[ 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: 42 KB, 600x600, 1507930816111.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10750177 No.10750177[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Can we PLEASE get the philosophy fags their own board, I think the difference between people who come to discuss literature and people who want to know if the spaghetti in their plate is an epiphenomenological artefact of post-structuralist empiricist society built on nihilism are two clearly distinct groups and they deserve their own separate boards.

>> No.10750179

>>10750177
/phi/ when?

>> No.10750181

this is the book board, meta whining belongs on /qa/
https://sys.4chan.org/lit/imgboard.php?mode=report&no=10750177

>> No.10750182

>>10750177
I'd rather kick the illphilosophical plebs out

>> No.10750196
File: 588 KB, 600x655, c89[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10750196

>>10750177
>implying philosophy and literature aren't intertwined

>> No.10750199
File: 17 KB, 260x388, young-nabokov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10750199

>>10750177

Dear OP,

Whoever studies philosophy does not read anything even remotely connected to post-structuralism or shit like that.

That is shit-tier philosophy for literature students who need to be told that there is no end to interpretation to keep their useless field of study alive in academia.

Philosophers are concerned with philosophical problems, and if one wants to discuss a philosophical position stated in a book, here on /lit/ he should have a right to do it.

Moreover, there are many borderline figures between /lit/ and philosophy (Plato and Nietzsche to name two) who deserve their space here.

So, even if philosophers can be annoying sometimes, I would keep them.

Best wishes,

anon

>> No.10750206

>>10750182
they are 60% of the catalog

>> No.10750208
File: 40 KB, 662x577, reviewbrah-59392d5c6df5e[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10750208

>>10750199
you type how reviewbrah looks.

>> No.10750243
File: 5 KB, 235x215, 1509965902166.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10750243

>>10750199
>continental philosophy is not philosophy

>> No.10750245

The rules say that philosophical discussions should ideally center on specific books. Now I don't think I've ever seen /lit/ have a good discussion on a major work of philosophy, it's pretty much just the broad strokes. The problem are all the "why was Nietzsche right about everything" threads by absolute plebs who never want to talk about the books, if they even read them. I'd love to discuss specific parts of major works in the canon but no one responds to those threads. We'd need a reading group for, say, Aristotle's Metaphysics to talk about it coherently but that will never happen.
It comes down to people just having an easier time with novels probably. Or everyone reading histories of western philosophy and not bothering with the primary sources.