/lit/ - Literature

>>7468914
THANK YOU

m8 most of the greeks start with
>so we were all totally wasted at this party
or
>this guy at a pub i stopped in on the way home told me about this giant bug thing
you haven't read shit

>>7468914
Though I disagree with you I understand what you mean

One of my favourite "light" philosophy books is Zizek's Jokes. It's basically an overview of some general aspects of his philosophy but told entirely in very crude and often racist jokes. It's hilarious and genuinely thought provoking.

>>7468914
Is it just me or some of the examples kind of cringey?
>the evil man is evil not because he has evil thoughts but because he Actually REJECTS evil in its purest form
Stupid shit that just makes no sense

look at your own questions for your answer. You could have just said "I find philosophy books boring because they can be summed up quickly, any suggestions for stimulating philosophy texts?" Anyway most of philosophy is defending that small piece of sum-up-able text (this is obviously hyperbole and mostly not true [I will grant you some exceptions]) with many precise arguments to people whose job it is to try to tell you that you're wrong.

>>7468924
No Greeks start with that.

>>7468944
Just you and stupidity.

>>7468944
>the evil man is evil not because he has evil thoughts but because he Actually REJECTS evil in its purest form
That's just saying wrongness is in degree and not quality, what's so difficult to understand?

>>7469096
Do you even read?

>>7469181
Fight me faggt

>>7469258
No Greeks read

>>7468914
A lot of philosophy I've read is them stating their main idea in a paragraph then reiterating that same idea over and over for the rest of the book or until they introduce another idea which they then do the same thing with.
That's why I like reading literary fiction that deals with philosophical ideas.
You get the same shit these philosophers were talking about but you also get an interesting story with them.
There are some philosophers that I've enjoyed though
Plato, Heidegger, some Nietzsche

>>7468914
I think this is why sone people are Nietzsche fans beyond his thoughts, that stylized writing.

Also it just sound slike you're reading bad philosophy (the greeks amiright?), read better works. I bet you haven't even gotten to Being and Time, Being and Nothingness, Being and Event, or even Phenomenology of Spirit or the Phenemonology of Perception. Huh.

>>7470748
fiction is philosophy without logic to the logical mind it doesn't do much, you want implications not reasoning
philosophy and maths are for logical autists
if you're not an autists don't bother

OP, you're going to get a shitload of sophists telling you that you're a tard. But you're right and /lit/ is so awful with regard to this.

They even pretend to be christians or really really respect christians because 1. it's anti reddit atheist and 2. it gives them a veneer of respectability. e.g. all these oxbridge colleges named after christian stuff, all these churches in university grounds: /lit/'s christianity and christian morality dick sucking is an attempt to lick up all the ball sweat that drips off of these institutions.

I think Antifragile by N Taleb, which basically pretends to be a philosophy book but is an entertaining "here's the stuff I like and why I have better tastes than you" book.

>>7470760
The whole christian thing is just to be contrarian. Like you said, anti atheist/reddit.

>>7470760
>OP, you're going to get a shitload of sophists telling you that you're a tard. But you're right and /lit/ is so awful with regard to this.
You know, it's a slippery slope, around 60% of it is quite boring, 50% feels like it's NOT-a-waste of time, and then there's that 10%, but that 10% makes you feel like you hold the world under your thumb and it's amazing. For a mere 10% it's worth it if a person has an inclination for learning.

>>7470760
The Bible's key to understanding motifs and themes in the entire Western canon, anyone interested in literature should read at least a few books.

>>7470760
> christians roleplaying
NOT FUNNY.
you guys are the scourge of my online being

>>7470760
holy shit u just straw manned an entire board, be proud son

BTW

the christian memeing is a meme but not in the way you suspect. in order to live someone has to decide on something to live FOR, a lot of christianity (particularly modern christianity) is simply focusing on living for something beyond yourself. this pushback against the modern day atheists very selfcentered/solipsistic worldview is intentional, but its not like "nyah nyah atheists are dumb!" its more "worshipping the self is empty, ill worship anything else"

if you read Tolstoy or Dostoevsky this is pretty central, its never about shoving it to atheists or saying the pope is infallible, its about finding a way to live despite despising the self

>>7468914
That really, really depends on who you're reading.

Kant for instance is fairly dry, while someone like Kierkegaard is quite frequently fucking hilarious 2bh
>>7468924
This is also generally true, most greeks have top tier banter and are also maximum comfy

Here's an overview of all philosophy for you:

>Ancient
A bunch of entirely random and unsubstantiated shit that nobody could possibly take seriously with even the most basic modern education. Interesting/good points are all but lost in the sea of irrelevant, nonsensical slush. Ignore it all, only read if you're interested in historical context.

>Middle Ages
The reason everything is the way it is is because god wants it to be this way, disagree and you are an idiot, clearly. Also, so long as you can fit your theory in with what the greeks thought you might be taken seriously, otherwise fuck off. Ignore it all, again nobody takes any of it seriously nowadays.

>Renaissance
Don't treat other people like dicks because, you know, it's kind of dickish. The shocking notions of equality, egalitarianism, virtuous behaviour, not torturing people, democracy, food for the poor, that kind of thing etc. comes into place. Empiricism and rationalism take hold, but people only get things right maybe half the time anyway because you still have religion claiming absolute authority and monarchs trying to keep their lines secure in the face of parliaments and populaces not taking their shit anymore. Use it more as a historical view of the birth of the scientific method and read some seminal papers/essays by notable figures like Galileo and Newton.

>Romantic
Everyone is getting cocky, claiming they now have the absolute truth rather than the church, and that mankind has now basically ascended to godhood philosophy wise, but there's an underlying current of uncertainty and nobody really knows why. Also philosophy turns much more towards the nature of reality rather than the superficial and mechanical aspects. Aesthetics and phenomenology are the 'sexy' topics. There's some okay thoughts here, but really everything boils down to a priori assertions and baseless assumptions that you have to accept axiomatically for any system of thought to be coherent.

>Modern
Hooooo boy, this is a big one and has far too many subsets within it. A fucking lot has been done philosophically speaking in the last 150 years, the rapid progression of which can be ascribed to the rapid improvement in communication (sharing ideas quickly speeds things up). Basically we know we can't know anything, we don't exist, everything is meaningless and unless you believe in a god (something also rejected by mainstream philosophy) there's no point to anything ever. Much of this is grounded in our ever increasing scientific body of knowledge, much more credible than anything before it, still has some wackos, but generally just be skeptical, cynical and rationally nihilistic and you're golden. May be worth reading for the minutiae, but otherwise take what I've written as fucking gospel you philistine shit.

>>7470835
>the implications in this whole damn post

>>7470835
nice spooks

>>7470835
>Ancient
>Middle Ages
Couldn't agree more.

>>7470959
then you dont understand the tremendous amount of progress in human thought during those periods

its really that simple bruv

>>7470835
pelb

>>7470966
oh shut up
what A leap of an assumption
bruv

>>7470859
I'm not a lit/ native. What is this "spooks" I keep hearing?

From how people use it it sounds like "ideas that have been around for awhile that just kind of feel true or whatever. I want to feel fedora'd for not believing in the 'spooks' when I say spooks".

My grandpa says spooks to refer to blacks.

Is it a lit/ meme?