[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 32 KB, 260x400, 91950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10063130 No.10063130 [Reply] [Original]

I don't understand what the fuck he's saying. Did anyone ever teach this guy how to just write clearly?

>> No.10063154

>>10063130
Keep making your wax you busy bee...

>> No.10063175

>>10063130
start with the greeks

>> No.10063197

>>10063130
You are not missing much, anon. Just drop it and, if you want to read something of his that is actually decent, read the Plague

>> No.10063231
File: 79 KB, 450x338, 1504371121946.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10063231

Perhaps to understand you have to read the original; in french.

>> No.10063233

>>10063130

Camus is clear as fuck

Life is a repetitive struggle until it stops. There. I simplified it for you.

>> No.10063235

>>10063233
I could go and straight up quote you some of his vague as fuck passages, but I'm too lazy.

>> No.10063287

>>10063130
Why would he learn to write by people whose writing has never amounted to anything? He's obviously done better than his school teachers.

>> No.10063296

This and Society of the Spectacle are books I want to read, but how much of a primer on the author or specific philosophies do you really need to merely understand the arguments? I know I could start with the Greeks, and I have, proceeding all the way through Western thought until these fuckers published these books but NAH.

>> No.10063331

>>10063233
huh, I remember thinking the struggle was more about genuine communication/relation with others than life in general, but then again I read it a while ago and in French (just about proficient, not fluent by any means)

>> No.10063344

>>10063130
It's a very straight forward book, but not very good.

Camus was a novelist, not a philosopher. His philosophical essay are superficial at best. There is nothing there you won't find in the general existentialist movement (the differences between the so-called absurdism and satrean existentialism are subtle enough too dismiss it since OP is clearly new to the matter).

>but how much of a primer on the author or specific philosophies do you really need to merely understand the arguments?
You don't need to read anything to understand them. Camus essays and novels are pretty much on a laymen level. Some of Sartre's works, like his novels and conferences, are very much accesible as well.
That said, this books are, for the most part, an exposition of their conclusions. The very thought on which are based, philosophical discussion you could read in Being and Nothingness, do have a general assumption of philosophical knowledge (pretty much everything before Sartre except analytical philosophy, with emphasis on the husserlian phenomenological school)

>> No.10063352

>>10063344
This
>Some of Sartre's works, like his novels and conferences, are very much accesible as well.
As well as worthless

>> No.10063407 [DELETED] 

I liked the Long Term Effects of a Daily Dose of Green Pills, but again too MDE-ish. But I have similar anxieties, and am glad someone's talking about them.

>> No.10063427

>>10063130
Ur reading a translation of a seriously weird subject. try underlining and reading paragraphs as a whole.

>>10063344
>superficial at best

what the fuck does that mean? you sound like put together 5 different concepts you read in some other thread. dont post shit if you dont know what youre talking about, you just make yourself look like an ass and nobody is impressed.

dick.

>> No.10063445

>>10063352

>Nausea
>The Flies
>No Exit
>Dirty Hands
>worthless

Your pleb is showing

>> No.10063455

I like how all /lit/ philosophy threads revolve around material I had to read in grade 11 or 12 philosophy class.

Talk about how Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc. are your favourite books next.

>> No.10063463

>>10063455
Mostly a board that discusses fiction.

>> No.10063618

>>10063427
>what the fuck does that mean?
it means the works most immediately reflect his opinions and the work could be easily overturned challenging the implicit metaphysics for which there is no argument to be found - Sartre does goes down this road in his phenomenological analysis and it is the very core of B&N.

>dont post shit if you dont know what youre talking about
well, I do, I'm a jobless phil major...

>> No.10063638

>>10063445
>WARS DA MEANEN?!?!
wow so profound

>> No.10063651

>>10063445
there is no much literary merit in any of those
but No Exit was nice.

>> No.10063670

>>10063130
Ah the sign of an infantile mind. Blames his misunderstanding, lack of effort and apathy on the language of an acclaimed author.

Yeah...go back to reading teen pop-fiction or something.

>> No.10064351
File: 83 KB, 934x701, 1414929834663.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10064351

>>10063130
You're overthinking it.

Just turn your brain off, bro.

>> No.10064375
File: 90 KB, 438x438, 7748.original-7008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10064375

>>10063130
he is just playing the meaninglessness game for edginess and then shoehorning meaning anyway because everybody likes a happy ending. there's not much else to it

>> No.10064392

>>10063344
>His philosophical essay are superficial at best.
His works in general are superficial at best. Camus is one of the most absurdly overrated authors that ever existed.

>> No.10064394
File: 2.23 MB, 1280x1169, Most colorful picture of the universe to date without text.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10064394

>>10063130
>Did anyone ever teach this guy how to just write clearly?
Welcome to philosophy.

It tends to get slightly easier once you have some dense philosophy under your belt though. Dat reading comprehension know what im saying bitch

>> No.10065753

>>10063455
what's wrong with Catcher in the Rye?