/lit/ - Literature

This is one of the slowest boards. There are threads still active from weeks ago. We don't need these. Got a question? By all means, fire away.

>>8502445
Chronological order, same as you would for any other philosopher

Where can I find a list of books I should read to be "well read"? I wanna apply for med school and need to up my reading for entry exam

>>8502636
Reading just for the sake of being well read is misguided, and if it's your only motivation you probably won't actually pursue it. But to answer your question: assuming you live in a western country, research the western canon. Also start with the greeks

>>8502645
no balzac!? and joyce and flaubert in third tier!

This is an /adv/ question but my wi-fi doesn't let me post on /adv/ for some reason.

How do I stop being smug/pretentious? I personally feel like I don't have that much confidence in myself, at least in a lot of parts of my life I think about but I get told constantly that I'm either one or the other.

>>8502968
you just have to learn to hide your power level anon. I never talk to normies about stuff I'm actually interested because while they're common interests that most people enjoy (music, movies, lit), most people have shit taste and they'll get either get offended or they just won't be able to respond because they don't listen/watch/read the same stuff that I do.

>>8503047
It's not really for my tastes in art/entertainment that I get called out on, just in general I've been told I'm a pretentious person.

>>8502631
No one does that. We're reading philosophy, not their fucking diaries.

Okay, I grant that technically we do read Kierkegaard's diary.

>>8502645
Motherfucker get out of here with that weak-ass art bullshit.

>>8502445
Aristotle wasn't a huge influence on Augustine, who was mostly a Platonist. Aquinas of course was hugely influenced by Aristotle. If you want to see how, then just read Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle.
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/
(for some reason only the "Latin & English" versions have both the Aristotle and the Aquinas).

The texts most directly relevant to Thomistic theology are the "Physics" and "Metaphysics." You should know that if you try to read Aristotle without any help from someone who knows him you'll likely end up horribly misunderstanding him. There are so many little things he says that, for a variety of reasons, sound to our modern ears like they mean one thing but really mean something else.

A lot of what he writes is written with an assumption that the reader has studied the Organon. The "Ethics" though is one of the easier ones to read on its own.

>>8502968
words and phrases like "perhaps", "i think" , or "what if" really helps. also, ask for their own input in conversations.

>>8502968
Do you feel like other people only exist insofar as they relate to you? Do you constantly fantasize about scenarios that will never happen where you save the president/tell off your boss/punch out that guy in the coffee shop? Whenever you accomplish something or get a compliment do you secretly feel like you're faking it, and that the people around you will eventually figure you out?

>>8502445
He had little influence on Augustine and every Catholic until the middle ages.
He was essentially rediscovered for the tradition, Platonism was dominating philosophy and aristotelian philosophy was a revolution in a way.
The works are Categories, A priori and A posterior analytics, Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics.
I would also recommend two volumes of Copleston's History of Philosophy which deal with the antiquity and the middle ages in detail and are really great.

A question to fellow Swedes: which is the best History of Philosophy in swedish(I do not mind a translated work)?

>>8503176
Princeton complete works (based on Oxford version) doesn't have a commentary, shall I read those wacky Penguins or do you have other suggestions?

>>8503549
Well you could read some more contemporary works about Aristotelian philosophy. Of course the problem is there's quite a bit of that. That link I provided has Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle, the only problem is Aquinas isn't really any more accessible to a beginner than Aristotle is.

You said you were interested in Aristotle's influence on St. Thomas, why not study St. Thomas? He wrote plenty about non-theological philosophy, and he's (in my opinion, for whatever that's worth) one of the more accurate and insightful followers of Aristotle. If you just studied St. Thomas you would understand Aristotle as well as if you studied any Aristotelian scholar writing on Aristotle.

The standard recommendation for studying St. Thomas is "Aquinas" by Ed Feser. He writes specifically for modern people who aren't familiar with Aquinas's philosophy.

Actually, Feser has some recommendations of books for beginners on his blog:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2009/07/scholastics-bookshelf-part-i.html

I think the two that would be most useful to you would be:

"An Introduction to Philosophy: The Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition"
-Daniel J. Sullivan

"The Elements of Philosophy: A Compendium for Philosophers and Theologians."
-William A. Wallace

I haven't read those two books myself, but you'd be hard pressed to find a more reliable authority on the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical tradition than Feser, so I promise you his recommendations carry more weight than those of anyone on 4chan.

>>8503176
>There are so many little things he says that, for a variety of reasons, sound to our modern ears like they mean one thing but really mean something else.

Could you please name just one of those things? I'm not disputing what you've said, I haven't even read him yet. I've heard this assertion before and I'm just very curious as to what could be a tiny thing--something simple, I assume--that might be terribly misunderstood by the novice reader.

>>8503585
Just about everyone has the mindset of a naturalist in many ways and the word which Aquinas uses you would understand as naturalistic, but it's in fact tied to the worldview of the middle ages.
For example, his 5 ways to an inexperienced reader will seem to be a cosmological argument and will miss the whole part where he understands that that would only prove a deist God and not a theistic one.
This is of course from personal experience.

>>8503585
Such as using different, but not TOTALLY different, definitions of words. So "motion" for instance actually means something more like "change." Except more properly it means "the actualization of some potentiality."

But more than that, it's the way he examines concepts, and takes different things for granted. So he'll be talking about something, like "relation" for instance, and you'll have some assumption of what that implies; some assumption that *you don't even realize you have,* that he doesn't have. There is 2000 years of philosophers talking between us and him and they influence you even if you've never read a word of them.

How do I know I'm ready for Ulysses boys? What other joyce should I read first?

>>8505257
Join me in taking the long route: Odyssey, Dubliners, Portrait, Ulysses.

>>8505280
Interesting. Currently in my amazon cart rests the Iliad and Dubliners. So were pretty close. I don't think I should skip the Iliad and read Odyssey but I'll look into Portrait.

>>8505285
I'm currently reading the Viking Critical Library version of Portrait and strongly recommend it--the explanatory notes are pretty crucial for random turn of the century Irish terms. They also have an edition of Dubliners which I wish I had read and honestly might buy and read before tackling the Big U

>>8505390
crazy coincidence. I got the VCL version of Dubliners.

So I'm reading Gravity's Rainbow, and the only real roadblock I'm hitting is trying to work out the relationship between Margherita/Thanatz/Bianca and Leni/Pokler/Ilse. Are they the same people? Different? Have I missed something? Am I horribly misreading this part of the book? Is it supposed to be ambiguous?

>>8503571
Thanks for this. My friend is really into Aquinas late me and I've been meaning to get some kind of primer.

Do you have any opinions on Bonaventura?

>>8505599
They're not actually the same person, it's... "a metaphor"? desu I don't know much and could explain even less but don't overthink it for now.

>>8505280
Which translation of the Odyssey

best translation of The Republic? Also what are some good books on Frederick The Great, the Seven Years War, or just Prussia in general?

>>8506382
different guy, bumping this question.

>>8506382
I am a big fan of Alexander Pope's.

>>8506382
lattimore. i mean does he not look like a guy who knows his greek?

At what point should I read Crime and punishment?

>>8507197
Right now? It's not a difficult read. If you want to be tryhard I guess you could read D's major previous works and/or read up on Russian nihilism first, but it's hardly necessary.

>>8502445
So I got another disconnect in my story

Currently MC has insane skills (approaching batman level, but I can adjust them a bit) and is hunted by everyone in the know given he has got super secret stuff in his head.
...
After a few years he ends up fighting a peer that he never really liked. (from there my other parts all connect)

The problem I have is how to have him on the run with such high stakes and abilities, without triggering a war and front page publicity.
If I nerf his powers it is hard to think he can stay on the run from such a powerful futuristic government. Yet if I grant him some of his powers earlier, then the fights should escalate to absurd or he should just ghost off the grid completely. The cheap answer is have the first on the run fight with that peer character and cut the whole on the run part, but other parts need time to pass for things to get in place for the bigger stuff later as there is more than one line to the story.