/lit/ - Literature

>>5791956
Ask yer mummy.

In the past, I have made multiple thread asking /lit/ what the purpose of literature is, what separates the good writing from the bad. Although everyone here seems to be convinced that literature is valuable, nobody was found who can justify the sentiment. Now I believe that men make idols of literary works for little reason; that, just as Socrates would find that the proud wisdom of men was vanity, the proud worship of literature is vain. I also believe that literature contributes nothing to happiness or to justice.

I am told that literature makes men wise. Yet show me the man that is both "well-read" and wise, because I haven't found him. I only find the literary alcoholic, the emasculated professor, the vain book-braggart. Show me a man who become a second Wise Solomon by reading literature. Literary men seem to think that clever opinions amount to wisdom.

I hear that it connects us to our past. Yet show me the man who having read literature has developed a deep piety for his ancestors and his fatherland, because I haven't found him.

I hear that it opens our minds to consider opinions that are not our own, humbling us and making us realize that we are not always in the right. Yet why are the well-read just as attached to their own conceits as the rest of mankind? Show me the literary man that is able to go about like Socrates truly detached from his own opinions and conceits.

>>5791956
Maaaaaybe Hegel?

I hear that literature is a great pleasure, but I have not found the well-read to be happier than those who do not know books.

One of the worst things about literature is that it contradicts itself so often. One canonical author will advocate one doctrine, and the next in the list will advocate the inverse of said doctrine. So how is anyone ever to learn anything? I am sure that the "western canon" is a liberal invention, and its entire point is to form muddled-minds that are fill of contrary doctrines for the sake of being "open-minded".

All that literature seems to do is fill the world with worthless talk that causes men to embrace absurd opinions as "philosophies". It spreads contrary opinions that only adds to the confusion of mankind, and in its incessant clamour for novelty - for new aesthetics, for new thoughts - it undermines all authority and tradition so that a man's work is only just finished when it declared archaic, antiquated.

write your own?

GO WITH WHAT FEELS RIGHT AND FOCUS ON THAT. FOLLOW CAMPBELL'S ADVICE AND READ BASED ON A NEXUS BRANCHING OUT FROM YOUR FAVORITE WRITER TO THEIR INSPIRATIONS AND SO ON. OR JUST BE MAVERICK LIKE ME AND READ IJ, A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES, AND ASOIAF SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE BIBLE AND THEN WRITE A POSTMODERN ALLEGORY ABOUT ANGELS AND DEMONS FIGHTING IN SOME ABSURDLY MUNDANE LOCALE OR SOMETHING JUST FUCKING DO ITTTTTTT

you shouldn't let books decide your ideas for you
the books are there to introduce you to the ideas
what you believe is your own thing

>>5791956
pascal says that god encompasses every divergent train of thought and brings everything opposed together under an umbrella of harmony. does this help your predicament? i'm not sure if any book has the answer for every person, but through reading you will find what resonates with your worldview and experience, and then you can use these strong ideas as building blocks for your life.
>>5791968
this seems true. but literature can be an enjoyment for those of us who are unable to experience life the way god intended. don't be too hard on us... i would love to have a Good life but it has not come to pass yet.

It's called forming your own opinion.

>>5791983
>>5791968
It gives you a way to pass the time until your inevitable demise, like doing drugs and watching television.

You decide which books you agree with

>>5791956
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. - F. Scott Fitzgerald

>>5791968
There's a probably a word for "by your very own protestations you show otherwise" but I don't know it.

>>5791983
The canon was originally a marketing ploy to sell more books. Now it's a academic ploy to standardize what English majors read and know about.

>>5791995
I would prefer not to.

Do you even dialectics?

>>5792006
The writers are far more knowledgeable and generally better than me. Who am I to not let them decide for me?

>>5792013
I don't like that. Too much effort. I like having pre-formed opinions stuffed down my throat. It's like how pre-cooked bacon is a lot better than bacon that isn't pre-cooked.

>>5792015
I'd rather how the books tell me what I agree.

>>5792031
No, but I do diuretics every day.

>>5791956
To paraphrase Nietzsche, somethings are poison for a certain type while healthy for others. I suppose for those without the ability to discern and judge knowledge and books could be poison. To some extent, one must simply have the will to judge and even synthesize one's own ideas to be able to act and live a life. If you don't have the will to do that and think for yourself, then new ideas aren't going to be good for you, they are going to be the poison of indecision.

>>5792041
>I like having pre-formed opinions stuffed down my throat.
You're in the right website at least.

>>5792041
Nigga you just weak. Don't come to us and bitch about your incompetence. There is nothing we can do for you.

>>5792041
*I'd rather have the books tell me with what I agree.
Oops

>>5792047
I know. I wouldn't be here otherwise. Thank you for telling me so.

>>5792049
Telling me there's nothing you can do for me is what you can do for me. Thank you for doing it for me.

which books are contradicting?

>>5792041
>Who am I to not let them decide for me?
You might as well stop reading.
Just flip on the TV and let the shiny happy people tell you how to live your life.
It's easier than digging through a book and letting dead people tell you how to live your life.

>>5792074
If it's all the same to you, I'd rather have the posters on /lit/ tell me how to live my life. I must say, you are doing admirable.

>>5792084
Start with a lobotomy so you don't have to make choices anymore and you can't even have bad faith. That is what you are asking for. Part of my motivation to read is the power that comes with being able to reject or accept certain ideas and reflect on my own experiences to contrast with them. If you don't want that power or accept that you have that power, I don't even know what to say to you. It's like trying to argue with someone who doesn't believe in arguments, a catch-22 you can't escape from.

>>5791956
Thiss ish nothing but pure ideology m8

>>5792114
>Start with a lobotomy
Any other regions of the brain I should excise while I'm at it?

>Part of my motivation to read is the power that comes with being able to reject or accept certain ideas and reflect on my own experiences to contrast with them.
Don't be such a despot when it comes to reading. You have to be gentle.

>. If you don't want that power or accept that you have that power, I don't even know what to say to you.
You seem to be saying plenty.

>It's like trying to argue with someone who doesn't believe in arguments
It's like trying to argue with someone who types whatever they need to type to get the response they are looking for!

>a catch-22 you can't escape from.
There's always an escape.

>>5792151
>someone like you giving me advice on how to read.
Top lel. Just accept my opinion. Who are you to question a random anonymous poster on 4chan?

>>5792163
I know, right? How uncouth of me to have the verve.

>>5792191
Take that modicum of self confidence and nurse it. If you have the ability to tell me no, then you have the ability to say no. Or yes for that matter. Do not think of who wrote it, but the text in and of itself use the skills you just used for any text. Great authors are no more or less human than I am. Your fucking welcome.

>>5792013
This guy gets it.
Are you really choosing to define your life based off of other people's points of view?
Top pleb.

>scientists contradict each other
>why bother with science

>philosophers contradict each other
>philosophy is bullshit

>>5792282
>posters contradict each other
>why bother with 4chan

I feel like everyone is just fucking good at justifying their shit and counter-arguing, along with being too pushy to push their opinion and too stubborn to admit defeat. I would have personally no interest in this shit otherwise. It's like you all seek for constant validation / to be understood.

I feel like I have no opinions of my own. Even if I somehow I had a few I wouldn't even care defending them cause I've always couldn't care less if people don't understand. Never expect people to.

Please someone reply.

>>5791956
>how am I meant to make my own opinion if nobody tells me what to do
If a book educates you on something or that you were not aware of before, thats great. If a book changes your opinion due to a convincing argument or strengthens your opinion on something, thats cool too. But if you let books dictate what you believe in and how you act then you need to change your mindset. Having that mindset is not good for you.

I mean, I feel like I'm done with the world. I could just carry activities on my own without talking at all to people. But you faggots are too opinionated and constantly want to convert people to be one of your kind.

I think people are just too opinionated. They are always right and I am always wrong. I could just keep to myself but here I am in this site always browsing 24/7.

>b-but these guys are educated I'm not, so they must have better formulated opinions
>read posts, all contradictory
>read articles, stuffs, later someone 'debunks' it as wrong
>don't even know what to do anymore

Ugh, maybe I'm insecure due to my lack of education. Anyway, I need to learn to carry own with my life somehow.

ITT: >>>/r9k/

>>5791956
By thinking about it, and evaluating.
A lot of the time, books can help you solve inner arguments, or arguments with others, if you happen to talk about the subject. For instance:

''Capitalism is inherently bad, it hasn't brought anything positive''
>but wait, there was this thing I read about ....
>then again, that can be marginalized by ....
>although it would be unfair to state that, since ....

And there you go. That's how it works (for me at least)
If books weren't contradictory, life would be boring, you'd just buy 1 book to become a master in any subject.

I think that frog is my most hated image macro/meme/reaction image on all of 4chan for all time.

>>5792433
i feel a similar sensation. i also browse this board constantly. i don't know why! but i keep asking myself, not "what is meaning of life" or any of these kinds of questions, but i ask myself simply "why are all of these people talking on the internet?" sometimes i imagine everyone on earth in the same room talking at once. the noise! and wouldn't we all get tired and be quiet eventually? is this endless talking just a way to exert excess energy? well, that might truly be pointless then. i believe deeply in the value of silence. it is sacred. we are silent when we are defeated, humbled, and in awe. these are feelings we rarely experience on the internet. here, you never have to be proven wrong. it is very simple to continue to argue, argue, argue, and dismiss everything someone writes by ignoring it. let us create something better! let us work together! amen! amen!

>>5792468
don't worry, it's becoming popular with normies so in ~6 months you won't see it here

>>5792484
No. Let's not and say we didn't.

>>5791968
>only responses are about how literature is just another activity
I'm in serious need of reassurance here, /lit/. I started reading about 2 months ago, if even, and, although I haven't read much, it's pretty good so far. The only problem is, except for some good parts of each book, I always feel obligated. I'm 19, 1st year of uni (STEM), and except for required reading I never liked reading. I know I'm ignorant and pleb and so on and so forth, but when I discovered /lit/ 2 months ago I thought I discovered the key to enlightenment.
Is literature really useless in that regard? Should I just go back to reading philosophy and psychology? I don't really care for the beautiful, for I take my daily dose of pleasure from video games and music (no, not movies; they feel obligating just like books).

pls answer
btw I'm not the guy I quoted, that post just struck me

>>5792615
>always feel obligated
wat

>discovered the key to enlightenment.
lolno

>movies feel obligating just like books
wat

>>5792633
>discovered the key to enlightenment.
exaggerated yeah but basically I felt like reading literature would make me smarter (as shameful as that is), and not only that, that it would be the answer I searched so long for


>movies feel obligating just like books
I still hold this position; it's just that most movies suck, and those that do not suck require 2-3 precious hours of your time, which you could spend working for class, actually working or relaxing, where you must pay attention to the plot. That's the same reason books feel obligating for me, I always feel like I read so slow and I wish I could read faster but also maintain comprehension. It's anything but relaxing - demanding would be a better word.

For example, I haven't read anything in like 4 days, since I finished The Trial (which was rather short), and I don't feel like starting any new book. It feels like a job I have to take on, and with exams and christmas coming I don't really feel like doing it, but I feel obligated by my former 2-months-back-self to do it, like a promise that I would end my ignorance and achieve some higher level of thinking. I'm getting more and more doubtful of this day by day

btw sry for any mistakes it's late here and English not native lang

>>5792786
With logic like that, I'm surprised you are even posting since at this rate you are going to feel obligated to respond to various posts and type what you don't want to type out. Conversation will become a chore.

>>5792801
>Conversation will become a chore.
Certainly feels like one.
Question: Am I bound to remain forever stupid, or will I pass this step? If yes to the second question, is literature a or the way to achieve this?

>>5791956
>make my mind up

You don't, books should teach you that socially, there is no real answer, and those who can understand that and adapt to the most situations possible are the ones who survive the longest with the most sensible and knowledgeable lives.

>>5792433

People are more invested in being right than pursuing the truth.
And most talks on here and elsewhere are emotionality masked as reason.
Take a safe distance and you can only end up building a sense of empathy for how lost most people feel.

>>5792808
Abandon all hope.

>>5792335
lmao anon
The only thing holding you back from being happy is yourself. Honestly. Don't have opinions of your own and even if you would you wouldn't care to defend them? How does that stop you from being content?
Read some Zeno and Marcus Aurelius, maybe it will help.

>>5792849
Ok.
p-pic unrelated

>>5791956

Literature replicates authentic experience, though it cannot replace it.

>>5792808
The concept of enlightenment is a spook. If you expect to reach or grow closer to some endpoint of all knowledge and understanding by reading literature, then you are going to be disappointed. Literature or life for that matter does not have some distinct set of levels of progression to reach something. There are only the ones you make for yourself.

If you are not interested in the beautiful, then really I don't think literature is for you. But you have understand what is meant by "beautiful". Literature can contextualize things within life and story in a way that most things can't. It can make you see things within context of a story differently and can shift your worldview in real life to see things differently. New perspectives to filter life through for whatever purpose sings to you. It can take ordinary things and give you ways to view them with new significance, whether ugly or pleasing. It can take dry philosophy and contextualize it to make it sing to what is human in you, so that you may understand it in a way that extends beyond pure rationality to your desires as a person that have no other explanation than "Because I am who I am". But if that kind of "beauty" doesn't sound interesting to you, then by all means don't bother.

Why should I read when I'm not even able to think properly?

>>5792918
Eloquent and mature response, anon. Thank you. I'm actually not sure how to respond to this, so I'll call it a night and see what to do from now on tomorrow. Relieved some of that angst.

Now, do you, by chance, know any author similar to Kafka? Or, at least, any books similar to The Trial/The Castle or Metamorphosis?

>>5791968
Read the birth of tragedy. 'The role of art is to express the world and to make life more tolerable.'

There is inherent value in that, from a humanistic perspective. If you don't see the value in finding enjoyment in things, there's no convincing you that any art is significant. Wallace Stevens makes that one of the requirements of poetry in 'notes towards a supreme fiction': it must bring pleasure.

Literature, at the very least, affords you the ability to think like someone else. Not just as a five minute thought experiment, but almost living as that person. What you do after you've thought like someone else is up to you.

Also, read Ulysses. I think you'd have similar sentiments to Poldy. And you'd hate Dedalus, just like everyone else.

>>5792941
You don't.

This is every /lit/izens fatal question.

So instead of reading they just shitpost and repost rehashed bullshit.

>>5792965
This

>>5791956
join a religion

You're supposed to read as much philosophy, science, and mathematics as you can tolerate. Get as much perspective on the various philosophical concepts (justice, truth, knowledge, etc.) as you can and then, ultimately, reach a synthesis of your own, for each concept that deeply concerns you.

>>5792918
thank you for making me tear up and reminding me why I am pursuing literature

>>5792992
Literature doesn't have to be pursued by the patrician.

You, sir, belong in another field.

>>5791956


you cant.

i dont mean that like 'people cant in general' (though general people cant), i mean you specifically cant.

what you need (what many like you need) is tradition.

>>5792918 as a response to >>5791968
Literature is not a tool to manipulate and form men into your view of what people in a society should like and it never has been. If anything it is a fundamentally insurrectionary art. What we classify as good literature touches the important parts of our soul and leaves marks that change the narrative of society in important ways, even helping shape that narrative you are holding up. Even those books that supposedly support said narrative are in fact changing it and pushing it in certain directions.

Your values are worthless without the narrative that follows them. The narrative of a good society that some literature perpetuate and others challenge. But don't be surprised when we turn a cynical eye towards you. Those who have read enough know what lies beneath your sentiments, just another convenient fiction like the many we have experienced before. I personally choose to burn it and wave my flag against you.

I choose a different fiction. I laugh at your vain attempts to tell me what a person should be. We are all dying and we might as well create our own values and strengths that you might calls weakness and degeneracy. I embrace them.

>>5791980
Underrated post

>>5792918
They used to call this the Sublime back when everyone was religious. Applied to Bach and Mozart and stuff a lot as well

>>5792918
Basically, you fools romanticize everything. Sounds like a bubble to me.

fundamenal troofs?

>>5791956
Metaphors are limited tl the reader's mind hence it will ultimately depend on how you "see" things. Two books could be the same for you while to others, not. In the end we are alone in our world...

K.bye

>>5792989
And then what do you do with that knowledge? Nothing.

You won't start a new movement, you won't participate in politics, you won't influence or change the world. It's all vanity. Even then you're of course going to be in contradictory terms with other 'thinkers' like you and have to prove your thoughts before it becomes accepted. It's an endless cycle. I find that in order to be a political figure, you must have somehow a dissonance or some craziness in your personality as history shows. Do litfags have enough of that dissonance to bombard their shit in the real world?

Philosophy and literature brought a lot to civilization then before modern science took off. Now that we have modern science those books of knowledge have been trumped. Science is incontestably the dominant form of knowledge today. Why would you settle for less? It's beyond me why anyone would do that.

Scientists are better and more formal at observation and deduction. I'd argue that they are the most rational beings yet on this planet. Philosophers seem to not care for that or for facts. They mostly care of romanticizing and getting lost in their heads. It seems to me that philosophy is what you do when science rejects you. Philosophers will always argue unable to agree on anything because the process and thoughts are not as logical as Science. E=mc2 is the reality, not some magical realism bullshit.

It baffles me why anyone wouldn't just opt for Science instead. They are the ones who discover new things, applying said discovery on many fields and progressing mankind. All concrete things that armchair intellectuals don't produce.

>>5791956
Read "Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?" by Kant.

>>5796091
>If you aren't contributing to the advancement of science you're worthless
Fucking dropped.

>>5796091
>ideology: the post

>>5792468
there's nothing disagreeable about melancholic amphibian

>>5796091
Not to mention anything about your fragmentary and incoherent understanding of contemporary philosophy, you give off the vibe of a naive and intellectually malnourished person that is stuck, or hasn't progressed beyond, the primitive thinking that sees the world primarily in terms of progress, cash value etc.

Scientists that are supposedly good at what they do, time and again, get publicly embarrassed for raising their sophomoric philosophical theses about the world. Why do you think that is?

Those knowledgeable of science, yet lacking the philosophical spark that Einstein, Heisenberg, et. al. had in them, are bound to repeat that mistake. They also happen to be the easiest targets for dismantling and shoving the scientismic silliness they are gobbling in their faces.

More importantly: If you're not reading philosophy, mathematics, and science to furnish your UNDERSTANDING of the world, you're wasting your time. And if you happen to hold grudges against philosophy, it's probably because you either have been sidetracked by the bias of others or you loathe the idea of thinking for yourself.

Fix your ill-founded attitude of philosophy and you'll be amazed how things, slowly but gradually, are becoming clearer.

Imbecile.

Of course they do. Who cares? Don't read to get opinions or ideas, read ONLY if that activity gives peace to your soul (inner self, not actual cristian soul). If it's Tv that works for you, thats great, marijuana? also great.

We have the idea that reading is a noble activity for the smart and honorable, it isn't. The thing is that usually people that read write, and they pregonice (how do i write that? argentinian here) that it's the best thing to do.

For example, i had a reading adiction from 9 to 18. Then i got a pc and had a games adiction. Then realise it's just basically the same thing, a way to escape to a control reality, were you are all power and omnipresent, because actual reality is scary as shit.

>>5796175
>Imbecile.
I loved how you ended your description of that faggot.

>>5791968
I am well-read and wise.

>>5791961
>>>/trannyville/

>>5796710
the fact that you say you are wise demostrates you are not. Socrates ftw

>>5796835
>ftw
Stopped reading

>>5796874
To be fair, those are the last three letters of the post.

>>5791956
embrace the contradictions through the schizo

>>5793035
Edgelord

>>5796953

Wow, that actually is very true.

Now I feel like watching a Jodorowsky flick.

I WANT TO MAKE PIECTJUR