourself, or to think that you are real and are the weirdest, creepiest little bunch of Pavlovian hothoused freaks since the days when there was money to be made in childrens' radio quiz shows (see Salinger's Glass family stories, I'm sure they're in your brother's collection somewhere).
What the fuck kind of sister spends her time asking her older brother to "summarize his intellectual experiences"? Why wasn't she screaming at him to stop downloading porn on her laptop as happens in any normal family?
You're either a troll yourself, or a pitiable freak.

>>3669288
it's ok half-wit I am not even mad, in fact, I will do a community service just this one time and explain to you what's going on

there are 10 threads daily about using books and bookshelfs to get sex and/or indulge in other vanity fetishistic mental-masturbation to compensate with withering paper for one's small dick
those are one of the most popular threads on this board

then comes this faggot with
>But also profound stupidity for suggesting that anyone could be trying to 'surf to significance' by writing in the margins OF THEIR OWN GODDAMN BOOKS.
which simply shows his ignorance of what an average /lit/ poster looks like and are their reasons for being interested in books, because
"writing in the margins OF THEIR OWN GODDAMN BOOKS" to "surf to significance" is EXACTLY what a retard being interested in books to get sex would do.

then comes you, an ignorant newfag that obliviously shitposts and spergs his obnoxious ignorance

and now your dissected stupidity is for everyone to see

that is all

>>3669296

are you fucking kidding me? dude stop

seriously stop

this is laughable at this point

your reasoning is so ridiculously flimsy. you have an idea of your own intellect that is obviously so radically out of joint with reality that i'm beginning to wonder if your little performance here isn't a troll

maybe other people's families have conversations that go deeper than the sespool of a geneline you call the inbred fucks that are your relatives?

>>3669296

You're completely unravelling in the most spectacular way right now.

I feel kind of bad for you.

>>3669302


dude, really, no one is taking you seriously

literally no one on this thread thinks the things you have to say are interesting, accurate or justified

how does it feel to be all alone, and not the interesting, intellectual kind of alone, but the sad, obese kind of alone that has clearly already done a number on your retarded character

>>3669294
As I say, this thread was "armour-proofed' from the start - 'dead brother' tearjerking and so on - against anyone calling bullshit on it.
But it's YOU who are being teenager-y and /b/-board-y by assuming that anyone who DOES call bullshit on it is just trying to be "edgy".
I love literature and philosophy and would have been appropriately stimulated to positive contributions if the thread had involved ANY intelligent comment on ANY of the books in the photos.
But I'm sorry, yes, PHOTOS of books accompanied by long lists of famous names that have allegedly been "done" by this Young God of modern culture do NOT impress me.

It is just so much bluster.

And bluster belongs on the /b/board

>>3669216
thread freaks me out, fucking Cat's Cradle and Barthes sitting there... sorry OP

>>3669311
jesus guy write a fucking blogpost why dont you

>>3669311

lol don't lie

you know nothing of literature or philosophy. anyone who could ever claim that would never act as disturbed and neurologically unsound as you. you've literally dug your own grave.

>>3669057

i'd be happy to, though it's not lit related, and no doubt it would give the maniac in the last several posts more fuel. if you still want, i'll post the film collection.

Work hard, OP. Be the man your brother could have been, for him. If you think that's impossible - given his seemingly innate superiority - just think of Ludwig Wittgenstein. He was, by all accounts, considered less talented than his male siblings. Just look at what he achieved.

>>3669310
Agreed, you are no one. Your juvenile shitposting is noted by everyone ever througout time and space. In fact, 50496 models and princesses are laughing at you while /b/ is getting ready to raid your home because they just can't seriously take your not-so-serious lack of being serious. Your newfagottry is seriously transparent.

how old are you, toddler?

>>3669315
Yeah, I think it's clear that it's not me - who has called "bullshit" on this thread - who is '"unravelling" at this point, but the stupid troll who started all this "admire my poor dead saintly brother's bookshelves" crap in the first place.

Please; Take your probably fictional dead brother and just fuck off, will you?

This is indeed a board about LITERATURE - not a board for illiterate teenagers with hollow pretensions to "ooh" and "aah" over pictures of "heavy" paperbacks and say "Oh wow havent read that but it'd be so coooooooool if I had.......your brother was such a cooooool guy......and you too dude, by association"

>>3669322

he was also a weird also. you know that he was obsessed with the period's conception of "genuis," and constantly asked russell if he thought he was a genuis, how to write like genuis, etc.

he also once dragged out a girl from the classroom by her pigtails and beat her in the courtyard with a ruler because she didn't get math problem correct

on top of that, his engineering skills and architectual prowess involved him sinking what remained of the family fortune (after he sent a great deal to rilke) in designing and redesigning his house. he would walk into a room, complain that the ceiling was two inches to low, and spend 3 million redoing it and the upper floors to his exact specification

basic point: wittgenstein was an asshole. had he been more in tune with capacities of human love, i think this would have really added something to his scholarship: a dimension he gets at qua conventions, rules and criteria, but something that never really blossoms beyond his claim of "something animal"

>>3669325

you've obviously never made an intelligent post in your entire life

>>3668720
>brother's gone.
he ded?

>>3669328
Excellent example of the quality of analytic discussion of philosophical systems that a thread that begins with ten photos of a pretentious dead guy's bookshelves will generate.

Keep it up, guys.

>>3669337

alright faggot let's go: let's talk about wittgenstein seriously

what do you know? what's your take? favorite secondary literature? criticisms?

you have nothing

>>3669325
The cost of /lit/ not having /pol/ trolls are all those uncritical, obnoxious and ultimately Internet-incompatible leddit SJW newfags that you rightfully pointed out in this thread.

The amount of butthurt you caused is the ultimate sign that the last board on this site is doomed.

>>3669341
No. He has infantile little anecdotes about ceilings and rulers and, who knows, maybe a very impressive row of books ABOUT Wittgenstein on his bookshelf, which he can take photos of and inspire a lot of "ooh"s and "aah"s in a bunch of morons.

I can't believe you fucking degenerates would seriously insult this person's dead brother. He's done nothing wrong; he came looking for book suggestions. Then people asked him about what happened, and he answered in turn. You insects need to learn a lesson about fucking human decency, because if you treat people like this when not masturbating on this board, then you're no better than a piece of fucking garbage. This thread isn't armor proof; it's open to criticism and commentary. But to just openly defile and tritely rail like a fucking lunatic against someone you don't even know and have no right to judge? That is against all reason.

>>3669334
Brother is kill.

>>3669350

so that's silence then? i invite you to a conversation you clearly imply you are capable of having, and you reply with this? and if you say: "well, i haven't read wittgenstein"--well, how far has this "love of philosophy and literature" taken you, then?

god you are worthless.

my god are you really not trolling?

either respond with some insightful stance on wittgenstein, or just stopping posting and embarrassing yourself on this thread.

>>3669351
He's at best a stupid little show-off, at worst a cynical troll.
It's fucking ridiculous expecting sympathy and commiseration for one's dead brother on a board full of total strangers, let alone one linked to 4chan.
Brothers are dying all over the world every second, why should I commiserate more with him than with a thousand other guys?
His thread has had no LITERARY content, just content consisting of PHOTOS of spines of books CONTAINING literature. The few assurances about his brother's commitment to literature and philosophy have mostly been asinine.
Cut the crap.

>>3669351
>I can't believe you fucking degenerates would seriously insult this person's dead brother.
You belong in leddit. And I don't say it out of spite, but out of compasion. You are in for a life of getting suckered, exploited, used and laughed at if all it took for you to be manipulated is a simple anonymous post. Don't start your Internet adventure with image boards. Go for 9fag or leddit.

>>3669362
Why don't you hide the thread instead of crying about it?

>>3669366
The same reason you replied to him I guess? Look deep into your heart, mortal. There lies the answer.

>>3669362
>let alone one linked to 4chan
>muh internet culture!
Don't know if you've noticed, fella, but almost every other poster in this thread has managed to engage their basic humanity circuits long enough to express sympathy and not to be a massive dick. You're the exception here.

>>3669362

HAHAHAHA MORE SILENCE

TWICE NOW, LITERALLY TWICE:

>>3669341
>>3669354

IVE ASKED YOUR STANCE ON A MAJOR WESTERN THINKER, AND YOU RESPOND WITH THIS:

>>3669350
>>3669362

UTTER JOKE

YOU CLEARLY NO NOTHING, OR YOU WOULD HAVE TAKEN MY OFFER AND FULFILLED YOUR OWN CRITICISM AND BEGUN GOOD DISCUSSION

you are so infinitely pathetic that it truly warps my mind trying to comprehend how someone like my brother could exist in a world where someone like you also exists

you cannot be real, for the love of all rational argument, you simply cannot be real.

I WILL ASK A THIRD TIME: will you contribute something insight about wittgenstein, is will your next post be another bitch-fest of a rant totally denying any possibility of rational discourse while ironically complaining about the lack of rational discourse?

>>3669354
Oh sorry, you were talking to ME?

I think this thread is hardly the place for a calm, serious discussion of Wittgenstein.

I'm not in the habit of treating literature or philosophy as part of a cock-comparing contest with teenagers/

>>3669370
>>3669371


PERFECT EXAMPLE

ohmygodyoumakethistooeasy

>>3669370

everyone knows that you would say something if you had something to say about him. you clearly do not, and its really painful to watch

This thread has escalated quickly.

>>3669378

it is just the sheer and blind arrogance of this guy...it's just so beyond what anyone could consider reasonable, and to systematically ignore and deny offers of discussion when complaining how there is no discussion is inexcusable

>>3669379
I think it's probably a troll.

>>3669362
>It's fucking ridiculous
It's not so ridiculous anymore when you realize most of those suckers come here from leddit where there are several huge effort scams-for-karma daily.

>>3669369
As I say, expressing "humanity" about the alleged loss of a person you've never met and never will meet, on the other side of the world, means exactly zero.

That is something someone might LEARN from a good book, if they took it down off the shelf instead of taking photos of it.

I kept my mouth shut about the thread for about 24 hours. But I'm sorry all this "Oh God and did he play MUSIC too and did he play SPORTS and did he have a BEEEAUUUTIFUL GEEEENTLE GIRLFRIEND who will now WEEEEEP SILVERY TEARS over his grave?" was just getting too nauseating.

Decency in this case, "fella", would be for this guy to mourn alone and not go running to a bunch of strangers begging us to weep and sob along with him

>>3669375
I bet his dick at least twice your size, though

>>3669382

more silence?

waiting for your brilliant thoughts to show themselves

you've done nothing beyond bitch this entire time: on what grounds should we trust you have anything worth saying at all, if you refuse to say anything more than utter crap totally unrelated to any of the "literature and philosophy" you claim to love?

what a liar. you're just a filthy fucking liar; you don't have this knowledge, so you try to sound profound by talking about LEARNING vs just TAKING PHOTOS

so i ask you to start a conversation on wittgenstein, and what is your response? more of the same crap.

you are a truly a bad human being, and should feel ashamed. or at least such a stupid one that you have become a normative hazard for the general intellectual good of society.

>>3669379

This. It's been a while since I've seen someone this intellectually insecure on this board. He seems a couple of frustrated posts away from completely breaking down into tears.

It's quite a feat, really.

>>3669382
you are fighting a lost battle
they obnoxiously, anonymouly signal compasion to a supposed troll because they just want to feel better about themselves
whether they are getting trolled or not is irrelevant to them, it's all about feelies

>>3669382
>>3669391

AND YOUR SAMEFAGGING YOUR OWN OPINIONS????

oh my god it gets better and better!

YES! LET THERE BE MORE! LET THERE BE MORE FOR MY ENJOYMENT!

go on, man, i'm recording this thread. i gottta show this to some friends.

>>3669371
And now, sir, you are really only demonstrating that you have learnt exactly nothing, and never will learn anything, from this ostensibly brilliant and sensitive brother of yours.

If he was indeed just a blustering pretentious intellectual bully and show-off, on the other hand - as I suspect he was, if he really existed - you seem to be well on the way to learning a great deal from him.

Wittgenstein - or Proust, or Barthes, or Shakespeare - are by their very nature NOT topics one can engage in cap-locked, hysterical, screeching, "come-at-me-muthafucka" dick-swinging contests about.

I don't do that sort of thing because I have read and loved these authors - as opposed to you, who have simply taken photos of the spines of their books on some bookshelves.

Now go away, little boy, this is becoming boring.

>>3669393
>le this going on leddit X-D

>>3669257

Princeton alum. nice.

>>3669394

I'll ask politely:

I have some interesting thoughts on wittgenstein, and would like to share them. you, being a self-proclaimed "lover" of philosophy and literature, and complaining about the superficiality of my "anecdotes" (>>3669328
, >>3669337), no doubt have some interesting points to make on this topic.

so let's start over, and talk about wittgenstein. what is your view on his renunciation of augustine?

>>3669382
>expressing "humanity" about the alleged loss of a person you've never met and never will meet, on the other side of the world, means exactly zero
Why?
>That is something someone might LEARN from a good book
You got an example of a book which offers this vital lesson?

>>3669398
But when you will compare dick sizes? Wittgenstein can wait. Post pics ASAP.

>le #toddler #babbysfirstpost #newfaggotry XD

>>3669399
the bible

This guy is the biggest sperglord we're going to see on this board for a long time to come.

Bask in the reflected glory lads this sweet comedy gold only comes along rarely.

>>3669405
Niiiice.

>>3669398
>>3669402

and there it is, friends of /lit. my fourth try, one that i took to be pretty reasonable, and the response from this "lover of philosophy and litereature" is that he now wants to compare his penis size with mine.

it's times like this a mod should do the ostensibly ethical thing and permaban you.

you obviously, obviously have nothing to say. i didn't want to compare dicks; i wanted to talk about wittgenstein, and i made that as explicit as i could.

someone should draw inspiration from this sad, fat man and explore the collapse of a psyche through insecure anonymous online posts. it would be a great reworking of the epistle novel.

>>3669406
>we
Get over yourself, kiddie. There is no 'we', there is only your majorly butthurt self.

>>3669406

that's not me, this is: >>3669410

i can't believe you are still posting

have any thoughts on wittgenstein yet?

>>3669410
>ITT leddit newfag learns 'anonymous' is not a single person
this embarassing

OPs dead brother 'might' be a lazy excuse to show off his bookshelves and feel good aobut himself on /lit/, but It really doesn't matter now, does it?
Wether we're on an anonymous Imageboard, or in real life, it's the same. We don't know, and in the end we have to chose what we want to believe.
There are many people who may live pretending to be someone they aren't just to get recongnition. Why does this one make some of you so upset?

Polite sage.

>>3669417

what are you even saying?

dude this is funny, like i need to submit to some sort-of local joke publication sorta funny, like so unbelievably funny that someone should screencap, compile, and work through your incredible logic from the beginning just to mark each retarded inflection sorta funny

how are those thoughts on wittgenstein coming?

>>3669419
>some of you
Pretty sure it's the one dude being a dick.

>>3669425

it is. he also samefags himself.

it's been quite a show, and i invite you, nay, implore you--to peruse the above content and witness the breakdown of human intelligence in its full and unabashed retardation

>>3669398
OK. Let's play this silly game for five minutes.

I think most Wittgenstein scholars would either gaze at you in utter bafflement over this phrase of yours "renunciation of Augustine" or burst out laughing and leave the room.

I will do neither, but just assume that this is a hopelessly clumsy allusion by someone who has just read page 1 of the "Philosophical Investigations" to Wittgenstein's use of a passage from Augustine's "Confessions" to illustrate the concept of language that he was setting about critiquing in the former book.

As I've suggested, it's the sign of an almost entirely ignorant person to allude to that as his "renunciation of Augustine", since the source of his example is actually pretty arbitrary and he could have chosen a dozen other sources, including his own "Tractatus". Wittgenstein was never an "Augustinian" in any sense that would have meant anything to a scholar of Augustine. So there is no "renunciation" here.

But be that as it may. If I've deciphered your almost indecipherably clumsy remark correctly, what you are actually asking me is

"What is your view on the entire radical and comprehensive change that occurred in Wittgenstein's thoughts on the relation between language and the world between the Tractatus and the Philosophical Investigations?"

I can only say that anyone who seriously expects someone to answer THAT huge a question in a thread on an image board - let alone on THIS thread - is very ignorant indeed.

>>3669351
No one's insulting the brother, it's OP showing off how fucking intellectual and perfect his brother was that we're insulting. Please learn the difference.

what the fuck is going on here

>>3669432
b-but conducting a thorough analysis of the critique might interfere with teh feelings, and you never fuck with teh feelings OR ELSE

came here for books, got shitfight

>>3669437
Clearly OP should've posted this on Leddit. I'm sure he would've gotten a few thousand upvotes and thus had his shitty lies immortalized forever in some shitty corner of the Internet no one gives two fucks about.

>>3669429
>Doesn't know how to check for samefag

>>3668720
upvote dis if u cry evry time

>>3669440
Does this dissapoint you or is it a pleasant suprise?

>>3669435
It's quite interesting.
It's not a thread about literature, directly.
It's a sort of a meta-thread.
It's function now appears to be to warn vain little infantile show-offs who want to go on about how "cooooooooooool" it is to have lotsanlotsanlotsanlotsa books that one may or may not have read that it's best that they keep the fuck off of this board;

>>3669456
It's an interesting way to start the morning, at least. Probably one of the more entertaining threads I've seen of late.

>>3668986
its happening

>>3669458
thanks

>>3669430

wait, you realize that the later wittgenstein is an overturning of his earlier work, and the philosophical investigations was the first major posthumous work in his later phase? when i say "renuniciation of augustine," it is obviously to ask if you think that the "passionate frame" that he is trying to disentral us from is a convincing one, and especially whether his response to augustine--actually on the following page--is an innately attractive one.

so you thought it was "arbitrary" of me to start on the first page of his later works, when he explicit says that all that came before was useless? i would ask how you're using the word "arbitrary," i guess, then assume that we just operate by different critieria.

in any case, your question is downright stupid. wittgenstein explicit answers it; nothing "changed about the relation between language and the world," and wittgenstein would laugh at your question in its posed manner. he would say: NOTHING about the world and language has changed, my "passionate frame of reference" has been altered. he says something like this in a really attractive passage in "culture and value," too: he doesn't offer a new kind of seed, but a new kind of soil for thought. to speak of the shift in his thought is to speak about the entirety of his project at once--
please be more specific, so i can address your questions with more analytic rigor, rther than trying to respond to the entirety of his project in one simultaneous gulp-- ahopeless endeavor for most volumes, let alone a 4chan post.

to ask a related question, reworking yours: under what conditions do you think criteria in a game may be altered? is this a natural component to the game itself?--e.g. there doesn't seem to be a good sense of change in rules over time in witt, or what sapir would call "language drift." how is it that we move from one passionate frame to another? his distinction between convincing and persuading might be of use here as well

OP i'm sorry for your loss. I must say that I'm really impressed by his collection. Somewhere in there you'll find the book that made him realize that value of books and the book that started it all. You neve throw that book away.

Start there.

>>3668986
>>3668986
>>3668986
>>3668986

>>3669458
>a real life internet tough guy
Ooooooh, I think I just got 4chan bingo!

>>3669458
What is meta? Really don't know, I'm not english.
Also OP, post physics/maths collection of your dead broggot

>>3669466
OK, kid, you've slung enough sentences rapidly copied and pasted from Wiki articles or dug out of books you've read a hundredth part of to "disentral" some of the board users from the fits of contemptuous laughter that they're rolling about in because of you.

Now go out and play some softball, will you? This ridiculous dick-swinging shit could go on forever.

>>3669478
Think of it like breaking the fourth wall with unrelated shit, while posting tangentially related shit to make it look on topic.

>>3668720
>The poem of Cid.
Mi negro.

>>3669471
>a random 4chan-level of obnoxious joke gets a ban = GREAT SUCCESS
those are truly awful times

>>3669481

...no response

love your silence

love how also you googled wittgenstein and augustine, grabbed the only thing you've said about witt (and the question alone shows that you haven't actually read him), and tried to ask a grossly broad question to cover it up.

now i ask you a more detailed question--one that requires some knowledge of his work--and we are back to your concentration on the phallus. i just don't get it. do you think i'm the only one reading this and thinking that this just doesn't follow?

please just either have a regular, interesting conversation or stop posting in this fucking thread

>>3668814
I smile because I've usually read most of the books posted.

Feels good not to be a pleb.

>>3668986
>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>3669485
Oh sí, nena. Bará bará bará, beré beré beré.

>>3668986
>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>3669489
Truly the end days are upon us. Moot's gone complete normalfag, our mods are all newfags etc.

>>3669490
>stop posting in this fucking thread
or what?

we are still waiting for dick pix, hurry up

>>3669496

what the fuck is this?

does anyone else acknowledge that this is ridiculous, unseemly behavior? what the fuck is going on with a board when you try repeatedly to talk about wittgenstein, and you get repeatedly slapped with requests to see your penis?

>>3669501
Maybe you should stop being a pussy and post it already. Come on, don't keep us waiting. Isn't this whole thread just a dick comparison contest anyway? May as well drop the pretense.

>>3669484
>Think of it like breaking the fourth wall with unrelated shit, while posting tangentially related shit to make it look on topic.
Like pedantic?

>>3669504
meta = discussion about discussions, etc.
do a fucking google search

>>3669502

i'll try again, maybe with someone you do know something about:

who do you list as top influences? if not wittgenstein, who would you be willing to speak openly about/have continued criticisms of?

or, forget thinkers even: what major topics or ideas are concerned with philosophically?

>>3669508
>being this oblivious to initiating half-assed pissing contest
and when you thought it can't get any more embarassing...
Btw, are you OP?

>>3669490
I think we both know what we mean by "intellectual dick-swinging" and I think I have already made it clear that I am not going to engage in it.

If for no other reason than because that kind of infantile shit never ends.

You are obviously massively butthurt because I called "bullshit" on your grotesque silly thread and I'm quite sure that if I consent to 'discuss" Wittgenstein with you we are still going to be here in 24 hours with you doggedly attempting to be 'last man standing" and screeching back at me with cap-locked post after cap-locked post consisting of stuff like

NO YOU FUCKING LOSE AND YOU PROVE TO EVERYONE THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING BECAUSE ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE SAYS THAT THE PRIVATE LANGUAGE ARGUMENT WAS DEVELOPED AS A RESPONSE TO RYLE AND YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT SO YOU LOSE YOU LOSE YOU LOSE HAHA MUTHAFUCKA LET THE BUTTHURT FLOW THROUGH YOU HAHA

Which would be sort of fine by me because it would simply prove over and over again my point that you neither know nor care anything about thought or literature and are just using them as something to play the bigshot with.

But I honestly don't have the time

>>3669514

but you have the time to post relentless crap?

this is the last time i engage you.

to everyone else, i would be happy to discuss some interesting ideas of literature or philosophy. i think it would be nice to get a conversation going.

Nice collection, OP. Hope you read any book there since whatever you gets, it's gold. Also, no feelings towards your brother for I didn't know him. Also, to the guy(or guys) shitting in this thread, why even complain about OP's real or not brother? No one knows his name(both OP and his real or not brother), so what is the point in faking a story so people could envy your collection? OP could just post his collection and people would do the same. I thought we cared about the books and who wrote them, not about the person holding a book.

>>3669522

No one wants to discuss anything with you.

>>3669522
>i would be happy to discuss some interesting ideas of literature or philosophy
is making a joke about someone's dead brother morally wrong?

>>3669501
>does anyone else acknowledge that this is ridiculous, unseemly behavior?
Not really. We are still on 4chan, after all. Stupid shit goes on all the time.

>>3669527
>4chan
>Morals
Just where do you think we are?

>>3669528

yeah, i understand that; still, there seems something more intense and comet-like about this particular collapse

like it hit some deep chord of vendetta that awoke with reckless abandon--i can understand stupidity, but it's difficult to swallow animalistic obstinacy

>>3669522
Why the fuck would I want to have a conversation with you?
I know perfectly well that the only purpose the "conversation" would have in your mind would be to give you an opportunity to say to everyone "get a load of the brain on me".
And I already despise you and think you're a dick for trying that very same shit by inviting strangers to admire your dead brother's bookshelves.
Go fuck yourself.

Is the OP even still in this thread? What a train wreck.

>>3669533
shhhh, we are discussing philosophy

>>3669537
OP is the one who can't into capital letters, so yes. He's been here the entire time.

>>3668782
I hope he has not killed anyone

>>3669540
Chaotic neutral is the best philosophy. Is there a philosopher like that? I would read the shit out of his works.

>>3669543
if that's true.. 10/10, the troll becomes the trolled

>>3669544
OH SORRY!

I re read your post!

Sorry sorry, dude!

hey, so sorry to hear about your brother. I am pretty entry level myself; for an absolute beginner, start with Orwell, Steinbeck and Brave New World. The Blank Slate also sums up the history of sociology and psychology pretty well if you want to go in a non-fiction direction. and what can I say, even on /lit/ there is a propensity for everyone to be an asshole (it's 4chan)

this thread has clearly run its (beaten) course, unfortunately derailed from its initial purpose and dominated by one of the most incredible displays of ignorance i've seen in quite some time.

unless something of interest is posted in 5 minutes, then i think it's best if we close shop.

thanks to all the positive response; i feel sorry for those who behaved otherwise--you may not want my pity, but you clearly need it.

>>3669548
Most definately Stirner.

>>3669559

hey, thanks--this is insightful. have you read the orwell, steinbeck and BNW? and which steinbeck?

>uncracked spines everywhere
OP's brother didn't read any of those books.

>>3669561

come back later with some better material. your imaginary dead brother isn't nearly fleshed out enough.

>>3669522
what's up dude, I thought we're gonna talk philosophy now. Where are you?

>>3669564
ought i need to know any german philosophy leading up to it, or does it stand by itself?

8/10
well executed

>>3669574

sup? what did you have on your mind?

>>3669578
I don't think it can count as a troll attempt when a mod gets involved and bans someone.

>>3669579
is making a joke about someone's dead sibling morally wrong?

>>3669581
what are you talking about? those two things are independent of each other

>>3669581
mod was eluded too

>>3669583

i guess it depends on what you take to be moral and immoral. so, what is your definition of morality? how are you using it as a term in this instance?

>>3669586
nah, getting newfag mod to interfere produces unfair amount of attention and boosts OPs chances

>>3669565
yep. it was of mice and men but east of eden is also supposed to be great.either or those would be a good place to start. the edgar allen poe short stories are also worth reading and robert browning is good entry level for poetry. as a beginner myself I can't really give many pointers other than that, but hope it helps. your brother has a very impressive collection, use it well

>>3669581
Wasn't the ban because banned anon said something stupid? At that point, there was little to no proof of his brother be or not real.

Is anyone else finding this thread goes down easier if you assume that both OP and his antagonist are the same person and this is a bizarre creative writing exercise?

>>3669589
I do not believe such a things as morals or morality exist. I do however realize some people claim they do - such as our newfag mod - who based his decision to arbitrarily ban a poster due to some kind of internal, emotional reaction. Lets call this reaction and mental processes that caused it as morals/morality, shall we?

>>3669591
>Implying OP will read more than 3~4 of those books
He'll probably mostly use his impressive collection to pick up girls. His brother(if said brother exists) probably did the same, considering how many of those books look like they've never been opened.

>>3669597

being the op, i swear to you that this is not said expiriment

is there some function that enables you to check samefagging? if so, please point it out to me and use it yourself

trust me, i'm just as confused as you are.

this is me: >>3669579
>>3669589
etc,

>>3669594
>Wasn't the ban because banned anon said something stupid?
man, this is not how 4chan works
lurk moar, polite sage

>>3669590
oh you're implying that OP is a troll. I was thinking more of you as a troll (a boring and pathetic one but hey, a troll). I don't know how can you say you have no time to discuss philosophy or empathize yet still have time to shitpost. Oh but of course, you'll assure me you're not the same person... there's no winning here obviously

>>3669605
>Accused others of samefagging earlier
>Doesn't even know how to check for samefag
Oh come on, at least put some effort into it. I demand entertainment.

>>3669606
>man, this is not how 4chan works
This is how it works in /v/.

>>3669607
newfriend, 'anonymous' or 'sage' are not a single person, let it go

First /lit/ thread I've seen in awhile and this was.. interesting. You'd be better off reading those books instead of engaging in stupid arguments in honour of your deceased brother.

>>3669598

that's fair. i have some ideas already, but please continue on if you have more in mind

>>3669606
actually the poster was bannable under global rules (regardless of the reason of the particular ban)

>>3669597
I considered this but the claim is too outrageous and the mod would probably notice it.

>>3669621
What? All he did was state his honest opinion. How was he eligible for banning? Point to me in the rules where it says the statement "One less mouth to feed" is a bannable offense.

>>3669619
I just want to know your opinion on whether banning the 'offender' in this thread was 'right', 'wrong' or maybe neither, or even if the reasoning for the ban is irrelevant.

>>3669599
>implying being a prick instead of giving reading advice will help anything

>>3669618
/v/ is a barbaric place which requires suitably barbaric mods.

>>3669615
I had a 12 hour nighly reading session. This is where I come to relax.

>>3669630

well can i work within the statement you just gave me?

>>3669636
What do you mean? Work from whatever you want.

>>3669626
why don't you check them and interpret them ourself. no matter hat I say you'll deny it with some twisted retarded logic

>>3669618
I dare you to point me to a single post on the whole site that isn't stupid.

>>3669653
Not a single post I've made ever is stupid.

>>3669657
I beg to differ, my friend.

>>3669665
Yeah, well, your opinion is wrong, man.

>>3669577
I guess it would work on its own.

>>3669665
You're wrong.

>>3669647

ok, so ima type my opinion with a couple assumptions of your response, so if they would be different obviously critique it in your reply. pretty simple argument, but i think its convincing to a certain degree: you said that you don't believe in something like "morality," and i take this to mean that you don't think something like a fully systematized, "closed" or "formal" system of what we call morality can ever be realized, and that to think such things is either 1. a form of utopianism, or 2. prejudiced, rather than reasoned, in nature. but you also admit that you understand that others may and do have different views than you--so i'm going to assume that you endorse something like pluralism, if we just take pluralism simplistically to mean a diverse plurality of competing interests (some of which might even be incommensurable with one another fundamentally), and a diverse plurality of criteria employed to justify those interests. your perspective is one among many: so the question becomes, i think, what strategies we ought to adopt to best get along in this pluralistic universe. what practices can we cite, perhaps not even on normative grounds, but on practical grounds, for alleviating the strain of different world-views? can't we do more, both in the "long term" and in general terms of civic robustness and intellectual duty, by admitting certain limits to extreme behavior that unnecessarily creates greater conflict in an already conflict-prone engagement? i think a lot of morality, if we take pluralism as a serious fact of existence, and as simple as it sounds, really boils down to something like the golden rule: "well, given your understanding that different people can make different (legitimate) claims to ethical authority, and given the fact that you may not understand why it is a punishable offense, can you admit that it is perhaps reasonable if another person in that position could take offense to it, or draw some emotional pain from it?

>>3669686
TL;DR

>>3669647
>>3669686

but let's say fuck it to the normative claim via pluralism. on purely functional grounds, use of 4chan, as explicated on its homepage, is a privalege, not a right; it assumes that you both know and abide by "global" regulations, which are enumerated on the homepage as well. given the language of the third global rule, i could easily see a mod justifying that ban on grounds that he/she simply failed to abide by the "law of the land," however far you want to decouple that from ethics as you wish

>>3669691
Not the person you're discussing with but here goes my answer: the question might then not be about morals, as it was originally framed but the act of banning the poster is still justifiable because a) it is indeed a privilege, not a right posting in the forum, b) there's fair warning about the rules of the place, c) the post can be interpreted as breaking rule 3 from multiple angles (uncalled for catchphrase, troll, flame. I think the first one is the less debateable reason and the last the most debatable, but they are all valid as depending on the mods interpretation)

it is good that this dude was banned because (a) he was an asshole so i don't give a shit and (b) i am 100% unironically down with literal mod fascism

Up The Mods

>>3669732
This too. Mods seem to have a fair judgement most of the time. At least in the few instances I've seem them intervene in /lit/

>>3669686
>pluralism simplistically to mean a diverse plurality of competing interests
I aknowledge that interests of agents differ.

>can't we do more, both in the "long term" and in general terms of civic robustness and intellectual duty, by admitting certain limits to extreme behavior that unnecessarily creates greater conflict in an already conflict-prone engagement?
You go with 'we' even though you previouly noticed that interests of agents differ. In whose name are you talking? Do you claim to be some prophet of objectivity here? You ascribe your personal, arbitraty value of 'unwanted' to conflict, though knowing your values doesn't automatically make me subscribe to them.
>civic robustness and intellectual duty
ambiguous buzzwords, invoking them doesn't automatically grant you the ability of achieving them (whatever they are supposed to mean) any more efficient than anyone else
In whose name did the mod act?

Knowing all this, we now have a privileged mod aribtrarily targeting a single poster. Whatever her motives were, did she do the 'right' thing or can we drop the veil and simply recognize a sad, cynical power trip when we see one? No moral high ground, no reason, no goal, just an expression of frail will and hopeful wish to avoid the consequences.

In a way you invoking pluralism is offensive, given the fact that one of interlocutors right/privilege of self-expression has been selectively suppressed.

Invoking 'global rules' where ambiguous terms like 'trolling' are used is laughable. Their pretense of being 'rules' at all is insulting to everyones intelligence and their only purpose is to allow privileged few to do what they want at their discretion. You are fooled by the natural language, by associations of words like 'rules' in every day speech and their role on this site - which is to inform you beforehand, if you can read between the lines, that for the select few everything goes.

gotta take a [trigger warning] shit [/trigger warning], brb

>>3669749
cont.
Invoking half-assed golden rule as a serious consideration while simultaneously aknowledging the complexity and vastness of conflicing interests in a 'pluralistic universe' is equally insulting to everyones intelligence.

You are trying to eat the cake and have the cake too. You are trying hard to not claim objectivity yet you go for a certain ethical stance without attempting to convince anyone of its validity or worthiness to consider

>>3669686
>i think a lot of morality, if we take pluralism as a serious fact of existence, and as simple as it sounds, really boils down to something like the golden rule: "well, given your understanding that different people can make different (legitimate) claims to ethical authority, and given the fact that you may not understand why it is a punishable offense, can you admit that it is perhaps reasonable if another person in that position could take offense to it, or draw some emotional pain from it?
you simultaneously go with golden rule and acceptance of one of the participants being the target of a power trip. His post violates the golden rule. Mods action violates the golden rule. Do two wrongs make a right? See your bias?

>>3669749
>No moral high ground, no reason, no goal, just an expression of frail will and hopeful wish to avoid the consequences.
You're supposing too much of someone hose motivations you don't know at all.

If you go by pluralism too then you must accept the rules of the place and the interpretation of the enacter, here is a view >>3669718

>>3669749
>Invoking 'global rules' where ambiguous terms like 'trolling' are used is laughable. Their pretense of being 'rules' at all is insulting to everyones intelligence and their only purpose is to allow privileged few to do what they want at their discretion
but you are here in the forum by privilege, not by right and the rules are subject to the mods' interpretation. The act can fairly be interpreted as breaking rule 3

>>3669755

i did qualify it, on practical grounds: if we admit pluralism, and i mean you and me (if you're the poster who said he "understands that others have different claims" or what not), then i think regulating behavior by banning certain extreme forms of abuse that undoubtedly trigger harsh reactions in others--perhaps reactions of pain, even--then the question just becomes really one of whether your sadistic or not. if you have the opportunity to not be an ass, not disregard the global rules, and not contribute something that had no worth or place in the structure of the conservation, then why act otherwise? even if i say: fine, he had no reason, he is a mod--you still need to supply with a reason why he shouldn't be banned. and simply talking about rules in a highly rhetorical fashion, a la >>3669749, doesn't get you any closer to that goal. i can say: the mods have power here, and he exercised it. that is a "fact" that is beyond normativity; you are trying to get me to justify this decision, but the greater point is that it doesn't need justification--you haven't shown me how the mod has acted out of turn, as it accord quite well with global rule 3 as i, and a couple others, have mentioned.

putting arguments of pluralism aside, on what grounds can you claim the mod acted out of turn? all he has to do is point to rule 3, which is admittedly ambiguous enough for interpretation (a power that he can and does exercise), and his justification is set.

now you have to prove to me how "one less mouth to feed" contributes to the conversation in a manner consistent with rule 3


i agree i'm claiming objectivity, as i never said i wasn't; and my objectivity is one defined primarily in terms of its pluralistic elements.

>>3669755
since you don't know the intentions of the mod, by the way, you can not claim a power trip action. then it boils down to knowledge and belief. you can argue that the mod didn't have enough knowledge about the intentions of the poster to ban him. Yet even accepting a pluralistic stance the owner of the place and his enacters' interest (maybe an interest in keeping civility) supersedes the interest of said poster in engaging the emotions of a vulnerable person. It supersedes it by authority over the place and the fact that he's not hurting you hile you might be (according to his interpretation) hurting a vulnerable person by your incivility

>>3669765
>rules
claiming the rules on 4chan are applied exactly as they are written down is a forever Get Out of Jail Free Card. As I said, they are a pretense. You do not read them literally, you read behind the lines as well as rely on experience that the sole purpose of those 'rules' is to give uncontrolled power to random people to be used at their discretion. You should not read them literally, the high time to realize that is when you see ~20 trolling/shitposting/etc threads daily go untouched.

>but you are here in the forum by privilege, not by right and the rules are subject to the mods' interpretation. The act can fairly be interpreted as breaking rule 3
neither a right nor a privilege should count as a justification for anything as they are both beyond anyone's control in this place, they are ever-shifting, circumstantial. One might shitpost succesfully 150 times a day without a single repercussion - whose merit is this: one's right or one's privilege? How about we drop those words as they artificially describe dynamics in this place that are neither non-existent or circumstantial.

>>3669783
>since you don't know the intentions of the mod, by the way, you can not claim a power trip action.
The whole point is the fact that in the circumstances of this place, there is NO OTHER reason for such action than a power trip. No other supposed 'reason' such as claiming some kind of moral high ground or holier than thou mentality has any validity. There is only an expression of power, everything else is a fluff and post factum justifications

>>3669784

maybe their aren't formal rules, though you can't possibly claim there aren't rules here. i could just as easily say: my definition of rules is where there is a index (global rule three) that some authority interprets and applies some of the time. and so we have the rule structure of the board

to say that rules can be broken often is way fucking different than saying something as extreme as there aren't any rules.

>tfw you'll never have a well read big brother to look up to

I am so jelly right now

>>3669788
(cont.)
maybe I should add - apart from illegal content such as CP - which deletion and suppression is actually enforced by external agencies

>>3669789

point in case: the ban above. that was where the mod, who has authority to do so, may point to a law and justify their behavior purely on the grounds that the law exists as it does and their power exists qua the law as it does. maybe they don't act all the time, maybe they lack a certain vigilance, whatever--you seem to be mad not over the mod's ruling, but the fact that the mod can rule at all.

and to be honest that's just silly and stupid

>>3668720
I hope you all realize that some of the posts in this thread has been created by our idiot janitor.